[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27388-27415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10721]



[[Page 27387]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 92

May 13, 2014

Part II





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





 Energy Conservation for Certain Industrial Equipment: Alternative 
Efficiency Determination Methods and Test Procedures for Walk-In 
Coolers and Walk-In Freezers; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 27388]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AC46


Energy Conservation for Certain Industrial Equipment: Alternative 
Efficiency Determination Methods and Test Procedures for Walk-In 
Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is revising its 
regulations related to the use of methods for certifying compliance and 
reporting ratings in accordance with energy conservation standards as 
they apply to walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. These revisions 
also include a number of clarifications to the relevant test procedure 
that will serve as the basis for any applicable alternative efficiency 
determination method that may be used to rate certain walk-in cooler 
and walk-in freezer components.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is June 12, 2014. The 
incorporation by reference of certain standards in this rulemaking was 
approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of 
March 23, 2009 and April 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Docket: The docket is available for review at 
www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the 
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024. This Web 
page contains a link to the docket for this rule on the 
www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains 
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.
    For information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 
Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    2. Test Procedures for WICF Refrigeration Equipment
    3. Sampling Plan
    4. Test Procedures and Prescriptive Requirements for WICF Foam 
Panel R-Value
    5. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Energy Consumption of 
Envelope Components
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    1. Applicable Equipment
    2. Validation
    a. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    b. Tolerances for Validation
    3. Certified Rating
    4. Verification
    a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating
    b. Action Following Determination of Noncompliance Based Upon 
Enforcement Testing
    5. Re-Validation
    a. Change in Standards or Test Procedures
    b. Re-Validation Using Active Models
    c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation
    B. Refrigeration Test Procedure
    1. Component-Level Ratings for Refrigeration: Overall
    2. Component-Level Ratings for Refrigeration: Metrics
    3. Component-Level Ratings for Refrigeration: Nominal 
Calculation Values
    a. On-Cycle Evaporator Fan Power
    b. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Power
    c. Defrost Energy
    4. Other Test Procedure Changes
    a. Nominal Values for Defrost Energy and Heat Load Calculations
    b. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Test
    c. Refrigerant Oil Testing
    d. Temperature Measurement
    e. Test Condition Tolerances
    f. Pipe Insulation and Length
    g. Composition Analysis
    h. Unit Cooler Test Conditions
    C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel R-Value (ASTM C518-04)
    1. Test Sample Specifications
    2. Removal of Panel Facers
    3. 48-Hour Testing Window
    4. Specimen Conditioning Temperatures
    5. Flatness Tolerances on Contact Surfaces
    6. Panel Testing Temperature Tolerances
    7. Additional Modifications to the Panel Test Procedure
    D. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Panels and Doors of 
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
    1. Panels
    2. Doors
    E. Sampling Plan
    F. Other Issues
    G. Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(``EPCA'' or ``the Act'', Pub. L. 94-163) sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. The National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act (``NECPA'', Pub. L. 95-619) amended EPCA and 
established the energy conservation program for certain industrial 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) The Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007'') further amended EPCA to include, among 
others, two types of industrial equipment that are the subject of 
today's notice: Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, 
``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''). (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) Walk-ins are 
enclosed storage spaces of less than 3,000 square feet that can be 
walked into and are refrigerated to temperatures above and at or below 
32 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) This term, 
by statute, excludes equipment designed for medical, scientific, or 
research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program generally consists of 
four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) establishing Federal energy 
conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that

[[Page 27389]]

manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for making 
representations about the efficiency of that equipment, including those 
representations made to DOE that the covered equipment complies with 
the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to 
determine whether the products comply with the relevant energy 
conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a) (applying 42 U.S.C. 
6295(s) to walk-ins). For certain consumer products and commercial and 
industrial equipment, DOE's testing regulations currently allow 
manufacturers to use an alternative efficiency determination method 
(AEDM), in lieu of actual testing, to simulate the energy consumption 
or efficiency of certain basic models of covered products and equipment 
under DOE's test procedure conditions. As explained in further detail 
below, an AEDM is a computer model or mathematical tool used to help 
determine the energy efficiency of a particular basic model.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. Included among these criteria is that the prescribed 
procedure be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure 
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a 
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 
use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) DOE provides the public with an opportunity to comment on a 
proposal made under section 6314.

B. Background

1. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    As briefly noted above, AEDMs are computer modeling or mathematical 
tools that predict the performance of non-tested basic models. They are 
derived from mathematical models and engineering principles that govern 
the energy efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type 
of covered equipment. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, 
when properly developed, can provide a relatively straightforward and 
reasonably accurate means to predict the energy usage or efficiency 
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered equipment type. 
These tools can be useful in reducing a manufacturer's testing burden.
    Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate 
and certify their basic models by using the projected energy use or 
energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models. DOE 
currently permits manufacturers of a few, limited types of expensive or 
highly customized equipment to use AEDMs when rating and certifying 
their equipment.
    DOE believes other similar equipment that must currently be rated 
and certified through testing, such as walk-in refrigeration systems, 
could also be rated and certified through the use of computer or 
mathematical modeling. Consequently, to examine whether AEDM usage 
would be appropriate for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE sought 
comment on this topic and other related issues in a Request for 
Information (RFI). See 76 FR 21673 (April 18, 2011).
    DOE subsequently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that 
proposed to expand and revise DOE's existing AEDM requirements for 
certain commercial equipment covered under EPCA. 77 FR 32038 (May 31, 
2012). Among other things, the May 2012 NOPR proposed to allow 
manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration systems to use AEDMs when 
certifying the energy use or energy efficiency of basic models of 
equipment in lieu of testing.
    Subsequent to the May 2012 NOPR's publication, the Appliance 
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously 
decided to form a working group (``Working Group'') to engage in a 
negotiated rulemaking effort on the certification of commercial 
heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC), water heating (WH), and 
refrigeration equipment. During the Working Group's first meeting on 
April 30, 2013, Working Group members voted to expand the scope of its 
efforts to include developing methods of estimating equipment 
performance based on AEDM simulations for commercial HVAC, WH, and 
refrigeration equipment. The issues discussed by the various 
participants during the negotiations with DOE were similar to those 
raised by the commenters in response to the May 2012 NOPR, which 
included AEDM validation and DOE verification of ratings derived using 
an AEDM. As a result of these negotiations and further consideration of 
written comments submitted in response to DOE's supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) regarding the treatment of commercial HVAC, 
WH, and refrigeration equipment, see 78 FR 62472 (Oct. 22, 2013), DOE 
adopted the Working Group's AEDM recommendation with respect to this 
group of equipment. 78 FR 79579 (Dec. 31, 2013).
    To comprehensively address the specific issues related to walk-ins, 
DOE published an SNOPR that proposed to align DOE's AEDM regulations by 
allowing the use of AEDMs when certifying the energy efficiency 
performance of walk-in refrigeration equipment in a manner similar to 
that which was recently established for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, 
and WH equipment. See 79 FR 9817 (Feb. 20, 2014). This approach, which 
was recommended by the Working Group, would help DOE establish a 
uniform, systematic, and fair approach to the use of these types of 
modeling techniques that will enable DOE to ensure that products in the 
marketplace are correctly rated--irrespective of whether they are 
subject to actual physical testing or are rated using modeling--without 
unnecessarily burdening regulated entities. DOE reopened the comment 
period for the February 20, 2014 SNOPR to allow interested parties 
additional time to provide the Department with comments, data, and 
information. See 79 FR 19844 (April 10, 2014). DOE did not receive any 
additional timely submitted comments in response to the reopened 
comment period. Today's notice is the culmination of DOE's efforts 
regarding AEDMs for walk-in coolers and freezers that were initiated 
with the May 2012 NOPR.
2. Test Procedures for WICF Refrigeration Equipment
    A walk-in's refrigeration system performs the mechanical work 
necessary to cool the interior space of a walk-in. The system typically 
comprises two separate primary components, a condenser/compressor 
(``condensing unit'') and an expansion valve/evaporator (``unit 
cooler''). DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.304, Uniform test method for 
the measurement of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers, incorporate by reference AHRI Standard 1250-2009, ``2009 
Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers'' (AHRI 
1250-2009) as the testing method for walk-in refrigeration systems. 10 
CFR 431.304(b)(9). AHRI 1250-2009 establishes methods to follow when 
testing a complete refrigeration system (the ``matched system'' test), 
as well as separate methods to use for testing the unit cooler and 
condensing unit of a refrigeration system individually and then 
calculating a combined system rating (the ``mix-match'' test). AHRI 
1250-2009 also contains standard rating

[[Page 27390]]

conditions for: Cooler and freezer systems; systems where the condenser 
is located either indoors or outdoors; and systems with single-speed, 
two-speed, or variable-speed compressors. AHRI 1250-2009 also 
establishes a method for testing and rating unit coolers that are 
connected to a multiplex condensing system such as those typically 
found in a supermarket. The rating produced by the AHRI 1250-2009 test 
procedure is an annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF), defined as ``a 
ratio of the total heat, not including the heat generated by the 
operation of refrigeration systems, removed, in Btu [British thermal 
units], from a walk-in box during one year period of usage for 
refrigeration to the total energy input of refrigeration systems, in 
watt-hours, during the same period.'' AHRI 1250-2009, at sec. 3.1.
    DOE recently proposed energy conservation standards for walk-ins. 
See 78 FR 55781 (Sept. 11, 2013) (September 2013 standards NOPR). In 
that notice, DOE proposed standards for complete walk-in refrigeration 
systems that would require the ratings for the refrigeration system to 
be derived using either the matched system or mix-match tests described 
above. DOE also proposed standards for unit coolers connected to a 
multiplex system, based on the unit cooler rating method described 
above. Responding to the NOPR, several interested parties discussed the 
concept of establishing separate standards for the unit cooler and 
condensing unit of a walk-in as a means to address the fundamental 
problem of how one manufacturer (e.g., unit cooler manufacturer) would 
be able to rate its equipment in the absence of knowing which equipment 
(e.g., condensing unit) would be matched with its own equipment. 
Performance characteristics of both the unit cooler and condensing unit 
are needed in order to rate the refrigeration system's performance 
under the methodology in AHRI 1250-2009.
    In light of that discussion and the fact that unit coolers and 
condensing units are often sold separately or produced by different 
manufacturers, DOE proposed in the February 2014 SNOPR to adopt a 
methodology that would account for the issue noted above by relying on 
elements of AHRI 1250-2009, which includes a method to test both 
components separately (i.e., the mix-match test method). The proposed 
method would require the manufacturer of either the unit cooler or 
condensing unit, if sold separately, to test and certify compliance of 
a nominal refrigeration system with DOE's standards and make 
representations of a WICF refrigeration system. Under the proposal, 
manufacturers of a complete WICF refrigeration system could continue to 
develop a system rating for the purposes of certifying compliance with 
DOE's standards and making energy efficiency representations of the 
WICF refrigeration system. Furthermore, as DOE noted in the February 
2014 SNOPR, in reviewing AHRI 1250-2009 and conducting limited testing 
on a WICF refrigeration system at a third-party laboratory to 
investigate the AEDM validation approach, DOE had discovered several 
issues in the refrigeration test procedures that required clarification 
and/or created unnecessary test burden. 79 FR at 9820. To simplify the 
procedure and to clarify certain aspects, DOE proposed alternate 
language to certain requirements contained in AHRI 1250-2009 that DOE's 
test procedure currently incorporates by reference.
3. Sampling Plan
    In order to determine a rating for certifying compliance or making 
energy use representations, DOE requires manufacturers to test each 
basic model in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure and 
apply the appropriate sampling plan. As part of the February 2014 
SNOPR, DOE proposed a sampling plan for walk-ins consistent with other 
commercial equipment regulated under EPCA.
4. Test Procedures and Prescriptive Requirements for WICF Foam Panel R-
Value
    EPCA mandates prescriptive requirements for the thermal resistance 
of walk-in panels: Wall, ceiling, and doors must have an insulation 
value of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(C)) EPCA also requires the use of ASTM C518-04, Standard 
Test Method for Thermal Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by 
Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (``ASTM C518-04'') to measure 
the insulation thermal resistance of a panel. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)) 
The walk-in test procedure at 10 CFR 431.304 incorporates ASTM C518-04 
by reference. This reference standard is the method by which thermal 
conductivity (the ``K factor'') of a walk-in panel is measured; the R-
Value of the panel is then determined by multiplying 1/K (the 
reciprocal of K) by the thickness of the panel. The R-Value of a 
freezer panel is determined at a mean insulation foam temperature of 20 
degrees Fahrenheit and the R-Value of a cooler panel is determined at a 
mean insulation foam temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(9)(A)(iii) and (iv)) The regulations also currently require 
manufacturers to use the procedure detailed in 10 CFR 431.304(b) when 
certifying compliance with the panel energy conservation standards 
until January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use the procedure in 10 CFR 
431.304(c) when making representations of energy efficiency currently 
and when certifying compliance starting on January 1, 2015. In the 
February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed modifications to the test sample 
preparation procedures incorporated from ASTM C518-04 in both 
procedures to improve measurement accuracy.
5. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Energy Consumption of Envelope 
Components
    In 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, DOE lays out a method 
for measuring performance-based efficiency metrics for certain WICF 
envelope components. This method draws from several existing industry 
test methods by incorporating by reference ASTM C1363-05 Standard Test 
Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus and Annex C Determination of 
the aged values of thermal resistance and thermal conductivity from 
both DIN EN 13164 and DIN EN 13165 (two European Union-developed 
testing protocols) for measuring the energy consumption of WICF floor 
and non-floor panels. Appendix A also incorporates NFRC 100-2010[E0A1] 
Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors for 
determining the energy use of walk-in display and non-display doors. In 
the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed modifying (1) the test procedures 
for WICF floor and non-floor panels to address comments received from 
stakeholders during the standards rulemaking and (2) the WICF display 
and non-display door test procedure to improve the clarity of the test 
method.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's final rule comprises six key elements.
    First, the Department will allow WICF refrigeration manufacturers 
to use AEDMs to rate and certify their basic models by using the 
projected energy efficiency derived from these simulation models in 
lieu of testing. DOE is aligning the validation requirements proposed 
for WICF refrigeration AEDMs with those that have already been adopted 
for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment. DOE is adopting 
this approach because the

[[Page 27391]]

cooling and refrigeration systems used by these equipment types operate 
under similar principles as the refrigeration systems used in walk-ins. 
This similarity, along with the practical considerations discussed 
elsewhere in this rule, lend support for applying similar or identical 
validation requirements for walk-ins as well.
    Second, today's final rule adopts an alternative method for testing 
and rating the WICF refrigeration system for unit coolers and 
condensing units that are sold alone. Specifically, unit cooler 
manufacturers who distribute a unit cooler as a separate component must 
rate that cooler as though it were to be connected to a multiplex 
system and must comply with any applicable standard DOE may establish 
for a unit cooler connected to a multiplex system. Similarly, 
manufacturers who distribute a condensing unit as a separate component 
must use the nominal values for unit coolers, in lieu of actual unit 
cooler test data, when calculating AWEF using the mix-match rating 
method in AHRI 1250. Consistent with this methodology and pending the 
outcome of the standards rulemaking, DOE would consider modifications 
to the certification requirements based on the following approach:
    (1) a manufacturer that only produces unit coolers would use the 
test method (``Walk-in Unit Cooler Match to Parallel Rack System'' in 
AHRI 1250, section 7.9) to establish a WICF refrigeration system rating 
for each basic model, and the unit cooler manufacturer would certify 
the compliance of each unit cooler model as a component of a WICF 
refrigeration system basic model;
    (2) a manufacturer that only produces condensing units would test 
each condensing unit and combine it with the unit cooler nominal values 
adopted in today's final rule to establish a WICF refrigeration system 
rating for each basic model, and the condensing unit manufacturer would 
certify the compliance of each condensing unit model as a component of 
a WICF refrigeration system basic model; or
    (3) a manufacturer that produces both unit cooler basic models and 
condensing unit basic models that are marketed and sold as a matched 
system would use the test method in AHRI 1250-2009 to test the unit 
cooler and the condensing unit as a matched system to obtain a WICF 
refrigeration system rating for each matched system it produces and 
then certify compliance, except where both components have been 
previously rated and certified separately. In this case, the 
manufacturer need not test and certify the matched system unless the 
manufacturer wishes to represent the matched system efficiency as being 
higher than the efficiency of either component.
    Third, DOE is adopting the following modifications to the test 
procedure for WICF refrigeration components:

--Clarifying the defrost test procedure;
--Offering an alternative method for calculating the defrost energy and 
heat load of a system with electric defrost in lieu of a frosted coil 
test;
--Adding a method for calculating defrost energy and heat load of a 
system with hot gas defrost;
--Changing the minimum fan speed and duty cycle during the off-cycle 
evaporator fan test;
--Removing the refrigerant oil and refrigerant composition analysis 
testing requirements;
--Clarifying and modifying the temperature measurement requirements to 
reduce testing burden while ensuring accuracy;
--Adding a test condition tolerance for electrical power frequency and 
removing the test condition tolerance for air temperature leaving the 
unit;
--Quantifying the requirements for insulating refrigerant lines;
--Clarifying piping length requirement;
--Bringing consistency between the list of tests for unit coolers in 
Tables 15 and 16 of AHRI 1250-2009, and another similar test method; 
and
--Clarifying the voltage imbalance for three-phase power.

    Fourth, DOE is modifying the current test procedure for measuring 
the insulation R-Value of WICF panels. (10 CFR 431.304) The current DOE 
test procedure allows, but does not require, panels to be tested with 
non-foam facers or protective skins attached. (10 CFR 431.304(b)(5)-(6) 
and (c)(5)-(6)) Also, the current DOE test procedure allows panel test 
samples to be up to 4 inches in thickness. (10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and 
(c)(5)) The test procedure requires that the R-Value be measured at a 
mean temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit for freezer panels (10 CFR 
431.304(b)(3) and (c)(3)) and 55 degrees Fahrenheit for cooler panels 
(10 CFR 431.304(b)(4) and (c)(4)); however, no tolerance is currently 
specified for these temperatures. With this final rule, DOE will 
require test samples to be 1-inch in thickness and without non-foam 
facers, protective skins, internal non-foam members or edge regions. 
DOE is also adding flatness and parallelism constraints on the test 
sample surfaces that contact the hot and cold plates in the heat flow 
meter apparatus. DOE is also adding a tolerance of 1 degree 
Fahrenheit for the mean temperature during panel R-Value testing. DOE 
believes this clarification will help ensure that the panel testing is 
conducted in a repeatable and reproducible manner at different 
laboratories.
    Fifth, to enable walk-in manufacturers to make energy use 
representations, DOE is implementing a sampling plan for walk-ins 
consistent with other commercial equipment regulated under EPCA.
    Finally, in response to manufacturer comments on the September 2013 
standards NOPR, DOE is removing the existing performance-based test 
procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels (10 CFR Part 431, 
Subpart R, Appendix A, sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2). DOE recognizes 
that these performance-based procedures for WICF floor and non-floor 
panels are in addition to the prescriptive requirements already 
established in EPCA for panel insulation R-Values and, therefore, may 
increase the test burden to manufacturers. This recognition of the 
overall burdens faced by manufacturers is based in part on the 
difficulty manufacturers have reportedly had in locating any testing 
laboratories capable of performing the applicable tests since DOE's 
issuance of the test procedure in April 2011. See 76 FR 21580. Based on 
market research, DOE agrees with manufacturers that there are a limited 
number of laboratories capable of conducting the performance-based 
procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels.
    All of the changes noted above, along with the appropriate sections 
of the CFR where these changes appear, are detailed in the summary 
table below.

                                       Table II.1--Summary of CFR Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Change                                               10 CFR section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing manufacturers to use AEDMs to rate  429.53.
 WICF refrigeration systems.
Specific instructions for applying AEDMs to  429.70(f).
 WICF refrigeration systems.
Changes to test procedures and prescriptive  431.304(b)(3)-(6) and 431.304(c)(3)-(6).
 requirements for WICF foam panel R-Value.

[[Page 27392]]

 
Amendments to AHRI 1250-2009 refrigeration   431.304(c)(8).
 system test method, and the panel and door
 test methods.
Methods for rating refrigeration components  431.304(c)(11).
 sold separately.
Amendments to performance-based test         431 Subpart R, Appendix A.
 procedures for energy consumption of
 envelope components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    In response to the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE received written 
comments from 9 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade 
associations and energy efficiency advocacy groups. Table III.1 lists 
the entities that commented on that SNOPR and their affiliation. (DOE 
also re-opened the comment period to allow for additional comments.) 
These comments are discussed in more detail below, and the full set of 
comments, including the public meeting transcript, can be found at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-TP-0024.

                    Table III.1--Interested Parties That Commented on the February 2014 SNOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Comment No.
                Commenter                           Acronym               Organization type/          (Docket
                                                                              affiliation           reference)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and            AHRI......................  Industry Trade Group......             100
 Refrigeration Institute.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient  ACEEE.....................  Advocacy Group............              98
 Economy.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project,    ASAP, EJ, NRDC, ASE,        Advocacy Group............              99
 Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense   ACEEE, NEEA, NPCC (ASAP,
 Council, Alliance to Save Energy,         et al.).
 American Council for an Energy
 Efficient Economy, Northwest Energy
 Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest
 Power and Conservation Council.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc...........  Bally.....................  Manufacturer..............              93
California Investor-Owned Utilities:      PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E (CA    Utility Association.......             101
 Pacific Gas and Electric Company,         IOUs).
 Southern California Edison, and San
 Diego Gas & Electric.
Heat Transfer Products Group, LLC.......  HTPG......................  Manufacturer..............              96
Lennox International, Inc...............  Lennox....................  Manufacturer..............              97
National Coil Company...................  NCC.......................  Manufacturer..............              95
National Refrigeration & Air              KeepRite..................  Manufacturer..............              94
 Conditioning Canada Corp. (dba
 KeepRite).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the initial May 2012 NOPR, DOE received written 
comments from 28 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade 
associations and advocacy groups. Seven additional interested parties 
commented during the May 2012 NOPR Public Meeting on June 5, 2012. For 
reference, Table III.2 lists the entities that commented on the NOPR 
and their affiliation. These comments were discussed in the February 
2014 SNOPR. The full set of comments, including the public meeting 
transcript, can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-TP-0024.

   Table III.2--Interested Parties That Commented on the May 2012 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Organization type/
               Name                      Acronym          affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON, Inc........................  AAON..............  Manufacturer.
The ABB Group....................  ABB...............  Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and     AHRI..............  Industry Trade
 Refrigeration Institute.                               Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness      Joint Comment.....  Advocacy Group.
 Project & American Council for
 an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Baldor Electric..................  Baldor Electric...  Manufacturer.
Bradford White Corporation.......  Bradford White....  Manufacturer.
Burnham Commercial...............  Burnham...........  Manufacturer.
Cooper Power Systems.............  Cooper............  Manufacturer.
Crown Boiler Company.............  Crown Boiler......  Manufacturer.
CrownTonka/ThermalRite/            CT/TR/ICS.........  Manufacturer.
 International Cold Storage.
Danfoss..........................  Danfoss...........  Manufacturer.
First Co.........................  First Co..........  Manufacturer.
Goodman Global, Inc..............  Goodman...........  Manufacturer.
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products   Heatcraft           Manufacturer.
 LLC.                               Refrigeration.

[[Page 27393]]

 
Hillphoenix, Inc.................  Hillphoenix.......  Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation.............  Hussmann..........  Manufacturer.
Ingersoll Rand...................  Ingersoll Rand....  Manufacturer.
Johnson Controls, Inc............  JCI...............  Manufacturer.
Lennox International, Inc........  Lennox............  Manufacturer.
Lochinvar, LLC...................  Lochinvar.........  Manufacturer.
Mitsubishi Electric..............  Mitsubishi          Manufacturer.
                                    Electric.
Modine Manufacturing Company.....  Modine............  Manufacturer.
Mortex Products, Inc.............  Mortex............  Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers  NEMA..............  Industry Trade
 Association.                                           Group.
Nidec Motor Corporation..........  Nidec.............  Manufacturer.
Nordyne, LLC.....................  Nordyne...........  Manufacturer.
Rheem Manufacturing Company......  Rheem.............  Manufacturer.
Schneider Electric...............  SE................  Manufacturer.
Southern Store Fixtures, Inc.....  Southern Store      Manufacturer.
                                    Fixtures.
Trane............................  Trane.............  Manufacturer.
True Manufacturing Co. Inc.......  True Manufacturing  Manufacturer.
Unico, Inc.......................  Unico.............  Manufacturer.
United Cool Air..................  United Cool Air...  Manufacturer.
United Technologies Climate,       UTC/Carrier.......  Manufacturer.
 Controls & Security and ITS
 Carrier.
Zero Zone, Inc...................  Zero Zone.........  Manufacturer
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SNOPR on AEDMs for commercial HVAC, 
refrigeration and WH equipment, which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 22, 2013, 78 FR 62472, DOE received a comment 
relevant to this rulemaking from Lennox International, Inc., a 
manufacturer of HVAC and commercial refrigeration equipment. This 
comment was addressed in the February 2014 SNOPR. See 79 FR at 9824.
    The Department also received relevant comments from 23 interested 
parties in response to the September 2013 Standards NOPR and related 
NOPR Public Meeting held on October 9, 2013. For reference, Table III.3 
lists the entities that commented on that NOPR and their affiliation. 
These comments were also discussed in the February 2014 SNOPR. See 
generally 79 FR at 9822-9837. The full set of comments, including the 
public meeting transcript, can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015.

  Table III.3--Interested Parties That Commented on the September 2013
                             Standards NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Organization type/
               Name                      Acronym          affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioning Contractors of    ACCA..............  Industry Trade
 America.                                               Group.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and     AHRI..............  Industry Trade
 Refrigeration Institute.                               Group.
American Council for an Energy     ACEEE.............  Advocacy Group.
 Efficient Economy.
American Panel Corp..............  American Panel....  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness      ASAP..............  Advocacy Group.
 Project.
Architectural Testing Inc........  AT................  Third Party
                                                        Laboratory.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc....  Bally.............  Manufacturer.
CrownTonka Walk-Ins, ThermalRite   CT/TR/ICS.........  Manufacturer.
 & International Cold Storage.
Danfoss Group North America......  Danfoss...........  Manufacturer.
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products   Heatcraft.........  Manufacturer.
 LLC.
Hillphoenix......................  Hillphoenix.......  Manufacturer.
HussmanCorporation...............  HussmanCorp.......  Manufacturer.
Imperial Brown...................  IB................  Manufacturer.
KysorWarren......................  Kysor.............  Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc.........  Lennox............  Manufacturer.
Louisville Cooler Mfg............  Louisville Cooler.  Manufacturer.
Manitowoc........................  Manitowoc.........  Manufacturer.
National Coil Company............  NCC...............  Manufacturer.
Nor-Lake, Inc....................  Nor-Lake..........  Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency        NEEA, et al.......  Advocacy Group.
 Alliance & The Northwest Power
 and Conservation Council.
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern   CA IOU's..........  Utility.
 California Gas, Southern
 California Edison, San Diego Gas
 & Electric (Ca. State
 Independently Owned Utilities).
Thermo-Kool......................  Thermo-Kool.......  Manufacturer.
US Cooler Co.....................  US Cooler.........  Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method

    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed, among other things, to allow 
the use of AEDMs for WICFs and to establish specific requirements for 
manufacturer validation \1\--i.e., a

[[Page 27394]]

process in which manufacturers demonstrate the accuracy of an AEDM 
model--and DOE verification \2\--i.e., a process followed by DOE when 
verifying the accuracy of an AEDM model--that would apply to this 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term ``substantiation'' 
to refer to the process manufacturers used to demonstrate that their 
modeling tool, or AEDM, produced accurate results. See 77 FR at 
32040. The Working Group elected to use the term ``validation,'' 
instead of ``substantiation,'' for this process. DOE clarifies that 
``substantiation'' and ``validation'' are synonymous in this context 
and the Department will use the term ``validation'' henceforth.
    \2\ In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term ``DOE validation'' 
to refer to the process DOE used to check that the modeling tool, or 
AEDM, produced accurate results. See 77 FR at 32046. The Working 
Group elected to use the ``verification,'', instead of ``DOE 
validation,'', for this process. DOE clarifies that ``DOE 
validation'' and ``verification'' are synonymous and the Department 
will use the term ``verification'' henceforth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, ASRAC formed a working group in April 2013 to 
discuss and negotiate a variety of issues related to the certification 
provisions for commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioner 
(HVAC), refrigeration, and water heater (WH) equipment. Those 
discussions were expanded to include AEDMs, along with related 
validation and verification requirements. These negotiations eventually 
led to the October 2013 SNOPR and the December 2013 final rule that 
established a series of requirements related to basic model definitions 
and compliance provisions for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment. See 78 FR 62472 (SNOPR) and 78 FR 79579 (final rule). In the 
February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to require that the AEDM validation 
regulations that apply to commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH 
equipment would also apply to AEDMs designed to simulate testing of 
WICF refrigeration systems as a whole and WICF refrigeration 
components- i.e., unit coolers and condenser units. DOE is retaining 
this approach in this final rule and addresses comments on the SNOPR 
below.
    Generally, AHRI commented that while it supports AEDMs for walk-
ins, the AEDM provisions for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment may not be applicable to walk-in coolers. AHRI explained that 
the Working Group was afforded the opportunity to amend basic model 
definitions and verification procedures for commercial HVAC, WH, and 
refrigeration equipment over the course of several months of meetings. 
AHRI asserted that while most of the AEDM recommendations could be 
applied to walk-ins, this type of equipment is very unique. To better 
address this subject, AHRI requested additional time to review basic 
model definitions for WICFs with respect to AEDMs. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 
2) DOE provided an additional comment period. See 79 FR 19844 (April 
10, 2014).
    In DOE's view, walk-in refrigeration equipment is sufficiently 
similar to commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment to permit 
the AEDM regulatory framework for AEDMs established by the Working 
Group to be effectively applied to walk-in refrigeration systems. These 
systems are similar in operation and design to those refrigeration 
systems used in both commercial HVAC and refrigeration equipment 
systems and are commonly found in both walk-in and commercial 
refrigeration equipment applications. Additionally, similar to 
commercial refrigeration equipment, walk-in refrigeration systems have 
a high degree of customization. Permitting the AEDM regulatory 
framework to be applied to walk-ins, would also likely significantly 
reduce manufacturer testing burden for this equipment while maintaining 
a reasonable level of accuracy with respect to energy efficiency.
1. Applicable Equipment
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow WICF 
refrigeration system manufacturers to use AEDMs when rating the 
performance of this equipment. DOE did not propose to extend this 
allowance to WICF panel or door manufacturers. WICF panels are 
relatively simple pieces of equipment and the test results from a basic 
model of a given panel can be extrapolated to many other panel basic 
models under the provisions of the test procedure. As for WICF doors, 
the DOE test procedure already specifies the use of certain modeling 
techniques that are approved by the National Fenestration Rating 
Council (NFRC), which, in DOE's view, makes a parallel AEDM provision 
for these components unnecessary. 77 FR at 32041. Instead, the 
Department proposed other modifications in the February 2014 SNOPR to 
the walk-in panel test procedure to reduce the burden faced by panel 
manufacturers while ensuring the overall accuracy of the efficiency 
ratings. The modifications to the WICF panel test procedure are 
outlined in section III.C. DOE did not receive any comments regarding 
its proposal to extend AEDMs to walk-in refrigeration equipment and 
therefore is adopting this proposal in today's final rule.
    DOE is allowing WICF refrigeration manufacturers to apply an AEDM 
to a basic model to determine its efficiency, provided that the AEDM 
meets certain requirements. The AEDM must be derived from a 
mathematical model that estimates the energy efficiency or consumption 
characteristics of the basic model as measured by the applicable DOE 
test procedure. The AEDM must be based on engineering or statistical 
analysis, computer simulation, modeling, or other type of analytical 
evaluation of performance data. Finally, the AEDM must be validated 
according to DOE requirements, which are discussed in section III.A.2 
of this rule.
2. Validation
a. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to apply the Working 
Group's recommendation for AEDM validation requirements to WICFs. That 
recommendation, which DOE adopted and is applying to those AEDMs used 
for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment, requires a 
manufacturer to select a minimum number of models from each validation 
class to which the AEDM will apply. (Validation classes are groupings 
of products based on equipment classes but used for AEDM validation.) 
DOE proposed to apply this same approach to WICF refrigeration systems 
using the validation classes listed in Table III.4. A unit of each 
basic model selected would undergo a single test conducted in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure (or, if applicable, a test 
procedure waiver issued by DOE) at a manufacturer's testing facility or 
a third-party testing facility. The test result should be directly 
compared to the result from the AEDM to determine the AEDM's validity. 
A manufacturer may develop multiple AEDMs per validation class and each 
AEDM may span multiple validation classes; however, the minimum number 
of tests must be maintained per validation class for every AEDM a 
manufacturer chooses to develop. An AEDM may be applied to any model 
within the applicable validation classes at the manufacturer's 
discretion. All documentation of test results for these models, the 
AEDM results, and subsequent comparisons to the AEDM would be 
maintained as part of both the test data underlying the certified 
rating and the AEDM validation package pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. 
Specifically, manufacturers must maintain the AEDM, including the 
mathematical model, statistical analysis or other computer simulations 
that form the basis of the AEDM. Additionally, DOE requires 
manufacturers to maintain equipment information, complete test data, 
and AEDM calculations for each of the units that were used to validate 
the AEDM. Finally, manufacturers must

[[Page 27395]]

maintain equipment information and calculations for each basic model to 
which the AEDM was applied.

          Table III.4--Validation Classes Proposed in the SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Minimum number of
                Validation class                   distinct models that
                                                      must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor  2 Basic Models.
 System.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature,         2 Basic Models.
 Outdoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor     2 Basic Models.
 System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor    2 Basic Models.
 System.
Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing   2 Basic Models.
 Unit, Medium Temperature.
Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing   2 Basic Models.
 Unit, Low Temperature.
Medium Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit......  2 Basic Models.
Medium Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit.....  2 Basic Models.
Low Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit.........  2 Basic Models.
Low Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit........  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACEEE, Bally, KeepRite, NCC, HTPG, AHRI, and Lennox agreed with 
DOE's proposal to adopt the Working Group's AEDM validation 
requirements for WICF AEDMs. (ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 1; Bally, No. 93 at 
p. 1; KeepRite, No. 94 at p. 1; NCC, No. 95 at p. 1; HTPG, No. 96 at p. 
2; AHRI, No. 100 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 97 at p. 3)
    Interested parties also made additional recommendations regarding 
the validation classes. ACEEE suggested explicitly reserving to the 
Secretary the authority to enlarge the validation sample size if 
needed. (ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 1) DOE notes that while it is opting not 
to adopt ACEEE's suggestion, it may revisit and re-evaluate this issue 
and adjust the sample size as necessary.
    Lennox commented that an AEDM that has been validated for outdoor 
condensing systems should be considered validated for indoor condensing 
units because these validation classes are very similar except that 
outdoor condensing units are exposed to a wider range of temperatures. 
(Lennox, No. 97 at p. 3) DOE agrees with Lennox. The test method in 
AHRI 1250-2009 for outdoor and indoor condensing units is identical 
except for the ambient rating conditions. Outdoor condensing units are 
tested at three ambient temperatures, 35 [deg]F, 59 [deg]F, and 95 
[deg]F. The ambient rating temperature for indoor units is 90 [deg]F. 
DOE believes that this condition is sufficiently similar to the 95 
[deg]F outdoor rating condition such that an AEDM validated by testing 
of an outdoor condensing unit would provide accurate results for indoor 
condensing units. For this reason, DOE is allowing AEDMs validated for 
outdoor condensing units to be extended to indoor condensing units. 
However, DOE is not allowing AEDMs validated with test results from 
indoor condensing units only to extend to outdoor condensing units. DOE 
is making this distinction because of concerns that the other two 
rating conditions for outdoor units--35 [deg]F and 59 [deg]F--could not 
be adequately verified by testing at a single 90 [deg]F rating 
condition. Should DOE receive additional data suggesting that such an 
approach would be adequate, it may consider revisiting this issue in a 
future rulemaking effort.
    The CA IOUs commented that the current validation classes do not 
account for variation in capacities, compressor type, refrigerant, fan 
type, airflow volume, and heat exchanger coil materials and 
configurations. The CA IOUs expressed concern that AEDMs that cover all 
models in a validation class will be inaccurate and recommended DOE 
develop guidelines for what a single AEDM can cover. (CA IOUs, No. 101 
at pp. 2-3) DOE has decided to retain in the final rule the validation 
classes proposed in the SNOPR. These validation classes were developed 
to minimize the test burden on manufacturers, and these classes do not 
preclude a manufacturer from conducting additional testing to verify 
its AEDM. Similar concerns were raised during the Commercial 
Certification Working Group meetings, and the parties agreed that the 
requirements for validation should be kept to the lowest possible test 
burden. The Working Group agreed that, because manufacturers are 
ultimately responsible for ensuring the compliance of their products, 
manufacturers will ensure that they have sufficient test data to 
validate their own AEDMs as appropriate for the variety of designs to 
which they are applying their AEDM. Additionally, DOE may request test 
data used to validate an AEDM from a manufacturer or conduct 
verification testing to ensure models are rated correctly. See 
generally, 10 CFR 429.71 (maintenance of records).
b. Tolerances for Validation
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to apply the Working 
Group's recommendation for validation tolerances to WICF AEDMs. For 
energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for a model must be less 
than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that same model. 
Additionally, the AEDM's predicted efficiency for each model must meet 
or exceed applicable federal energy conservation standards. DOE adopted 
these same tolerances for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment. See 78 FR 79579 (Dec. 31, 2013).
    ACEEE, NCC, HTPG, AHRI, and Lennox supported the Department's 
proposal to align the validation tolerances for WICF AEDMs to the 
Working Group's recommended validation tolerances. (ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 
1, NCC, No. 95 at p. 2; HTPG, No. 96 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 100 at p. 3; 
Lennox, No. 97 at p. 3) ACEEE, HTPG, and Lennox also supported DOE's 
proposal to utilize only one-sided tolerances that would allow 
manufacturers to rate equipment conservatively. (ACEEE No. 98 at p. 1, 
HTPG, No. 96 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 97 at p. 3)
    Bally and KeepRite commented that DOE's proposed tolerances were 
too tight. Bally suggested a two-sided validation tolerance of 8 
percent be adopted to be consistent with other commercial equipment. 
KeepRite made a similar suggestion. (Bally, No. 93 at p. 1; KeepRite, 
No. 94 at p. 1) In DOE's view, a 5 percent one-sided tolerance is more 
consistent with the AEDM validation tolerances for other types of 
commercial equipment than the 8 percent two-sided tolerance suggested 
by Bally and KeepRite. See 78 FR 79579 (Dec. 31, 2013) (applying a 5 
percent, one-sided tolerance for all commercial HVAC, WH, and 
refrigeration equipment). DOE agrees with ACCEE,

[[Page 27396]]

HTPG, and Lennox that a one-sided tolerance is preferable because it 
allows manufacturers to rate equipment conservatively and account for 
manufacturing and testing variability.
3. Certified Rating
    DOE's current regulations provide manufacturers with some 
flexibility in rating each basic model by allowing the manufacturer the 
discretion to rate conservatively relative to tested values. The 
Working Group recommended that, when rating using an AEDM, 
manufacturers have the same flexibility. Accordingly, the Working Group 
recommended that, for energy consumption metrics, each model's 
certified rating must be less than or equal to the applicable Federal 
standard and greater than or equal to the model's AEDM result. For 
energy efficiency metrics, each model's certified rating must be less 
than or equal to the model's AEDM result and greater than or equal to 
the applicable Federal standard. In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE 
proposed to adopt these requirements for WICF refrigeration equipment 
rated an AEDM. The Department did not receive any comments on its 
proposal regarding certified ratings and is adopting it in today's 
final rule.
4. Verification
    DOE may randomly select and test a single unit of a basic model 
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, which extends to all DOE covered products, 
including those certified using an AEDM. As part of the AEDM 
requirements for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment, at 
DOE's request, manufacturers must perform simulations in the presence 
of a DOE representative, provide analyses of previous simulations 
conducted by the manufacturer, or conduct certification tests of basic 
models selected by the Department. See 10 CFR 429.74(c)(4). To maintain 
consistency, the Department is extending these requirements to WICF 
AEDMs.
a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to assess a unit's 
performance through third-party testing. Under this approach, DOE would 
begin the verification process by selecting a single unit of a given 
basic model for testing either from retail or by obtaining a sample 
from the manufacturer if none are available from retail sources. DOE 
would then select a third-party testing laboratory at its discretion to 
test the unit selected unless no third-party laboratory is capable of 
testing the equipment, in which case DOE may request testing at a 
manufacturer's facility. The Department would be responsible for the 
logistics of arranging the testing, and the laboratory would not be 
allowed to communicate directly with the manufacturer. Additionally, 
the test facility may not discuss DOE verification testing with the 
manufacturer without the Department present. See 79 FR at 9643-9644.
    Further, under DOE's proposal, if a unit is tested and the results 
are determined to be outside the rating tolerances described in section 
III.A.2.b., DOE would notify the manufacturer. This approach would also 
enable the manufacturer to receive all documentation related to the 
test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit if the unit 
falls outside the rating tolerances. At that time, a manufacturer would 
also be able to present all claims regarding any issues directly with 
the Department. See id. at 9644. If, after discussions with the 
manufacturer, DOE determined that the testing was conducted 
appropriately in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, the 
rating for the model would be considered invalid. The Department notes 
that 10 CFR 429.13(b) applies to equipment certified using an AEDM, and 
DOE may require a manufacturer to conduct additional testing if the 
manufacturer violates an applicable standard or certification 
requirement.
    HTPG commented that DOE should allow the option for a second sample 
to be tested to ensure that abnormal failures unrelated to design or 
predictable variations do not adversely impact an otherwise sound model 
type. (HTPG, No. 96 at pp. 2-3) As stated above, if a unit is 
determined to be outside the prescribed rating tolerances, the 
Department would provide the manufacturer with all documentation 
related to the test set up, test conditions, and test results. At that 
time, the manufacturer may initiate a discussion with the Department 
regarding any concerns related to the test. For these reasons, DOE has 
determined it is not necessary to automatically allow testing of a 
second sample. DOE, at its discretion, may decide testing an additional 
sample is appropriate in cases where the tested sample has been found 
to be defective.
    NCC commented that any basic model that fails to meet its certified 
rating should be re-certified based upon test data. If that model was 
used to validate an AEDM, then the AEDM should be re-validated (NCC, 
No. 95 at p. 2) DOE understand these suggestions and while DOE may 
require a manufacturer to conduct additional testing if the 
manufacturer has been found to be in violation of an applicable 
standard or certification requirement, the Department prefers not to 
mandate additional testing and instead evaluate such a requirement on a 
case-by-case basis. The Department is not inclined to mandate 
additional testing because of the burden it imposes. In terms of re-
validation, as long as the manufacturer has sufficient test data 
underlying the AEDM to meet the validation requirements, additional 
testing for re-validation would not be required by DOE.
    AHRI suggested that DOE apply the verification requirements adopted 
for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment to walk-ins. It 
requested that DOE include the provisions for witness testing and 
engineered-to-order equipment. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 3) In this final 
rule, DOE has aligned the AEDM verification methodology for walk-ins to 
match the provisions for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment. However, the engineered-to-order concept is outside the 
scope today's rulemaking. DOE will address the engineered-to-order 
concept and other certification issues in a future rulemaking.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE's verification process is poor and 
not easily enforceable. Additionally, the CA IOUs raised the concern 
that WICF manufacturers are not as active in industry certification 
programs as other types of commercial equipment manufacturers. They 
assert that these two factors could undermine both the potential energy 
savings that would be likely to accrue from any standards that DOE 
issues and fair competition. The CA IOUs recommended that DOE work with 
AHRI and ASHRAE to develop calculation tools for WICF manufacturers. 
(CA IOUS, No, 101 at p. 2) The Department appreciates the suggestion 
from the CA IOUs; however, DOE finds that manufacturers are better 
suited for developing modeling tools for their own equipment because 
they have more intimate knowledge of their own equipment's operational 
and design characteristics. Thus, a model developed by the basic 
model's manufacturer is likely to be more accurate than a general model 
developed by the Department. And since DOE may request any of the 
relevant data and documentation a manufacturer has used to develop a 
given AEDM, in DOE's view, there is sufficient incentive for a 
manufacturer to take appropriate steps to ensure both the thoroughness 
and accuracy of its AEDMs.

[[Page 27397]]

b. Action Following Determination of Noncompliance Based Upon 
Enforcement Testing
    Rather than require the revalidation of an AEDM if a noncompliant 
model had been used to validate that AEDM, DOE proposed that each AEDM 
must be supported by test data obtained from physical tests of current 
models. Because a noncompliant model may not be distributed in 
commerce, and so must be discontinued and can no longer be considered a 
current model, the manufacturer will need to ensure that the AEDM 
continues to satisfy the proposed validation requirements described in 
section III.A.2 Additional testing would only be necessary if the 
noncompliant equipment was used as a sample for validating the AEDM. In 
that case, the manufacturer must perform additional testing of a 
different model to ensure the AEDM is valid. Pursuant to this 
requirement, should such testing result in a change in the ratings of 
equipment certified using the AEDM, then those pieces of equipment must 
be re-rated and re-certified.
    HTPG supported DOE's approach and stated that re-validation of an 
AEDM should only be required if a non-compliant model was used to 
validate the AEDM. (HTPG, No. 96 at pp. 2-3) It added that DOE should 
permit the use of a second sample to address possible abnormal 
failures. DOE notes that its proposed approach, which is based on the 
use of physical tests of a sample of models would not require on the 
results of tests from a single model and would account for abnormal 
failures that may occur. No other comments were received. Consequently, 
DOE is adopting the approach detailed in its proposal.
5. Re-Validation
    DOE evaluated different circumstances that may require a 
manufacturer to re-validate an AEDM. These circumstances are described 
in more detail below. In response to this proposal in the SNOPR, ACEEE 
made a general comment that DOE's proposed treatment of the 
revalidation process appears to assure a good balance between testing 
burdens and trusted certifications. (ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 1)
a. Change in Standards or Test Procedures
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed not to require re-
validation every time the test procedure or standard changes. However, 
should DOE believe that re-validation is necessary pursuant to a final 
rule standard or test procedure, DOE would raise that issue in the 
appropriate NOPR and solicit comment from the public on the merits of 
including revalidation.
    HTPG and NCC agreed with the Department's proposal to evaluate the 
necessity to re-validate an AEDM due to a federal energy conservation 
standard or test procedure change on a case-by-case basis. (HTPG, No. 
96 at p. 3; NCC, No. 95 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that re-validation 
should only be required when a change in test procedure is significant 
enough to result in a product having a different rated value for energy 
consumption or efficiency. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 3)
b. Re-Validation Using Active Models
    DOE proposed to require manufacturers to re-validate their AEDMs if 
one of the basic models used for validation is no longer in production 
or if it becomes obsolete. See 79 FR at 9843. DOE did not receive any 
comments regarding this proposal and is adopting it in today's final 
rule. DOE is concerned that an AEDM's accuracy may be compromised if 
the models that are used to validate it become obsolete. DOE encourages 
manufacturers to test their models beyond the minimum validation 
requirements as a means to affirm an AEDM's validity. As long as the 
manufacturer has sufficient test data underlying the AEDM to meet the 
validation requirements and can readily produce that documentation on 
request, additional testing for re-validation would not be required by 
DOE.
c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation
    In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE declined to propose a time limit to 
re-validate an AEDM. A manufacturer would need to ensure that any AEDM 
it uses for purposes of certifying its equipment satisfies the 
validation requirements and that the necessary supporting documentation 
is available to DOE on request. AHRI agreed with DOE that a time limit 
should not be imposed because it is consistent with the AEDM 
requirements for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. 
(AHRI, No. 100 at p. 3)
    Lennox disagreed with the DOE's proposal not to include a time 
limit and the Department's statement that AEDMs must satisfy the 
fundamental validation requirements at all times. Lennox explained that 
without setting a time limit on the validity of a given AEDM, a change 
in federal standards, federal test procedure, basic model status, or a 
failure of a basic model could invalidate all certifications made using 
an AEDM. This situation could cause significant adverse economic 
impacts on manufacturers because it would reduce their ability to bring 
products to market while performing the additional testing required for 
re-validating the AEDM. Lennox recommended that if re-validation occurs 
due to an amended federal test procedure or energy conservation 
standard, then re-validation should not be required until the later of 
(1) 180 days after the final rule for the amended federal test 
procedure or energy conservation standards or (2) the effective date of 
that amended test procedure or standard. If re-validation is required 
due to a basic model becoming invalid or the failure of a basic model 
to meet its certified rating, DOE should allow a minimum of 120 days 
for the AEDM to be re-validated. (Lennox, No. 97 at p. 4) DOE agrees 
that in some circumstances a time limit should be imposed for re-
validating AEDMs, such as in the case where a federal test procedure or 
energy conservation standard is amended. However, DOE prefers that the 
re-validation time limit be established on a case-by-case basis in the 
course of each particular rulemaking instead of mandating a specific 
time frame. Applying a more tailored approach would allow stakeholders 
of the particular rulemaking and the Department to evaluate how 
substantial the change may be and how much time would be required for 
the affected manufacturers to address such changes.
    The February 2014 SNOPR also inadvertently included a request for 
comment on a 90-day allowance for manufacturers to re-validate, re-
rate, and recertify an AEDM. DOE received comments from Bally, 
KeepRite, NCC, and HTPG stating that 90 days was insufficient and that 
a period of time around 120-180 days was more appropriate. (Bally, No. 
93 at p. 2; KeepRite, No. 94 at p. 2; NCC, No. 95 at p. 2; HTPG, No. 96 
at p. 3) As DOE is not establishing a time limit for re-validations in 
this Final Rule, and will instead handle this on a case-by-case basis, 
DOE is not adopting any of the suggested time periods offered by these 
commenters.

B. Refrigeration Test Procedure

    During DOE's rulemaking to establish test procedures for WICF 
equipment, which resulted in a final rule published on April 15, 2011 
(``April 2011 test procedure final rule;'' 76 FR 21580), interested 
parties supported DOE's approach to use AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 
Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers'' 
(``AHRI 1250-2009''), for WICF refrigeration testing. AHRI 1250-2009 is 
an industry-developed testing protocol used to measure walk-in 
efficiency. In

[[Page 27398]]

the 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to add certain modifications to its 
procedures for manufacturers to follow when applying AHRI 1250-2009. 
These proposed changes were designed to either clarify certain steps in 
AHRI 1250-2009 or reduce the testing burden of manufacturers while 
ensuring that accurate measurements are obtained. These modifications 
are discussed in the following sections.
1. Component-Level Ratings for Refrigeration: Overall
    Responding to a number of comments addressing DOE's proposed energy 
conservation standards, DOE's February 2014 SNOPR proposed an approach 
to allow manufacturers to test a separately-sold condensing unit or 
unit cooler and generate an AWEF metric consistent with the existing 
system-based test procedure. Under the proposed approach, a 
manufacturer who sells a unit cooler model without a matched condensing 
unit must rate and certify that model as part of a refrigeration system 
basic model containing that unit cooler model by testing according to 
the methodology in AHRI 1250-2009 for unit coolers used with a parallel 
rack system (see AHRI 1250-2009, section 7.9). The manufacturer would 
use a calculation method to determine the system AWEF and certify this 
AWEF to DOE. Additionally, all unit coolers tested with this method 
would need to comply with any of the applicable standards that DOE may 
decide to adopt for the multiplex equipment classes addressed in its 
standards proposal. A manufacturer who sells a condensing unit model 
separately must rate and certify that model as part of a refrigeration 
system basic model containing that condensing unit model by conducting 
the condensing unit portion of the AHRI 1250-2009 mix/match test 
method. The results from the mix/match test would be combined with a 
nominal unit cooler capacity and power, based on nominal values for 
saturated suction temperature and unit cooler fan and electric defrost 
energy use factors (or the hot gas defrost calculation methodology, as 
applicable), in order to calculate an AWEF for the refrigeration system 
basic model containing that condensing unit. 79 FR at 9830.
    All commenters supported DOE's proposal to allow rating and 
certification for unit coolers and condensing units separately. (Bally, 
No. 93 at p. 2; Keeprite, No. 94 at p. 2; NCC, No. 95 at pp. 2-3; HTPG, 
No. 96 at p. 3; ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 1; ASAP, et al., No. 99 at p. 2; CA 
IOUs, No. 101 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 100 at p. 4; and Lennox, No. 97 at p. 
5) Several commenters, however, suggested that DOE clarify the 
circumstances under which unit coolers and condensing units may be 
rated separately or as a matched system. Keeprite and AHRI suggested 
that if a manufacturer of a unit cooler and condensing unit rates each 
component as a separate basic model, the manufacturer should not need 
to re-rate the components as a combined system even if they are 
marketed and sold together. However, they further suggested the matched 
system test method should be used if the system is a packaged system or 
the components are exclusively marketed and sold as a matched system. 
(Keeprite, No. 94 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 100 at pp. 4-5) NCC stated that, 
except for packaged systems and those units paired in marketing 
literature, manufacturers should be permitted to rate all unit coolers 
and condensing units separately. (NCC, No. 95 at pp. 2-3) Similarly, 
Lennox requested that DOE clarify that only models exclusively marketed 
and sold as a matched system must be rated as a matched system, and 
that manufacturers should be allowed to match components as a service 
to the customer without having to test each combination if the 
components were previously rated separately. (Lennox, No. 97 at pp. 5-
6)
    The CA IOUs, on the other hand, recommended that DOE require unit 
coolers and condensing units to be rated separately unless they are 
part of a unitary (self-contained) system or a matched variable 
refrigerant flow system. Otherwise, if DOE allows matched equipment 
rating for combinations of ``remote'' unit coolers and condensing units 
(i.e., those produced as separate pieces of equipment), then DOE should 
also require the manufacturer to calculate the efficiency ratings of 
each component as though it were to be sold separately and, if they 
have a lower rating when rated separately, DOE should require an annual 
accounting of shipments to ensure they are always sold as combined 
systems. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at pp. 1-2) ASAP, et al. agreed that DOE 
should ensure that unit coolers and condensing units rated as ``matched 
pairs'' are only sold as ``matched pairs'' unless the components are 
also rated separately, to prevent the situation where an inefficient 
component is rated with a highly efficient component as a matched pair, 
but the inefficient component is also sold separately, resulting in 
lost energy savings. (ASAP, et al., No. 99 at pp. 1-2) HTPG, on the 
other hand, stated that the rating of matched systems should be allowed 
in order for the AWEF ratings to reflect technology advances that 
require closely matching unit coolers and condensing units. (HTPG, No. 
96 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also recommended that the mix-match approach be 
dropped from the standard and that DOE not require measurement of 
condensing unit performance at two different suction pressures for each 
ambient temperature application, which reduces manufacturer test 
burden. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 2)
    In this rule, DOE finalizes an approach that would allow 
manufacturers to test a condenser or unit cooler separately, but rate 
that component as part of a refrigeration system with an AWEF metric 
consistent with DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for WICF 
refrigeration systems. First, DOE agrees with Keeprite, AHRI, NCC, and 
Lennox that, if components are rated separately for the purposes of 
certifying and complying with the DOE standard, they do not need to be 
rated as a matched system if they are later combined and sold as a 
matched system, either by their original manufacturer or an installer. 
If, however, a manufacturer wishes to make a representation of a 
matched system's efficiency that is higher than the ratings achieved 
individually by each component, the manufacturer must base that 
representation on the rating obtained through testing of the matched 
system. Second, DOE agrees with the CA IOUs and ASAP, et al. that a 
component must be certified individually and must individually comply 
with DOE's standards if it is sold separately by its manufacturer. 
However, DOE does not intend to prevent manufacturers from rating and 
certifying matched systems in order to reflect technological advances 
achievable with matched systems, as pointed out by HTPG. DOE recognizes 
that certain refrigeration systems, such as packaged or unitary systems 
that consist of a single piece of equipment, or systems that implement 
a multiple-capacity condensing unit, can only be rated as matched 
systems under the current test procedure. DOE recognizes that, as 
pointed out by the CA IOUs, the mix-match procedure is not needed under 
this approach, as components sold separately would be rated using the 
separate rating methodology, and components sold as a matched system 
would be rated using the matched system test procedure. Therefore, DOE 
is removing the mix-match suction temperature conditions from the test 
method for clarity and consistency with

[[Page 27399]]

its overall rating and certification approach.
    Some commenters also urged DOE to supplement the proposed separate-
standards approach with a product labeling requirement to improve the 
enforceability of the standard. ASAP, et al. stated that the component 
level approach could create a loophole whereby a component manufacturer 
could avoid having to meet DOE's walk-in standards by claiming that its 
component is not designed for use in walk-ins or by declining to 
specify an application for the equipment. In the short term, it 
suggested that DOE should require all components sold for use in a 
walk-in to bear a label indicating that they are certified for walk-in 
use, and issue revised compliance guidance clarifying that walk-in 
component standards apply to equipment that has the attributes 
associated with typical walk-in components in the absence of a 
manufacturer's specific instruction that the equipment is not for use 
in walk-ins. In the long term, DOE should develop energy conservation 
standards for components independent of end-use. (ASAP, et al., No. 99 
at pp. 2-3) Furthermore, ASAP, et al. stated that DOE should require 
unit coolers and condensing units rated and sold as matched pairs to 
bear a label stating that each is only for sale when matched with the 
other component. (ASAP, et al., No. 99 at p. 2) Similarly, the CA IOUs 
recommended that DOE develop compliance and labeling requirements such 
that all major walk-in components would carry a label certifying that 
they comply with the walk-in efficiency regulations. If DOE allows 
matched pairs of unit coolers and condensing units where one of the 
components does not comply with the standard individually, the labeling 
scheme should ensure that the deficient component is only installed 
with the matched component that results in the combined system 
efficiency that complies with the DOE standard. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 
6)
    DOE agrees with the CA IOUs and ASAP, et al. and recognizes the 
importance of labeling in facilitating compliance and enforcement 
throughout the WICF distribution chain, and in ensuring that systems 
rated as matched systems are only sold in their matched configuration. 
Although DOE is not establishing labeling requirements at this time, it 
may consider establishing labeling requirements in a future 
certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking.
2. Component-Level Ratings for Refrigeration: Metrics
    Two interested parties commented on the metrics used to rate 
individual components. The CA IOUs recommended that the performance 
metric for condensing units be the Annual Energy Efficiency Ratio 
(AEER) because it is simpler to calculate than AWEF and can be expanded 
to a broader range of condensing units than those used in walk-in 
applications. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 3) AHRI also suggested that 
condensing units and unit coolers sold separately should have a 
separate metric than AWEF, as the use of AWEF implicitly allows for 
component ratings to be compared to system ratings. (AHRI, No. 100 at 
pp. 5-6)
    In this final rule, DOE is retaining AWEF as the metric for rating 
refrigeration systems and for refrigeration system components 
(condensing units and unit coolers) rated as part of a refrigeration 
system, as this is the metric used in the DOE test procedure, which is 
based on the industry testing protocol AHRI 1250-2009. If the industry 
develops a future revision of this test method with different metrics, 
such as AEER or another, separate metric for component ratings, then 
DOE may consider adopting it in a future rulemaking.
    Neither the refrigeration test procedure nor the proposed energy 
conservation standard incorporates standby or off-mode energy use 
because the vast majority of WICFs must operate at all times to keep 
their contents cold. The CA IOUs recommended that the refrigeration 
system metric account for stand-by losses, particularly for condensing 
units when the compressor is off, as condensing unit ancillary loads 
such as the crankcase heater, transformer, and control electronics can 
contribute significantly to the energy consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 101 
at p. 4)
    DOE agrees that, when considered individually, condensing units may 
experience standby energy use when the compressor is not running. DOE 
carefully considered this issue but is not currently aware of any 
recognized or well-accepted methods for measuring standby condenser 
energy use. However, if the industry develops a test method to 
determine this energy usage, then DOE may consider adopting it in a 
future rulemaking.
3. Component-Based Ratings for Refrigeration Systems: Nominal 
Calculation Values
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed nominal values for unit cooler capacity 
and power to be used when rating a condensing unit as an individual 
component of a refrigeration system using an AWEF metric. DOE developed 
the nominal values from DOE testing and modeling of WICF refrigeration 
systems and published the test data on which the nominal values were 
based. 79 FR at 9830.
    In general, stakeholders agreed with the use of nominal unit cooler 
values to rate condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 3; Bally, No. 
93 at p. 2; NCC, No. 95 at p. 3; HTPG, No. 96 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 100 at 
p. 5; and Lennox, No. 97 at p. 2) However, some were concerned that 
components rated separately would not be able to meet DOE's energy 
conservation standards. AHRI expressed concern about the effect of the 
rating strategy on minimum efficiency levels and recommended that DOE 
conduct a thorough and public analysis to alleviate the concern that 
the AWEFs proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR would not 
be achievable by refrigeration components rated separately. (AHRI, No. 
100 at pp. 5-6) NCC also suggested that DOE conduct an evaluation to 
ensure the energy efficiency standard levels are achievable with this 
approach. (NCC, No. 95 at p. 3) With respect to AHRI's concern that the 
AWEF standards are not achievable by refrigeration components, DOE 
notes that it has structured its nominal values assuming that the 
condensing units are paired with unit coolers that would meet whatever 
standard, if any, that DOE may eventually adopt. Thus, condensing unit 
manufacturers should not incur a penalty if they rate their condensing 
unit as part of a matched system or as an individual component. The 
following paragraphs address specific comments or concerns about the 
three main nominal values used in the equations: on-cycle evaporator 
fan power, off-cycle evaporator fan power, and defrost energy.
a. On-Cycle Evaporator Fan Power
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed a nominal value for on-cycle evaporator 
fan power of 0.016 Watts per Btu/h of gross capacity at the highest 
ambient rating condition, based on test and modeling data. 79 FR at 
9831.
    Lennox commented that the proposed nominal value for fan power for 
unit coolers is based on test data that only covered the low end of the 
full range of

[[Page 27400]]

capacities of equipment used in WICF enclosures. On-cycle fan power is 
not a constant value as a function of unit capacity, but increases as 
the unit capacity increases as a result of the long air throw (that is, 
the distance the air must travel after it leaves the fan) required by 
this type of equipment. (Lennox, No. 97 at pp. 2, 5)
    In response to Lennox's comment, DOE surveyed a wider range of unit 
coolers to compare unit cooler fan wattage to unit capacity. DOE found 
that its nominal value of 0.016 for unit cooler fan wattage per 
capacity was valid for low temperature systems even at capacities up to 
250,000 Btu/h; however, a lower nominal value was more appropriate for 
medium temperature systems. (DOE was not able to find manufacturer 
specifications for larger capacities of unit coolers). Therefore, DOE 
is retaining its nominal value of 0.016 for low temperature unit cooler 
on-cycle fan power and implementing a nominal value of 0.013 for medium 
temperature unit cooler on-cycle fan power. The data and analysis 
underlying this finding are included in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015.
b. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Power
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed a nominal value for off-cycle evaporator 
fan power of 0.2 times the on-cycle evaporator fan power. 79 FR at 
9831. The CA IOUs noted that this default value is appropriate only if 
DOE assumes that unit coolers are using variable speed evaporator fans 
and dropping their fan speed to 50 percent of flow during the off-cycle 
periods. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at pp. 3-4) DOE's nominal fan power values 
are based on the approach taken in DOE's proposed standards. That 
approach, in turn, is based on the potential use of unit coolers that 
incorporate variable speed evaporator fans. Variable speed evaporator 
fans comprise one of the technology options on which the proposed 
energy conservation standard is based. Therefore, DOE is including this 
assumption to ensure that condensing unit manufacturers are not 
unfairly penalized in comparison to matched system manufacturers.
c. Defrost Energy
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed a nominal value for electric defrost 
energy of 0.12 Watt-hours per defrost cycle, per Btu/h of gross 
capacity at the highest ambient rating condition, and that four (4) 
cycles per day should be assumed unless specified otherwise in the 
manufacturer's installation instructions. See 79 FR at 9831. This 4-
cycle approach uses the same number of cycles that DOE built into its 
walk-in standards analysis. Under this approach, the daily electric 
defrost heat contribution would be 0.95 times the daily electric 
defrost energy use, converted from Watt-hours to Btu. These nominal 
values are only applicable to low-temperature refrigeration systems. 79 
FR at 9831. DOE also specified that condensing units designed to be 
used with a hot gas defrost unit cooler, rather than an electric 
defrost unit cooler, must use the nominal values for hot gas defrost 
heat load and energy use--that is, the daily hot gas defrost heat 
contribution would be 0.18 btu per defrost cycle, per Btu/h of gross 
capacity at the highest ambient rating condition; and the daily defrost 
energy shall be equivalent to half the calculated daily defrost heat 
converted from Btu to watt-hours. 79 FR at 9830-9832.
    The CA IOUs suggested that the application of the unit cooler 
nominal values for defrost are fixed values that a manufacturer would 
use. In its view, the proposed regulatory text seems to imply that the 
manufacturer's instructions would never contain any assumed values 
regarding the number of applicable cycles that would apply. 
Consequently, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE clarify the final 
regulatory text by indicating that the assumed number of cycles be 
fixed at 4 cycles per day. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at pp. 3-4)
    In response to the CA IOUs' comment, DOE believes there may be some 
defrost control mechanisms that reside in the condensing unit, with 
associated manufacturer instructions. To account for this possibility, 
DOE is providing manufacturers with the flexibility to specify the 
number of defrost cycles that may occur. In an effort to avoid limiting 
the manufacturers' ability to reduce the number of defrosts, DOE is 
retaining the option to test according to manufacturers' instructions. 
However, in investigating this issue, DOE recognizes that the approach 
taken in DOE's proposed standards is based on the potential use of 
defrost controls that may reside in the unit cooler and not in the 
condensing unit. Defrost controls comprise one of the technology 
options on which the proposed energy conservation standard is based. 
Therefore, DOE is revising its default value for the number of defrosts 
per day to 2.5 to ensure that condensing unit manufacturers are not 
unfairly penalized in comparison to matched system manufacturers.
    Lennox commented that the test data used by DOE to establish the 
nominal value for defrost energy does not represent the full range of 
capacities used in WICFs. The nominal value for daily defrost energy 
use of 0.12 W-h/cycle per BTU/h of capacity is representative for 
smaller capacity units but not larger capacity units, because the 
defrost energy (W-h/cycle per BTU/h) is not a constant value as a 
function of unit capacity. The defrost energy increases, but not 
linearly, as the unit capacity increases due to the larger coil sizes 
and corresponding heater wattage required for larger capacity units. 
(Lennox, No. 97 at pp. 6-7)
    In response to Lennox's comment, DOE surveyed a wider range of unit 
coolers (with capacities up to 250,000 Btu/h) to compare defrost 
wattage and energy-to-unit capacity. DOE found that electric defrost 
wattage increases linearly with capacity, but, consistent with the 
analysis DOE performed for its energy conservation standards 
rulemaking, defrost duration would also be expected to increase 
nonlinearly with capacity. Thus, DOE agrees with Lennox's assessment 
that total defrost energy increases non-linearly with capacity. As a 
result of its analysis, DOE is expressing the electric defrost energy 
as a power function instead of a linear equation. The data and analysis 
underlying the development of this equation are included in the docket 
at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015.
    DOE also clarifies that condensing units designed to be used with 
hot gas defrost unit coolers may use the nominal values associated with 
hot gas defrost systems. For clarity, DOE has added these values as 
nominal values for unit cooler energy use factors. DOE is also 
expressing the values in the form of equations that incorporate the 
capacity variable to emphasize that they are functions of the given 
unit's capacity.
    Table III.5, below, contains DOE's revisions to the nominal values 
for unit coolers.

[[Page 27401]]



         Table III.5--Calculations for Unit Cooler Saturated Suction Temperature and Energy Use Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Medium temperature                   Low temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturated Suction Temperature ([deg]F)...  25.....................................  -20.
On-cycle evaporator fan power (W)........  0.013 x Q*.............................  0.016 x Q.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-cycle evaporator fan power (W).......                   0.2 x on-cycle evaporator fan power.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric defrost energy per cycle (W-h/    0......................................  8.5 x 10-3 x Q\1.27\
 cycle).
Electric defrost heat contribution per     0......................................  0.95 x electric defrost
 cycle (Btu/cycle).                                                                  energy use per cycle x
                                                                                     3.412.
Hot gas defrost energy per cycle (W-h/     0......................................  0.5 x hot gas defrost heat
 cycle).                                                                             contribution per cycle/
                                                                                     3.412.
Hot gas defrost heat contribution per      0......................................  0.18 x Q.
 cycle (Btu).
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of cycles per day.................  As specified in installation instructions or, if no instructions, 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Q represents the gross capacity at the highest ambient rating condition in Btu/h.

4. Other Test Procedure Changes
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed several other changes to clarify or 
simplify elements of the test procedure to reduce overall test burden. 
These changes, discussed below, consist of a variety of modifications 
related to both refrigeration systems and panel insulation. HTPG 
generally agreed with the changes and stated they would reduce testing 
burden and improve manufacturers' ability to respond to DOE's proposed 
standards. (HTPG, No. 96 at p. 4) Concurrent with this rulemaking, AHRI 
formed a committee to update the AHRI 1250-2009 test procedure. In its 
comment, AHRI stated that its latest updates to AHRI 1250 had adopted 
most of DOE's proposed changes in the SNOPR, with a few minor 
alterations. AHRI included a courtesy copy of the draft AHRI 1250 
update, titled AHRI 1250-2014, with its comment to DOE. (AHRI, No. 100 
at p. 2) DOE has reviewed AHRI's update to the test method and has 
incorporated many of the changes. (Specific details on changes and 
associated comments are discussed in the following sections.) DOE 
intends to begin the process of incorporating by reference the entirety 
of the updated version, which will require a separate rulemaking. 
Meanwhile, DOE is retaining its approach of amending the current test 
procedure (AHRI 1250-2009) in the regulatory language.
a. Nominal Values for Defrost Energy and Heat Load Calculations
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed a calculation methodology that would be 
used for calculating some aspects of electric defrost energy use in 
lieu of using certain tests for electric defrost energy use. 
Specifically, DOE proposed that the only required test for electric 
defrost energy use of unit coolers is the test to determine the energy 
input for the dry coil condition. The nominal values for frosted coil 
energy use, number of defrosts per day in the event that the unit 
cooler has an adaptive defrost system, and daily contribution of heat 
load attributed to defrost could then be calculated using nominal 
values rather than having to conduct their individual respective tests. 
Furthermore, as there is currently no industry-accepted method for 
calculating hot gas defrost energy use and heat load, DOE proposed 
nominal values for calculating these quantities for systems utilizing 
hot gas defrost. 79 FR at 9831-9832.
    Lennox agreed with DOE's proposal to make the full defrost tests 
optional, as well as a portion of the adaptive defrost test. (Lennox, 
No. 97 at p. 6) AHRI incorporated DOE's nominal values and calculation 
methodology for electric and hot gas defrost into its update of AHRI 
1250. (AHRI, No. 100 at pp. 56-58) HTPG, however, noted that the 
calculation methods for hot gas defrost do not allow for some of the 
advanced methods being utilized in the market or that may be likely to 
occur in the near future. HTPG proposed that DOE work with industry to 
develop a test method to give credit to the energy advantages of 
various hot gas defrost methods. (HTPG, No. 96 at p. 4)
    After carefully considering these comments, DOE has decided to 
retain the nominal values for calculating frosted coil energy use, 
number of defrosts per day if the unit has an adaptive defrost system, 
and daily contribution of heat load, as well as nominal values for 
calculating hot gas defrost energy use and heat load. DOE agrees with 
HTPG that a test procedure for hot gas defrost would be beneficial to 
capture innovative technologies not currently accounted for by the 
calculation methodology. Should the industry develop a test method for 
rating hot gas defrost systems, DOE may consider adopting it.
b. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Test
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend one aspect of its test 
procedure that incorporates AHRI 1250-2009. Specifically, DOE raised 
the possibility of amending that portion of its procedure that involves 
AHRI 1250-2009, section C10 by changing the currently specified 
requirement that when conducting the off-cycle evaporator fan test, 
controls shall be adjusted so that the greater of a 25 percent duty 
cycle or the manufacturer default is used for measuring off-cycle fan 
energy; and for variable speed controls, the greater of 25 percent fan 
speed or the manufacturer's default fan speed shall be used for 
measuring off-cycle fan energy. In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 
maximum off-cycle fan cycling or speed reduction to 50 percent of on-
cycle duty cycle or 50 percent of on-cycle fan speed. 79 FR at 9832. 
The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal, citing research that found that a 
50 percent reduction in fan speed did not have significant impacts on 
product temperatures, room temperature stratification, or infiltration. 
(CA IOUs, No. 101 at pp. 4-5) Lennox and AHRI also agreed with the 
proposed modification, and AHRI noted that they included the 
modification in their revised test procedure, AHRI 1250-2014. (Lennox, 
No. 97 at p. 7; AHRI, No. 100 at p. 10) In the absence of any objection 
to its proposed approach, DOE is adopting its proposed amendment.
c. Refrigerant Oil Testing
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to eliminate from its requirements that 
AHRI 1250-2009, section C3.4.6 be followed when conducting a test of 
walk-in refrigeration systems. That incorporated provision requires 
that a measurement be taken of the ratio of oil

[[Page 27402]]

to refrigerant in the liquid refrigerant passing from the condenser to 
the unit cooler for all condensing units with on-board oil filters. 79 
FR at 9832. Lennox agreed with DOE's proposal to eliminate the 
requirement for oil circulation test for units with integrated oil 
separators and with the assumption that the associated oil circulation 
ratio would be less than 1 percent. (Lennox, No. 97 at p. 7) The CA 
IOUs supported DOE's proposed removal of the requirement for 
refrigerant oil testing for systems with oil separators and added their 
collective belief that manufacturers do not anticipate that any new 
WICF refrigeration system being tested would likely have negligible oil 
in the refrigerant. They stated that the proposal to remove the oil 
testing requirement should apply to all systems and not just those with 
in-line oil separators. The CA IOUs recommended DOE investigate this 
claim and if correct, remove the requirement for all systems. (CA IOUs, 
No. 101 at p. 5) NCC and AHRI also supported removing the oil testing 
requirement for all systems, not just systems with oil separators, as 
single-compressor condensing units do not generally have oil 
separators. These commenters asserted that conducting oil testing would 
be time-consuming, expensive, and unnecessary. (NCC, No. 95 at p. 3; 
AHRI, No. 100 at p. 6) In light of these comments, DOE is removing the 
oil testing requirement for all systems due to the test burden involved 
and its belief that refrigerant oil is not a significant factor in new 
systems. If, however, DOE finds that refrigerant oil is affecting the 
repeatability or accuracy of the testing, DOE may reinstate this 
requirement at a later time.
d. Temperature Measurement
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed that the required tolerance for test 
temperature measurement be maintained at 0.5[emsp14][deg]F 
for measurements at the inlet and outlet of the unit cooler, but be 
altered to 1.0[emsp14][deg]F for all other temperature 
measurements, allowing for the use of smaller temperature measurement 
probes which can more easily be placed in contact with the refrigerant 
while not impeding its flow. Additionally, DOE proposed to allow the 
test to be conducted using sheathed sensors immersed in the flowing 
refrigerant for refrigerant temperature measurements upstream and 
downstream of the unit cooler, in order to reduce test burden. No 
refrigerant temperature measurements other than those upstream and 
downstream of the unit cooler would require a thermometer well or 
sheathed sensor immersion. 79 FR at 9832.
    The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to allow refrigerant 
measurements upstream and downstream of the unit cooler to be conducted 
using either sheathed sensors or thermocouple wells immersed in flowing 
refrigerant. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 5) AHRI noted its update to the 
test procedure, AHRI 1250-2014, incorporates DOE's proposed approach 
for temperature measurement. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 10) Keeprite, on the 
other hand, believed the type of temperature sensor should not be 
specified as there are other methods or technologies that exist that 
could achieve the specified tolerances. (Keeprite, No. 94 at p. 2)
    In light of the comments, DOE is adopting the modifications to the 
temperature measurement approach in this final rule. In response to 
Keeprite's comment, DOE notes that the approach being adopted today 
incorporates methods that have been established and accepted by 
industry for accurate measurement of temperature. If DOE becomes aware 
of other, equally valid methods or technologies for measuring 
temperature, it may consider adopting them as acceptable methods in the 
DOE test procedure.
e. Test Condition Tolerances
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to modify the existing test procedure 
tolerances to:
     Set a test condition tolerance for the frequency of 
electrical power;
     Clarify that the stated maximum allowable voltage 
imbalance for three-phase power supply refers to the maximum imbalance 
for voltages measured between phases, rather than phase-to-neutral;
     Delete the requirements related to the test condition 
tolerances or measurements of air leaving the unit; and
     Remove the tolerances for wet bulb temperature on the 
outdoor system conditions, except for units with evaporative cooling.
    DOE proposed to retain all other measurement tolerances for air 
entering the heat exchangers, including dry bulb outdoor conditions and 
dry bulb and wet bulb indoor conditions (wet bulb temperature or 
humidity levels greater than the required test conditions could cause 
excessive frosting of the coil and affect its rated capacity). 79 FR at 
9832-9833.
    The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposed changes to the instrumentation 
accuracy requirements and DOE's recommendation not to require or set 
accuracy requirements for air temperature exiting unit coolers. The CA 
IOUs also agreed that air temperature leaving unit coolers need not be 
measured and that maintaining condensing unit entering air wet-bulb 
temperatures should only be applicable to the testing of evaporatively 
cooled condensing units, but supported maintaining both the specified 
dry-bulb and relative humidity conditions for air entering the unit 
cooler. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 5) AHRI noted that its update to the 
test procedure, AHRI 1250-2014, incorporates DOE's proposed test 
procedure tolerances. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 10) In light of the 
comments, DOE is adopting its proposed tolerances.
f. Pipe Insulation and Length
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed that pipe lines between the unit cooler 
and condensing unit insulation be equivalent to a half-inch thick 
insulation with a material having an R-value of at least 3.7 per inch, 
and that flow meters would not need to be insulated but must not 
contact the floor. DOE also proposed to clarify the requirements on 
piping length such that:
     The length of piping between the condenser and unit cooler 
does not include any flow meters;
     The length of piping allowed within the cooled space shall 
be a maximum of 15 feet; and
     In the event that there are multiple branches of piping 
inside the cooled space, the 15-foot limit shall apply to each branch 
individually instead of the total piping length. 79 FR at 9833.
    Lennox supported DOE's proposed clarification of pipe insulation 
and length requirements. (Lennox, No. 97 at p. 7) AHRI noted it has 
already incorporated DOE's proposed requirements for pipe insulation 
and length in its latest revision to the test method, AHRI 1250-2014. 
(AHRI, No. 100 at p. 73) In light of the comments, DOE is adopting its 
proposed modifications to piping insulation and length requirements.
g. Composition Analysis
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to remove the current requirement in its 
procedure that a refrigerant composition analysis be conducted for 
systems with zeotropic refrigerant mixtures. 79 FR at 9833. Lennox and 
the CA IOUs supported the proposal. (Lennox, No. 97 at p. 7; CA IOUs, 
No. 101 at p. 5) ACEEE recommended that if changes in the ratios of the 
zeotropic blend could significantly affect capacity or efficiency, then 
verification that the composition meets industry standards may be 
needed; however, this could consist of laboratory certification 
documents provided by the

[[Page 27403]]

manufacturer of the refrigerant blend. (ACEEE, No. 98 at p. 1) AHRI 
indicated that it removed the current requirement to test a sample of 
the superheated vapor refrigerant. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 10) In light of 
the comments, DOE is removing the requirement to conduct a refrigerant 
composition analysis. If, however, DOE finds that refrigerant 
composition is affecting the repeatability or accuracy of the testing, 
DOE may reinstate this requirement at a later time.
h. Unit Cooler Test Conditions
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate a modified version of 
Tables 15 and 16 from AHRI 1250-2009. Those tables list the unit cooler 
test conditions. DOE proposed to include the inlet saturation 
temperature and outlet superheat conditions required in AHRI 420-2008, 
``Performance Rating of Forced-Circulation Free-Delivery Unit Coolers 
for Refrigeration,'' (``AHRI 420-2008'') for testing these types of 
unit coolers as part of the tables. 79 FR at 9833.
    Lennox and the CA IOUs recommended that instead of setting the 
superheat conditions to 6.5 [deg]F in all cases, as required by AHRI 
420-2008, the superheat conditions should be set according to the 
manufacturer's specifications or installation instructions to ensure 
that the test method can credit the energy efficiency benefits of 
electronic expansion valves by allowing manufacturers to set lower 
superheat levels. (Lennox, No. 97 at pp. 7-8; CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 6) 
Lennox also noted that the saturated suction values should reflect the 
freezer test conditions of - 20 and - 25 [deg]F. (Lennox, No. 97 at p. 
8) The CA IOUs supported fixing the liquid inlet saturation temperature 
at 105 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 101 at p. 6) Additionally, AHRI 
incorporated the AHRI 420-2008 conditions into the tables with test 
conditions for unit coolers, with the addition of a note instructing 
that superheat conditions shall be set according to the equipment 
specification in the equipment or installation manual. That note 
specifies that in instances where no specification is given, a default 
superheat value of 6.5 [deg]F shall be used, and the superheat setting 
shall be reported as part of the standard rating. (AHRI, No. 100 at pp. 
32-33)
    DOE notes that manufacturers can often incorporate technologies 
that allow the superheat to be lowered from the industry default value 
to reduce energy consumption, but installers typically set the 
superheat by adjusting a valve. Manufacturers would need to specify a 
lower superheat value in their installation instructions in order for 
the equipment to realize an energy benefit. Therefore, DOE is requiring 
that superheat be set according to the manufacturer's specifications in 
order to give credit for electronic expansion valves or advanced 
controls. In instances where there are no specifications for superheat, 
then the superheat shall be set to 6.5 [deg]F. In either case, 
superheat must be reported as part of the standard rating.

C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel R-Value (ASTM C518-04)

    The DOE test procedure, 10 CFR 431.304 Uniform test method for the 
measurement of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers, incorporates by reference ASTM C518-04, a standard method for 
determining thermal transmission properties (i.e., thermal conductance 
or conductivity) of a material. In the February 2014 SNOPR, DOE 
proposed several modifications and clarifications to the test procedure 
to ensure accuracy and reliability. These proposed revisions would 
apply to those testing provisions that manufacturers must currently use 
as well as those provisions that would need to be followed when 
evaluating the efficiency of a panel under any new standards that DOE 
may eventually adopt as part of its parallel standards rulemaking. The 
proposed revisions would require that test samples be no more than one 
(1) inch in thickness, be taken from the center of the panel and have 
all protective skins or facers removed prior to testing. See 79 FR at 
9844. DOE received several comments on its proposed modifications, 
which are discussed in the following subsections.
1. Test Sample Specifications
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed that test samples for R-value 
measurement according to ASTM C518-04 be 1 inch in thickness and cut 
from the center of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer panel. AHRI 
agreed with DOE's proposal for test samples to be 1-inch in thickness 
and extracted from the center of a finished panel. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 
7) Bally also agreed that the requirement for a 1-inch thick sample cut 
from the center of a finished panel is appropriate. Bally further 
suggested the addition of a dimensional tolerance of +.125 inches and -
0.0 inches for this thickness. (Bally, No. 93 at p. 3)
    DOE is adopting its proposal that test samples for R-value 
measurements made according to ASTM C518-04 be 1-inch in thickness and 
cut from the center of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer panel. This 
change should minimize any inaccuracy that may result from the 
differences in thickness and thermal conductance between the test 
sample and the standard reference material (SRM) used to calibrate the 
heat flow meter apparatus. ASTM C518-04 makes several statements that 
indicate that the test sample thickness and thermal properties should 
be comparable to those of the calibration standard used. (ASTM C518-04 
Section 6.1 and 6.5.4) It also states that the thickness of test 
samples should be restricted in order to minimize the amount of lateral 
heat losses during testing. (ASTM C518-04 Section 7.6.1) The new 
requirement to use a 1-inch thick sample is in accordance with these 
recommendations of ASTM C518-04. The test sample will be required to be 
extracted from the center of a panel (rather than near the panel face) 
since the insulation foams used in WICF panels will have experienced 
the least amount of aging degradation near the center of the panel; 
also, edge regions are not to be included in testing. DOE agrees that a 
tolerance on the 1-inch requirement is appropriate in order to clarify 
this requirement. Using a sample thickness of precisely 1 inch is not 
important to the measurement because the heat flow meter apparatus 
adjusts its measurement for the exact thickness. The objective of the 
requirement is that the sample thickness be close to 1-inch, as opposed 
to 2 inches or 0.5 inch, to improve accuracy, as described above, and 
to achieve consistency of test results obtained in different 
laboratories. A tolerance of 0.1-inch for the thickness of 
the test sample will help achieve these objectives, while being well 
within the precision of the cutting tools typically used to prepare the 
sample. (DOE understands that a high-speed band-saw is often used for 
cutting foam panels; moreover, a high-speed band-saw and meat slicer 
are the two recommended cutting tools suggested by ASTM C1303-09a 
Standard Test Method for Predicting Long-Term Thermal Resistance of 
Closed-Cell Foam Insulation, Section 6.2.2.3.) Given that these cutting 
tools are generally readily available and capable of the precision 
required, DOE believes that a 0.1-inch tolerance for the 
thickness of the test sample is appropriate and sufficient.
    DOE also agrees with Bally's statement that care be taken during 
any cutting processes so as to not alter the heat transfer properties 
of the cut surface. (Bally, No. 93 at p. 3) Section 6.2.2.4 of ASTM 
C1303-09a prohibits the use of hot-wire cutters for cutting

[[Page 27404]]

test samples in closed-cell foams to prevent the formation of a surface 
skin. DOE will also adopt as part of this final rule a provision to 
prohibit the use of hot-wire cutters or other heated cutting 
instruments in preparing test samples in order to limit potential 
altering of the samples' heat transfer properties during the cutting 
process.
2. Removal of Panel Facers
    DOE is also making explicit the requirement that facers or 
protective skins be removed. While these components make a negligible 
contribution to the overall thermal resistance of WICF panels in the 
direction transverse to the panel surface, DOE recognizes that the 
inclusion of metal facers or protective skins during testing using a 
heat flow meter apparatus results in unreliable measurements. ASTM 
C518-04 states that the presence of inhomogeneities or thermal bridges 
can produce inaccurate results. (ASTM C518-04 (4.4))
    In its comments on the February 2014 SNOPR, AHRI related that 
requiring a 1-inch thick sample from a finished panel will already 
involve removal of the facers or protective skins. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 
7) DOE recognizes that facers or skins would be removed when cutting a 
1-inch thick sample from the center of a thicker panel. DOE also agrees 
with AHRI's assertion that panels for testing should be supplied as 
fully fabricated panels intact prior to testing, and that the 1-inch 
thick test sample should be removed by the test laboratory at the time 
of testing. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 7) The requirements of 10 CFR 
431.304(b)(5) and (c)(5) require that the insulating foam for testing 
be supplied for testing in its final chemical state. For sprayed foams, 
the final chemical form inherently requires facers or protective skins 
to form the shape of the panel. Extruded foam board stock is typically 
provided to WICF panel manufacturers in its final chemical form; in 
this case, facers or protective skins may or may not be attached prior 
to testing. Nevertheless, DOE is explicitly requiring that facers or 
skins be removed to ensure that the process of cutting a sample from a 
thicker panel will always achieve this objective.
3. 48-Hour Testing Window
    DOE also proposed a 48-hour window once a test sample has been cut 
from a WICF panel to perform ASTM C518-04 testing in order to minimize 
the effect of aging of the closed-cell foam that constitutes the panel 
insulation. Thermal resistance of polyurethane foams that are typical 
of WICF panels decreases over time due to the diffusion of air into the 
foam. DOE proposed the 48-hour window in order to ensure repeatability 
and comparability in test results. The 48-hour window was developed 
based on data from Wilkes, et al. at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.\3\ 
In this study, thermal conductivity of a 0.4 inch thick polyurethane 
foam insulation increased between 6.0% and 20.7% (depending on the 
blowing agent used) when aged at 90[emsp14][deg]F for 8 days and tested 
at 45[emsp14][deg]F. Assuming that the rate of increase of thermal 
conductivity during this initial period is linear, the range of 
increase covered by these data over a 48-hour period would have been 
1.5% to 5%. DOE understands that the higher temperature of 
90[emsp14][deg]F at which these samples were aged and the smaller 
thickness of the sample (0.4 inch compared to 1-inch as proposed for 
WICF panels) would also have played contributing roles in accelerating 
the aging process compared to what is to be expected in testing WICF 
panels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Aging of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in Simulated 
Refrigerator Panels--Initial Results with Third-Generation Blowing 
Agents'' by Kenneth E. Wilkes et al., published by Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory for presentation at The Earth Technologies 
Forum, October 26-28, 1998, Figures 2 and 4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI commented that the 48-hour period is appropriate and 
sufficient. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 7) Bally agreed that the time between 
cutting and testing should be minimized, but disagreed that 48 hours is 
an appropriate testing window for a cut sample. Bally stated that 48 
hours may be appropriate for a conditioning period for the uncut panel 
but once the panel is cut, only one hour should be allowed before 
testing is performed (rather than the 48 hours as DOE has proposed). 
(Bally, No. 93 at p. 4) However, Bally provided no evidence or data 
suggesting that thermal conductivity would increase measurably between 
1 and 48 hours after cutting the test sample. DOE notes that section 
7.3 of ASTM C518-04 does not specify a conditioning period but states 
that the conditioning period is typically indicated by a material 
specification, that a typical material specification calls for 
conditioning ``at 22[deg]C and 50% R.H. for a period of time until less 
than a 1% mass change is observed over a 24-h period,'' and that where 
the material specification does not indicate a conditioning period, 
materials shall not be exposed to temperatures that will irreversibly 
alter the test specimen. (ASTM C518-04 Section 7.3) As mentioned above, 
DOE expects that the range of potential increase of thermal 
conductivity for a 48-hour period is small; however, in response to 
Bally's concerns, DOE will reduce the allowable window after cutting 
from 48 hours to a maximum of 24 hours to remain conservative.
4. Specimen Conditioning Temperatures
    Bally suggested that specimens be conditioned at the mean 
temperatures at which they would be tested, namely 20 degrees 
Fahrenheit for freezers and 55 degrees Fahrenheit for coolers. (Bally, 
No. 93 at p. 4) However, it offered no rationale, evidence or data in 
support of this suggestion. DOE understands that the intent of the 
conditioning is to ensure consistency in the moisture level within the 
sample during testing. DOE expects that the closed cell insulation 
materials typically used for WICF panels would not rapidly change their 
internal moisture levels, neither absorbing a significant amount of 
moisture in a 24-hour period under normal ranges of ambient conditions, 
nor rejecting a significant amount of excess moisture in a reasonable 
time period, due to the closed-cell structure of the foam. As indicated 
in ASTM C518-04 testing for WICF panels, section 7.3, conditioning 
information is typically provided in the material specification for the 
material being tested, but DOE is not aware of any such conditioning 
specifications for insulation materials typically used for WICF panels. 
Further, DOE is concerned that conditioning at cooled temperatures 
could cause condensation when removed from a cooled conditioning 
environment and introduced to a warmer room temperature in a test 
laboratory. Finally, DOE is concerned that requiring a WICF panel, 
often 8 feet by 4 feet in area, to be chilled to 20 degrees Fahrenheit 
for an extended period of time may introduce undue test burden. 
Therefore, DOE is not requiring conditioning requirements beyond those 
already established by Section 7.3 of ASTM C518-04.
5. Flatness Tolerances on Contact Surfaces
    Regarding its proposal to add parallelism and flatness constraints 
on the two surfaces that contact the heat flow meter hot and cold 
plates, DOE received two comments. That proposal, which included a 
tolerance range of 0.03 inches, would apply to both 
parallelism and flatness. See 79 FR at 9844. AHRI stated that the 
proposed tolerances ``are impractical for the purposes of the proposed 
test, are inconsistent with normal WICF panel manufacturers' standard 
processes and are likely not within the capabilities of most current 
panel manufacturing processes.'' AHRI recommended that DOE withdraw 
this proposal. (AHRI,

[[Page 27405]]

No. 100 at p. 7) It did not, however, offer an alternative means for 
ensuring sufficient contact between the test sample surfaces and the 
surfaces of the heat flow meter assembly. Contact between these 
surfaces is critical to test accuracy, as air gaps between the heat 
flow meter apparatus surfaces and the test sample surfaces will result 
in a higher conductivity and lower thermal resistance. To address 
AHRI's concern, DOE clarifies that these tolerances will apply only to 
the cut faces of the test sample itself, not the manufactured panel. 
DOE also notes that, in support of this requirement, Bally (a 
manufacturer of WICF panels) stated that the tolerances were 
acceptable. (Bally, No. 93 at p. 3) As noted in section III.C.1, in 
DOE's view, manufacturers should be able to achieve these tolerances 
with common cutting tools and techniques.
6. Panel Testing Temperature Tolerances
    With respect to the appropriate temperatures for testing panels, 
DOE proposed a tolerance of  1 degree Fahrenheit on the 
average foam temperature (20 degrees Fahrenheit for freezers and 55 
degrees Fahrenheit for coolers). DOE proposed these provisions to help 
ensure test repeatability. AHRI and Bally both stated that this 
provision is appropriate and sufficient. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 7 and 
Bally, No. 93 at p. 3) No other comments were received. Accordingly, 
DOE is adopting its proposed approach.
7. Additional Modifications to the Panel Test Procedure
    DOE proposed a number of additional clarifications and 
modifications to the panel test procedure. No comments were received on 
these issues, which are listed immediately below.
     Clarify and remove redundancy in 10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and 
(c)(5) regarding foam in its final chemical form;
     Introduce an equation for WICF panels consisting of two or 
more dissimilar insulating materials other than facers or protective 
skins; and
     Remove language in paragraphs (b), (b)(6), (c) and (c)(6) 
of 10 CFR 431.304 that referenced manufacturers.
    In light of the absence of any comments regarding these proposals, 
DOE is adopting them as part of this final rule.

D. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Panels and Doors of Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers

1. Panels
    As described above, WICF panels must meet requirements for foam 
insulation R-values based on ASTM C518-04 testing incorporated in 10 
CFR 431.304. Additionally, the test procedure at Appendix A to Subpart 
R of Part 431 (Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy 
Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-
In Freezers) establishes the method and metrics by which the energy 
consumption (for envelope components) or efficiency (for refrigeration 
components) may be measured; this includes floor and non-floor panels. 
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of that procedure establish the calculation 
procedures that result in a thermal conductivity, U-value, energy use 
metric for floor and non-floor panels, and sections 5.1 and 5.2 
establish the methods used to make the measurements. Section 5.1 
incorporates by reference ASTM C1363-05 Standard Test Method for 
Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 
Means of a Hot Box Apparatus; section 5.2 incorporates by reference 
Annex C Determination of the aged values of thermal resistance and 
thermal conductivity of DIN EN 13164 and DIN EN 13165.
    While ASTM C518-04 testing is intended to establish the thermal 
resistance of the center of a WICF panel, the required testing under 
ASTM C1363-05 is intended to capture the overall thermal transmittance 
of a WICF panel, including thermal bridges and edge effects. (Thermal 
transmittance is the reciprocal of thermal resistance.) Similar to ASTM 
C518-04, DIN EN 13164/13165 testing is intended to measure the thermal 
resistance of the center of a WICF panel; however, DIN EN 13164/13165 
also captures the effects of foam aging on a panel's thermal 
resistance.
    In response to the September 2013 standards NOPR, the Department 
received a number of comments regarding the WICF panel test procedure. 
The comments largely presented two concerns: test burden and the 
availability of laboratories to conduct these tests. In these comments, 
multiple manufacturers suggested that no independent laboratories were 
capable of conducting DIN EN 13164/13165 tests, and that only two were 
capable of conducting ASTM C1363-05 tests. Several comments suggested 
that the cost of these tests could be excessive, particularly given the 
limited availability of independent test laboratories to perform these 
specific tests. (See section III.D. of the February 2014 SNOPR for a 
full comment summary.)
    Responding to these comments, DOE proposed in the February 2014 
SNOPR to remove the portions of the test procedure that referenced ASTM 
C1363-04 and DIN EN 13164/13165 testing; this would remove sections 
4.2, 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2 from 10 CFR 431, Appendix A of Subpart R. 79 FR 
at 9837.
    DOE received several comments regarding its proposal to remove 
these portions of the WICF test procedure. Bally supported the proposal 
to remove these test portions in order to reduce testing burden. 
(Bally, No. 93 at p. 4) AHRI also supported their removal. (AHRI, No. 
100 at p. 8). AHRI further recommended that DOE ``translate the 
proposed remaining test standard ASTM C518-04 to prescriptive 
requirements which would eliminate testing requirements.'' (AHRI, No. 
100 p. 8) In contrast to these industry commenters, ASAP, et al. 
suggested that DOE should not remove the sections that require ASTM 
C1363-04 and DIN EN 13164/13165 testing. (ASAP, et al., No. 99 at p. 4) 
ASAP, et al. stated that DOE would not be able to adopt the 
performance-based standards based on U-values that were proposed in the 
September 2013 standards NOPR and that the estimated energy savings 
calculated in the September 2013 standards NOPR could therefore not be 
achieved. (ASAP, et al., No. 99 at p. 4) Additionally, ASAP, et al. 
believe that the U-value metric fulfills the requirement that DOE 
establish ``performance-based standards'' for walk-ins. Finally, ASAP, 
et al. suggested that DOE allow use of an AEDM that can accurately 
predict the overall U-value for panels, thereby reducing test burden. 
(ASAP, et al., No. 99 at p. 4)
    DOE acknowledges that the estimated savings in the September 2013 
standards NOPR were based on U-values. DOE also had not been aware of 
the considerable difficulties that affected parties would likely face 
in attempting to locate testing laboratories to assist them in 
performing the test in anticipation of any standards with which 
manufacturers would need to comply. Given these difficulties, in DOE's 
view, modifications to the procedure are necessary to ensure that some 
method of measuring panel efficiency can be readily conducted. The 
prescriptive requirements established by EPCA for WICF panels are 
effectively performance-based, as they regulate the thermal performance 
of WICF panels

[[Page 27406]]

and require a certain minimal level of performance be met. (DOE refers 
all interested parties to the standards rulemaking for updated 
estimates of the energy savings estimates, which will now be based on 
the R-value requirements (and U-factor for doors)). With respect to 
ASAP, et al.'s suggestion to allow use of an AEDM to predict U-factor, 
DOE notes that AEDMs must be validated by testing results and believes 
that even this minimal amount of testing would be burdensome in light 
of the lack of testing laboratories who can perform the testing 
required to obtain a U-value. In response to AHRI's request to 
translate the ASTM C518-04 test standard into prescriptive 
requirements, DOE notes that the required minimum R-value for panels is 
effectively a performance standard set forth by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(C)) and the use of ASTM C518-04 for measuring the R-value is 
mandated by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A))
2. Doors
    With respect to the test procedure for doors, DOE is adopting 
several minor changes to section 5.3 for clarification purposes only. 
DOE is modifying the titles of section 5.3(a)(2) from ``Internal 
conditions'' to ``Cold-side conditions'' and section 5.3(a)(3) from 
``External conditions'' to ``Warm-side conditions.'' The terms 
``internal'' and ``external'' are irrelevant in the context of the 
testing apparatus described in NFRC 100[E0A1] (incorporated by 
reference). DOE is also making explicit the surface convective heat 
transfer coefficients referred to in paragraph (a)(1); these values are 
30 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/m-K) for the cold side of the hot box 
apparatus and 7.7 W/m-K for the warm side. This change only clarifies 
these terms. These values are specified in ASTM C1199-09 Standard Test 
Method for Measuring the Steady-State Thermal Transmittance of 
Fenestration Systems Using Hot Box Methods which is referred to by NFRC 
100[E0A1]. These changes were also proposed as part of the February 
2014 SNOPR.
    In response to this SNOPR, AHRI indicated that they do not object 
to the proposed clarifications. (AHRI, No. 100 at p. 8) Bally, however, 
commented that they do not agree with evaluating non-display doors 
according to NFRC 100. (Bally, No. 93 at p. 4) Bally contended that 
``surface convective heat transfer coefficients, in metric units [are] 
quite alien to us since convective heat transfer is such a small part 
of heat transfer except in high heat flow regions like fenestration.'' 
(Bally, No. 93 at p. 4) Bally also suggested that DOE's procedure based 
on NFRC 100 should be dropped or that, ``at a minimum, exclude view 
port windows with a total window surface area of 340 square inches or 
less.'' (Bally, No. 93 at p. 4) AHRI also suggested that non-display 
doors should have the option of meeting R-value-based standards. (AHRI, 
No. 100 at p. 8)
    DOE acknowledges that doors are a type of fenestration; hence, DOE 
believes that NFRC 100 is appropriate for doors. The surface convective 
coefficients stipulated in ASTM C1199-09 (which is referenced by NFRC 
100 by way of NFRC 102) are intended to ensure testing repeatability by 
establishing consistent boundary conditions. DOE reiterates that the 
changes proposed in the February 2014 SNOPR were for clarification 
purposes only, and that the substance of the test method is unchanged. 
With respect to Bally's suggestion that NFRC 100 be dropped or its 
application substantially modified, DOE infers that Bally is referring 
to NFRC 100 as a whole, and not just the convective surface 
coefficients specifically. DOE cannot abandon the use of NFRC 100 for 
measuring the performance of WICF doors without a viable alternative 
and Bally has offered none. With regards to non-display doors that 
include a small viewing port window, the presence of the window means 
that the information gained by measuring an overall door U-factor is 
all the more valuable given the thermal bridging the window creates. As 
previously stated, capturing the thermal bridging effects of all 
components in a door is critical in accurately reflecting its energy 
consumption due to the nature of fenestration. DOE is also reluctant to 
make an exception for non-display doors or doors with port windows, as 
it could potentially encourage manufacturers to add small windows to 
all of their doors, which would relieve them from having to meet 
performance standards. Should this occur, there would likely be an 
increase in energy consumption due to thermal bridging. Accordingly, 
DOE is leaving the NFRC 100 test in place for doors and display panels 
while clarifying the convective surface coefficients to be used for 
testing.
    With respect to AHRI's suggestion that DOE apply R-value based 
standards to non-display doors, DOE notes that the scope of its 
proposal addresses only issues related to AEDMs as they would apply to 
walk-ins along with related test procedure requirements. Comments on 
the standards to which non-display doors should be held fall outside of 
that scope. Furthermore, even if DOE were to consider the possibility 
of applying an R-value-based standard--or any other standard--a non-
display door includes more components in its assembly than a wall 
panel, which would make the consideration of potential standards for 
these items considerably more complex. According to the definition for 
``door'' found in 10 CFR 431.302, the 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.'' As such, 
there are more opportunities for thermal transmission. DOE believes 
that for doors (both display and non-display) capturing these effects 
by way of an overall U-factor through use of the NFRC 100 test 
procedure is critical for accurately reflecting the energy consumption 
of these WICF components. As a result, DOE is declining to adopt AHRI's 
suggestion in the context of today's rulemaking.

E. Sampling Plan

    In order to determine a rating for certifying compliance and making 
energy use representations, DOE requires manufacturers to test each 
basic model in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure and 
apply the sampling plan. DOE proposed a sampling plan for walk-ins 
consistent with other commercial equipment regulated under EPCA that 
would be included a proposed Sec.  429.53 of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 
429. For consistency with other commercial equipment regulated under 
EPCA, DOE proposed that manufacturers test a sample of sufficient size 
of a WICF component basic model to ensure a representative rating--but 
not less than two units as prescribed in 10 CFR 429.11. DOE proposed 
that any represented energy consumption values of a walk-in basic model 
component shall be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of 
the sample or the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the true 
mean divided by 1.05. Additionally, DOE proposed that any represented 
energy efficiency values of a walk-in basic model component shall be 
the less than or equal to the lower of the mean of the sample or the 95 
percent lower confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95. 
DOE did not receive any comments on this proposal and so is adopting 
the proposed sampling requirements.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under

[[Page 27407]]

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this regulatory 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the 
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any 
rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures 
promulgated in today's final rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003.
    As discussed in more detail below, DOE found that the provisions of 
this rule will not result in increased testing and/or reporting burden 
for manufacturers and permit additional manufacturers to use an AEDM 
for the purposes of rating and certifying their equipment, which would 
reduce manufacturer testing burden. Accordingly, based on DOE's review, 
manufacturers are unlikely to experience an increased financial burden 
because of the provisions established in today's final rule.
    First, DOE is allowing manufacturers walk-in refrigeration systems 
to use an AEDM to determine the energy consumption of their products. 
Previously, no walk-in manufacturers were eligible to use an AEDM. 
Today's rule adopts voluntary methods for determining compliance in 
lieu of conducting actual physical testing--which, in turn, are 
expected to reduce the testing burden of walk-in manufacturers who 
elect to use an AEDM. Furthermore, the validation requirements for an 
AEDM do not require more testing than that which is already required 
under DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.12. While the Department believes 
that permitting greater use of AEDMs will reduce the affected 
manufacturer's test burden, their use is at the manufacturer's 
discretion. If, as a result of any of the regulations herein, a 
manufacturer believes that use of an AEDM would increase rather than 
decrease their financial burden compared to performing actual testing, 
the manufacturer may choose not to employ the method. Should a 
manufacturer choose to abstain from using an AEDM, this provision would 
not apply and the manufacturer would continue to remain subject to the 
requirements of the applicable DOE test procedures for walk-ins, which 
would result in no change in burden from that which was already 
required.
    DOE is also codifying alternate methods for determining the 
compliance of individual walk-in refrigeration system components, which 
should further decrease the burden of the future test procedure for 
walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is currently undertaking an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking to set performance standards for 
walk-in components, including panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. 
Under the provisions of the March 2011 Final Rule (76 FR 12422 (March 
7, 2011)), the ``component'' manufacturer would be required to certify 
compliance with these standards once any applicable compliance date is 
reached--however, there were no provisions for manufacturers of 
individual refrigeration components (i.e., unit coolers and condensing 
units) to ensure the compliance of their components with an energy 
conservation standard because the proposed refrigeration system 
standard would apply to the whole refrigeration system. These 
manufacturers could potentially have incurred a large burden by having 
to test all combinations of the components they wished to distribute. 
Additionally, manufacturers of only one type of component could have 
been inadvertently prevented from selling their equipment because there 
would have been no available compliance mechanism. This rule 
establishes an alternate testing methodology by which manufacturers of 
either component of a walk-in refrigeration system--the condensing unit 
or the unit cooler--may determine compliance with the applicable 
standard without having to test every combination of components that 
they produce. DOE believes this approach will significantly reduce the 
testing burden for all manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Finally, DOE is adopting several clarifications and modifications 
to the existing test procedures that are intended to further reduce 
testing burden. For example, DOE is not requiring the use of long-term 
thermal resistance testing of foam and is allowing manufacturers to 
test their panels based only on testing to ASTM C518, a simpler test 
method that is already in use in the industry. For a complete list of 
test procedure modifications, see section III.
    For the reasons enumerated above, DOE is certifying that this final 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    A walk-in manufacturer must certify to DOE that its equipment 
complies with all applicable energy conservation standards. To certify 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for walk-in equipment, including any amendments adopted 
for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including walk-in coolers and 
freezers. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information 
requirement for certification and recordkeeping is subject to review 
and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to 
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is amending its test procedures and related provisions for 
walk-ins. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of 
actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This

[[Page 27408]]

rule amends the existing test procedures without affecting the amount, 
quality, or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not 
result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered 
by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which 
applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule 
without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. (65 FR 13735) DOE has examined this 
rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to 
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's 
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 Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. (Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) 
For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b)) 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 ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. (62 FR 12820) (This policy is also available at http://www.energy.gov/gc.) DOE examined today's rule according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and has determined that the rule contains neither 
an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 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 in any year. 
Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's rule under the OMB and 
DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a

[[Page 27409]]

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the rule be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has reviewed today's rule and determined, it would not have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects for this rulemaking.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), DOE must comply with all laws 
applicable to the former Federal Energy Administration, including 
section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 
93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization 
Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 provides 
in relevant part that, where a rule authorizes or requires use of 
commercial standards, the notice of the final rule must inform the 
public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, 
section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of 
the commercial or industry standards on competition. Today's rule does 
not incorporate any commercial standards. The commercial standards 
discussed in today's rulemaking were already adopted in the Test 
Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers, which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2011. 76 FR 21580. DOE 
conducted a review under Section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974 in the April 2011 test procedure final rule. 
76 FR 21580, 21604.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

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 May 5, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is amending parts 429 
and 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:


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

0
2. Section 429.53 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  429.53  Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

    (a) Determination of represented value--(1) Refrigeration 
equipment: Manufacturers must determine the represented value, which 
includes the certified rating, for each basic model of walk-in cooler 
or freezer refrigeration equipment, either by testing, in conjunction 
with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an AEDM 
satisfying the criteria provided at Sec.  429.70(f)(1).
    (i) Units to be tested. (A) If the represented value for a given 
basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of 
Sec.  429.11 apply; and
    (B) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.000
    
    and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; or,
    (ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.001

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B). And,
    (2) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.002
    
    And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; or,
    (ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.003

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B).
    (ii) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of a walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration system must be 
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output

[[Page 27410]]

of the AEDM and greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that 
basic model.
    (iii) If the represented value of a refrigeration system was 
determined using the unit cooler testing provisions at 10 CFR 
431.304(c)(12), that represented value may be used for all 
refrigeration systems containing that unit cooler irrespective of 
whether such equipment is sold separately or as part of a matched 
refrigeration system. However, for any representations of matched-
system efficiency that exceed the refrigeration system rating as 
determined by the unit cooler testing provisions at 10 CFR 
431.304(c)(12) and for which a manufacturer wishes to make 
representations of the more-efficient rating, then the matched 
refrigeration system must be tested separately in accordance with the 
DOE test procedure for matched systems and applicable sampling plan.
    (2) WICF components other than those specified in (a)(1) of this 
section--(i) Units to be tested.
    (A) The general requirements of Sec.  429.11 apply; and
    (B) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.004
    
    and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; or,
    (ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.005

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B). And,
    (2) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.006
    
    And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the i\th\ sample; or,
    (ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.007

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B).
    (b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of Sec.  429.12 are 
applicable to manufacturers of the components of walk-in coolers and 
freezers (WICFs) listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and;
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information:
    (i) For WICF doors: The door type, R-value of the door insulation, 
and a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable 
design requirements. In addition, for those WICFs with transparent 
reach-in doors and windows: The glass type of the doors and windows 
(e.g., double-pane with heat reflective treatment, triple-pane glass 
with gas fill), and the power draw of the antisweat heater in watts per 
square foot of door opening.
    (ii) For WICF panels: The R-value of the insulation (except for 
glazed portions of the doors or structural members).
    (iii) For WICF refrigeration systems: The motor's purpose (i.e., 
evaporator fan motor or condenser fan motor), the horsepower, and a 
declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable 
design requirements.


0
3. Section 429.70 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency or 
energy use.

* * * * *
    (f) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for walk-in 
refrigeration equipment--
    (1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an 
AEDM to a basic model to determine its efficiency pursuant to this 
section unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the 
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytical evaluation of 
performance data; and
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as follows:
    (i) The manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of 
basic models for each validation class specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies. Test a 
single unit of each basic model in accordance with paragraph 
(f)(2)(iii) of this section. Using the AEDM, calculate the energy use 
or energy efficiency for each of the selected basic models. Compare the 
results from the single unit test and the AEDM output according to 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. The manufacturer is responsible 
for ensuring the accuracy and repeatability of the AEDM.
    (ii) Individual model tolerances. (A) The predicted efficiency for 
each model calculated by applying the AEDM may not be more than five 
percent greater than the efficiency determined from the corresponding 
test of the model.
    (B) The predicted energy efficiency for each model calculated by 
applying the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable federal energy 
conservation standard.
    (iii) Additional test unit requirements. (A) Each AEDM must be 
supported by test data obtained from physical tests of current models; 
and
    (B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed 
current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this 
chapter;
    (C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the 
applicable DOE test procedure with which compliance is required at the 
time the basic model is distributed in commerce; and
    (D) For rating WICF refrigeration system components, an AEDM may 
not simulate or model portions of the system that are not required to 
be tested by the DOE test procedure. That is, if the test results used 
to validate the AEDM are for either a unit cooler only or a condensing 
unit only, the AEDM must estimate the system rating using the nominal 
values specified in the DOE test procedure for the other part of the 
refrigeration system.

[[Page 27411]]

    (iv) WICF refrigeration validation classes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Minimum number of distinct
            Validation class                models that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium             2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium             2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Outdoor System \1\.
Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature,   2 Basic Models.
 Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature,   2 Basic Models.
 Outdoor System \2\.
Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex     2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature.
Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex     2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit, Low Temperature.
Medium Temperature, Indoor Condensing    2 Basic Models.
 Unit.
Medium Temperature, Outdoor Condensing   2 Basic Models.
 Unit \3\.
Low Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit  2 Basic Models.
Low Temperature, Outdoor Condensing      2 Basic Models.
 Unit \4\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AEDMs validated for dedicated condensing, medium temperature,
  outdoor systems may be used to determine representative values for
  dedicated condensing, medium temperature, indoor systems, and
  additional validation testing is not required. AEDMs validated for
  only dedicated condensing, medium temperature, indoor systems may not
  be used to determine representative values for dedicated condensing,
  medium temperature, outdoor systems.
\2\ AEDMs validated for dedicated condensing, low temperature, outdoor
  systems may be used to determine representative values for dedicated
  condensing, low temperature, indoor systems, and additional validation
  testing is not required. AEDMs validated for only dedicated
  condensing, low temperature, indoor systems may not be used to
  determine representative values for dedicated condensing, low
  temperature, outdoor systems.
\3\ AEDMs validated for medium temperature, outdoor condensing units may
  be used to determine representative values for medium temperature,
  indoor condensing units, and additional validation testing is not
  required. AEDMs validated for only medium temperature, indoor
  condensing units may not be used to determine representative values
  for medium temperature, outdoor condensing units.
\4\ AEDMs validated for low temperature, outdoor condensing units may be
  used to determine representative values for low temperature, indoor
  condensing units, and additional validation testing is not required.
  AEDMs validated for only low temperature, indoor condensing units may
  not be used to determine representative values for low temperature,
  outdoor condensing units.

    (3) AEDM records retention requirements. If a manufacturer has used 
an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this section, 
the manufacturer must have available upon request for inspection by the 
Department records showing:
    (i) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or 
statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is 
the basis of the AEDM;
    (ii) Equipment information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, 
and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to 
validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
    (iii) Equipment information and AEDM calculations for each basic 
model to which the AEDM has been applied.
    (4) Additional AEDM requirements. If requested by the Department 
the manufacturer must perform at least one of the following:
    (i) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to 
predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to 
which the AEDM was applied;
    (ii) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer; or
    (iii) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the 
Department.
    (5) AEDM verification testing. DOE may use the test data for a 
given individual model generated pursuant to Sec.  429.104 to verify 
the certified rating determined by an AEDM as long as the following 
process is followed:
    (i) Selection of units. DOE will obtain units for test from retail, 
where available. If units cannot be obtained from retail, DOE will 
request that a unit be provided by the manufacturer.
    (ii) Lab requirements. DOE will conduct testing at an independent, 
third-party testing facility of its choosing. In cases where no third-
party laboratory is capable of testing the equipment, it may be tested 
at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request.
    (iii) Manufacturer participation. Testing will be performed without 
manufacturer representatives on-site.
    (iv) Testing. All verification testing will be conducted in 
accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, as well as each of 
the following to the extent that they apply:
    (A) Any active test procedure waivers that have been granted for 
the basic model;
    (B) Any test procedure guidance that has been issued by DOE;
    (C) If during test set-up or testing, the lab indicates to DOE that 
it needs additional information regarding a given basic model in order 
to test in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, DOE may 
organize a meeting between DOE, the manufacturer and the lab to provide 
such information.
    (D) At no time during the process may the lab communicate directly 
with the manufacturer without DOE present.
    (v) Failure to meet certified rating. If a model tests worse than 
its certified rating by an amount exceeding the tolerance prescribed in 
paragraph (f)(5)(vi) of this section, DOE will notify the manufacturer. 
DOE will provide the manufacturer with all documentation related to the 
test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit. Within the 
timeframe allotted by DOE, the manufacturer may then present all claims 
regarding testing validity.
    (vi) Tolerances. for efficiency metrics, the result from a DOE 
verification test must be greater than or equal to the certified rating 
x (1 - the applicable tolerance).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Applicable
            Equipment                     Metric            tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration systems (including   AWEF................              5%
 components).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27412]]

    (vii) Invalid rating. If, following discussions with the 
manufacturer and a retest where applicable, DOE determines that the 
testing was conducted appropriately in accordance with the DOE test 
procedure, the rating for the model will be considered invalid. 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 429.13(b), DOE may require a manufacturer to conduct 
additional testing as a remedial measure.

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

0
4. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  431.303  [Amended]

0
5. Section 431.303 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (e) as (d).


0
6. Section 431.304 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, and (b)(3) through (6);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, and (c)(3) through (6);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10) as paragraphs (c)(8) 
through (c)(11), respectively;
0
e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7);
0
f. Revising redesignated paragraph (c)(8), (c)(9) and (c)(10); and,
0
g. Adding paragraph (c)(12).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) This paragraph (b) shall be used for the purposes of certifying 
compliance with the applicable R-value energy conservation standards 
for panels until compliance with amended standards is required.
* * * * *
    (3) When calculating the R value for freezers, the K factor of the 
foam at 20  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value of panels with 
various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the same final 
chemical form.
    (4) When calculating the R value for coolers, the K factor of the 
foam at 55  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value of panels with 
various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the same final 
chemical form.
    (5) Foam shall be tested after it is produced in its final chemical 
form. (For foam produced inside of a panel (``foam-in-place''), ``final 
chemical form'' means the foam is cured as intended and ready for use 
as a finished panel. For foam produced as board stock (typically 
polystyrene), ``final chemical form'' means after extrusion and ready 
for assembly into a panel or after assembly into a panel.) Foam from 
foam-in-place panels must not include any structural members or non-
foam materials. Foam produced as board stock may be tested prior to its 
incorporation into a final panel. A test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness must be taken from the center of a panel and any 
protective skins or facers must be removed. A high-speed band-saw and a 
meat slicer are two types of recommended cutting tools. Hot wire 
cutters or other heated tools must not be used for cutting foam test 
samples. The two surfaces of the test sample that will contact the hot 
plate assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.303)) must both maintain 0.03 inches flatness 
tolerance and also maintain parallelism with respect to one another 
within 0.03 inches. Testing must be completed within 24 
hours of samples being cut for testing.
    (6) Internal non-foam member and/or edge regions shall not be 
considered in ASTM C518 testing.
    (7) For panels consisting of two or more layers of dissimilar 
insulating materials (excluding facers or protective skins), test each 
material as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. 
For a panel with N layers of insulating material, the overall R-Value 
shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.008

    Where:
    ki is the k factor of the ith material as measured by 
ASTM C518,
    ti is the thickness of the ith material that appears in 
the panel, and
    N is the total number of material layers that appears in the panel.
    (c) This paragraph (c) shall be used for any representations of 
energy efficiency or energy use starting on October 12, 2011, and to 
certify compliance to the energy conservation standards of the R-value 
of panels on or after the compliance date of amended energy 
conservation standards for walk-in cooler and freezers.
* * * * *
    (3) For calculating the R value for freezers, the K factor of the 
foam at 20  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value of panels with 
various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the same final 
chemical form.
    (4) For calculating the R value for coolers, the K factor of the 
foam at 55  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value of panels with 
various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the same final 
chemical form.
    (5) Foam shall be tested after it is produced in its final chemical 
form. (For foam produced inside of a panel (``foam-in-place''), ``final 
chemical form'' means the foam is cured as intended and ready for use 
as a finished panel. For foam produced as board stock (typically 
polystyrene), ``final chemical form'' means after extrusion and ready 
for assembly into a panel or after assembly into a panel.) Foam from 
foam-in-place panels must not include any structural members or non-
foam materials. Foam produced as board stock may be tested prior to its 
incorporation into a final panel. A test sample 1  0.1-
inches in thickness must be taken from the center of a panel and any 
protective skins or facers must be removed. A high-speed band-saw and a 
meat slicer are two types of recommended cutting tools. Hot wire 
cutters or other heated tools must not be used for cutting foam test 
samples. The two surfaces of the test sample that will contact the hot 
plate assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.303)) must both maintain 0.03 inches flatness 
tolerance and also maintain parallelism with respect to one another 
within 0.03 inches. Testing must be completed within 24 
hours of samples being cut for testing.
    (6) Internal non-foam member and/or edge regions shall not be 
considered in ASTM C518 testing.
    (7) For panels consisting of two or more layers of dissimilar 
insulating materials (excluding facers or protective skins), test each 
material as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. 
For a panel with N layers of insulating material, the overall R-Value 
shall be calculated as follows:

[[Page 27413]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.009

    Where:
    ki is the k factor of the ith material as measured by 
ASTM C518, and
    ti is the thickness of the ith material that appears in 
the panel.
    N is the total number of material layers that appears in the panel.
    (8) Determine the U-factor, conduction load, and energy use of 
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer display panels by conducting the 
test procedure set forth in appendix A to this subpart section 4.1.
    (9) Determine the energy use of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
display doors and non-display doors by conducting the test procedure 
set forth in appendix A to this subpart, sections 4.4 and 4.5, 
respectively.
    (10) 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 1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  431.303), with the following modifications:
    (i) In Table 2, Test Operating and Test Condition Tolerances for 
Steady-State Test, electrical power frequency shall have a Test 
Condition Tolerance of 1 percent. Also, refrigerant temperature 
measurements shall have a tolerance of  0.5 F for unit 
cooler in/out,  1.0 F for all other temperature 
measurements.
    (ii) In Table 2, the Test Operating Tolerances and Test Condition 
Tolerances for Air Leaving Temperatures shall be deleted.
    (iii) In Tables 2 through 14, The Test Condition Outdoor Wet Bulb 
Temperature requirement and its associated tolerance apply only to 
units with evaporative cooling.
    (iv) In section C3.1.6, refrigerant temperature measurements 
upstream and downstream of the unit cooler may use sheathed sensors 
immersed in the flowing refrigerant instead of thermometer wells.
    (v) In section C3.5, for a given motor winding configuration, the 
total power input shall be measured at the highest nameplate voltage. 
For three-phase power, voltage imbalances shall be no more than 2 
percent from phase to phase.
    (vi) In the test setup (section C8.3), the condenser and unit 
cooler shall be connected by pipes of the manufacturer-specified size. 
The pipe lines shall be insulated with a minimum total thermal 
resistance equivalent to \1/2\'' thick insulation having a flat-surface 
R-Value of 3.7 ft\2\-[deg]F-hr/Btu per inch or greater. Flow meters 
need not be insulated but must not be in contact with the floor. The 
lengths of the connected liquid line and suction line shall be 25 feet, 
not including the requisite flow meters, each. Of this length, no more 
than 15 feet shall be in the conditioned space. In the case where there 
are multiple branches of piping, the maximum length of piping applies 
to each branch individually as opposed to the total length of the 
piping.
    (vii) In section C3.4.5, for verification of sub-cooling downstream 
of mass flow meters, only the sight glass and a temperature sensor 
located on the tube surface under the insulation are required.
    (viii) Delete section C3.3.6.
    (ix) In section C11.1, to determine frost load defrost conditions, 
the Frost Load Conditions Defrost Test (C11.1.1) is optional. If the 
frost load test is not performed, the frost load defrost DFf 
shall be equal to 1.05 multiplied by the dry coil energy consumption 
DFd measured using the dry coil condition test in section 
C11.1 and the number of defrosts per day NDF shall be set to 
4.
    (x) In section C11.2, if the system has an adaptive or demand 
defrost system, the optional test may be run as specified to establish 
the number of defrosts per day under dry coil conditions and this 
number shall be averaged with the number of defrosts per day calculated 
under the frost load conditions. If the system has an adaptive or 
demand defrost system and the optional test is not run, the number of 
defrosts per day NDF shall be set to the average of 1 and 
the number of defrosts per day calculated under the frost load 
conditions (paragraph (c)(8)(ix) of this section).
    (xi) In section C11.3, if the frost load test is not performed, the 
daily contribution of the load attributed to defrost QDF in 
Btu shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY14.010

    Where:

DFd = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the dry coil condition
DFf = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the frosted coil 
condition
NDF = the number of defrosts per day

    (xii) In section C11, if the unit utilizes hot gas defrost, 
QDF and DF shall be calculated as follows:

QDF = 0.18 Btu/defrost per Btu/h capacity x Qref x NDF

    Where:

Qref = Gross refrigeration capacity in Btu/h as measured at 
the high ambient condition (90 [deg]F for indoor systems and 95 [deg]F 
for outdoor systems)
NDF = Number of defrosts per day; this value shall be set to 
the number recommended in the installation instructions for the unit 
(or if no instructions, shall be set to 4) for units without adaptive 
defrost and 2.5 for units with adaptive defrost
For unit coolers connected to a multiplex system: The defrost energy, 
DF, in W-h = 0

    For dedicated condensing systems or condensing units tested 
separately:

DF = 0.5 x QDF/3.412 Btu/W-h

    (xiii) Delete section C3.4.6.
    (xiv) Off-cycle evaporator fan test. In lieu of section C10, follow 
the following procedures: Upon the completion of the steady state test 
for walk-in systems, the compressors of the walk-in systems shall be 
turned off. The unit cooler's fans' power consumption shall be measured 
in accordance with the requirements in Section C3.5. Off-cycle fan 
power shall be equal to on-cycle fan power unless evaporator fans are 
controlled by a qualifying control. Qualifying evaporator fan controls 
shall have a user adjustable method of destratifying air during the 
off-cycle including but not limited to: adjustable fan speed control or 
periodic ``stir cycles.'' Qualifying evaporator fan controls shall be 
adjusted so that the greater of a 50% duty cycle or the manufacturer 
default is used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. For variable speed 
controls, the greater of 50% fan speed or the manufacturer's default 
fan speed shall be used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. When a 
cyclic control is used at least three full ``stir cycles'' are 
measured.
    (xv) In lieu of Table 15 and Table 16, use the following Tables:

[[Page 27414]]



                                                           Table 15--Refrigerator Unit Cooler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Unit cooler     Unit cooler
                                   air entering    air entering      Saturated     Liquid inlet    Liquid inlet       Compressor
        Test description             dry-bulb,       relative      suction temp,    saturation      subcooling         capacity         Test objective
                                      [deg]F        humidity, %       [deg]F       temp, [deg]F    temp, [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Cycle Fan Power.............              35             <50              --              --              --  Compressor Off....  Measure fan input
                                                                                                                                       power during
                                                                                                                                       compressor off
                                                                                                                                       cycle.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction A              35             <50              25             105               9  Compressor On.....  Determine Net
                                                                                                                                       Refrigeration
                                                                                                                                       Capacity of Unit
                                                                                                                                       Cooler.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction B              35             <50              20             105               9  Compressor On.....  Determine Net
                                                                                                                                       Refrigeration
                                                                                                                                       Capacity of Unit
                                                                                                                                       Cooler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a default
  superheat value of 6.5 [deg]F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.


                                                              Table 16--Freezer Unit Cooler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Unit cooler     Unit cooler
                                   air entering    air entering      Saturated     Liquid inlet    Liquid inlet       Compressor
        Test Description             dry-bulb,       relative      suction temp,    saturation      subcooling         capacity         Test objective
                                      [deg]F        humidity, %       [deg]F       temp, [deg]F    temp, [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Cycle Fan Power.............             -10             <50              --              --              --  Compressor Off....  Measure fan input
                                                                                                                                       power during
                                                                                                                                       compressor off
                                                                                                                                       cycle.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction A             -10             <50              25             105               9  Compressor On.....  Determine Net
                                                                                                                                       Refrigeration
                                                                                                                                       Capacity of Unit
                                                                                                                                       Cooler.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction B             -10             <50              20             105               9  Compressor On.....  Determine Net
                                                                                                                                       Refrigeration
                                                                                                                                       Capacity of Unit
                                                                                                                                       Cooler.
Defrost.........................             -10         Various              --              --              --  Compressor Off....  Test according to
                                                                                                                                       Appendix C
                                                                                                                                       Section C11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a default
  superheat value of 6.5 [deg]F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.

* * * * *
    (12) Calculation of AWEF for a walk-in cooler and freezer 
refrigeration system component distributed individually. This section 
only applies to fixed capacity condensing units. Multiple-capacity 
condensing units must be tested as part of a matched system.
    (i) Calculate the AWEF for a refrigeration system containing a unit 
cooler that is distributed individually using the method for testing a 
unit cooler connected to a multiplex condensing system.
    (ii) Calculate the AWEF for a refrigeration system containing a 
condensing unit that is distributed individually using the following 
nominal values:

Saturated suction temperature at the evaporator coil exit 
Tevap ([deg]F) = 25 for coolers and -20 for freezers
For medium temperature (cooler) condensing units: On-cycle evaporator 
fan power EFcomp, on (W) = 0.013 W-h/Btu x 
qmix, cd (Btu/h); where qmix, cd is the gross 
cooling capacity at the highest ambient rating condition 
(90[emsp14][deg]F for indoor units and 95[emsp14][deg]F for outdoor 
units)
For low temperature (freezer) condensing units: On-cycle evaporator fan 
power EFcomp, on (W) = 0.016 W-h/Btu x qmix, cd 
(Btu/h); where qmix, cd is the gross cooling capacity at the 
highest ambient rating condition (90[emsp14][deg]F for indoor units and 
95[emsp14][deg]F for outdoor units)
Off-cycle evaporator fan power EFcomp, off (W) = 0.2 x 
EFcomp, on (W)
For medium temperature (cooler) condensing units: Daily defrost energy 
use DF (W-h) = 0 and daily defrost heat load contribution 
QDF (Btu) = 0

    For low temperature (freezer) condensing units without hot gas 
defrost capability:

Daily defrost energy use DF (W-h) = 8.5 x 10-3 x 
(qmix, cd (Btu/h))\1.27\ x NDF for freezers
Defrost heat load contribution QDF (Btu) = 0.95 x DF (W-h)/
3.412 Btu/W-h

    For low temperature (freezer) condensing units with hot gas defrost 
capability, DF and QDF shall be calculated using the method 
in paragraph (c)(10)(xii) of this section.
    The number of defrost cycles per day (NDF) shall be set 
to the number recommended in the installation instructions for the unit 
(or if no instructions, shall be set to 2.5).


0
7. Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2;
0
b. Revising paragraph 5.3(a)(1);
0
c. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(2) introductory text ``Internal'' and 
adding ``Cold-side'' in its place; and
0
d. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(3) introductory text ``External'' and 
adding ``Warm-side'' in its place.
    The revision reads as follows:

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


* * * * *
    4.2 [Reserved]
    4.3 [Reserved]
* * * * *
    5.1 [Reserved]

[[Page 27415]]

    5.2 [Reserved]
    5.3 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) The average surface heat transfer coefficient on the cold-
side of the apparatus shall be 30 Watts per square-meter-Kelvin (W/
m\2\*K)  5%. The average surface heat transfer 
coefficient on the warm-side of the apparatus shall be 7.7 Watts per 
square-meter-Kelvin (W/m\2\*K)  5%.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-10721 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P