This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register18555 
Vol. 89, No. 51 
Thursday, March 14, 2024 
1All references to EPCA in this document refer 
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 
2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 
3Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined 
as an enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be 
Continued DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
10 CFR Part 431 
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009] 
RIN 1904–AD79 
Energy Conservation Program: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers 
AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 
ACTION : Notification of data availability 
and request for comment. 
SUMMARY : On September 5, 2023, the 
U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), in which DOE proposed amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk- in freezers (‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’). In this notification of data availability (‘‘NODA’’), DOE is updating portions of its analysis for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers based on information DOE received in response to DOE’s September 2023 NOPR. DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding the updated analysis. 
DATES : DOE will accept comments, data, 
and information regarding this NODA no later than April 15, 2024. 
ADDRESSES : Interested persons are 
encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE– 2017–BT–STD–0009, by any of the following methods: 
(1) Email: WICF2017STD0009@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009 in the subject line of the message. 
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 
accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document. 
Docket: The docket for this activity, 
which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 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. 
The docket web page can be found at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE- 2017-BT-STD-0009. The docket web 
page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597– 6265. Email: matthew.schneider@hq.doe.gov. 
For further information on how to 
submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Background 
II. Discussion 
A. Engineering Analysis 1. Non-Display Doors a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption 
Allowances for Non-Display Doors With 
Certain Electrical Components 
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and Resulting 
Thermal Load 
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single- 
Packaged Dedicated Systems 
a. More Efficient Single Speed 
Compressors 
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition d. Miscellaneous Updates to the 
Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet 
3. Unit Coolers a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech 
Efficiency Levels 
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit 
Cooler Analysis 
B. Trial Standard Levels 1. Refrigeration Systems 2. Non-Display Doors C. Analytical Results 1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 
Analysis 
a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant 
Transition to Specific Regions 
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems c. Results for Non-Display Doors 2. National Impacts Analysis a. Non-Display Doors b. Significance of Energy Savings c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 
and Benefits 
D. Updated Equations for Proposed 
Standards 
1. Energy Consumption Equations for Non- 
Display Doors 
2. AWEF2 Equations 
III. Public Participation IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 
I. Background 
The Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 
(‘‘EPCA’’),1authorizes DOE to regulate 
the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,
2 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) Such equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers
3(hereafter referred to 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of 
less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. 
4DOE adopted the AWEF2 metric in a test 
procedure final rule published on May 4, 2023. 88 FR 28780. 5The parenthetical reference provides a reference 
for information located in the relevant docket for this rulemaking, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. The references are arranged as 
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, attachment number (if there are multiple attachments in a single comment submission), page of that document). as ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’), the subject 
of this rulemaking. 
DOE defines ‘‘walk-ins’’ as an 
enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems, refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems, DOE has established standards for the principal components that make up a walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and 
refrigeration systems). 
On September 5, 2023, DOE 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers (‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’). 88 FR 60746. Specifically, DOE proposed amended standards for walk-in non- display doors and walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE did not propose to amend the standard for walk-in panels or display doors. For walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE proposed amended standards in terms of the newly adopted annual walk-in energy factor 2 (‘‘AWEF2’’) metric.
4The technical 
support document (‘‘TSD’’) that presented the methodology and results of the September 2023 NOPR analysis (‘‘September 2023 NOPR TSD’’) is available at www.regulations.gov/ document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009- 0046. Additionally, on September 28, 
2023, DOE published a notification of data availability (‘‘September 2023 NODA’’) summarizing additional comments received on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 39008) that were considered but not discussed in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 66710. 
On September 27, 2023, DOE held a 
public webinar (‘‘September 2023 Public Webinar’’) in which it presented an overview of the topics addressed in the September 2023 NOPR, allowed time for prepared general statements by participants, and encouraged all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. In response to the September 2023 
NOPR, DOE received additional data and information regarding walk-in non- display doors and refrigeration systems, which is summarized in sections II.A and II.D.2 of this document. 
Upon consideration of the views 
shared in the September 2023 Public Webinar and public comments DOE received in response to the September 2023 NOPR, this NODA presents updated analysis for walk-in non- display doors and refrigeration systems. DOE is requesting comments, data, and information regarding the updated analysis. 
DOE notes that it is continuing to 
consider all of the stakeholder comments received in response to the September 2023 NOPR and September 2023 Public Webinar in further development of the rulemaking. As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, based on consideration of all of the public comments received, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part. 
II. Discussion 
In the following sections, DOE details 
its updated analysis for walk-in non- 
display doors and refrigeration systems. 
A. Engineering Analysis 1. Non-Display Doors 
a. Maximum Daily Energy Consumption 
Allowances for Non-Display Doors With Certain Electrical Components 
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 
assumed for its analysis that baseline non-display doors had 3.5-inch-thick insulation for coolers and 4-inch-thick insulation for freezers, wood framing materials, a viewing window, and anti- sweat heat around the perimeter of the door leaf without controls. 88 FR 60746, 60769. DOE did not consider lighting or other electrical components in its baseline representative units for non- display doors. Id. As such, DOE only 
considered design options relevant to the design of the baseline representative units, including: anti-sweat controls, reduced anti-sweat heat, improvements to the framing systems to make the frame more thermally insulative, and increased insulation thickness. Id. at 88 
FR 60770. 
Kolpak commented that while it 
agrees with providing limits on door components, it disagrees with the overall formulas representing the proposed energy conservation standards for manual non-display doors. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1, 3)
5 
Kolpak stated that its basic models are 
fully compliant with DOE’s current regulations, but that it believes the new proposed maximum daily energy consumption (‘‘MDEC’’) formulas are impossibly stringent. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at p. 1) Kolpak stated that when considering all electricity- consuming devices that are installed on its doors, including the anti-sweat heater wire, door light, heated ventilator, heated viewing window, and thermometer/temperature alarms, the proposed standards would not be able to be met. (Id.) Kolpak provided calculations of the daily energy consumption of six different doors for both cooler and freezer applications to support their comment. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 2) 
The test procedure for non-display 
doors requires the direct and indirect electrical energy consumption of electrical components be calculated and included in the determination of daily energy consumption (‘‘DEC’’) using rated power of electrical components sited on the door and an assumed 
percent time off (‘‘PTO’’) value. As previously mentioned, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE only considered one electrical component (i.e., the anti-sweat 
heat around the perimeter of the door leaf) in its representative units of manual non-display doors for the engineering analysis. DOE also considered motors in its representative units of motorized non-display doors. However, DOE understands that other electricity-consuming devices could be installed on a non-display door, which are included in the calculation of DEC per the test procedure. As indicated by Kolpak in its comment, the current MDEC standards allow for additional electrical components such as heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/temperature alarms to be included and considered in the DEC calculation. However, the basis of the proposed energy conservation standards only accounts for the energy consumption from anti-sweat heat around the perimeter of the door (and motors for doors classified as motorized non-display doors). As a result, DOE understands that the proposed standards as outlined in the September 2023 NOPR may be difficult to meet for basic models of doors that have 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118557 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
additional electrical components 
beyond what DOE considered in its representative units. 
Also in response to the September 
2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE’s method for complying with the new standards presume that all doors have certain features (e.g., lights) that can be adjusted 
to consume less energy, but that many doors do not have these features; thus, Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE cannot conclude that new standards are technologically feasible by pointing to methods for compliance with the standards that are not available for all classes, types, and sizes of doors. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 3) DOE notes that for the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE did not consider lighting in its baseline representative units, and therefore did not consider any design options for reducing lighting energy consumption in the analysis. However, as indicated by Senneca and Frank Door, DOE recognizes that it cannot include all other possible electrical components in its baseline representative units and cannot analyze reduced energy consumption for other electrical components because not all doors contain these components. 
In light of these comments, DOE is 
considering equipment classes with maximum daily energy consumption allowances for non-display doors if manufacturers offer basic models with certain electricity-consuming devices as discussed in the following sections. This is similar to the approach used for the energy conservation standards for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers. In a direct final rule relating to energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers published on January 17, 2024, DOE established separate standards and separate product classes for products with multiple doors or specialty doors. The standards for those product classes (i.e., any product 
classes that implement special and multi-door designs) include energy allowances (i.e., specific increases in 
maximum allowable energy use) corresponding to the specific performance-related features (i.e., door- 
in-door designs, transparent doors, and 
multi-door designs). 89 FR 3026, 3028– 3029. 
To develop the maximum daily 
energy consumption allowances specific for walk-in non-display doors with certain electrical components, DOE reviewed the data and calculations submitted by Kolpak, as well as product literature from hardware and instrument manufacturers. In its comment, Kolpak provided information regarding the 
following components that are included on its basic models of non-display doors: anti-sweat heat on viewing windows; lighting and mechanisms to turn the lighting on or off (e.g., manual 
toggle switches, door open timers, occupancy sensors); heated ventilators (also called heated pressure relief vents); and temperature alarms. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at pp. 1–2) Kolpak provided information on model numbers of electrical components, rated wattage of those components, number of electrical components on its doors, and the calculation of the direct and indirect electrical energy consumption for all electrical components. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 2) Using the detail provided by Kolpak, DOE also looked into the hardware and instrument manufacturers product offerings for electrical components to better understand the range of potential options for these additional electrical components. Based on this, DOE grouped the electrical components into four categories: lighting, anti-sweat heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays/ alarms, and heated pressure relief vents. The underlying assumptions for each category of electrical components are described in the paragraphs that follow. 
Lighting 
For the lighting category, DOE 
considered lighting, a night light, and a 
pilot light located on a switch to develop an appropriate DEC allowance for doors that have lighting. Lighting features provide valuable utility to consumers, namely visibility within the walk-in, particularly near the entrance and exit of the walk-in and is commonly controlled by a switch. Switches used for turning the lights on and off often have a pilot light so that the switch can be located in the dark. Additionally, as included in Kolpak’s comment and calculations, a night light could also be attached to the walk-in door. Based on Kolpak’s provided data and a review of product literature, DOE assumed lighting would have rated power of 13 W, a switch with a pilot light would have a rated power of 0.3 W, and a night light would have a rated power of 1 W. DOE also assumed that these components would not be controlled by some demand-based controls, and therefore used the PTO values specified for lighting and other electricity- consuming devices without controls, timers, or auto-shut-off systems per 
table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy consumption. DOE assumed based on a review of product literature and doors it has tested that the light and night light would be located 
on the interior of the walk-in, and the switch may be located either interior or exterior to the walk-in. Therefore, all of the three components associated with lighting were conservatively assumed to be sited on the internal face of the door for the purposes of determining the indirect electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on these assumptions, DOE calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e., the sum of the direct and indirect electrical energy consumption) for doors with lighting components which can be found in Table II.1. DOE notes that the lighting MDEC allowance would apply to doors with a light that may also have a night light and/or switch. Therefore, a door does not need to be equipped with all three components to use the allowance (i.e., a door with a light and 
a switch but no nightlight could use the allowance specified in Table II.1). 
Anti-Sweat Heater for Viewing Window 
As previously mentioned, DOE 
included windows in its representative 
units of non-display doors. However, DOE did not consider additional anti- sweat heat specific to the window. Anti- sweat heaters are a performance-related feature used on viewing windows to prevent (1) condensation from collecting on the glass and (2) fogging of the glass. Kolpak commented that it is standard for medium-temperature non-display doors with viewing windows to have an anti-sweat heater wire around the frame of the window and for low-temperature non-display doors with viewing windows to have an anti-sweat heater wire and heated glass coating on the outer pane of glass. Kolpak commented that the widely used supplier used to provide a 10 W/ft anti-sweat heater wire without controls. Kolpak stated that it uses a 5 W/ft heater wire with controls in the frame of the viewport window. Kolpak stated that it cannot find additional means to reduce the energy consumption of the anti-sweat heater wire in the viewing window frame further. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 1) Based on Kolpak’s provided data and a review of product literature, DOE assumed that if anti-sweat heat is included around and/or on viewing windows, that anti- sweat heat would have rated power of 34 W for medium-temperature (i.e., cooler) applications and 84 W for low- temperature (i.e., freezer) applications. 
DOE also assumed that these 
components would be controlled by some demand-based controls based on the information provided by Kolpak, and therefore DOE used the PTO values specified for anti-sweat heat with 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
controls, timers, or auto-shut-off 
systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy consumption. DOE assumed that for the purposes of determining the indirect electrical energy consumption of the anti-sweat heater, 75-percent of the total power is attributed to the interior and 25-percent of the total power is attributed to the exterior of the walk-in, consistent with the assumptions outlined in the DOE test procedure. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on these assumptions, DOE calculated the MDEC allowance (i.e., the sum of the 
direct and indirect electrical energy consumption) for doors with anti-sweat heat on their viewing windows, which can be found in Table II.1. 
Digital Temperature Displays With or 
Without Alarms 
A digital temperature display 
provides utility in that it allows for users to easily monitor the temperature of the walk-in. The digital temperature 
display is connected to a thermocouple that measures the temperature of the walk-in and the interface on the exterior of the walk-in displays the temperature within the walk-in compartment. Based on review of product literature and Kolpak’s data, DOE has determined that a digital temperature display could be paired with alarms or be standalone (i.e., without alarms). The alarms alert 
kitchen staff or others if the refrigerated goods within the walk-in compartment are in conditions that are too warm or too cold, which may spoil or ruin these goods. Additionally, alarms can sound if the walk-in door is left open for too long. Kolpak commented that walk-ins with multiple compartments that have only one exterior door but have doors on interior partitions that separate the compartments often have two temperature alarms on the exterior door so that the alarms can be heard by those outside of the walk-in. (Kolpak, No. 6, Attachment 1 at p. 2) Kolpak stated that the temperature alarm is typically rated at 4 W and Kolpak is unable to source a temperature alarm that has a lower rated power. (Id.) Additionally, through its review of hardware and instrument manufacturers product offerings, DOE identified that a panic or entrapment alarm could be installed for use in the event that a user is unable to exit the walk-in. Based on Kolpak’s provided data and a review of hardware manufacturer product literature, DOE assumed a digital temperature display without alarms would have a rated 
power of 2.4 W and a digital temperature display with alarms would have rated power of 4 W. In consideration of Kolpak’s comment that a walk-in comprised of two compartments may require two temperature displays with alarms to be located on the exterior non-display door, DOE assumed that a digital temperature display with alarm(s) would have a total rated power of 8 W i.e., to reflect two digital temperature 
displays with alarms at 4 W each; an alternative approach could account for the power multiplied by the number of temperature displays with alarms present in the walk-in). DOE assumed based on a review of Kolpak’s data and product literature that the digital temperature display with or without alarms would always be on, and as such used the PTO specified for other electricity-consuming devices without controls, timers, or auto-shut-off 
systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy consumption. The temperature display and alarms would likely be sited on the exterior of the walk-in door to be seen and heard, however, components of the display would be located interior to the walk-in, such as the thermocouple. Therefore, DOE conservatively assumed these components would be sited on both the internal and external face of the door for the purposes of determining the indirect electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. Based on these assumptions, DOE calculated the MDEC allowances (i.e., the sum of the direct and indirect electrical energy consumption) for doors with a (1) digital temperature display without an alarm or (2) digital temperature display with alarms. These calculated MDEC allowances can be found in Table II.1. DOE assumed that a door would either have one or the other, but would not have both (1) a digital temperature display without an alarm or (2) digital temperature display with alarms. As such, only one of these MDEC allowances would apply based on whether there is or is not an alarm connected to the digital temperature display. 
Heated Pressure Relief Vent 
Heated ventilators, or heated pressure 
relief vents, are performance-related 
features that allow doors to open more easily when there is a pressure differential between the interior and the exterior of the walk-in. Kolpak 
commented that heated ventilators were not considered in DOE’s analysis of non-display doors. Kolpak stated that some manufacturers put heated ventilators on a non-door panel so that they are not considered in the energy consumption calculation of a door, however, Kolpak places these devices on the door, where its energy consumption is captured in the daily energy consumption calculation. Kolpak commented that it uses the lowest wattage heated ventilator available. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Kolpak’s data indicates that a 4 W heated ventilator is used on doors for both medium- temperature and low-temperature installations. DOE has tentatively determined, however, that while medium-temperature applications may require a pressure relief vent, it may not be necessary for the pressure relief vent to be heated. Therefore, DOE did not develop a MDEC allowance for medium- temperature non-display doors. Additionally, based on review of 
hardware manufacturer product literature and the recommendations for pressure relief vents based on the size of a walk-in, DOE has tentatively determined that a heated pressure relief vent for a freezer could require up to 23 W of heat to prevent freezing and therefore provide sufficient airflow between the walk-in compartment and the exterior. DOE assumed based on a review of Kolpak’s data and product literature that the heater component of the pressure relief vent would always be on, and as such used the PTO specified for other electricity-consuming devices without controls, timers, or auto-shut- off systems per table A.2 of appendix A along with the rated power to determine the direct electrical energy consumption. Because the heated vent is located between both the exterior and interior of the walk-in, it is considered to be located interior to the walk-in for the purposes of determining the indirect electrical energy consumption. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3. The MDEC allowance for low-temperature doors with heated pressure relief vents can be found in Table II.1. 
Components Summary 
Table II.1 presents the MDEC 
allowances for lighting, anti-sweat heat 
for viewing windows, digital temperature displays/alarms, and heated pressure relief vents, as described in the previous sections. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118559 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.1—M AXIMUM DAILYENERGY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR EACHCOMPONENT  
Device Wattage of 
component(s) 
(W) Controls 
(Y/N) Location MDEC 
allowance— 
medium- 
temperature 
(kWh/day) MDEC 
allowance— 
low- 
temperature 
(kWh/day) 
Door light, night light, and/or switch .................................................... 14.3 No .......... Interior .... 0.33 0.40 
Heated viewing window: Cooler Freezer ............................................ 34 Yes ......... Interior .... 0.25 .............. ..........
Heated viewing window—freezer ........................................................ 84 Yes ........ Interior .... ................ ........ 1.42 
Digital temperature without alarm ....................................................... 2.4 No .......... Interior .... 0.07 0.09 
Digital temperature display with alarm ................................................ 8 No .......... Interior .... 0.24 0.30 
Heated vent—freezer only ................................................................... 23 No .......... Interior .... ......... ............... 0.85 
As discussed in the preceding 
paragraphs, each of these electrical 
components provide some consumer utility when installed on a non-display door. Additionally, having these electrical components installed on the door limits the number of electrical connections that need to be wired when 
installing a walk-in. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used or if DOE determines that the equipment’s capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a 
different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) DOE has tentatively determined that that the devices it has listed previously constitute a performance-related feature that justify a higher standard. DOE notes that the information described 
previously and in Table II.1 was used to develop the MDEC allowances for basic models of non-display doors that have any number of these components. However, DOE notes that for the purposes of determining DEC in accordance with the Federal test procedure at appendix A, manufacturers must follow the instructions for 
calculating both direct and indirect electrical energy consumption of components as described in appendix A. 
DOE reviewed non-public 
manufacturer data submitted to DOE’s Compliance Certification Management System Database (‘‘CCD’’) to estimate the percentage of the market that includes these other electricity consuming devices on non-display doors. DOE’s estimates of shipments containing electricity consuming devices are shown in Table II.2. 
TABLE II.2—P ERCENTAGE OF NON-DISPLAY DOOR SHIPMENTS CONTAINING EACHELECTRICITY CONSUMING DEVICE  
Component Percent of shipments with component 
Medium- 
temperature, 
manual 
(%) Low- 
temperature, 
manual 
(%) Medium- 
temperature, 
motorized 
(%) Low- 
temperature, 
motorized 
(%) 
Lighting ............................................................................................................ 10 6 22 33 
Viewing Window ASH ...................................................................................... 4 1 4 3 
All Other Electrical Components ...................................................................... 8 8 28 73 
DOE requests comment on the MDEC 
allowances for the specified electricity 
consuming devices. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the assumed wattages, presence or absence of controls, and location that were considered in the calculation of MDEC allowances for the specified electricity consuming devices. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
b. Adjustment of U-Factors and 
Resulting Thermal Load 
The DOE test procedure requires that 
the total non-display door energy is calculated by summing (1) the total daily energy consumption due to thermal conduction load through the door (i.e., the additional refrigeration 
energy consumption to overcome conduction through the door), (2) total daily direct electrical energy consumption (i.e., the energy consumed 
by electrical components sited on the door), and (3) the total daily indirect electrical energy consumption (i.e., the 
additional refrigeration energy consumption due to thermal output into the walk-in from electrical components contained on the inside face of the door). See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, section 6.3.4. The energy consumption due to thermal conduction load is based on an assumed temperature difference between the interior and exterior of the walk-in, an assumed refrigeration system energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’), and the U- factor and size of the door. Improvements to the design and/or materials of the door and its frame could result in a decreased thermal load. 
At the proposed standard level in the 
September 2023 NOPR, DOE assumed that all manual-opening non-display doors would need to implement anti- 
sweat heater controls, improved framing systems, and reduced anti-sweat heat. 88 FR 60746, 60845. As discussed in the 
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE determined U-factors for each representative door size by scaling the U-factors determined from tested non- display doors based on theoretical U- factors. DOE also assumed each non- display door had a window sized at 2 ft
2. Wood frames are the least efficient 
framing material currently found on the market and were selected as the baseline framing material. High-density polyurethane door frames are more thermally insulative and were selected as the improved framing material. See section 5.7.1.3 of the September NOPR TSD. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Kolpak commented that it uses low-density, high-insulation foam core material in its frame, which has better insulation than wood or high-density 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
6The NODA support document can be found in 
the docket at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE- 
2017-BT-STD-0009. 7These capacities are as follows: 9 kBtu/h, 25 
kBtu/h, 54 kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h, and 124 kBtu/h for medium-temperature dedicated condensing units; 3 kBtu/h, 9 kBtu/h, 54 kBtu/h, 75 kBtu/h for low- temperature dedicated condensing units. 
8For a discussion of DOE’s tentative conclusions 
regarding the appropriateness of setting standards based upon models operating with R–448A, see 88 FR 60746, 60771. foam. (Kolpak, No. 66 at p. 2) Therefore, 
DOE would expect that the thermal load at the proposed level to be consistent with or greater than the thermal load in 
the Kolpak data. 
In the data provided by Kolpak there 
are U-factor test results for both medium-temperature and low- temperature non-display doors of various sizes with and without a window. (Kolpak, No. 66 Attachment 2) For medium-temperature doors, DOE found that the thermal conduction load at the proposed energy conservation standard level from the September 2023 NOPR is consistent with the thermal conduction load calculated from the data provided by Kolpak data. For low- temperature doors, DOE found that the thermal conduction load at the proposed energy conservation standard level from the September 2023 NOPR was lower than the thermal conduction load calculated from the data provided by Kolpak data. To further evaluate thermal conduction load for both medium-temperature and low- temperature non-display doors, DOE further reviewed additional non-public manufacturer data submitted to DOE’s Compliance Certification Management System Database (‘‘CCD’’). Manufacturers are not currently required to certify the U-factor or thermal conduction load to the CCD; however, they are required to certify the rated power of each light, heater wire, and/or other electricity consuming device associated with each basic model and whether such device(s) has a timer, control system, or other demand-based control reducing the device’s power consumption. See 10 CFR 429.53(b)(4)(i). Using the certified data, DOE back-calculated the thermal load and ultimately U-factor for multiple basic models of medium-temperature and low-temperature non-display doors. DOE verified these back-calculated U- factors with its own test data. DOE compared the thermal conduction load by non-display door area (A
ND) of (1) 
Kolpak’s data, (2) any back-calculated data from the CCD that has been verified with test data, (3) data received during confidential manufacturer interviews, and (4) test data, with the thermal load by non-display door area for each representative unit and efficiency level with a different door construction design (and thus different thermal conduction load) from the September 2023 NOPR. DOE is posting a supplementary file that contains supplementary information to support the analysis provided in this NODA (referred to as the ‘‘NODA support document’’).
6The updated thermal 
conduction load for low-temperature 
non-display doors is shown in Figure 4.1 of the NODA support document that has been posted to the docket. Additionally, the updated energy consumption values for low- temperature non-display doors that reflect the U-factor and resulting thermal load update can be found in section 2 of the NODA support document. Note that these energy consumption values do not account for any of the MDEC allowances. 
For low-temperature applications, 
DOE has tentatively determined that the thermal conduction load by area for low-temperature applications in the proposed standard level from the September 2023 NOPR is lower than that calculated using the data DOE evaluated for this NODA. Therefore, DOE increased the U-factors for each 
representative unit of low-temperature non-display doors by 9-percent for this NODA. DOE has tentatively determined that this increase in U-factor would be more representative of the low- temperature non-display doors currently on the market. 
DOE requests comment on 
representativeness of the adjustments made to the U-factors for the low- temperature non-display doors. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
2. Dedicated Condensing Units and 
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems 
a. More Efficient Single Speed 
Compressors 
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 
analyzed higher-efficiency compressors for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems. The higher-efficiency compressor design options included both higher-efficiency single-speed compressors and variable- speed compressors. For single-packaged dedicated systems, DOE considered both higher-efficiency single-speed compressors and variable-speed compressors in the September 2023 NOPR. However, DOE did not consider higher-efficiency single-speed compressors for dedicated condensing units in the September 2023 NOPR. See section 5.7.2.1 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD for further discussion. 
In response to the September 2023 
NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE analyze improved single-speed compressor efficiency as a design option. (Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 77 at p. 2) The Efficiency Advocates stated that there is a range of single-speed compressor efficiencies available even when selecting for a given compressor type, capacity, input voltage, power supply, and refrigerant. (Id. at p. 2) 
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 
consider two single-speed compressor efficiencies (i.e., CMP1 and CMP2) as 
design options for dedicated condensing 
units. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at pp. 8–9) The CA IOUs stated that the compressor manufacturers Copeland and Bitzer offer two or three more compressor options with different efficiencies at each size and temperature application and that therefore CMP1 and CMP2 are justified as design options. (Id. at pp. 8–9) 
In response to the comments received, 
DOE reviewed publicly available compressor performance data for both medium-temperature and low- temperature walk-in applications. DOE specifically collected data for compressors applicable to the range of representative capacities analyzed for dedicated condensing units in the September 2023 NOPR.
7For this NODA 
analysis, DOE only considered single- speed compressors compatible with R– 448A that are rated at the DOE walk-in test conditions and available for the North American walk-in market.
8DOE 
excluded from consideration any compressors that may negatively impact consumer utility—e.g., DOE did not 
consider three-phase compressors when there were options for both single- and three-phase compressors at a given capacity, as some buildings where walk- ins are installed may not have the necessary three-phase power. Additionally, as discussed in section 5.7.2.1 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, during interviews manufacturers highlighted utility concerns related to customer preference for specific compressor types (e.g., scroll, semi- 
hermetic, etc.). Therefore, when evaluating higher-efficiency single- speed compressors for this NODA, DOE selected the highest compressor efficiency that would still allow for consumer choice between scroll and semi-hermetic compressors if both compressor types were available at the given representative capacity. DOE notes that it cannot verify that the 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118561 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
9DOE used two compressors with capacities 
between 50 and 60 kBtu/h for the 124 kBtu/h 
medium-temperature outdoor dedicated condensing unit. DOE determined that this would be representative for units of this capacity. 
10DOE determined compressor performance 
using conditions representative of the A condition test specified by the DOE test procedure for walk- in refrigeration systems in appendix C1 to subpart R of 10 CFR part 431. The test conditions used to determine compressor performance were as follows: a return gas temperature of 41 °F, an evaporator 
dewpoint temperature of 23 °F, and a condenser 
dewpoint temperature of 120 °F. 11DOE notes that in appendix 5A of the 
September 2023 NOPR TSD, the tables label the efficiency values in terms of AWEF, however, they are in terms of AWEF2 and should have been labeled as such. 12The updated refrigeration systems engineering 
sheet can be found in the docket for this rulemaking 
Continued compressor data provided by the CA 
IOUs and Efficiency Advocates in their respective comments are representative of compressors rated at DOE walk-in test conditions. Additionally, the compressors provided may impact utility because there are both scroll and semi-hermetic types. Therefore, DOE did not evaluate the compressors provided in the comments from the CA 
IOUs and Efficiency Advocates. However, using the criteria described for reviewing publicly available compressor data, DOE identified single- speed compressors with capacities roughly between 50 and 60 kBtu/h that have higher efficiencies than the compressor in that capacity range used in the September 2023 NOPR analysis. Compressors in this capacity range could be used in the DC.M.O.054, DC.M.I.054, and DC.M.O.124 representative units.
9DOE did not 
identify any higher efficiency single- speed compressors for low-temperature applications at the representative capacities analyzed based on the criteria previously mentioned. 
As such, DOE determined that a 
higher-efficiency single-speed compressor design option could be applied to the following representative units: DC.M.O.054, DC.M.I.054, and DC.M.O.124. In this NODA, DOE presents an updated analysis when considering the additional compressor design option for these three representative units. 
In its updated analysis, DOE added an 
efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) which corresponds to the higher-efficiency single-speed compressor design option for the three representative units mentioned previously. The higher- efficiency single-speed compressor has an EER for walk-in refrigeration systems of 7.62 Btu/(W-h), which is 5 percent greater than the baseline compressor’s EER of 7.25 Btu/(W-h).
10Similar to the 
NOPR analysis, DOE ordered the design options for each representative unit in terms of decreasing cost-effectiveness (manufacturer production cost differential/AWEF2 differential). Table 3.1 of the NODA support document describes the design option codes related to the refrigeration system 
representative units analyzed in this NODA. The higher-efficiency single- speed compressor was added at EL 1 for the DC.M.I.054 representative unit and at EL 3 for both DC.M.O.054 and DC.M.O.124 representative units. As a result, the design options that are used at ELs after the higher-efficiency single- speed compressor design option are now associated with one EL higher than in the September 2023 NOPR. For example, in the September 2023 NOPR, electronically commutated (‘‘EC’’) condenser fan motors were implemented at EL 1 for the DC.M.I.054 Because the higher-efficiency single- speed compressor design option was implemented at EL 1 in this NODA analysis, the EC condenser fan motor design option is implemented at EL 2 for this representative unit. 
Section 3 of the NODA support 
document shows the cost-efficiency results from the September 2023 NOPR, which were published in appendix 5A of the September 2023 NOPR TSD,
11 
and the updated cost-efficiency results with the additional compressor design option EL. The tables show the AWEF2, manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’), and manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) plus shipping costs associated with each EL. DOE notes that due to the interaction between design options in the engineering analysis, the performance increase and/or incremental MPC associated with design options added after the higher-efficiency single-speed compressor design option differ from those presented in the NOPR analysis. 
DOE requests comment on the 
updated cost-efficiency results for the 54 kBtu/h indoor and outdoor medium- temperature dedicated condensing units and 124 kBtu/h outdoor medium- temperature dedicated condensing unit presented in section 3 of the NODA support document. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
b. Off-Cycle Ancillary Power 
Based on test data available at the 
time, in the September 2023 NOPR 
analysis DOE tentatively determined that the only source of off-cycle power for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems would be crankcase heater power. See section 5.6.3.3 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. DOE assumed that the off- 
cycle crankcase heater power would be the same for both medium-temperature and low-temperature applications, which DOE estimated using crankcase heater wattage specifications from compressor manufacturer product 
literature. 
In response to the September 2023 
NOPR, AHRI and Hussmann commented that there are potential sources of off-cycle ancillary power that DOE did not account for and should consider, such as standard operating controls, defrost time clocks, digital controllers, and transformers. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 9) 
In response to these comments, DOE 
analyzed additional test data and compared the tested off-cycle power values to the crankcase heater wattages specified by compressor manufacturers. DOE found that for medium- temperature dedicated condensing units, the assumed crankcase heater wattage used in the NOPR analysis matched both the tested off-cycle power values and the compressor manufacturer-specified wattages. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the assumed crankcase heater wattages used to analyze medium-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems in the NOPR analysis are representative of the entire off-cycle power of such units. 
For low-temperature dedicated 
condensing units, DOE found that the off-cycle power test data was up to 5 Watts greater than the compressor manufacturer-specified crankcase heater wattages, indicating there may be additional sources of off-cycle power other than the crankcase heater. Additionally for low-temperature units, DOE found that the compressor manufacturer-specified crankcase heater wattages at a given capacity range were slightly different than those specified for medium-temperature units. Therefore, for this NODA, DOE adjusted the assumed crankcase heater wattages for low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems, as shown in table II.2 and table II.3. DOE also added 5 Watts of off-cycle ancillary power not associated with crankcase heater power for all low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems. Both changes can be seen in the updated refrigeration engineering analysis spreadsheet.
12As 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD- 
0009. 
13DOE notes that a more efficient single-speed 
compressor that used propane was analyzed as a 
design option for some single-packaged dedicated systems. A propane compressor was analyzed if the charge limit for propane was sufficient to provide the analyzed capacity and the propane compressor resulted in increased efficiency. 
14California established (effective January 1, 
2022) a limit of 150 GWP for retail food refrigeration equipment and cold storage warehouses with less than 50 lbs of charge. 
Washington is expected to establish a limit of 150 GWP for retail food refrigeration equipment and cold storage warehouses with less than 50 lbs of charge. indicated by commenters, DOE suspects 
that this additional 5 Watts of power is attributed to timers and controls associated with defrost cycles. 
TABLE II.3—C RANKCASE HEATER POWER (W) FORLOW-TEMPERATURE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS FROM SEPTEMBER  
2023 NOPR 
Compressor type Refrigeration system capacity 
<10,000 Btu/h ≥10,000 and 
<50,000 Btu/h ≥50,000– 
<100,000 Btu/h ≥100,000– 
<200,000 Btu/h 
Hermetic ................................................................................................... 40 
Scroll ........................................................................................................ 40 67 90 100 
Semi-Hermetic ......................................................................................... 40 50 70 100 
Rotary ...................................................................................................... 27 
TABLE II.4—U PDATED CRANKCASE HEATER POWER (W) FORLOW-TEMPERATURE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS FOR THIS 
NODA 
Compressor type Refrigeration system capacity 
<5,000 Btu/h ≥5,000– 
<20,000 Btu/h ≥20,000– 
<50,000 Btu/h ≥50,000– 
<200,000 Btu/h 
Hermetic ................................................................................................... 40 
Scroll ........................................................................................................ 40 70 73 100 
Semi-Hermetic ......................................................................................... 40 50 70 100 
Rotary ...................................................................................................... 27 
DOE requests comment on the 
updated crankcase heater wattages and additional off-cycle ancillary power for low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
c. Low GWP Refrigerant Transition 
As discussed in the September 2023 
NOPR, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (‘‘EPA’’) published a NOPR, ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection (i) the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’, on December 15, 2022, as a part of the American Innovation and Manufacturing (‘‘AIM’’) Act, which outlined new refrigerant regulations regarding acceptable global warming potential (‘‘GWP’’) limits for various air conditioning and refrigeration systems. 87 FR 76738. On October 24, 2023, EPA finalized these proposals (‘‘October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule’’). 88 FR 73098. The October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule established (effective January 1, 2026) a limit of 300 GWP for remote condensing units in retail food refrigeration systems and cold storage 
warehouses with less than 200 lbs of charge, which includes split-system walk-in refrigeration systems covered under the scope of the September 2023 
NOPR. 88 FR 73098, 73209. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed R–454A and R–455A refrigerants which have GWPs less than 300 and tentatively determined that R–454A would be the most likely replacement refrigerant for medium- and low-temperature walk-in refrigeration systems once the regulations finalized in the October 2023 AIM Act Final Rule take effect. DOE also tentatively determined that R– 454A would have comparable performance to the currently-used refrigerant R–448A. 88 FR 60746, 60772. As there was limited compressor performance data available for R–454A at the time, DOE used R–448A as the basis for its engineering analysis for medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single- packaged dedicated systems.
13Id. In the 
September 2023 NOPR, DOE requested performance data for walk-in refrigeration systems using R–454A, R– 454C, and/or R–455A. DOE also sought comment on its tentative determinations that R–454A is the most likely replacement for the current refrigerants being used (i.e., R–448A and R–449A) and that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would not suffer a performance penalty when switching from R–448A or R–449A to R–454A. Id. 
In response, AHRI, Lennox, and 
Hussmann commented that R–454A is comparable in performance to R–448A but that it is not the most likely low- GWP replacement for WICFs because R– 454A has a GWP above 150. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 6–7; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 10) AHRI and Lennox recommended that modeling should instead be conducted using R– 454C and/or R–455A since California and Washington state regulations prohibit the use of a refrigerant with a GWP greater than 150 for systems with more than 50 lbs. of refrigerant charge. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 10; Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 6–7) Hussmann and NRAC commented that there may be some states with stricter regulations than the EPA that may not allow refrigerants above 150 GWP. (Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 10; NRAC, No. 73 at p. 2) 
DOE acknowledges that certain 
localities already require, or may require in the future, WICF refrigeration systems to be designed for use with sub- 150 GWP refrigerants.
14Based on 
analysis of low-GWP refrigerant performance in walk-in refrigeration systems conducted for the September 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118563 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
15The September 2023 NOPR refrigeration 
systems engineering sheet can be found at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD- 0009-0052. 2023 NOPR, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the highest performing sub-150 GWP refrigerant appropriate for use in split-system walk-in refrigeration systems is R–454C. See section 5.6.3.1 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. To assess the potential impact of state level sub-150 GWP requirements, DOE reviewed the EERs of R–454C compressors with capacities representative of walk-in refrigeration systems and compared these EERs to those of the baseline compressors analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE determined the R–454C EERs at operating conditions representative for the A test conditions prescribed in the DOE test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems, adjusting the condensing dewpoint up 2 °F to account for the higher refrigerant temperature glide of R–454C as compared to R–448A or R–454A. 
DOE found that trends in the R–454C 
compressor efficiencies generally aligned with the compressor EERs used in the September 2023 NOPR analysis, except for the DC.M.O.025 and DC.M.I.025 representative units. At this 25 kBtu/h capacity DOE found that the available R–454C compressor had an EER that is 4 percent less than that of the compressor analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR. Based on this, DOE determined that using the R–454C compressor analyzed could result in an AWEF2 that is 2 percent lower for 25 kBtu/h medium-temperature dedicated condensing units than a comparable unit using an R–454A-compatible compressor. As such, and in the absence of more efficient compressors of the same type compatible with R–454C, DOE has tentatively determined that to achieve the standard proposed in the September 2023 NOPR (based on the performance of R–448A), a medium- temperature walk-in refrigeration system using a sub-150 GWP refrigerant may need to incorporate additional design options beyond what DOE presumed in the September 2023 NOPR. To determine the cost of these additional design options DOE constructed the cost curves corresponding to use of the R–454C compressor (with roughly 2-percent reduction of AWEF2 for each evaluated design) and calculated additional cost to attain the proposed AWEF2 by interpolating along the cost-efficiency curves. Based on this analysis DOE has tentatively determined that additional MSP required to achieve the proposed AWEF2 for less-than-150 GWP refrigerant would be $381 for 25 kBtu/ h medium temperature indoor dedicated condensing units and $96 for 25 kBtu/ h medium temperature outdoor dedicated condensing units. 
DOE requests comment on the 
estimated additional MPC associated with 25 kBtu/h medium temperature indoor and outdoor dedicated condensing units achieving the proposed AWEF2 standard levels while operating with a refrigerant with less than 150 GWP. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C account for the cost adder presented in this section, as described in section II.C.1.a of this document. 
d. Miscellaneous Updates to the 
Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet 
In response to the September 2023 
NOPR, stakeholders commented that there were several issues with calculations in the refrigeration systems engineering spreadsheet.
15AHRI and 
Hussmann suggested several corrections to the engineering spreadsheet. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 17–19; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 7–9) DOE also identified several issues not prompted by comments. DOE discusses the corrections that it made in this NODA in the following paragraphs. To the extent that stakeholders made comments on the engineering spreadsheet and DOE has determined that updates to the spreadsheet are not necessary, DOE will address those comments in a subsequent rulemaking. 
AHRI and Hussmann commented that 
row 77 for the condenser and row 86 for the evaporator on the ‘Calculation’ tab were calculating pressures at the incorrect point of the refrigeration cycle, claiming that all subsequent calculations use the wrong pressures. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 17–18; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 7–8) DOE notes that the calculations in question are used only for determination of refrigerant glide to adjust from midpoint to dewpoint. The errors in these adjustments result in roughly 0.1 °F difference in calculated dew point temperature for the condenser. They result in zero difference in evaporator dew point temperature for dedicated condensing unit calculations (for which evaporator dew point temperature is prescribed by the test procedure) and roughly 0.03 °F difference for single-packaged dedicated systems calculations. These differences make no significant impact on overall results. Nevertheless, DOE has revised the calculations for this NODA such that the calculation will be based on a quality of 0.5 for the condenser, which is representative of the condenser 
midpoint, and a quality for the evaporator somewhat greater than 0.5 to account for the fact that evaporator refrigerant inlet quality is non-zero. 
AHRI and Hussmann commented that 
in rows 165 and 233 of the ‘Calculations’ tab, which contain the condenser half glide calculation for B and C conditions, the formula is using a temperature input rather than a pressure input to calculate a temperature output. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 18–19; Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 9). This calculation results in overestimation of the dew point by roughly 0.5 °F, and a corresponding slight overestimation of compressor energy use. DOE has revised this calculation for this NODA. 
In the September 2023 NOPR, the cost 
of additional spark-proofing electronic components was not properly accounted for due to an incorrect formula. In the updated refrigeration system engineering analysis spreadsheet, DOE updated the compressor cost calculation (which feeds into the MPC) to include the additional costs for spark-proofing electronic components for single- packaged dedicated systems that use propane as the refrigerant. As a result of this change in MPC associated with propane-compatible compressors, DOE reordered the design options of the SP.M.O.002 and SP.M.I.002 representative units such that the design options are ordered from most cost- effective AWEF2 improvements to the least cost-effective AWEF2 improvements, where cost-effectiveness is based on the ratio of AWEF2 increase to MPC increase. 
In the September 2023 NOPR, all the 
high-temperature, 2 kBtu/h and 7 kBtu/ h, outdoor single-packaged dedicated system representative units implemented the variable-speed condenser fan design option before the electronically commutated motor design option was implemented. However, an electronically commutated motor is a 
prerequisite for the variable-speed condenser fan design option. In the updated refrigeration system engineering spreadsheet, DOE reordered the variable-speed condenser fan and electronically commutated motor design options for these representative units. DOE notes that reordering these design options did not impact the results of the proposed efficiency level as both design options were included in the efficiency level corresponding to the proposed standard level. 
Additionally, DOE updated the 
calculation of the enthalpy exiting the unit cooler that is used in the calculation of the gross capacity for 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
16The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be 
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE- 
2017-BT-STD-0009-0064. 
17DOE notes that it also received comments 
indicating that the conversion costs for refrigeration systems should be incorporated as an amortized consideration in the MSP. DOE will consider and address these stakeholder comments in a subsequent rulemaking. dedicated condensing units to be 
consistent with the DOE test procedure. See section C7.5.2 of American National Standards Institute/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1250 (I–P), ‘‘2020 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers’’. The calculation for the enthalpy exiting the unit cooler for single-packaged dedicated systems was consistent with the DOE test procedure for the NOPR analysis and therefore, DOE did not update it for single- packaged dedicated systems for this NODA. 
Overall, the updates made to the 
engineering analysis spreadsheet resulted in a minimal change to the cost-efficiency curves for each representative unit. Comparing efficiency levels with the same design option combinations for each representative unit between the September 2023 NOPR and this NODA, the AWEF2s generally increased or decreased between 1- and 3-percent as a result of the changes discussed previously. Similarly, in this NODA, design option order generally remained as it was in the NOPR, and manufacturer production costs did not change from the NOPR for many representative units. However, in some cases, changes in representative unit performance at the baseline required re- baselining to meet the current energy conservation standards. This re- baselining resulted in slightly different combinations of design options at the baseline efficiency level for the following representative units, which also resulted in either more or fewer design options above baseline depending on whether the baseline efficiency level needed fewer or more design options at the baseline to meet the current AWEF standards: DC.M.O.009, DC.M.I.025, DC.L.O.075, and SP.L.I.006. Additionally, some of the changes to the engineering spreadsheet impacted cost model inputs (e.g., fan motor horsepower impacts the 
cost of a fan motor); therefore, there are slight changes to the manufacturer production costs associated with some representative units’ efficiency levels even if the design option order has not changed from the September 2023 NOPR analysis. This was the case for the following representative units: DC.M.O.009, DC.M.O.025, DC.M.O.054, DC.M.O.075, DC.M.O.124, DC.M.I.009, DC.M.I.025, DC.M.I.054, DC.M.I.075, DC.L.O.003, DC.L.O.009, DC.L.O.025, DC.L.O.054, DC.L.I.003, DC.L.I.009, DC.L.I.025, DC.L.I.054, SP.L.O.002, and 
SP.L.I.002. 
See section 3 of the NODA support 
document for updated cost-efficiency results. The analytical results (i.e., LCC, 
PBP, and NIA) presented in section II.C 
of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
3. Unit Coolers 
a. Cost Assumptions at Max-Tech 
Efficiency Levels 
In the September 2023 NOPR, using 
the Unit Cooler Performance Database
16 
DOE developed linear cost-efficiency correlations for each representative unit, which DOE used to determine the MPC increase from the baseline efficiency level to the higher efficiency levels for unit coolers. See section 5.8.6 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. When building the Unit Cooler Performance Database, DOE did not consider that adding additional rows to the unit cooler heat exchanger would require an increase in cabinet size when determining the MPCs associated with each efficiency level. DOE based this assumption on manufacturers’ unit cooler product catalogs, which included unit cooler case dimensions. 
In response, Lennox stated that 
increasing 4-row unit cooler designs to 5- or 6-row designs is not cost-effective because adding coil rows has diminishing returns on improved efficiency and would result in increased 
coil face area and increased cabinet size. (Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4) AHRI, Hussmann, and Lennox commented that current unit cooler coil and cabinet designs are optimized around 4-row designs and increasing efficiency would be more costly than what DOE estimated when considering packaging, freight, materials, and scrap. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 3–4, 9; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2, 12; Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4)
17 
During the development of the 
September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE identified several manufacturers producing unit coolers with heat exchangers 5 or more rows deep. However, DOE acknowledges the concerns of AHRI, Lennox, and Hussmann that some manufacturers may not be currently producing unit coolers with heat exchangers 5 rows deep. As such, these manufacturers may need to expand the cabinet size of their 4-row unit coolers to accommodate larger heat exchangers (i.e., evaporator 
coils with at least 5 rows). In response to this feedback, DOE updated its analysis for this NODA and assumed 
that the unit cooler case would have to be expanded to accommodate an additional row at the maximum technology (‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency level for every unit cooler representative unit. 
DOE estimated the additional MPC 
using the same cost modeling processes described in section 5.4 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. The additional MPC includes additional material, scrap, and packaging associated with the cabinet size increase. DOE developed this additional MPC for expanding unit cooler case size for several representative units. The average cost adder associated with the cabinet size increase was $11 for the representative capacities DOE analyzed. Updated unit cooler cost efficiency curves can be found in section 3 of the NODA support document. 
DOE has tentatively determined that 
the increase in shipping cost would not 
significantly affect the analysis and therefore, did not include this in the revised analysis in this NODA. 
The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) for unit coolers presented in section II.C of this document account for the updates discussed in this section. 
b. Unit Cooler Fan Power 
As discussed in section 5.5.4.2 of the 
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE used 
unit cooler fan powers from manufacturer product catalogs to construct the Unit Cooler Performance Database. In general, DOE found that the fan powers reported in product catalogs were constant across unit cooler models that only appeared to differ in the number of rows in their heat exchangers. Further, fan motor powers per fan were the same across families of unit coolers having the same general geometry and fan diameter, where the unit coolers differed only by overall unit cooler length (and number of fans) and number of tube rows in the evaporator. As such, DOE assumed for the NOPR analysis that unit cooler fan power would not change when additional heat exchanger rows were added. 
Lennox stated that adding additional 
rows would have diminishing performance returns for several reasons including that higher fan power is needed to maintain airflow when additional coil depth is added due to the additional pressure drop imposed by the added tube rows. (Lennox, No. 70 at p. 4) 
Increasing heat exchanger size by 
adding a row could increase the internal static pressure (‘‘ISP’’) that the unit cooler fan would need to overcome and would therefore require more fan power to maintain the same airflow at a higher 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118565 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
18CoilDesigner is a heat exchanger coil 
simulation tool. CoilDesigner Version 4.8.20221.110 
was used for this analysis. 
19The Unit Cooler Performance Database can be 
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE- 2017-BT-STD-0009-0064. ISP. DOE notes that when unit cooler 
airflow is reported in product catalogs for models that only appear to differ in number of heat exchanger rows, the airflow generally decreases when an additional heat exchanger row is added, but (as previously noted) the fan power listed stays constant. To quantify the potential increase in fan power, DOE estimated the increase in ISP associated with adding additional heat exchanger rows using CoilDesigner.
18For the 
CoilDesigner model, DOE assumed heat exchanger and fan characteristics based on physical and catalog teardowns of unit coolers and unit cooler airflow based on manufacturer product catalogs. DOE estimated a percentage fan power increase using representative fan performance curves, the reported air flow, and unit cooler system pressure drop before and after adding the coil row, accounting for the additional ISP estimated using CoilDesigner. Based on this analysis, DOE has tentatively determined that increasing the number of heat exchanger rows from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 would result in roughly a 6- percent increase in unit cooler fan power, and increasing heat exchanger rows from 4 to 5 would result in roughly a 4-percent unit cooler fan power increase. 
Although the fan power reported in 
product catalogs does not appear to change, as the number of heat exchanger rows changes, it is likely, as indicated by the analysis described above, that the fan power is different for these models. To evaluate the potential impact of this variation on potential ranges of AWEF2, DOE evaluated multiple scenarios regarding fan power increase with the Unit Cooler Performance Database medium-temperature unit coolers. For medium-temperature unit coolers, AWEF2 depends only on the fan power and capacity, and questions about potential variation in the defrost energy (a factor for low-temperature unit coolers), would not apply. The initial construction of the Unit Cooler Performance Database, posted to the rulemaking docket, was based on using the literature fan power as reported (i.e., DOE did not consider any changes to fan power based on number of rows).
19 
DOE further evaluated two alternative approaches: (a) that the reported fan power applies for unit coolers with the least number of tube rows and therefore, the actual fan power increases above the levels reported in the literature with additional tube rows; and (b) that the reported fan power applies for the unit coolers with the greatest number of tube rows and therefore, the actual fan power decreases below the levels reported in the literature with fewer tube rows. For each scenario, DOE adjusted the unit cooler fan powers based on the ISP difference determined by DOE’s Coil Designer analysis. In all cases, the calculated AWEF2 values include many that are lower than the current baseline level. However, the number of AWEF2 values that are lower than the current baseline level is significantly lower for approach (b) described previously. The highest AWEF2 values are roughly the same at 10.0 for the NOPR scenario (no fan power differences within a family of unit coolers) and scenario (b), and are lower (close to 9.7) for scenario (a). Given that the unit coolers evaluated are all certified as compliant with DOE standards, and the likelihood that the reported motor power would apply for the highest-power (motor design) operating point, DOE concludes that scenario (b) is the most likely. DOE notes that for all three of the scenarios, the Unit Cooler Performance Database has AWEF2 values that are higher than the max-tech AWEF2 values calculated for the representative capacities. Thus, DOE concludes that the max-tech efficiency levels considered in the NOPR were not overestimated due to the potential increase in fan power as additional tube rows are added within the range considered. Therefore, DOE did not adjust the unit cooler AWEF2 values proposed in the September 2023 NOPR based on the potential for additional unit cooler rows to impose additional ISP that could require increased fan power. The results of the three scenarios are shown in Figure 5.1 through Figure 5.3 of the NODA support document that has been posted to the docket. 
c. Miscellaneous Updates to the Unit 
Cooler Analysis 
After the September 2023 NOPR was 
published, DOE identified an issue in the calculation of baseline net capacities for high-temperature unit coolers in its engineering analysis. DOE corrected this issue for this NODA and as a result baseline AWEF2 values are slightly less than the AWEF2 values shown in the NOPR. Additionally, since the AWEF2 values at efficiency levels above baseline are dependent on the baseline AWEF2 values for the high-temperature 
unit cooler analysis, the AWEF2 values at higher efficiency levels are less than those AWEF2 values shown in the NOPR. On average, the calculated efficiencies of all high-temperature unit cooler efficiency levels have decreased 
by 2-percent from the NOPR values. 
In addition, DOE found an issue in 
the calculation of the max-tech MPC of the UC.L.009 representative unit, which resulted in a higher MPC. For this NODA analysis, DOE addressed this calculation issue, which results in an MPC that is 4-percent lower than the MPC presented in the September 2023 
NOPR. When accounting for this change and the MPC change associated with the cabinet size increase cost adder discussed in section II.A.3.a, the MPC determined for this NODA is 2-percent less than the MPC presented in the NOPR for this representative unit. 
See section 3 of the NODA support 
document that has been posted to the docket for the updated cost-efficiency curves that includes these corrections. The analytical results (i.e., LCC, PBP, 
and NIA) presented in section II.C of this document account for these corrections. 
B. Trial Standard Levels 
DOE analyzed the benefits and 
burdens of three trial standard levels 
(‘‘TSLs’’) for the considered walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746, 60785–60786. 
DOE notes that the TSLs presented in 
this NODA are tentative and for evaluating the analytical changes considered in the context of this NODA and DOE may revise the number of, or structure of, these TSLs in response to comments in future analysis. DOE further notes that the TSLs presented in this NODA are within or close to the range of values presented in the September 2023 NOPR. 
1. Refrigeration Systems 
For this NODA, DOE is presenting 
three TSLs to demonstrate the changes 
discussed in sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of this document that pertain to refrigeration systems. The efficiency levels that correspond to these TSLs for these equipment classes are shown in Table II.5 through Table II.7. 
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the 
efficiency levels that use the combination of design options for each representative unit at the maximum technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) level. For this NODA, DOE notes a correction here where in the NOPR, the design option representing max-tech for the DC.M.O.054 representative unit was mapped to EL 7—when in fact it should have been EL 8. With the added efficiency level in this NODA, the max- tech efficiency level for the DC.M.O.054 representative unit is now EL 9 as shown in Table II.5. TSL 1 represents 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
the efficiency levels in this NODA that 
yield AWEF2 values closest to those AWEF2 values that align with TSL 2 in the September 2023 NOPR, which is the TSL that DOE proposed to adopt. TSL 2 in this NODA is an intermediate TSL that is higher than TSL 1 but below the 
max-tech level. 
TABLE II.5—R EFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNITMAPPING FOR TSL 3 
Capacity (kBtu/hr) 
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124 
Dedicated Condensing Units 
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ...................................................................................... .......... 2 .......... .......... 1 3 2 .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) ................................................................................. .......... 3 . ......... .......... 5 8 5 4 ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ............................................................................... .......... ... ....... .......... .......... 1 3 4 3 ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) .......................................................................... .......... ....... ... .......... .......... 8 8 9 8 9 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems 
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) ..................................................................... 2 .......... .... ...... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................ 6 .......... ........ .. 6 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) ..................................................................................... 2 ....... ... .......... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................ 6 .......... . ......... 6 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ...................................................................................... 7 ....... ... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) .................................................................................. 4 .......... 4 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ............................................................................... 5 .......... . ......... .......... 3 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) .......................................................................... 9 .......... ..... ..... .......... 5 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Unit Coolers 
High Temperature (UC.H) ................................................................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1 1 .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) ................................................................................. .......... .. ........ .......... .......... 1 1 .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature (UC.L) .................................................................................................... .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
Medium Temperature (UC.M) ............................................................................................. .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
TABLE II.6—R EFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNITMAPPING FOR TSL 2 
Capacity (kBtu/hr) 
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124 
Dedicated Condensing Units 
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ...................................................................................... .......... 1 .......... .......... 0 2 1 .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) ................................................................................. .......... 2 . ......... .......... 4 7 4 3 ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ............................................................................... .......... ... ....... .......... .......... 0 2 3 2 ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) .......................................................................... .......... ....... ... .......... .......... 3 3 4 3 4 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems 
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) ..................................................................... 2 .......... .... ...... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................ 6 .......... ........ .. 6 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) ..................................................................................... 2 ....... ... .......... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................ 5 .......... . ......... 5 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ...................................................................................... 4 ....... ... 1 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) .................................................................................. 2 .......... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ............................................................................... 3 .......... . ......... .......... 1 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) .......................................................................... 8 .......... ..... ..... .......... 3 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Unit Coolers 
High Temperature (UC.H) ................................................................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) ................................................................................. .......... .. ........ .......... .......... 1 1 .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature (UC.L) .................................................................................................... .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
Medium Temperature (UC.M) ............................................................................................. .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
TABLE II.7—R EFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNITMAPPING FOR TSL 1 
Capacity (kBtu/hr) 
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124 
Dedicated Condensing Units 
Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) ...................................................................................... .......... 1 .......... .......... 0 2 1 .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) ................................................................................. .......... 2 . ......... .......... 4 7 4 2 ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) ............................................................................... .......... ... ....... .......... .......... 0 2 2 2 ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) .......................................................................... .......... ....... ... .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 2 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems 
High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) ..................................................................... 2 .......... .... ...... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) ................................................................ 5 .......... ........ .. 6 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) ..................................................................................... 1 ....... ... .......... 2 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I I I 18567 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.7—R EFRIGERATION SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE UNITMAPPING FOR TSL 1—Continued 
Capacity (kBtu/hr) 
2 3 6 7 9 25 54 75 124 
High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) ................................................................................ 5 .......... . ......... 5 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) ...................................................................................... 4 ....... ... 1 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) .................................................................................. 0 .......... 1 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) ............................................................................... 3 .......... . ......... .......... 1 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) .......................................................................... 8 .......... ..... ..... .......... 3 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Unit Coolers 
High Temperature (UC.H) ................................................................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 0 0 .......... .......... ..........
High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) ................................................................................. .......... .. ........ .......... .......... 1 1 .......... .......... ..........
Low Temperature (UC.L) .................................................................................................... .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
Medium Temperature (UC.M) ............................................................................................. .......... 2 .......... .......... 2 2 2 2 ..........
2. Non-Display Doors 
For this NODA, DOE is presenting 
three TSLs to demonstrate the changes 
discussed in section II.A.1 of this document that pertain to non-display doors. The efficiency levels that correspond to these TSLs for these 
equipment classes are shown table II.8. 
TSL 3 in this NODA includes the 
efficiency levels that use the combination of design options for each representative unit at the max-tech level. TSL 1 and TSL 2 are intermediate TSLs between baseline and TSL 3. The 
efficiency levels for each TSL are based on the updated engineering analysis for non-display doors, as discussed in section II.A.1 of this document and as shown in the NODA support document. 
TABLE II.8—N ON-DISPLAY DOORS EFFICIENCY LEVEL TO TSL M APPING  
Equipment class Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
Non-display Doors, Manual 
Low Temperature (NM.L) ......................................................................................................... ... 1 3 5 
Medium Temperature (NM.M) ..................................................................................................... 1 3 6 
Non-display Doors, Motorized 
Low Temperature (NO.L) ......................................................................................................... .... 1 3 5 
Medium Temperature (NO.M) ..................................................................................................... 1 3 6 
C. Analytical Results 
To quantify the impacts to consumers 
and the Nation from the additional 
analysis of the technologies described in section II.A of this document, DOE ran its life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis and national impacts analysis (‘‘NIA’’) with the same inputs as it used in the September 2023 NOPR, with the exception of the 
changes described in sections II.A and II.B of this document. DOE also considered the potential impacts of the updated analysis discussed in this NODA on the manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’). As discussed in chapter 12 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE relies on several sources, including the engineering analysis and the shipments analysis, to obtain inputs to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards on the walk-in cooler and freezer industry. Changes to MSPs and shipments would affect industry revenue, and, therefore, the MIA results. However, considered in isolation, DOE does not expect that the changes to the engineering analysis or shipments distribution detailed in this NODA would substantively alter the industry financial results (represented by change in industry net present value) presented in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE will assess and incorporate the most up-to- date data in any subsequent MIA conducted for this rulemaking. 
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 
Analysis 
DOE analyzed the economic impacts 
on walk-in coolers and freezers consumers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. The detailed description of how DOE calculates its LCC impacts can be found in chapter 8 and associated appendices of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. 
In general, higher-efficiency 
equipment affect consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and operating costs (i.e., annual energy 
use, energy prices, energy price trends, 
repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount rate. For this NODA, DOE maintained the same 
methods and modeling assumptions discussed in chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD with the exception of the revised engineering analysis discussed in section II.A of this document and TSL composition discussed in section II.B of this document. 
a. Application of the Low-GWP 
Refrigerant Transition to Specific Regions 
As discussed in section II.A.2.c of this 
document, the states of California and Washington require the use of sub-150– GWP refrigerants. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE conducted its LCC analysis at the geographic level of Census regions, where the region containing the states of California and Washington is the Western Region 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I I I I I I I I 18568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
20See: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps- 
data/maps/reference/us_ regdiv.pdf. 21See: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time- 
series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html. (Region 4).20To approximate any 
additional costs associated with moving 
to low-GWP refrigerants to consumers in California and Washington DOE applied the cost of the additional design options determined in section II.A.2.c of this document to the fraction of consumers in Western Census Region based on population.
21Theses weights and 
design option cost are shown in table 
II.9. 
TABLE II.9—L OW-GWP R EFRIGERANT COSTADDERS  
EC Capacity 
(kBtu/hr) Census region Cost adder 
($) Weight 
DC.M.I .............................................................................................................. 3 4 0 0.59 
3 4 0 0.41 
9 4 0 0.59 
9 4 0 0.41 
25 4 381.20 0.59 
25 4 0 0.41 
54 4 0 0.59 
54 4 0 0.41 
75 4 0 0.59 
75 4 0 0.41 
DC.M.O ............................................................................................................ 3 4 0 0.59 
3 4 0 0.41 
9 4 0 0.59 
9 4 0 0.41 
25 4 95.94 0.59 
25 4 0 0.41 
54 4 0 0.59 
54 4 0 0.41 
75 4 0 0.59 
75 4 0 0.41 
124 4 0 0.59 
124 4 0 0.41 
DOE seeks comment on its approach 
to applying the transition to low-GWP 
refrigerant to specific regions. 
b. Results for Refrigeration Systems 
Table II.10 through table II.14 show 
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs for 
each category of refrigeration system equipment impacted in this NODA. In the first of each pair of tables by equipment category (dedicated refrigeration systems, single-packaged dedicated refrigeration systems, etc.), the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline equipment. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no- new-standards case in the compliance year. The savings refer only to 
consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase equipment with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost. 
TABLE II.10—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS 
TSL Average costs (2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) 
0 .......................................... 7,643 .................................. 2,486 22,151 29,793 0.0 10.6 
1 .......................................... 7,771 .................................. 2,435 21,844 29,615 3.2 10.6 
2 .......................................... 7,771 .................................. 2,435 21,844 29,615 3.2 10.6 
3 .......................................... 10,891 ................................ 2,331 22,956 33,847 inf 10.6 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) 
0 .......................................... 26,579 ................................ 3,790 39,853 66,432 0.0 10.5 
1 .......................................... 26,799 ................................ 3,731 39,540 66,339 5.3 10.5 
2 .......................................... 26,885 ................................ 3,724 39,546 66,430 7.5 10.5 
3 .......................................... 38,360 ................................ 3,321 43,510 81,870 inf 10.5 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) 
0 .......................................... 3,783 .................................. 1,164 10,379 14,162 0.0 10.5 
1 .......................................... 3,882 .................................. 1,123 10,126 14,008 3.0 10.5 
2 .......................................... 3,921 .................................. 1,111 10,058 13,979 3.3 10.5 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118569 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.10—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS—Continued 
TSL Average costs (2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
3 .......................................... 5,107 .................................. 1,037 10,214 15,320 64.4 10.5 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) 
0 .......................................... 5,757 .................................. 1,661 15,136 20,892 0.0 10.6 
1 .......................................... 5,761 .................................. 1,648 15,041 20,802 0.4 10.6 
2 .......................................... 5,884 .................................. 1,607 14,799 20,683 2.9 10.6 
3 .......................................... 8,470 .................................. 1,297 14,004 22,474 18.7 10.6 
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured rel-
ative to the baseline equipment. 
TABLE II.11—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS 
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Indoor (DC.L.I) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 7 276 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 7 276 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥4,054 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Low Temperature, Outdoor (DC.L.O) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 28 93 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 47 2 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥15,438 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Indoor (DC.M.I) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 594 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 2 709 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 97 ¥1,159 
Dedicated Condensing Units, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (DC.M.O) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 90 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 209 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 95 ¥1,582 
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
TABLE II.12—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR SINGLE -PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS  
TSL Average costs (2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) 
0 ................................................................................................ 2,051 436 3,977 6,027 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 2,145 370 3,586 5,731 1.7 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) 
0 ................................................................................................ 2,820 590 5,401 8,221 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 3,119 476 4,811 7,930 3.5 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 3,146 474 4,819 7,965 3.8 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 3,146 474 4,819 7,965 3.8 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) 
0 ................................................................................................ 1,978 255 2,709 4,688 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 2,006 230 2,557 4,563 1.3 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 2,035 226 2,550 4,585 2.5 10.5 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I I 18570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.12—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR SINGLE -PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS —Continued 
TSL Average costs (2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
3 ................................................................................................ 2,035 226 2,550 4,585 2.5 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) 
0 ................................................................................................ 2,857 357 3,829 6,686 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 2,948 319 3,629 6,577 3.1 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 2,948 319 3,629 6,577 3.1 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 1,764 62 2,033 3,797 inf 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) 
0 ................................................................................................ 3,755 732 6,963 10,718 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 3,947 665 6,621 10,568 3.9 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) 
0 ................................................................................................ 4,951 967 9,202 14,153 0.0 10.6 
1 ................................................................................................ 4,952 955 9,121 14,074 0.2 10.6 
2 ................................................................................................ 4,974 951 9,095 14,068 1.5 10.6 
3 ................................................................................................ 6,129 920 9,641 15,771 inf 10.6 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) 
0 ................................................................................................ 4,002 713 6,958 10,959 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 4,177 674 6,800 10,977 7.8 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 4,177 674 6,800 10,977 7.8 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 5,042 666 7,307 12,349 inf 10.5 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) 
0 ................................................................................................ 4,795 667 7,023 11,818 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 4,857 636 6,846 11,703 2.5 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 4,857 636 6,846 11,703 2.5 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 5,806 632 7,436 13,242 inf 10.5 
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 
equipment. 
TABLE II.13—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SINGLE -PACKAGED DEDICATED  
SYSTEMS  
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Indoor (SP.H.ID) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 296 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 296 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 296 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Ducted, Outdoor (SP.H.OD) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 5 291 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 16 256 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 16 256 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Indoor (SP.H.I) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 2 124 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 103 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 103 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, High Temperature, Outdoor (SP.H.O) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 108 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 108 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 ¥55 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Indoor (SP.L.I) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 8 150 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I 
I I I I 
I I 
I I 
I I 18571 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.13—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SINGLE -PACKAGED DEDICATED  
SYSTEMS —Continued 
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 8 150 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 8 150 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Low Temperature, Outdoor (SP.L.O) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 105 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 20 85 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥1,618 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Indoor (SP.M.I) 
1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 ¥17 
2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 ¥17 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥1,390 
Single-packaged Dedicated Systems, Medium Temperature, Outdoor (SP.M.O) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 6 114 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 6 114 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥1,425 
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
TABLE II.14—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR UNITCOOLERS  
TSL Average costs (2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H) 
0 ................................................................................................ 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 3,083 479 4,595 7,678 0.0 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 3,223 474 4,642 7,865 inf 10.5 
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) 
0 ................................................................................................ 3,161 681 6,111 9,271 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 3,212 642 5,859 9,071 1.5 10.5 
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L) 
0 ................................................................................................ 2,658 4,413 34,322 36,980 0.0 10.5 
1 ................................................................................................ 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5 
2 ................................................................................................ 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5 
3 ................................................................................................ 2,918 4,186 32,772 35,690 1.3 10.5 
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M) 
0 ................................................................................................ 2,468 1,675 13,649 16,118 0.0 10.6 
1 ................................................................................................ 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6 
2 ................................................................................................ 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6 
3 ................................................................................................ 2,569 1,631 13,373 15,942 2.7 10.6 
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 
equipment. 
TABLE II.15—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR UNITCOOLERS  
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
Unit Coolers, High Temperature (UC.H) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. n/a n/a 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. n/a n/a 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I I 18572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.15—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR UNITCOOLERS —Continued 
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 ¥187 
Unit Coolers, High Temperature, Ducted (UC.H.ID) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 201 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 201 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 201 
Unit Coolers, Low Temperature (UC.L) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 10 1,290 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 10 1,290 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 10 1,290 
Unit Coolers, Medium Temperature (UC.M) 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 23 176 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 23 176 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 23 176 
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
c. Results for Non-Display Doors 
Table II.16 through table II.19 show 
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs for 
each non-display doors equipment class 
impacted in this NODA. In the first of each pair of tables by equipment class (manual non-display doors, motorized non-display doors), the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline equipment. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards 
case in the compliance year. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase equipment with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost. 
As discussed in the September 2023 
NOPR, to estimate the impacts of 
improved efficiency on walk-in envelope components (e.g., panels, 
doors), DOE must first establish the 
efficiencies and energy use of the connected refrigeration equipment. 88 FR 60746, 60786. For the purposes of this NODA, DOE has presented the results for non-display doors based on both the baseline and max-tech refrigeration system to show the range of potential impacts associated with each analyzed TSL. 
TABLE II.16—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS  
TSL Average costs 
(2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 2,663 315 2,079 4,742 0.0 8.7 
1 ............................................................... 2,754 237 1,566 4,319 1.2 8.7 
2 ............................................................... 2,854 161 1,068 3,922 1.3 8.7 
3 ............................................................... 3,136 147 975 4,111 2.8 8.7 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 2,574 347 2,289 4,863 0.0 8.7 
1 ............................................................... 2,705 240 1,582 4,288 1.2 8.7 
2 ............................................................... 2,833 159 1,050 3,883 1.4 8.7 
3 ............................................................... 3,136 145 961 4,097 2.8 8.7 
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 2,766 77 505 3,271 0.0 8.8 
1 ............................................................... 2,827 51 337 3,163 2.4 8.8 
2 ............................................................... 2,900 35 233 3,132 3.2 8.8 
3 ............................................................... 3,229 32 211 3,439 10.4 8.8 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118573 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.16—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS —Continued 
TSL Average costs 
(2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 2,605 108 714 3,319 0.0 8.8 
1 ............................................................... 2,736 56 368 3,105 2.5 8.8 
2 ............................................................... 2,850 37 246 3,095 3.4 8.8 
3 ............................................................... 3,229 34 226 3,454 8.4 8.8 
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured rel-
ative to the baseline equipment. 
TABLE II.17—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS  
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
Non-display Doors, Manual, Low Temperature (NM.L) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 607 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 1,049 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 5 847 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 575 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 980 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 5 766 
Non-display Doors, Manual, Medium Temperature (NM.M) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 233 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 8 263 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 69 ¥91 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 4 214 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 9 224 
3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 78 ¥135 
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
TABLE II.18—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR MOTORIZED NON-DISPLAY DOORS  
TSL Average costs 
(2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 7,120 495 3,244 10,364 0.0 8.7 
1 ............................................................... 7,240 362 2,376 9,615 0.9 8.7 
2 ............................................................... 7,367 253 1,663 9,029 1.0 8.7 
3 ............................................................... 7,688 223 1,466 9,154 2.1 8.7 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 7,102 480 3,146 10,248 0.0 8.7 
1 ............................................................... 7,233 341 2,237 9,470 0.9 8.7 
2 ............................................................... 7,363 237 1,558 8,921 1.1 8.7 
3 ............................................................... 7,688 210 1,381 9,069 2.2 8.7 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.18—A VERAGE LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS FOR MOTORIZED NON-DISPLAY DOORS —Continued 
TSL Average costs 
(2023$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(yrs) Average 
lifetime 
(yrs) Installed 
cost First year’s 
operation 
cost Lifetime 
operating 
cost LCC 
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 7,333 91 597 7,930 0.0 8.8 
1 ............................................................... 7,377 66 436 7,813 1.8 8.8 
2 ............................................................... 7,435 50 331 7,767 2.5 8.8 
3 ............................................................... 7,704 45 298 8,002 8.1 8.8 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
0 ............................................................... 7,059 151 992 8,051 0.0 8.8 
1 ............................................................... 7,190 81 536 7,727 1.9 8.8 
2 ............................................................... 7,307 56 373 7,679 2.6 8.8 
3 ............................................................... 7,704 50 333 8,037 6.4 8.8 
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured rel-
ative to the baseline equipment. 
TABLE II.19—LCC S AVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASECASEEFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR MANUAL NON-DISPLAY DOORS  
TSL % Consumers with 
net cost Average savings— 
impacted 
consumers 
(2023$) 
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Low Temperature (NO.L) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 819 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 1,417 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 2 1,291 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 778 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 0 1,326 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 2 1,179 
Non-display Doors, Motorized, Medium Temperature (NO.M) 
Connected to a Baseline Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 349 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 3 424 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 42 77 
Connected to a Max Tech Refrigeration System 
1 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 1 324 
2 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 4 372 
3 .............................................................................................................................. ................................. 51 14 
Note: The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 
2. National Impacts Analysis 
This section presents DOE’s estimates 
of the changes in national energy 
savings (‘‘NES’’) and the net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs as potential amended standards for the equipment under consideration in this NODA. For this NODA, DOE maintained the methodologies and modeling assumptions that were used in the 2023 September NOPR. For brevity the NIA results are presented here by equipment category (i.e., refrigeration systems), the 
results for each equipment class can be found in section 6 of the NODA support document. 
The detailed description of how DOE 
calculates its national impacts can be found in chapter 10 and associated appendices of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. a. Non-Display Doors 
As discussed in the September 2023 
NOPR, the energy savings from improved insulation or reduced heat infiltration would be realized as reduced load on the attached refrigeration systems; however, for the purpose of reporting, these energy savings are attributed to the individual door in question. 88 FR 60746, 60788. For this NODA, when determining the NES and NPV of consumer benefits of 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118575 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
22See: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE- 
2017-BT-STD-0009-0046. 23U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 
2003. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ legacy_ drupal_ files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last 
accessed April 26, 2023). each TSL DOE bounds the range of 
potential costs and benefits for non- display doors when they are connected to max-tech refrigeration systems (the low bound), and baseline refrigeration systems (the high bound). These results are shown in table II.21 and table II.23. b. Significance of Energy Savings 
To estimate the energy savings 
attributable to potential amended 
standards for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new- standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. 
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027–2056). Table II.20 and table II.21 present DOE’s projections of the NES for each TSL considered for walk-in refrigeration systems shown in section II.B. The savings were calculated using the approach described in chapter 10 of the 
September 2023 NOPR TSD.
22 
TABLE II.20—C UMULATIVE FULL-FUELCYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WALK-INCOOLERS AND FREEZER  
REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS (QUADS ); 30 Y EARS OF SHIPMENTS  
[2027–2056] 
Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
(quads) 
Primary energy ................................................................................................................. ........... 0.86 1.11 3.51 
FFC energy ..................................................................................................................... ............. 0.89 1.14 3.61 
TABLE II.21—C UMULATIVE FULL-FUELCYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WALK-INCOOLERS AND FREEZERS : NON- 
DISPLAY DOORS (QUADS ); 30 Y EARS OF SHIPMENTS  
[2027–2056] 
Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
(quads) 
Primary energy ............................................................................................................................ 0.27 to 0.28 0.58 to 0.61 0.65 to 0.70 
FFC energy .................................................................................................................................. 0.28 to 0.29 0.59 to 0.63 0.67 to 0.72 
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 
and Benefits 
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 
the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for walk-in 
refrigeration systems. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s guidelines on regulatory analysis,
23DOE calculated NPV using 
both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table II.22 and table II.23 show the consumer NPV results with impacts counted over the lifetime of walk-in coolers and freezers refrigeration systems and non-display doors purchased in 2027–2056. 
TABLE II.22—C UMULATIVE NETPRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR WALK-INCOOLERS AND FREEZERS  
REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS ; 30 Y EARS OF SHIPMENTS  
[2027–2056] 
Discount rate Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
(billion 2023$) 
3 percent .................................................................................................................................. 1.53 1.57 ¥25.45 
7 percent .................................................................................................................................. 0.64 0.62 ¥13.15 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I 
I I 
I I 
I I 
I I 
I I 18576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.23—C UMULATIVE NETPRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR WALK-INCOOLERS AND FREEZERS : NON- 
DISPLAY DOORS ; 30 Y EARS OF SHIPMENTS  
[2027–2056] 
Discount rate Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
(billion 2022$) 
3 percent .................................................................................................................................. 0.78 to 0.83 1.57 to 1.72 ¥0.43 to ¥0.24 
7 percent .................................................................................................................................. 0.35 to 0.37 0.69 to 0.76 ¥0.43 to ¥0.35 
D. Updated Equations for Proposed 
Standards 
1. Energy Consumption Equations for 
Non-Display Doors 
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 
proposed amended energy conservation standards for walk-in non-display doors 
at TSL 2 from the NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60748. Table II.24 presents updated MDEC curves for the affected equipment classes at the same trial standard level proposed in the September 2023 NOPR using the updated analysis presented in this NODA. 
TABLE II.24—C HANGES TO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-INNON-DISPLAY DOORS PROPOSED IN THE  
SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR 
Equipment class TSL 2 NOPR equations for 
MDEC 
(kWh/day) * TSL 2 NODA equations for MDEC 
(kWh/day) * 
Non-Display Door, Manual, Medium Temperature ........... 0.01 × And+ 0.25 ............... 0.01 × And+ 0.25 + 0.33a + 0.25b + 0.07c + 0.24d. 
Non-Display Door, Manual, Low Temperature ................. 0.06 × And+ 1.32 ............... 0.06 × And+ 1.35 + 0.40a + 1.42b + 0.09c + 0.30d + 
0.85e. 
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Medium Temperature ....... 0.01 × And+ 0.39 ............... 0.01 × And+ 0.39 + 0.33a + 0.25b + 0.07c + 0.24d. 
Non-Display Door, Motorized, Low Temperature ............. 0.05 × And+ 1.56 ............... 0.05 × And+ 1.59 + 0.40a + 1.42b + 0.09c + 0.30d + 
0.85e. 
Andrepresents the surface area of the non-display door. 
a = 1 for a door with lighting and = 0 for a door without lighting. 
b = 1 for a door with a heated viewport window and = 0 for a door without a heated viewport window. c = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display without alarms and = 0 for a door without a digital display without alarms.  
d = 1 for a door with a digital temperature display with alarms and = 0 for a door without a digital temperature display with a larms. 
e = 1 for a door with a heated pressure relief vent and = 0 for a door without a heated pressure relief vent. 
2. AWEF2 Equations 
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 
proposed amended energy conservation 
standards for walk-in refrigeration system equipment at TSL 2 from the NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60748. The equations for the proposed amended energy conservation standards for dedicated condensing units and single-packaged dedicated systems generally followed the trends of the TSL 2 levels determined for the analyzed representative capacities. For unit coolers, DOE proposed energy conservation standards that do not vary with capacity. 
AHRI and Hussmann commented on 
the proposed energy conservation standards for unit coolers by providing plots for medium- and low-temperature 
unit coolers showing that DOE proposed AWEF2 standards equations that resulted in AWEF2 values above the AWEF2 values determined for EL 2 (i.e., the max-tech efficiency level) for certain representative capacities. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 4–5; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2– 
3) 
DOE notes that it proposed unit cooler 
standards that do not depend on 
capacity, averaging the proposed TSL 2 efficiency levels of the representative capacities within each unit cooler class. Thus, the proposed standard levels at higher representative capacities were above the max-tech efficiency levels determined for those capacities. DOE analyzed the unit cooler performance database to determine if the proposed standards for medium- and low- temperature were technologically feasible. DOE was able to identify low- temperature unit cooler models above the standard level proposed in the September 2023 NOPR across the full range of capacities analyzed. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the AWEF2 standard proposed in the September 2023 NOPR for low- temperature unit coolers is technologically feasible. DOE was unable to identify medium-temperature unit cooler models at efficiency levels at or above the standard level proposed in the September 2023 NOPR at certain 
capacities. Therefore, DOE has revised the medium-temperature unit cooler 
standard equation proposed in the September 2023 NOPR such that it never exceeds the maximum technology level identified in the unit cooler performance database for given capacity ranges. Revised medium-temperature unit cooler standard equations are presented in section 7 of the NODA support document. 
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 
proposed an AWEF2 standard level for medium-temperature outdoor single- packaged dedicated systems of 7.11 for models with capacities greater than or equal to 9 kBtu/h. 88 FR 60746, 60853. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, the Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE’s proposed AWEF2 standard of 7.11 corresponds to EL 1 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems even though table IV.26 in the September 2023 NOPR maps TSL 2 to EL 3 (Efficiency Advocates, No. 77 at p. 6). DOE acknowledges that table IV.26 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1I I 
I I 18577 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
in the September 2023 NOPR maps TSL 
2 for 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature single-packaged outdoor dedicated systems to EL 3, which has an AWEF2 of 7.5. 88 FR 60746, 60787. Additionally, table 5A.5.21 in appendix 5A in the September 2023 NOPR TSD specifies that EL 3 of the 9 kBtu/h medium-temperature outdoor single- packaged dedicated systems (SP.M.O.009) corresponds to an AWEF2 of 7.5. However, the proposed standard level for medium-temperature outdoor single-packaged dedicated systems was erroneously set based on an AWEF2 of 7.11 for the representative capacity of 9 kBtu/h. DOE has corrected this in table 7.1 of the NODA Support Document. 
Section 7 of the NODA Support 
Document presents updated AWEF2 calculations for refrigeration system equipment classes at the trial standards levels presented in this NODA. 
III. Public Participation 
DOE requests comment on the 
updated efficiency levels, incremental 
MPCs, LCC, PBP, and NIA results for walk-in refrigeration systems presented in the NODA. As noted in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels that are either higher or lower than the proposed 
standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part. 
DOE will accept comments, data, and 
information regarding this NODA no later than the date provided in the 
DATES  
section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this document. 
Submitting comments via 
www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will 
require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. 
However, your contact information 
will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be 
included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. 
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 
as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. 
DOE processes submissions made 
through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. 
Submitting comments via email, hand 
delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. 
Include contact information each time 
you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. 
Comments, data, and other 
information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special 
characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. 
Campaign form letters. Please submit 
campaign form letters by the originating 
organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. 
Confidential Business Information. 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. 
It is DOE’s policy that all comments 
may be included in the public docket, 
without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). 
IV. Approval of the Office of the 
Secretary 
The Secretary of Energy has approved 
publication of this notification of data availability and request for comment. 
Signing Authority 
This document of the Department of 
Energy was signed on March 11, 2024, 
by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS118578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 51 / Thursday, March 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 11, 
2024. 
Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 
Department of Energy. 
[FR Doc. 2024–05462 Filed 3–13–24; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 21 
[Docket No.: FAA–2024–0159; Notice No. 
24–10] 
RIN 2120–AL87 
Disclosure of Safety Critical 
Information; Extension of Comment Period 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM); Extension of comment period. 
SUMMARY : This action extends the 
comment period for the NPRM titled ‘‘Disclosure of Safety Critical Information’’ that was published on January 25, 2024. In that document, the FAA proposed the implementation of certain mandates in the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act of 2020 by requiring applicants for, and holders of, new and amended transport category airplane type certificates to submit, and subsequently continue to disclose, certain safety critical information to the FAA. The FAA also proposed a requirement for all applicants for type certificates, including new, amended, and supplemental type certificates, to submit a proposed certification plan to the FAA. The FAA is extending the comment period closing date, on request, to allow commenters additional time to analyze the proposed rule and prepare a response. 
DATES : The comment period for the 
NPRM published on January 25, 2024, at 89 FR 4841, is extended. Comments should be received on or before May 9, 2024. 
ADDRESSES : Send comments identified 
by docket number FAA–2024–0159 using any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions for sending your comments electronically. 
•Mail: Send comments to Docket 
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 
•Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 
comments to Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
•Fax: Fax comments to Docket 
Operations at 202–493–2251. 
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in 
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 
Docket: Background documents or 
comments received may be read at www.regulations.gov at any time. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Susan McCormick, Systems Standards, Product Policy Management, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 26805 East 68th Ave., Denver, CO 80249–6339; telephone (206) 231–3242; email susan.mccormick@faa.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
A. Comments Invited 
The FAA invites interested persons to 
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time. 
The FAA will file in the docket all 
comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives. 
B. Confidential Business Information 
Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION  
CONTACT section of this document. Any 
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. 
C. Availability of Rulemaking 
Documents 
An electronic copy of rulemaking 
documents may be obtained from the internet by— 
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at www.regulations.gov; 
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 
Policies web page at www.faa.gov/ regulations_ policies/; or 
3. Accessing the Government Printing 
Office’s web page at www.GovInfo.com. 
Copies may also be obtained by 
sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking. 
All documents the FAA considered in 
developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above. 
Background 
On January 25, 2024, the FAA 
published a NPRM titled ‘‘Disclosure of 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Mar 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM 14MRP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1