```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21580-21612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8690]

[[Page 21579]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 73

April 15, 2011

Part III

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 21580]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (January 2010 NOPR) to establish new 
test procedures for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (WICF or walk-
ins). On September 9, 2010, DOE issued a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (September 2010 SNOPR) to propose changes to the 
test procedures that it proposed in the NOPR. Those proposed 
rulemakings serve as the basis for today's action. DOE is issuing a 
final rule that establishes new test procedures for measuring the 
energy efficiency of certain walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
components including panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. These 
test procedures will be mandatory for product testing to demonstrate 
compliance with energy standards that DOE is establishing in a 
separate, but concurrent rulemaking, and for representations starting 
180 days after publication. This final rule incorporates by reference 
industry test procedures that, along with calculations established in 
the rule, can be used to measure the energy consumption or performance 
characteristics of certain components of walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers. Additionally, the final rule clarifies the definitions of 
``Display door,'' ``Display panel,'' ``Door,'' ``Envelope,'' ``K-
factor,'' ``Panel,'' ``Refrigerated,'' ``Refrigeration system,'' ``U-
factor,'' ``Automatic door opener/closer,'' ``Core region,'' ``Edge 
region,'' ``Surface area,'' ``Rating condition,'' and ``Percent time 
off'' as applicable to walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 16, 2011. The final rule 
changes will be mandatory for product testing starting October 12, 
2011.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on May 
16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The public may review copies of all materials related to 
this rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the 
Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 
Washington, DC (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please contact Ms. Brenda 
Edwards at the above telephone number, or by e-mail at Brenda_Edwards@ee.doe.gov, for additional information regarding visiting the 
Resource Room.
    Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/wicf.html. This web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-2192. E-mail: Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov or Ms. 
Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into subpart R of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 431 (10 
CFR part 431), the following industry standards:
    (1) AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers,'' approved 2009.
    (2) ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance 
of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 
Apparatus,'' approved May 1, 2005.
    (3) DIN EN 13164:2009-02, ``Thermal insulation products for 
buildings--Factory made products of extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--
Specification,'' approved February 2009.
    (4) DIN EN 13165:2009-02, ``Thermal insulation products for 
buildings--Factory made rigid polyurethane foam (PUR) products--
Specification,'' approved February 2009.
    (5) NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product U-factors,'' approved 2010.
    Copies of ASTM standards can be obtained from ASTM International, 
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-
9585, or http://www.astm.org.
    Copies of AHRI standards can be obtained from AHRI. Air-
Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 
Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 600-0366, or http://www.ahrinet.org.
    Copies of DIN EN standards can be obtained from CEN. European 
Committee for Standardization (French: Norme or German: Norm), Avenue 
Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: + 32 2 550 08 11, Fax: + 32 2 
550 08 19 or http://www.cen.eu.
    Copies of NFRC standards can be obtained from NFRC. National 
Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 
20770, (301) 589-1776, or http://www.nfrc.org.
    You can also view copies of these standards at the U.S. Department 
of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Overall Approach: Component-Based Testing
    1. Test Metrics
    2. Responsibility for Testing and Compliance
    3. Basic Model
    B. Test Procedures for Envelope Components
    1. Definition of Envelope
    2. Heat Transfer Through Panels
    3. Energy Use of Doors
    4. Heat Transfer via Air Infiltration
    5. Electrical Components
    C. Test Procedures for Refrigeration Systems
    1. Definition of Refrigeration System
    2. Refrigeration Test Procedure: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009
    3. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    D. Other Issues--Definition of Walk-In Cooler or Freezer

[[Page 21581]]

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    2. Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public 
Comments, DOE's Response to These Issues, and Any Changes Made in 
the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements and 
Description of Steps To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small 
Entities
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6317; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to 
the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part C of 
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), which was subsequently redesignated as 
Part A-1 for editorial reasons, establishes an energy conservation 
program for certain industrial equipment. This includes walk-in coolers 
and walk-in freezers, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1), (20), 6313(f), and 6314(a)(9))
    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of three parts: (1) 
Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards. 
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers 
of covered products or equipment must use (1) as the basis for 
certifying compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the 
efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test 
requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant 
standards promulgated under EPCA.
    Section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(``EISA 2007'') amended EPCA by adding certain equipment to this energy 
conservation program, including walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 
(collectively ``walk-in equipment,'' ``walk-ins,'' or ``WICF.''). (42 
U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f), and 6314(a)(9)) As amended by EISA 2007, 
EPCA requires DOE to establish new test procedures to measure the 
energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) The new test procedures for WICF equipment are the 
subject of this rulemaking. EPCA also directs DOE to publish 
performance-based standards and promulgate labeling requirements (42 
U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6315(e), respectively). These 
actions will be covered in separate rulemakings.
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking published January 4, 2010 
(January 2010 NOPR or, in context, NOPR), DOE proposed to establish 
test procedures to measure the energy efficiency of walk-in coolers and 
freezers. 75 FR 186. DOE identified several issues in its proposal 
based on the public comments submitted in response to the January 2010 
NOPR and further research. These issues included: (1) The proposed 
definition of a walk-in cooler or freezer with regards to the upper 
temperature limit; (2) the proposal to create test procedures for the 
envelope and refrigeration system of a walk-in cooler or freezer; (3) 
the proposal to group walk-in envelopes and refrigeration systems with 
essentially identical construction methods, materials, and components 
into a single basic model; and (4) the proposed calculation methodology 
for determining the energy consumption of units within the same basic 
model. 75 FR 186, (Jan. 4, 2010). On March 1, 2010, DOE held a public 
meeting to receive comments, data, and information on the January 2010 
NOPR. Through their comments, interested parties raised significant 
issues and suggested changes to the proposed test procedures. DOE 
determined that some of these comments warranted further consideration 
and published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on September 
9, 2010 (September 2010 SNOPR or, in context, SNOPR). 75 FR 55068. DOE 
received 22 written comments on the September 2010 SNOPR. This final 
rule addresses comments from the January 2010 NOPR that were not 
addressed in the September 2010 SNOPR and comments received on the 
September 2010 SNOPR.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment. EPCA provides that test procedures ``shall be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use and estimated annual operating costs of a type 
of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative 
average use cycle as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall 
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    Additionally, EPCA notes that if the procedure determines estimated 
annual operating costs, the procedure ``shall provide that such costs 
shall be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative 
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from 
representative average-unit costs of the energy needed to operate such 
equipment during such cycle.'' (42 U.S.C. 63114(a)(3)) Further, the 
statute provides that DOE ``shall provide information to manufacturers 
of covered equipment respecting representative average unit costs of 
energy.'' Id.
    With respect to today's rulemaking, the test procedure DOE is 
prescribing today is a new test procedure. Today's rule establishes a 
comprehensive testing regime to ensure minimum levels of performance by 
applying the component-based approach detailed in EISA 2007. The 
separate but concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers will be based on the performance 
of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers as measured by the test 
procedure set forth in this final rule.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's final rule establishes a new test procedure for measuring 
the energy efficiency of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer equipment. 
The test procedure is essentially composed of tests for the principal 
components that make up a walk-in: Panels, doors, and refrigeration. 
Testing individual components of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 
is simpler and less burdensome to manufacturers than testing an entire 
walk-in. In this test procedure, DOE also provides a method for 
calculating the energy use of an entire envelope, or the efficiency of 
a refrigeration system, based on the results of the component tests.
    The test procedure incorporates by reference the industry test 
procedures ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard Test

[[Page 21582]]

Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,''DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made products of 
extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--Specification,'' DIN EN 13165:2009-02, 
``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made rigid 
polyurethane foam (PUR) products--Specification,'' NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], 
``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors,'' and AHRI 
1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers.''
    Concurrently, DOE is undertaking an energy conservation standards 
rulemaking to address the statutory requirement to establish 
performance standards for walk-in equipment by 2012. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(4)(A)) DOE will use this test procedure in the concurrent 
process of evaluating potential performance standards for the 
equipment. After the compliance date of the performance standards, this 
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer test procedure, along with any 
future statistical sampling plans that may be adopted, must be used by 
manufacturers to determine compliance with the standards, and by DOE to 
ascertain compliance with the standards in any enforcement action. 
Moreover, once any final test procedure is effective, any 
representation of the energy use of walk-in equipment or components 
must reflect the results of testing that equipment using the test 
procedure.

III. Discussion

    In this section, DOE describes the overall approach it followed in 
developing today's test procedure for walk-in cooler and freezer 
equipment, including envelope components and refrigeration systems. The 
following section also addresses issues raised by interested parties, 
which consisted of the following entities:
     Manufacturers: American Panel, Craig Industries, 
CrownTonka, Heatcraft Refrigeration Products (Heatcraft), Hill Phoenix, 
International Cold Storage (ICS), Kysor Panel Systems (Kysor Panel), 
Manitowoc, Master-Bilt, Owens Corning, Nor-Lake, ThermalRite, Thermo-
Kool, and Zero Zone;
     Material suppliers: Carpenter Company (Carpenter);
     Trade associations: AHRI, Center for the Polyurethanes 
Industry (CPI);
     Utility companies: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 
Southern California Edison (SCE), Sacramento Municipal Utility District 
(SMUD), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E);
     Advocacy groups: Appliance Standards Awareness Project 
(ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA);
     Other parties: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).

A. Overall Approach: Component-Based Testing

    In the framework document, DOE contemplated developing a single 
test for an entire walk-in cooler or freezer. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/wicf_framework_doc.pdf. However, feedback from interested parties 
indicated that a single test procedure for the entire WICF would not be 
practical because many walk-ins are assembled on site with components 
from different manufacturers, which would make on-site testing 
infeasible. DOE then proposed in the January 2010 NOPR and September 
2010 SNOPR to develop separate tests for the envelope and refrigeration 
system of a walk-in, which in aggregate would represent the performance 
of the entire walk-in (75 FR 186, 191 (Jan. 4, 2010) and 75 FR 55068, 
55070 (Sept. 9, 2010)). DOE proposed to have one metric for the 
refrigeration system, which would be an efficiency metric, and one 
metric for the envelope, which would be an energy use metric. The 
envelope metric would account for electrical use of envelope 
components, as well as any energy used by the refrigeration system to 
reject the heat contributed by conduction, infiltration, and other heat 
sources. In this way, DOE intended to capture the energy impact of 
components, such as panels, that do not themselves consume electricity.
    DOE received comments on the September 2010 SNOPR from interested 
parties stating that the walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer main 
components could be further broken down into their own constituent 
components: panels and doors of envelopes and unit coolers and 
condensing units of refrigeration systems. Commenters explained that 
all of these components could be produced by separate manufacturers and 
then assembled into a complete walk-in. Because of this situation, it 
would be difficult to determine who should test the walk-in envelope, 
the refrigeration system, or both. It would also be difficult to 
determine who would be best positioned to ensure the walk-in cooler or 
freezer complied with an energy conservation standard. DOE acknowledges 
these and similar concerns from the stakeholders.
    Based on the information provided by commenters and DOE's own 
research, DOE has determined that a component-based approach would 
address the unique challenges posed in regulating the energy efficiency 
performance of walk-in envelopes. As noted above, these challenges 
include the fact that walk-in units are frequently assembled using 
components made by multiple manufacturers, and walk-in installers may 
not be equipped to test all the components that comprise a walk-in. 
These factors indicate that a component-based approach would not only 
help ensure compliance with whatever energy conservation standards that 
DOE sets, but also reduce the overall testing burden on the 
manufacturers, including small businesses who are involved in producing 
walk-in units, either in full or in part.
    Moreover, DOE notes that the adoption of such an approach is 
consistent with the component-based approach that Congress took when it 
enacted EISA 2007. Thus, DOE is adopting a component-level approach for 
this rule and discusses the specific component metrics in greater 
detail in section III.A.1.
1. Test Metrics
    As stated previously, DOE initially proposed separate test 
procedures for envelopes and refrigeration systems of walk-ins along 
with different test metrics for each. The metric for the refrigeration 
system would be an efficiency metric, and the metric for the envelope 
would be an energy use metric that would account for the electrical use 
of envelope components and the energy used by the refrigeration system 
to reject the heat contributed by conduction, infiltration, and other 
heat sources. To account for different sizes of envelopes, DOE further 
proposed that the result of the envelope test procedure should be a 
normalized energy use metric--the total energy use divided by the 
external surface area of the envelope (energy use per square foot).
    Several interested parties disagreed with the proposed metrics. 
NEEA stated that regulating walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers on the 
basis of annual energy use would not accurately estimate actual energy 
use, and therefore such estimates would be misleading for almost all 
installed systems. NEEA suggested using an overall U-value for the 
entire envelope and a spreadsheet that calculates the overall U-factor 
of a walk-in by weighted area. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at

[[Page 21583]]

p. 1 and 9; NEEA, No. 0061.2 at p. 1) (In this and subsequent 
citations, the document number refers to the number of the comment in 
the Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test procedures for walk-in 
coolers and freezers, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014; and the page 
references refer to the place in the document where the statement 
preceding appears.) NRDC also disagreed with the annual energy use 
metric because of the number of assumptions that would be required and 
the potential to confuse customers. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 7) NRDC 
further stated that normalizing energy use to the surface area would be 
unusual and may not be useful. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 2) NEEA 
suggested that the envelope metric should be a U-factor (which is a 
characterization of the heat loss performance). (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 
7) A comment submitted jointly by SCE, SDG&E, PG&E, and SMUD, hereafter 
referred to as the Joint Utilities, suggested an area-based conductance 
metric for the envelope that would consider both opaque and transparent 
surfaces. (The Joint Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 2) NRDC also suggested 
a metric for refrigeration systems that would encompass the total 
equivalent warming impact and measure the heat loads from refrigeration 
systems impacting a building's heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning (HVAC) system. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 8) A comment 
submitted jointly by ACEEE, ASAP, ASE, NRDC, NEEP, and NEEA on the 
September 2010 SNOPR (hereafter referred to as The Joint SNOPR comment) 
stated that the energy conservation standard for envelopes should be 
the overall heat gain (U-overall) with separate standards for walk-in 
coolers and walk-in freezers. (Joint SNOPR Comment, No. 0074.1 at p. 2)
    While other interested parties suggested specific metrics for walk-
in components, manufacturers also offered suggestions for overall walk-
in metrics. Craig Industries recommended combining the envelope and 
refrigeration calculations to calculate the overall efficiency of the 
complete walk-in system and labeling each walk-in with that efficiency 
metric. (Craig, No. 0068.1 at p. 6) Zero Zone stated that the test 
procedure should include performance testing to verify adequate 
temperatures inside the walk-in. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 1)
    In view of the component-level approach being adopted today, DOE is 
not establishing an overall energy use metric for the envelope in this 
test procedure. Instead, DOE is establishing separate metrics for the 
individual components of the walk-in: the wall and ceiling panels 
(hereafter referred to as non-floor panels); floor panels; the display 
and non-display doors; and the refrigeration system. Regarding Zero 
Zone's suggestion that the procedure verify that adequate internal 
temperatures are used in evaluating a walk-in unit's efficiency, DOE 
does not believe that such a requirement is necessary in light of the 
component-based approach being adopted today.
    The panel metric determined by the test procedure accounts for the 
conductance and is in terms of U-factor (that is, the thermal 
transmittance) measured in Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as NEEA, the Joint SNOPR 
Comment, and the Joint Utilities recommended. The metric for display 
and non-display doors accounts for the thermal transmittance through 
the door and the electricity use of any electrical components 
associated with the door, and is in terms of energy use, measured in 
kWh/day. DOE believes that requiring separate metrics for specific 
individual walk-in components does not constitute a substantive change 
from what was proposed in the September 2010 SNOPR because this Final 
Rule only requires tests that were proposed for components in the 
September 2010 SNOPR. Also, the September 2010 SNOPR and this final 
rule contain similar calculation methodologies.
2. Responsibility for Testing and Compliance
    DOE proposed to adopt separate tests for the envelope and 
refrigeration system of a walk-in and require the manufacturers of each 
to test and certify the part they manufacture. 75 FR 186, 191 (Jan. 4, 
2010) and 75 FR 55068, 55070 (Sept. 9, 2010). In response to this 
proposed approach, DOE received multiple comments regarding who should 
assume testing, certification, and compliance responsibilities. The 
Joint SNOPR Comment recommended that DOE focus on factory-produced 
products (i.e. kits) instead of walk-ins that are assembled on-site 
from components from different manufacturers. (Joint SNOPR Comment, No. 
0074.1 at p. 1) The Joint SNOPR Comment further suggested that panel, 
refrigeration system, and door manufacturers each be responsible for 
compliance and certification responsibilities for their own products. 
(Joint SNOPR Comment, No. 0074.1 at pp. 2-3) Thermo-Kool agreed with 
this approach and submitted a copy of a regulatory framework proposed 
by NEEA, in which envelope, door, and refrigeration manufacturers would 
be responsible for testing and complying with the standards for the 
components they manufacture. (Thermo-Kool, No. 0072.1 at p. 1)
    DOE received several other comments which it summarized in the 
certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) final rule, published 
on March 7, 2011. 76 FR 12422, 12444. In brief, some of those comments 
agreed with the approach suggested by the Joint SNOPR Comment and 
Thermo-Kool that individual component manufacturers should test, 
certify, and ensure compliance of their respective components. Other 
commenters recommended that the manufacturer, the assembler, or the 
system designer of the overall walk-in should be responsible for the 
compliance of the walk-in with the standards. 76 FR 12442-12446.
    In the CCE final rule, DOE addressed these comments by defining the 
manufacturer of a walk-in at 10 CFR 431.302. 76 FR 12504.
    The definition extends the compliance responsibility to both the 
component manufacturer and the assembler. In the CCE final rule, DOE 
clarified that component manufacturers would be the entity responsible 
for certifying compliance of the components they manufacture for walk-
in applications and ensuring compliance with the applicable Federal 
standards of those components. Assemblers of the complete walk-in 
system are required to use only components that are certified to meet 
the applicable Federal standards. DOE also adopted a flexible 
enforcement framework in which it will determine who is responsible for 
noncompliance on a case-by-case basis. 76 FR 12444.
    DOE notes that the provisions and clarifications in the CCE final 
rule were made in the context of component manufacturers certifying 
their components to the existing standards in EPCA, which prescribe 
requirements on a component-level basis. DOE has decided to continue 
this approach in developing test procedures and performance-based 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. DOE believes that, within 
the very limited context of walk in equipment, EPCA created a means for 
DOE to set performance-based standards for certain walk-in component 
manufacturers. In particular, because Congress set requirements for 
specific components used in walk-in applications, it provided DOE with 
the implicit authority to set performance-based standards at the 
component level for these specific components. This unique ability 
stems from the manner in which Congress set standards for walk-in 
equipment by prescribing, among

[[Page 21584]]

other things, specific performance-based requirements for wall, 
ceiling, door, and floor insulation panels used in walk-ins. See 42 
U.S.C. 6313(f).
    Because interested parties, including entities who produce these 
components and are subject to today's requirements, have indicated to 
DOE that the energy efficiency performance of WICF components would be 
most readily and easily tested and certified by component 
manufacturers, DOE intends to take this approach for WICF test 
procedures and performance standards. DOE acknowledges the numerous 
difficulties that commenters have noted with alternative proposed 
approaches. By requiring individual component manufacturers to certify 
that their components satisfy specified performance-based standards, 
DOE can ease the overall burden on walk-in manufacturers relative to 
the alternatives that were under consideration as part of the January 
2010 NOPR and September 2010 SNOPR. Therefore, in this test procedure, 
DOE is establishing tests for the components of a walk-in (i.e. panels, 
doors, and refrigeration systems) and anticipates that component 
manufacturers will test their equipment using the applicable procedure 
and, in the future, will certify that they comply with the appropriate 
standard. DOE emphasizes that until performance standards are 
established, manufacturers are not required to use this test procedure 
to certify equipment to DOE (although they must use this test procedure 
in making representations as to the performance of their components). 
However, because the prescriptive standards established by the 2007 
amendments to EPCA are already in effect, manufacturers must 
demonstrate compliance with them using the method specified in the CCE 
final rule. 76 FR 12422.
3. Basic Model
    DOE proposed a definition of basic model for both envelopes and 
refrigeration systems. 75 FR 186, 188-189 (Jan. 4, 2010) and 75 FR 
55068, 55071-55073 (Sept. 9, 2010). DOE received comments from 
interested parties on the definition and summarized them in the CCE 
final rule. 76 FR 12422. Consistent with its component-level approach 
to certification, discussed in section III.A.2, and taking the comments 
from interested parties into consideration, DOE decided to define a 
basic model for each of the key components of a walk-in, rather than 
defining a basic model for the entire walk-in. DOE emphasized that 
although the term ``basic model'' is defined on the component level, it 
is still implemented in the same manner as it is in the rest of DOE's 
appliance standards program; that is, a basic model consists of 
equipment that is essentially the same with respect to energy 
consumption, efficiency, or other measure of performance. 76 FR 12444-
12446.
    DOE provided, in relevant part, the definition of basic model in 
the CCE final rule at 76 FR 12504 (providing definition of ``basic 
model'' for walk-ins) (to be codified at 10 CFR 431.302).
    DOE believes applying the basic model concept at the component 
level will reduce the testing burden on manufacturers while ensuring 
that their products meet any applicable standard, because it removes 
the difficulty of testing and/or certifying different sized walk-ins 
that would have different energy consumption levels. 76 FR 12445. The 
CCE final rule provides that manufacturers may elect to group 
individual models into basic models at their discretion to the extent 
the models have essentially identical characteristics that affect 
energy efficiency or energy consumption. Manufacturers may also rate 
models conservatively--i.e. the tested performance of the model(s) must 
be at least as good as the certified rating--after applying the 
appropriate sampling plan. 76 FR 12429. The basic model concept is 
applied slightly differently to panels, doors, and refrigeration 
systems because of their different characteristics. These differences 
are explained below.
a. Basic Model of Panels
    Panels are construction components that are not doors and that are 
used to construct the envelope of the walk-in. These components 
comprise the elements separating the interior refrigerated environment 
of the walk-in from the exterior environment. In this test procedure, 
panels are classified as either floor panels, non-floor panels, or 
display panels. A display panel is a panel that is entirely or 
partially comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both and is 
used for display purposes. Floor and non-floor panels are mostly 
comprised of insulating material and are not primarily used for display 
purposes. For all types of panels, the energy efficiency metric is the 
U-factor, which is a measure of conductive, convective, and radiative 
heat transfer and which takes into account composite panel 
characteristics, which may include the insulation type, structural 
members, any type of transparent material (e.g. glass), and panel 
thickness. See section III.B.2 for details on how the U-factor is 
determined. DOE considers a panel basic model to include panels which 
do not have any differing features or characteristics that affect the 
U-factor. 76 FR 12504.
    DOE notes that manufacturers who make customized panels may 
experience a higher certification burden than manufacturers of 
standardized panels. For example, under today's procedure, a panel's U-
factor is a surface area-independent metric, which implies that 
variation in panel width and height alone would not be expected to 
affect the U-factor rating if all other characteristics were equal. In 
those instances where no changes in energy efficiency would occur, 
these panels could be grouped as a basic model. In contrast, smaller 
floor and non-floor panels may have a higher proportion of framing 
material to non-framing material, or other structural members, which 
could affect the overall panel U-factor rating if the framing material 
or framing geometry has different thermal conductivity performance than 
the neighboring insulation. Therefore, for two or more floor or non-
floor panels that are equivalent in materials and other characteristics 
but differ in their frame to insulation proportions such that they have 
different U-factor ratings, the panels would be considered different 
basic models and would need to be certified independently to DOE, if 
the manufacturer chooses to claim different U-factor ratings. However, 
DOE emphasizes that as explained in section III.3, manufacturers may 
group models into basic models at their discretion as long as the 
tested performance of the models is at least as good as the certified 
rating.
    DOE has also introduced additional provisions to reduce the testing 
and certification burden on floor and non-floor panel manufacturers. 
See section III.B.2.a for details.
    As explained above, the energy efficiency metric for display panels 
is the U-factor, as for floor and non-floor panels. However, unlike a 
floor, ceiling, or wall panel, a display panel is essentially a window. 
Therefore, in this test procedure, DOE is requiring the U-factor of 
display panels to be tested using NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for 
Determining Fenestration Product U-factors,'' which DOE proposed in the 
SNOPR for measuring the U-factor of doors and windows, including their 
framing materials. 75 FR 55083. (Sept. 9, 2010) As with floor and non-
floor panels, the basic model concept allows manufacturers to group 
display panels that are essentially identical in U-factor into one 
basic model, which DOE anticipates will reduce the testing burden on 
display

[[Page 21585]]

panel manufacturers. Also, NFRC 100-2010[E0A1] allows verified computer 
models to simulate a display panel's energy consumption, another factor 
that reduces the manufacturer's testing burden.
b. Basic Model of Doors
    A door is an assembly installed in an opening on an interior or 
exterior wall that is used to allow access or close off the opening and 
that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving manner of 
movement. For walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, a door includes the 
door panel, glass, framing materials, door plug, mullion, and any other 
elements that form the door or part of its connection to the wall. This 
test procedure defines two types of doors, display and non-display 
doors. Display doors are doors designed for product movement, display, 
or both, rather than the passage of persons, and non-display doors are 
considered to be all other types of doors. For all doors, the energy 
consumption metric that DOE is adopting in today's rule incorporates 
the U-factor and any electrical components built into the door. (See 
section I.A.1.a for details.) Calculating this metric requires the use 
of NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product U-factors,'' which DOE proposed in the SNOPR for measuring the 
U-factor of doors and windows, including their framing materials. 75 FR 
55083. (Sept. 9, 2010) Applying the NFRC test yields an overall U-
factor for the tested door. Then, through calculations outlined in 
Appendix A, the U-factor and the electrical energy consumption are 
combined to create a rating for the door.
    As with panels, doors with essentially identical energy consumption 
levels may be grouped into a basic model and rated conservatively. 76 
FR 12429 and 12504. The basic model concept can be used to reduce the 
testing and certification burdens by allowing manufacturers to group 
doors that are essentially identical in energy consumption but 
cosmetically different. The NFRC procedure also permits either a 
physical test or a verified computer model to be used when determining 
the U-factor of the door. The latter of these options would be expected 
to reduce testing burden because only a series of calculations would 
need to be run by an NFRC-approved computer modeling program. DOE also 
notes that the calculations for energy consumption of door components 
are not based on testing, which reduces the general testing burden for 
doors. Any results from physical tests, computer simulations, and 
calculations must be retained as required by the CCE final rule. 76 FR 
12494.
c. Basic Model of Refrigeration Systems
    The refrigeration system consists primarily of a compressor, 
condenser, unit cooler, valves, and piping. It is considered a 
component under the component level approach (see section III.A) that 
DOE is adopting in today's final rule. As with the panels and doors, 
and consistent with the approach promulgated in the CCE final rule, 
manufacturers may elect to group individual models into basic models at 
their discretion to the extent the models have essentially identical 
electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy 
efficiency or energy consumption. Furthermore, manufacturers may rate 
models conservatively, meaning the tested performance of the model(s) 
must be at least as good as the certified rating, after applying the 
appropriate sampling plan. 76 FR 12429. DOE believes these provisions 
will reduce the burden of testing for refrigeration manufacturers, 
including those who make customized equipment. DOE may also consider 
methods which allow manufacturers to use an alternate method of 
determining the energy use of the refrigeration system in a future 
rulemaking. This concept is further discussed in section III.C.3.

B. Test Procedures for Envelope Components

    The envelope consists of the insulated box in which items are 
stored and refrigerated. In the NOPR and SNOPR, DOE proposed methods 
for evaluating the performance characteristics of insulation, testing 
thermal energy gains related to air infiltration, and determining 
direct electricity use and heat gain due to internal electrical 
components. The proposed procedure used these methods to determine the 
energy use associated with the envelope by calculating the effect of 
the envelope's characteristics and components on the energy consumption 
of the walk-in as a whole. Those characteristics and components 
included the energy consumption of electrical components present in the 
envelope (such as lights) and variation in the energy consumption of 
the refrigeration system due to heat loads introduced as a function of 
envelope performance (such as conduction of heat through the walls of 
the envelope). The impact on the refrigeration system energy 
consumption was determined by calculating the energy consumption of a 
theoretical or ``nominal'' refrigeration system when paired with the 
tested envelope. 75 FR 186, 191 (Jan. 4, 2010) and 75 FR 55068, 55074 
(Sept. 9, 2010).
    As described in section III.A, DOE is no longer requiring 
manufacturers to determine the energy consumption of the entire 
envelope in this final rule. Rather, DOE is establishing metrics for 
the principal components of the envelope (i.e. the panels and doors) as 
described in section III.A.1. In doing so, DOE is requiring 
manufacturers to use the same physical tests for the components that it 
proposed in the NOPR and SNOPR, but is introducing revisions to the 
calculations in Appendix A of the new procedure. These revisions will 
enable manufacturers to calculate the required component metrics from 
the results of those tests.
    For panels, DOE is adopting separate approaches depending on 
whether a given panel is a display or non-display panel. Display panels 
are panels that are primarily made of transparent material and used for 
display purposes. Display panels are considered equivalent to windows 
because of their transparent characteristics and associated thermal 
heat transfer properties, and therefore the U-factor will be measured 
by NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product U-factors,'' which DOE proposed in the SNOPR for measuring the 
U-factor of doors and windows, including their framing materials. 75 FR 
55083. (Sept. 9, 2010) Non-display panels are floor and non-floor 
panels. Since both floor and non-floor panels are typically made out of 
a composite of insulation, framing, and facer material, both types of 
panels will be tested using the same methodology. In today's rule, the 
physical tests pertaining to the performance of non-display panels are 
from ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of 
Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 
Apparatus'' and, for foams that experience aging, DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made products of 
extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--Specification'' or DIN EN 13165:2009-
02, ``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made rigid 
polyurethane foam (PUR) products--Specification,'' as applicable. These 
tests were proposed in the SNOPR. 75 FR 55068, 55075-55076 and 55081 
(Sept. 9, 2010). In this final rule, panel performance is denoted by 
its overall U-factor, or thermal transmittance, which is determined by 
the test procedures and calculation methodologies described in section 
III.B.2.

[[Page 21586]]

    DOE is requiring one test for door performance, NFRC 100-
2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-
factors,'' which was proposed in the SNOPR. 75 FR 55083 (Sept. 9, 
2010). This test measures conduction through a door, whether it is a 
display door or a non-display door. The total energy consumption of a 
door is calculated as the effect of a door's thermal load on the 
refrigeration system combined with the door's electrical energy use, as 
described in section 4.5 and section 4.4 of Appendix A of this final 
rule. The effect on the refrigeration system is determined by 
calculating the energy consumption that a theoretical or ``nominal'' 
refrigeration system would use to reject the heat that was transmitted 
through the door. The energy that would be used by the theoretical 
refrigeration system to reject a given amount of heat is represented by 
the energy efficiency ratio (EER) of the refrigeration system. The test 
procedure uses the same nominal refrigeration system EER for all tested 
doors to enable direct comparisons of the performance of walk-in doors 
across a range of sizes, product classes, and features. The nominal EER 
values for cooler and freezer refrigeration (i.e. 12.4 Btu/W-h and 6.3 
Btu/W-h for coolers and freezers, respectively) are the same as those 
proposed in the SNOPR for calculating the energy use of the envelope. 
See 75 FR 55013 (Sept. 9, 2010).
1. Definition of Envelope
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed the following definition of 
``envelope:''

    Envelope means (1) a piece of equipment that is the portion of a 
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that isolates the interior, 
refrigerated environment from the ambient, external environment; and 
(2) all energy-consuming components of the walk-in cooler or walk-in 
freezer that are not part of its refrigeration system.
    75 FR 186, 192 (Jan. 4, 2010).
    The walk-in envelope was proposed to include, but not be limited 
to, walls, floors, ceilings, seals, windows, doors, or any combination 
thereof, composed of single or composite materials. DOE did not propose 
any changes to this definition in the September 2010 SNOPR.
    Master-Bilt, BASF, ThermalRite, ACEEE, and ICS submitted written 
comments supporting the proposed definition for the walk-in envelope. 
(Master-Bilt, No. 0027.1 at p. 1; BASF, No. 0021.1 at p. 3; 
ThermalRite, No. 0049.1 at p. 1; ACEEE, No. 0052.1 at p. 2; ICS, No. 
0045.1 at p. 1) However, Nor-Lake asked that the definition of envelope 
exclude components of the envelope purchased separately by the end user 
to enable the manufacturer of the envelope to avoid compliance 
responsibility for the performance of those components. (Nor-Lake, No. 
0023.1 at p. 2) ICS requested clarification on the preemption of energy 
codes by building, electrical, and mechanical codes and stated that the 
definition must allow for structural and electrical safety code 
compliance over energy compliance when in conflict. (ICS, No. 0045.1 at 
p. 1) A representative from Gonzaga Law argued that the definition 
proposed by the DOE was too inclusive but did not propose an 
alternative definition. (Gonzaga Law, No. 0018 at p. 1) At the public 
meeting for the January 2010 NOPR, ICS suggested that DOE's standards 
and definitions should align with NSF's (formerly known as the National 
Sanitation Foundation) definition of envelope and requirements. (ICS, 
Public Meeting Transcript, 0016 at p. 30) (In this and subsequent 
citations, ``Public Meeting Transcript'' refers to the transcript of 
the March 1, 2010, public meeting on the proposed test procedures for 
walk-in coolers and freezers. ``No. 0016'' refers to the document 
number of the transcript in the Docket for the DOE rulemaking on test 
procedures for walk-in coolers and freezers, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-
TP-0014; and the page number refers to the place in the transcript 
where the statement preceding appears.)
    DOE notes the comments and suggestions from Master-Bilt, BASF, 
ThermalRite, ACEEE, ICS, and Gonzaga Law. However, because DOE is 
taking a component-based approach, the proposed envelope definition is 
no longer applicable for the purpose of this test procedure. As 
suggested by ICS, when evaluating potential standards applicable to 
walk-ins, DOE will also consider their related requirements that 
manufacturers need to satisfy. In response to Nor-Lake's comment 
regarding components not supplied by the envelope manufacturer, DOE 
clarifies that each component manufacturer is responsible for testing 
its component with the appropriate test procedure as discussed in 
section III.A.2. The envelope component manufacturer is not responsible 
for the end user's implementation of the component; rather, the 
manufacturer would be responsible only for the component's compliance 
as designed. Also, the envelope assembler is responsible for using 
WICF-compliant components to assemble the total envelope.
2. Heat Transfer through Panels
a. U-Factor of Composite Panels Including Structural Members of Panels
    EPCA specifies that ASTM C518-04, ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow 
Meter Apparatus,'' must be used to determine the K-factor of walk-in 
insulation. The statute defines the R-value as equal to the value of 1/
K-factor multiplied by the thickness of the panel. (42 U.S.C. 6314 
(a)(9)(A)(i)-(ii)) In response to the January 2010 NOPR, interested 
parties commented that the heat conduction through structural members 
must be considered because this factor could affect the conductance 
through the composite walk-in insulation panel. Accordingly, DOE 
proposed in the September 2010 SNOPR to use ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard 
Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' to measure the overall U-
factor of fully assembled panels to help account for the impact that 
structural members have on the overall U-factor. 75 FR 55074.
    Several interested parties--NEEA, AHRI, Master-Bilt, Thermo-Kool, 
Carpenter, and Bally--supported the use of ASTM C1363-05 to measure the 
overall panel U-factor. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 0070.1 at 
p. 2; Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 1; Thermo-Kool, No. 0072.1 at p. 1; 
Carpenter, No. 0070.1 at p.2; Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 2))
    Other interested parties, however, disagreed with DOE's proposal to 
use ASTM C1363-05 to measure panel performance. At least some of these 
concerns were premised on a mistaken belief that DOE's proposal would 
result in the elimination of structural members embedded into panels. 
For example, a comment submitted jointly by the manufacturers 
CrownTonka, ThermalRite, and ICS (collectively referred to as the Joint 
Manufacturers) recommended that structural members be excluded from the 
stated R-value requirements for overall envelope thermal resistance. 
The Joint Manufacturers explained that many walk-ins require the use of 
structural members to comply with building codes and to help support 
loads placed on the building from factors such as snow and wind. The 
Joint Manufacturers stated that ASTM C518-04 should be used to measure 
the K-factor of foam, as specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314 
(a)(9)(A)(i)-(ii)) (Joint Manufacturers, No. 0062.1 at p. 1)
    While American Panel agreed with DOE's general approach that the R-
value

[[Page 21587]]

of structural members should be considered in determining the overall 
U-factor and submit data to demonstrate the impact of structural 
members on the overall U-factor, it stated that the composite panel 
must meet the minimum R-value requirement. American Panel continued to 
state that the R-value should be calculated by using a weighted 
percentage of foam R-value and structural R-value based on the 
percentage each material represents in the panel. (American Panel, No. 
0057.1 at p. 1; American Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 2; American Panel, No. 
0057.3 at p. 1) It asserted that ASTM C1363-05 is not the appropriate 
test method for measuring the insulating values of foam, and added, 
along with Craig Industries and Carpenter, that ASTM C518-04 should be 
used to measure heat conduction through panels. (American Panel, No. 
0057.1 at p. 2; Craig, No. 0068.1 at p. 2; Carpenter, No. 0067.1 at p. 
2) Craig Industries was concerned that using ASTM C1363-05 to calculate 
the heat conduction through structural members may not take the 
reduction of joints (that is, panel to panel interfacing members) into 
consideration. Craig Industries recommended that the structural members 
should be tested with a procedure to represent the real R-value, which 
would replace the R-value of the insulation where it is replaced with 
structural members. (Craig, No. 0057.13 at p. 2) Carpenter further 
asserted that ASTM C518-04 is simpler and less costly to perform than 
C1363-05. (Carpenter, No. 0067.1 at p. 2) Thermo-Kool, on the other 
hand, disagreed with the approach of using R-value testing of different 
components of the composite panel to determine heat loss. (Thermo-Kool, 
No. 0072.1 at p. 1) Bally, who agreed with DOE's proposed approach, 
requested clarification specifically regarding how the two tested areas 
would be used to represent the performance of a panel. (Bally, No. 
0078.1 at p. 2)
    None of the interested parties offered any further explanation for 
their views other than those already described.
    In this final rule, the terms ``foam'' and ``insulation'' are used 
synonymously, but a panel is the fully manufactured product that 
contains, but is not limited to, the insulating material, metal skin, 
framing material, other structural members, or any combination thereof. 
To address the Joint Manufacturers' concerns about the potential 
elimination of structural members, DOE emphasizes that the overall U-
factor testing required by today's final rule will not prevent 
manufacturers from including structural members in panels because the 
existing standards in EPCA only regulate the R-value of the foam and do 
not restrict the overall panel U-factor or the R-value of the 
structural components. The R-value of insulation, which is 1/K-factor 
as determined by ASTM C518-04, will still have to comply with the 
existing EPCA requirements for insulation. (42 U.S.C. 6314 
(a)(9)(A)(i)-(ii)) However, the overall U-factor of the fully assembled 
panel, including structural members, may be used to meet an energy 
conservation standard for panels, which will be determined in a 
parallel rulemaking. Including ASTM C1363-05 will provide a more 
accurate means to represent the overall heat transfer performance of 
panels. DOE believes this procedure will be beneficial because it will 
capture the effects of structural members that incorporate insulation 
or otherwise contribute to the efficiency of the walk-in.
    Additionally, while DOE acknowledges the concerns raised by 
American Panel, the Joint Manufacturers, Craig Industries, and 
Carpenter, the final rule includes ASTM C1363-05 as part of the test 
procedure in order to determine the overall U-factor of the panel. DOE 
is including this protocol as part of the test procedure because heat 
conduction through structural members is a significant panel 
characteristic that is not addressed under the statutorily-prescribed 
testing requirements (i.e. ASTM C518-04). While ASTM C518-04 could be 
used to individually measure the R-value of structural members, or any 
other material, as Craig Industries suggested, DOE believes that this 
approach would be more costly because of the many materials that could 
comprise a panel and the need to test each material separately under 
that approach. Furthermore, DOE believes that panel geometry could make 
calculations to combine the R-value of each material into an overall 
panel R-value complicated and burdensome.
    DOE also acknowledges Craig Industries' concern that ASTM C1363-05 
does not account for the reduction of joints (that is, panel to panel 
interfacing members). Since DOE is adopting an approach to ensure the 
energy efficiency performance of particular components, an approach 
suggested by numerous commenters, and is no longer considering the 
effects of infiltration, panel joint issues are outside of this 
approach.
    DOE notes that American Panel supported the inclusion of structural 
members in calculating the overall U-factor. Furthermore, DOE would 
like to clarify the calculation methodology to address the comment from 
Bally. Today's final rule adopts a weighted percentage of the panel 
edge (which may contain structural members) and panel core region 
(which may also include structural members) in order to calculate the 
panel's total U-factor. DOE believes that using the weighted percentage 
of edge U-factor and core U-factor to calculate the total U-factor will 
help reduce the manufacturer's testing burden.
    In applying this weighted percentage approach, today's final rule 
provides that for floor or non-floor panels of the same thickness, 
construction methods, and materials, manufacturers must test a pair of 
4 ft. by 8 ft. ``test panels'' to obtain a core U-factor and an edge U-
factor. The manufacturer must then calculate the overall U-factor of 
other floor or non-floor panels with the same panel thickness, 
construction methods, and materials using the U-factor results for the 
core and edge region ``test panels.'' For example, a manufacturer tests 
a 4 ft. by 8 ft. test panel and finds the edge region and core region 
U-factors. The same manufacturer also produces 6 ft. by 8 ft. panels 
that have identical core and edge region thickness, construction 
methods and materials. Therefore, the manufacturer may apply the core 
and edge region factors to the 6 ft. by 8 ft. panel to calculate the 
overall U-factor of the 6 ft. by 8 ft. panel instead of performing an 
additional test. DOE notes that any calculations that support the 
certified ratings must be retained along with the test data for the 
``test panels'' for all basic models pursuant to the requirements for 
the maintenance of records promulgated in the CCE final rule. 76 FR 
12494. DOE expects that, based on the information it has collected, 
including information made available by manufacturers on their Web 
sites and submitted comments, most manufacturers use the same panel 
thickness, materials, and construction methods for many of their 
panels, which results in a minimal testing burden.
    In regard to American Panel's comment that the composite panel must 
meet the minimum R-value requirement, DOE clarifies that EPCA states 
that only the insulation material (that is, the foam) must meet the 
prescribed R-value. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)) The test procedure is 
prescribing ASTM C1363-05 as a method of measuring the overall U-factor 
of the entire panel. For EPCA compliance, the R-value of the insulation 
must be separately determined in accordance with ASTM C518-04 as 
specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C))

[[Page 21588]]

    Finally, interested parties suggested changes to the test 
methodology DOE proposed. NRDC stated that irregular or non-homogeneous 
foam products should be tested for actual R-value where there is no 
quality control to maintain the orientation of the foam in the finished 
product. To clarify, DOE believes that when NRDC noted the concern 
about the orientation of the foam, they were referring to bun-stock 
foam products. Bun-stock products are manufactured in ``buns'' that may 
have foam cell structure similar to the grains in wood. Like wood, 
depending on how the buns are cut into boards, the orientation of the 
cell ``grains'' may vary by finished board. NRDC continued to suggest 
that if a foam product cannot be tested, then the stated R-value should 
be a conservative number representing the lowest R-value for a tested 
material. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 4) NRDC also suggested that DOE 
review the impact of testing the final fabricated panel rather than 
requiring manufacturers to specially construct units for testing, 
because specially constructed units may not represent the typical 
product. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 4) Master-Bilt suggested changing the 
width and length of the panel to 8 x 4 ft. +/- 1 ft. to have more 
tolerance and allow for the testing of standard width panels. (Master-
Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 2)
    In response to NRDC's comment about irregular or non-homogeneous 
foam products, DOE anticipates that the prescribed sampling procedures 
for certification will accurately capture the foam's R-value. A 
sampling plan is intended to ensure accurate and statistically 
repeatable results are achieved when using the test procedure. DOE 
notes NRDC's concern that specifically constructed units may not 
represent an actual product. However, in order to reduce the testing 
burden presented by ASTM C1365-05, DOE is maintaining the approach of 
specifying two test regions of a pair of representative panels. At one 
test region, the tester measures the U-factor of the perimeter that may 
contain structural members and panel-to-panel interface area (the 
``Panel Edge''), while at the other region the tester measures the U-
factor of the core area of the panel (the ``Panel Core'') which may 
also contain structural members. The U-factor for each region is then 
applied to panels of the same type (that is, same foam type, framing 
material, and panel thickness) to obtain an overall U-factor that is 
representative of actual products sold by the panel manufacturer. DOE 
applies a calculation methodology to extrapolate the core and edge U-
factor to determine the U-factor of any panel produced by a 
manufacturer.
    In response to Master-Bilt's comment, DOE agrees that increasing 
the tolerance of the 8 ft x 4 ft test panel to +/- 1 ft will provide 
manufacturers with a greater range of standard sized panels. DOE 
conducted a mathematical analysis to determine how changing the 
tolerance would affect the U-factor as determined by ASTM C1363-05. DOE 
found that increasing the size tolerance of the test panel results in 
less than a 0.5 percent change to the U-factor as determined by ASTM 
C1363-05. Therefore, DOE has amended the standard size of a test panel 
for ASTM C1363-05 to be 8 ft x 4 ft +/- 1 ft.
b. Long-Term Thermal Resistance
    In the January 2010 NOPR and September 2010 SNOPR, DOE cited 
several studies that conclude that lateral gas diffusion, which causes 
a reduction in R-value, occurs in impermeably faced foams. See 75 FR 
192-194 and 75 FR 55075-55079. These types of foams are common to walk-
ins. The lateral gas diffusion occurs over time and affects the energy 
efficiency performance of the foam as diffusion continues. To account 
for this aging effect on a foam's insulation performance--and, by 
extension, the energy consumption of a walk-in due to thermal losses 
attributable to this reduced performance--DOE, consistent with its 
proposed approach, is adopting a method to account for this phenomenon 
in walk-in applications. Hill Phoenix added that different methods of 
manufacturing panels should be taken into account when determining the 
test procedure. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 2)
    The most significant factor affecting the efficiency of a walk-in 
panel is the insulating foam in a panel, and accurately capturing the 
foam's R-value is critical to measuring the overall performance of the 
panel. Panels can be in use for 10 to 20 or more years before they are 
replaced. Performance metrics for a panel based on initial foam R-value 
will tend to overestimate the amount of energy saved over this 
equipment's lifetime. Research on panel aging has shown that a 5-year 
aged R-value found by LTTR testing is representative of the panel's 
insulation performance over its lifetime, and there are industry tests 
for walk-in foam that estimate the aged R-value over time. Using these 
industry-developed protocols will enable manufacturers to more 
accurately capture the lifetime performance of a walk-in panel.
    Incorporating a long term thermal resistance degradation factor 
improves the reliability of test results for walk-in panels. While EPCA 
contains standards for the R-value or insulating performance of the 
foam, these standards do not specify when the insulating foam must be 
tested. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)) Variables that impact the time at 
which panels are tested include shipping time, production time, 
shipment of completed panels to test lab, and test facility 
availability. Changing any one of these variables could result in 
significantly different test results and measured R-values. This is in 
contrast to most other types of equipment within the appliance 
standards program, which would not exhibit significant differences in 
performance based on the length of time between manufacture and 
testing. Because of the unique aging profile of certain foam types, the 
timing of a walk-in panel test would affect both manufacturers' 
certification of the panel U-factors and any enforcement testing 
undertaken by DOE. Therefore, using LTTR values to measure foam 
performance eliminates the ``time'' variable that could affect whether 
a panel is shown to comply with an overall performance standard that 
DOE may set. The purpose of the LTTR testing is to accelerate foam 
aging to the point where the R-value changes relatively slowly over 
time and to then measure its performance, thus improving the 
repeatability of the test because the timing of the test is no longer 
critical.
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to use ASTM C1303-08, 
``Standard Test Method for Predicting Long-Term Thermal Resistance of 
Closed-Cell Foam Insulation,'' to calculate the long-term thermal 
resistance (LTTR) of walk-in foam insulation. 75 FR 186, 193-94 (Jan. 
4, 2010). In the September 2010 SNOPR, DOE proposed to use the updated 
version of ASTM C1303-08, which was ASTM C1303-10. 75 FR 55068, 55075 
(Sept. 9, 2010). In that notice, DOE also offered an alternative 
method, Annex C of either DIN EN 13164:2009-02, ``Thermal insulation 
products for buildings-- Factory made products of extruded polystyrene 
foam (XPS)--Specification'' or DIN EN 13165:2009-02, ``Thermal 
insulation products for buildings--Factory made rigid polyurethane foam 
(PUR) products--Specification,'' as applicable, to test for the LTTR. 
This alternative was offered in response to concerns raised in response 
to the NOPR. The SNOPR requested comments on both of these alternative 
methods. 75 FR 55079 (Sept. 9, 2010).

[[Page 21589]]

    In light of the comments that DOE received on all of these various 
testing methods, which are addressed below, DOE has decided to adopt 
DIN EN 13165:2009-02 or DIN EN 13164:2009-02, as applicable, as the 
test procedure for determining LTTR. The LTTR value determined by DIN 
EN 13165:2009-02 or DIN EN 13164:2009-02 will be used to determine a 
degradation factor, which will be the LTTR R-value divided by the 
initial R-value of the foam. The initial R-value will be determined in 
accordance with ASTM C518-04 as specified in the EISA 2007 amendments 
to EPCA and used to establish compliance with those statutorily-
prescribed requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)) The degradation 
factor is applied to the U-factor of the panel found by ASTM C1365-05; 
see section 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix A.These protocols are preferable to 
ASTM C1303-10 because they account for the effect of impermeable 
facers, which ASTM C1303-10 does not.
    In response to this approach, DOE received a number of comments. 
Thermo-Kool noted the general need to consider LTTR. It also suggested 
that the potential for thermal degradation is more likely to occur at 
the panel joints than from actual polyurethane (i.e. foam) issues. 
(Thermo-Kool, 0072.1 at p. 1) The Joint Manufacturers recommended that 
structural members be considered in the long-term thermal resistance 
performance of any panels with structural edges because they may lessen 
or slow off-gassing over time. (The Joint Manufacturers, No. 0062.1 at 
p. 1).
    American Panel and Bally opposed DOE's inclusion of a test 
procedure that measured LTTR. (American Panel, No. 0057.2 at p. 1; 
Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 2) American Panel explained that impermeable or 
metal skins protect the polyurethane foam from aging and that little 
change will occur in the long term R-value. In support of its claim 
that impermeably faced metal skins protect foam from aging, American 
Panel submitted the results of a study conducted by Carpenter. That 
study found a 3.6 percent loss in insulating value of a panel after 9 
years in a walk-in application. (American Panel, No. 0057.2 at p. 1) 
American Panel also asserted that none of its customers complained 
about R-value loss in the panels that American Panel sold to them. 
(American Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 2)
    One interested party recommended that DOE collect test data before 
prescribing a particular test method. Bally stated that more data from 
actual walk-in panels with intact metal skins and sealed edges should 
be collected before DOE includes a test procedure for long-term thermal 
resistance. (Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges Thermo-Kool's assertion that most aging occurs at 
the panel joints and Bally's suggestion that DOE collect more data to 
support long term thermal aging. DOE notes, however, that polyurethane 
itself has the potential to age significantly. DOE cited multiple 
studies, in both the January 2010 NOPR and September 2010 SNOPR, that 
conclude that aging occurs in most types of foams commonly used in 
walk-in applications, including polyurethane. 75 FR 192-194 (Jan. 4, 
2010) and 75 FR 55075-55079 (Sept. 9, 2010). In response to the Joint 
Manufacturers' comment about accounting for the effect structural 
members have on LTTR, DOE also notes that no known test procedures are 
available that address edge sealing at this time but that this factor 
could be considered in a future rulemaking.
    DOE also considered the merits of the submissions in support of 
American Panel's contention that impermeably faced foams do not undergo 
significant aging. After evaluating this information, however, DOE 
continues to believe that the inclusion of LTTR testing in the test 
procedure is necessary to accurately measure the R-value of foam. DOE 
notes that the samples in the Carpenter study cited by American Panel 
were taken from the center of the panel. As DOE noted in the SNOPR, 
another study (the Ottens study, ``Industrial Experiences with 
CO2 Blown Polyurethane Foams in the Manufacture of Metal 
Faced Sandwich Panels'') found that core samples do not represent the 
overall aging of foam in panels because most aging occurs at the 
panel's perimeter. 75 FR 55068, 55077 (Sept. 9, 2010) (citing Ottens et 
al., ``Industrial Experiences with CO2 Blown Polyurethane 
Foams in the Manufacture of Metal Faced Sandwich Panels,'' Polyurethane 
World, 1997.) As a result, the data from this study indicate that the 
Carpenter study's results do not necessarily provide an accurate 
portrayal of the likely effects of panel aging.
    Additionally, while American Panel asserted that the lack of 
customer complaints about R-value loss in panels indicates that the 
deterioration of LTTR values is insignificant, the lack of customer 
complaints may be influenced by a variety of factors. For example, a 
panel is normally only replaced when visibly damaged. However, a panel 
may have reduced thermal performance without any accompanying visual 
cues suggesting problems with the panel. Accordingly, DOE does not 
believe that the statements and materials cited by American Panel 
support the premise that LTTR of foam is negligible for walk-in panels.
    Interested parties also made comments on the specific test methods 
that DOE proposed. DOE received some comments from interested parties 
in favor of using ASTM C1303-10 to determine the LTTR of foam 
insulation. Owens Corning agreed that DOE should use the most current 
version of whichever ASTM standards it planned to use. (Owens Corning, 
No. 0058.1 at p. 1) Craig Industries agreed with the use of ATSM C1303-
10, but stated that DOE should evaluate if ASTM C1303-10 is appropriate 
for all present and future foam insulation products. (Craig, No. 0068.1 
at p. 4) NRDC supported testing insulated products to determine whether 
the R-value degraded over time, and stated that the proposed ASTM 
standard is acceptable and known in the industry. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at 
p. 4) NEEA stated that although some interested parties have concerns 
about LTTR values derived from ASTM C1303-10, NEEA believed that 
carefully specifying the physical characteristics of the tested panel 
samples will address their concerns. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 2)
    Some interested parties disapproved of ASTM C1303-10. American 
Panel, Hill Phoenix, Thermo-Kool, and the Joint Manufacturers opposed 
using ASTM C1303-10 as the test procedure to measure LTTR. (American 
Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 2; Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 2; Thermo-
Kool, 0072.1 at p. 1; the Joint Manufacturers, No. 0062.1 at p. 1) 
American Panel asserted that any testing to determine R-value must 
allow the foamed-in-place polyurethane to remain encapsulated by the 
metal facers to resemble the real-world application. (American Panel, 
No. 0057.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix and Thermo-Kool did not recommend the 
use of ASTM C1303-10 because, as noted in section 1.3 of ASTM C1303-10, 
the standard does not apply to impermeably faced foams; therefore, 
applying the results from ASTM C1303-10 to impermeably faced foams 
would be misleading. Hill Phoenix also suggested that ASTM C1303-10 
would significantly overestimate foam aging of foamed-in-place 
polyurethane panels. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 2) The Joint 
Manufacturers opposed the use of ASTM C1303-10 for measuring long-term 
R-value decline because it is not intended for use with faced panels 
and unfairly penalizes foamed-in-place polyurethane that has minimal or 
zero exposure of permeable surfaces (the Joint Manufacturers, No. 
0062.1 at p. 1)

[[Page 21590]]

Owens Corning stated that the prescriptive and research methods of ASTM 
C1303-10 are not comparable and will not generate comparable results. 
It added that the Canadian test procedure CAN/ULC S770, which is based 
on various versions of ASTM C1303, has a positive bias and may over-
predict foam aging, and submitted foam aging data and an article about 
the CAN/ULC S770 test to support this comment. (Owens Corning, No. 
0058.1 at p. 2; Owens Corning, No. 0058.1 at p. 1; Owens Corning, No. 
0058.5 at p. 19; Owens Corning, No. 0058.2 at p. 2)
    Carpenter and Master-Bilt also opposed the use of ASTM C1303-10 for 
LTTR testing and suggested possible alternatives. Carpenter suggested 
testing initial and aged K-factors per ASTM C518 at 20 [deg]F and 55 
[deg]F for freezers and coolers, respectively. (Carpenter, No. 0067.1 
at p. 3) Carpenter stated that ASTM C1303-10 would underestimate the 
LTTR of impermeably faced panels and that LTTR tests should be 
performed on samples with intact facers. (Carpenter, No. 0067.1 at p. 
2) Similarly, Master-Bilt explained that panel edges are not 100 
percent exposed, but are tight against one another and sealed with 
caulk and vinyl gaskets. Collectively, the caulk and gaskets 
significantly reduce gas migration, thus reducing the effects of aging. 
Therefore, in its view, the testing of skinned panels with exposed 
edges still considerably overstates the insulation degradation. Master-
Bilt suggested that a formula based on test data from actual walk-in 
panels that have been installed could be used instead of ASTM C1303-10. 
(Master-Bilt, No. 0068.1 at p. 2)
    DOE agrees with the assessment that ASTM C1303-10 is not adequate 
for testing impermeably faced foams. DOE believes that the concerns 
about ASTM C1303-10 expressed by American Panel, Hill Phoenix, Thermo-
Kool, Master-Bilt, the Joint Manufacturers, Carpenter, and Owens 
Corning are addressed by DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
which account for impermeably faced foams, reduce the testing burden, 
and are appropriate for different types of foam. DIN EN 13165:2009-02 
and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 partially rely on a formula based on test 
data, as suggested by Master-Bilt. DOE agrees with Owens Corning that 
the prescriptive and research methods of ASTM C1303-10 are not 
comparable, and notes that DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-
02 do not have this problem.
    One interested party expressed concerns about two of the studies 
DOE referenced in the September 2010 SNOPR. One study was the Ottens 
study, in which an experiment was completed on polyurethane foamed-in-
place panels to assess their long-term insulating behavior. 75 FR 
55068, 55077 (Sept. 9, 2010). (Ottens et al., ``Industrial Experiences 
with CO2 Blown Polyurethane Foams in the Manufacture of 
Metal Faced Sandwich Panels,'' Polyurethane World, 1997.) In the SNOPR, 
DOE estimated that the test was likely representative of panels aged 
for at least 5 years. 75 FR at 55077 (Sept. 9, 2010). ORNL challenged 
this estimate and stated that the results from the Ottens study cannot 
be correlated to a particular aging period. (ORNL, No. 0060.1 at p. 2)
    The second study DOE referenced was a round robin test using CAN/
ULC-S770-03, a standard with the same test methodology as a previous 
version of ASTM C1303. DOE referenced the test to address concerns 
raised by various interested parties that the thin slicing method, CAN/
ULC-S770-03. Results from the round-robin study predicted that 
polyurethane would perform at a lower level than extruded polystyrene 
or even at a level as low as expanded polystyrene. 75 FR 55079 (Sept. 
9, 2010). ORNL stated the testing used in the referenced study relied 
on the original version of S770, which has been shown to over-predict 
thermal resistance. ORNL added that the test was performed on foams 
created with blowing agents that are no longer used, and the results 
are not representative of current products. (ORNL, 0060.1 at p. 2)
    Regarding ORNL's comment about the Ottens study, DOE agrees that 
the method in the study cannot be accurately correlated to a particular 
aging period. However, in DOE's view, the conclusions reached in those 
studies illustrate that impermeably faced foams are subject to aging. 
DOE agrees with ORNL's evaluation of the flaws in the round robin test 
data but notes that the same test was used on each type of foam 
evaluated, which permits a comparison of the results from each type of 
tested foam. DOE used the results of the round robin test to 
demonstrate that there were no performance differences between 
polyurethane and polystyrene foams--not to predict the level of thermal 
resistance over time.
    Interested parties also commented on the specific testing 
conditions for ASTM C1303-10. ORNL proposed that, if adopted, ASTM 
C1303-10 should be modified to allow the user to take multiple 12 inch 
x 12 inch specimens from the 48 inch x 96 inch panel, at least 12 
inches away from the edge of the 48 inch x 96 inch source. (ORNL, No. 
0060.1 at p. 2) ORNL suggested specifying the aging conditioning 
temperatures for foam insulation. ORNL explained that while most 
insulation foams must follow aging condition requirements, the 
conditions used to age bun stock foam, which is used in producing foam 
insulation, may be freely modified. This situation could lead to skewed 
comparisons between products. (ORNL, No. 0060.1 at p. 2)
    Manufacturers also offered views regarding these proposed testing 
conditions. Craig Industries, Carpenter, and Owens Corning stated that 
the procedures detailed in ASTM C1303-10 should be conducted at the 
specified EPCA mean temperatures 55 [deg]F and 20 [deg]F for a cooler 
and freezer, respectively. (Craig Industries, 0068.1 at p. 4; 
Carpenter, No. 0067.1 at p. 3; Owens Corning, No. 0058.1 at p. 2) 
Carpenter also suggested modifying DOE's proposal by adding a provision 
for molding test panels using unprimed aluminum facers. (Carpenter, No. 
0067.1 at p. 3) NRDC asserted that the proposed temperatures for 
testing insulation needed to be substantiated. (NRDC, 0064.1 at p. 4) 
Craig Industries asserted that the modifications to ASTM C1303-10 
proposed by DOE in the September 2010 SNOPR test were acceptable, but 
wanted DOE to ensure that the changes would also apply to expanded 
polystyrene insulation. (Craig Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 4) Bally 
suggested that the initial panel size should be changed to 48 inches 
 3 inches and 96 inches  2 inches so that a 
standard panel configuration could be used for the test panel. Bally 
stated that manufacturers could incur significant costs from 
manufacturing test panels. (Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 2)
    While DOE appreciates ORNL's and Bally's suggested improvements to 
ASTM C1303-10, these recommendations are no longer relevant since DOE 
has decided to adopt DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
which collectively address some of the shortcomings of ASTM C1303-10. 
For example, DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 provide for 
inclusion of metal facers, while ASTM C1303-10 does not. In regard to 
Bally's concern about the size of the test panel, a test panel is no 
longer required to be a certain size as long as the panel is large 
enough for the test sample to be cut from its geometric center, as 
prescribed in Appendix A. Additionally, given the comments from Craig 
Industries, Carpenter, Owens Corning, and NRDC about the temperature 
conditions for testing, DOE has decided to adopt the EPCA mean 
temperatures of 55 [deg]F and

[[Page 21591]]

20 [deg]F for a cooler and freezer, respectively for the DIN EN 
13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 testing conditions. This means 
that when a manufacturer tests a panel for LTTR, the manufacturer will 
determine the initial and aged R-value as specified by DIN EN 
13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 except the panel will be rated 
at 55 [deg]F and 20 [deg]F for a cooler and freezer, respectively. By 
deviating from the temperature condition specified in DIN EN 
13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, the fixed increment values and 
safety increment values will be slightly more conservative than the 
values that would be expected if the LTTR test were performed at the 
temperature condition specified in DIN EN 13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02, when applied to freezer panels.
    In response to Craig Industries' comment that whatever method is 
adopted should be applicable to expanded polystyrene foam, DOE notes 
that the foam aging procedures it proposed are only applicable to foams 
that rely on low conductivity blowing agents that are intended to stay 
within the foam for the life of the product. Because it is DOE's 
understanding that expanded polystyrene foam is not blown with low 
conductivity blowing agents that are intended to remain in the product 
for its usable life and does not exhibit long term changes in thermal 
resistance, these tests would not apply, nor would they be needed to 
assess the long term thermal resistance of this type of foam.
    One commenter did not agree with the proposed use of any of the 
protocols. Thermo-Kool disagreed with both ASTM C1303-10 and DIN EN 
13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 because none of these protocols, 
in its view, is designated for testing composite panels faced with 
metal skins. (Thermo-Kool, 0072.1 at p. 1) DOE agrees with Thermo-Kool 
that ASTM C1303-10 was not designed to test panels with metal facers. 
However, DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 were designed to 
account for metal facers on foam. DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 allow all metal skins or facers to remain on the foam 
during aging and testing. See, e.g., DIN EN 13165:2009-02, Annex C 
(instructing in relevant part to ``select a product sample including 
any product facing.'').
    DOE notes that many of the interested parties that opposed using 
ASTM C1303-10 to measure LTTR supported using DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and 
DIN EN 13164:2009-02 instead. Carpenter agreed with using DIN EN 
13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 as an alternative to ASTM C1303-
10. (Carpenter, No. 0067.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix and AHRI requested 
more time to review the European test procedure, but Hill Phoenix's 
initial assessment was that DIN EN 13165:2009-02 was a better option 
than ASTM C1303-10. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 0070.1 
at p. 2) Hill Phoenix added that DOE should adopt test procedures that 
are appropriate for the insulation materials that could be found in 
walk-in panels, which DOE interprets to mean that Hill Phoenix is 
suggesting that DOE adopt both DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 if DOE uses these standards instead of ASTM C1303-10. 
(Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 2) Master-Bilt also stated DIN EN 
13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 seemed to better account for 
long-term degradation of foam performance, though they acknowledged 
they did not fully understand DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02. (Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 2)
    Other stakeholders had reservations about DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and 
DIN EN 13164:2009-02. Craig Industries stated that the alternatives to 
ASTM C1303-10 may ignore the fact that different plastic foam product 
insulations in the marketplace respond differently to heat. (Craig 
Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 4) It added that DOE should prevent 
foamed-in-place walk-in manufacturers from picking the most efficient 
part of the panel for testing. (Craig, No. 0068.1 at p. 4) Owens 
Corning noted that DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 
appeared to be material standards and not test methods, and Owens 
Corning asked for clarification on what the test method would be. 
(Owens Corning, 0058.1 at p. 1) NRDC suggested that DOE review the 
proposed standards, ASTM C1303-10, DIN EN 13165:2009-02, and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02, to determine which standard yields better results, and 
what the related testing burden would be to adopt a foreign standard. 
(NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 4)
    DOE notes Carpenter's, Hill Phoenix's, AHRI's, and Master-Bilt's 
approval of DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, and in light 
of the criticisms that DOE has received about ASTM C1303-10 and the 
support for DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, DOE has 
decided to adopt DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 as the 
test procedure for determining LTTR of polyurethane products and 
extruded polystyrene products, respectively (polyisocyanurate products 
are covered by the test for polyurethane products). Today's final rule 
provides that the LTTR value determined by Annex C of DIN EN 
13165:2009-02 or DIN EN 13164:2009-02 shall be used to determine a 
degradation factor. The degradation factor will be the LTTR R-value 
divided by the original R-value of the foam. The original R-value of 
the foam will be tested with ASTM C518-04, as specified by the EISA 
2007 amendments to EPCA, and can be used for compliance with the 
relevant R-value requirement established by those amendments. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)) The degradation factor is applied to the U-factor 
of the panel found by ASTM C1365-05; see section 4.2 and 4.3 in 
Appendix A.
    In response to Owens Corning's comment that DIN EN 13165:2009-02 
and DIN EN 13164:2009-02 appeared to be material standards and not test 
methods, DOE notes that Annex C of both DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 provide the methodology for testing. DOE also notes Craig 
Industries' concern about using heat to test for LTTR and NRDC's 
recommendation that DOE compare the different standards that were 
proposed; however, DOE believes DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 are more accurate and appropriate for assessing the long-
term performance of impermeably faced foams used in walk-in coolers and 
freezers because they permit panels to be tested with their facers, and 
accounts for impermeably faced foam. Also, to address Craig Industries' 
concern about manufacturers not all choosing the same part of the 
panel, DOE is requiring that this test sample should be taken from the 
geometric center of the test specimen.
    DOE is largely incorporating DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 except for the requirement that the thermal resistance 
measurement is conducted at a mean temperature of 10 [deg]C. DOE has 
decided to adopt the EPCA mean temperatures of 55 [deg]F and 20 [deg]F 
for a cooler and freezer, respectively for the DIN EN 13165:2009-09 and 
DIN EN 13164:2009-02 testing conditions. However, the manufacturer will 
still have to follow any applicable aging conditions prescribed by DIN 
EN 13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02. By deviating from the 
temperature condition specified in DIN EN 13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 
13164:2009-02, the fixed increment values and safety increment values 
will be slightly more conservative than the values that would be 
expected if the

[[Page 21592]]

LTTR test were performed at the temperature condition specified in DIN 
EN 13165:2009-09 and DIN EN 13164:2009-02, when applied to freezer 
panels.
c. Moisture Absorption
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE discussed the possibility of testing 
the impact of moisture absorption on the R-value of different 
insulation materials, evaluated various tests developed by ASTM, and 
reviewed a research paper completed by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), 
which Owens Corning submitted to the docket. (Owens Corning, No. 0054.3 
at p. 1) DOE initially concluded that testing the effect of moisture 
absorption on the R-value of insulation foam would be complex, costly, 
and time-consuming, and that there was no well-accepted testing method. 
As a result, DOE proposed that the impact of water absorption on R-
value not be included in the test procedure. 75 FR 186, 194 (Jan. 4, 
2010).
    DOE received many comments from interested parties that supported 
the inclusion of some means to account for the effect of water 
infiltration. At the NOPR public meeting, and in several written 
comments, Craig Industries urged DOE to test for and include the impact 
of moisture absorption in foam. (Craig Industries, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 248; Craig Industries, No. 0035.1 at p. 3; 
Craig Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 5; Craig Industries, No. 0057.13 at 
p. 5) ACEEE also stated that it was imperative to include the effect of 
moisture absorption. (ACEE, No. 0052.1 at p. 2) Kysor maintained that 
moisture did not affect the R-value of poured-in-place polyurethane, 
but laminated panels would be severely affected by water because of the 
water-based glue used to bond the insulation to the metal skins. 
(Kysor, No. 0053.1 at p. 3)
    Some interested parties suggested possible tests and studies that 
could be used to measure the effect of water absorption. For example, 
Craig Industries and Owens Corning referred to the CRREL study for 
information about the performance of various materials with water. 
(Craig Industries, No. 0054.1 at p. 2; Owens Corning, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 250) Nor-Lake suggested that an adequate 
test for water absorption would be ASTM D2842-06, ``Standard Test 
Method for Water Absorption of Rigid Cellular Plastics.'' (Nor-Lake, 
No. 0047.1 at p. 3) Owens Corning suggested that ASTM E96, ``Standard 
Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials,'' could be used 
to test water vapor permeability rates and determine the effect of 
moisture absorption on foam. (Owens Corning, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0016 at p. 253; Owens Corning, No. 0048.1 at p. 1; Owens Corning, 
No. 0032.1 at p. 3) Owens Corning also suggested that ASTM E96 could be 
used to identify suitable materials for walk-in cooler and walk-in 
freezer applications. (Owens Corning, No. 0048.1 at p. 1 and No. 0032.1 
at p. 3)
    Additionally, joint comments filed by SCE, SMUD, SDG&E, and SCG on 
the January 2010 NOPR, hereafter referred to as the Joint Comment, 
added that although ASTM E96 produces a conservatively low estimate of 
moisture permeance at high vapor pressures, DOE should evaluate whether 
using ASTM E96 is better than not accounting for the effect of moisture 
on insulating foam. (Joint Comment, No. 0037.1 at p. 11) The Joint 
Comment added that there may be difficulties in testing and 
characterizing R-value deterioration in foams due to moisture 
absorption, but DOE should still consider a requirement for testing 
vapor permeability. (Joint Comment, No. 0037.1 at p. 1) Owens Corning 
also stated that, since DOE raised the proposed relative humidity 
assumption for the test condition from 45 percent to 75 percent in the 
September 2010 SNOPR, DOE implicitly acknowledged the high humidity 
conditions present in walk-in cooler and freezer environments, which, 
in its view, supported the consideration of the impact of moisture on 
the thermal performance of a walk-in over its lifetime. (Owens Corning, 
No. 0058.1 at p. 2) ACEEE suggested that because a major threat to 
moisture control for panels is the integrity of the exterior skin, a 
minimally intrusive method to determine the impact of moisture 
absorption would be to assess the vapor diffusion integrity of the 
sealed panel. (ACEEE, No. 0052.1 at p. 2)
    Other interested parties did not support including water absorption 
in the test procedure. ThermalRite stated that moisture infiltration 
was unlikely to occur in properly constructed panels, water 
infiltration would most likely be the result of improper materials or 
manufacturing, and that moisture infiltration should be considered 
inconsequential and removed from proposed test procedures. 
(ThermalRite, No. 0045.1 at p.1; ThermalRite, No. 0045.1 at p. 2; 
ThermalRite, No. 0049.1 at p.2) ICS commented that water infiltration 
is related to panel installation and that there were no data to support 
that moisture infiltration is caused by the walk-in's manufacture or 
design. (ICS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 253; ICS, No. 
0045.1 at p. 1) ICS went on to state that, under actual and average 
usage conditions, water absorption in foam is negligible and it 
recommended that the impact of moisture absorption should be removed 
from the proposed test procedure. (ICS, No. 0045.1 at p. 1; ICS, No. 
0045.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix commented that moisture absorption was not 
an issue and any moisture issues were generally reported by the walk-in 
cooler or walk-in freezer user and were quickly repaired. (Hill 
Phoenix, No. 0041.1 at p. 2) Carpenter agreed with DOE that the impact 
of water absorption of foam would be difficult to study and quantify, 
and added that polyurethane foam has an inherently low permeability, 
which would minimize water absorption. (Carpenter, No. 0043.1 at p. 2) 
TAFCO concurred that moisture infiltration into polyurethane foam is 
not an issue, and that it would not cause the R-value to degrade 
significantly over time. (TAFCO, No. 0040.1 at p. 2) TAFCO also stated 
that they have installed panels in high-humidity environments and they 
did not encounter any cases of water absorption by panels. It urged 
that DOE not pursue this issue further. (TAFCO, No. 0040.1 at p. 2)
    DOE understands that interested parties have concerns regarding the 
potential impact of moisture absorption on the thermal performance of 
insulating material over the lifetime of a walk-in cooler or freezer. 
Prior to the publication of the January 2010 NOPR, DOE reviewed several 
methods for testing vapor permeance and water absorption in foam 
insulation materials. However, this review of various test methods 
showed that there were disparities among the different methods, and 
that there was no general agreement upon a single approach. 75 FR 186, 
194 (Jan. 4, 2010). Moreover, while these tests are designed to measure 
the performance of insulating foam by itself, they would not account 
for the many unique construction methods and combinations of materials 
employed by manufacturers of panels to minimize moisture infiltration.
    At this time, test procedures for measuring the impact of water on 
foam R-value are not yet recognized by a national organization such as 
ASTM. DOE notes that because of the absence of any nationally 
recognized testing standards, it would need to develop such a protocol. 
To this end, one of DOE's national labs is in the process of developing 
procedures to evaluate the impact of moisture on insulation R-values. 
Accordingly, because of the potential ambiguities that are currently

[[Page 21593]]

present with respect to the means by which to assess the impact of 
moisture absorption on the thermal performance of insulating material 
over time, DOE is not incorporating a method to account for moisture 
absorption at this time. DOE may, however, consider adopting such a 
procedure in the future.
d. Display Panels
    In the September 2010 SNOPR, DOE proposed that glass walls 
(``display panels'') would be tested using NFRC 100-2001-E0A to measure 
their thermal transmittance, or U-factor. 75 FR 55068, 55098 (Sept. 9, 
2010). Display panels are typically found on beer caves and share many 
characteristics with display doors. Notably, they are readily tested or 
simulated using the procedure in NFRC 100-2001-E0A. DOE received no 
comments regarding its proposed approach for display panels. 
Consequently, DOE is including this test procedure (to be codified in 
section 4.1 of Appendix A) to measure the thermal transmittance of 
display panels or walls. Additionally, to improve clarity, DOE is 
defining ``display panels'' as a panel that is entirely or partially 
comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both and is used for 
display purposes.
e. Open Areas of Walk-Ins
    The test procedure DOE is establishing today contains tests for 
components of walk-ins that separate the interior refrigerated 
environment of the walk-in from the exterior. Zero Zone stated that the 
test procedure should include a method to determine the energy use for 
walk-ins that have open areas to display food. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 
at p. 1) Because an open area does not, by definition, separate the 
interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior, an 
open area is not a component of the walk-in that is covered under this 
test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is not adopting Zero Zone's 
suggestion.
3. Energy Use of Doors
a. U-Factor of Doors
    In the September 2010 SNOPR, DOE proposed to rate the total thermal 
transmittance (i.e. U-factor) of doors, including their framing 
materials or complete door plug, using the test procedure NFRC 100-
2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-
factors.'' 75 FR 55068, 55083 (Sept. 9, 2010). DOE specified internal 
and external rating conditions for the test procedure to closely match 
conditions that would be experienced by the door when it is part of a 
walk-in.
    NEEA strongly supported DOE's use of NFRC 100-2010[E0A1] procedures 
for testing the performance of walk-in cooler and freezer doors. (NEEA, 
No. 0061.1 at p. 2) NRDC agreed with DOE's use of NFRC 100-2010[E0A1] 
for rating doors with the proposed changes to the temperatures used for 
the testing procedure. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 6)
    DOE notes NEEA's and NRDC's support and has incorporated the use of 
NFRC 100-2001-E0A1 in this final rule. DOE also notes that none of the 
interested parties submitted comments that disagreed with using NFRC 
100-2001-E0A1. The thermal transmittance result from NFRC 100-2001-E0A1 
is then used to calculate the corresponding energy consumption of a 
refrigeration system whose efficiency is given in sections 4.4 and 4.5 
of Appendix A for display and non-display doors, respectively. This 
energy metric is combined with the electricity consumption from 
electrical door components to calculate the door's total energy 
consumption.
b. Electrical Components of Doors
    As described in section III.A.1, the test metric for doors includes 
the energy consumed by electrical components associated with a walk-in 
door. The electricity consumed by the door will be the sum of the rated 
power associated with each electricity consuming device multiplied by 
the assumed time the device will be operational. Percent time off (PTO) 
assumptions are given in sections 4.4.2 and 4.5.2 of Appendix A for 
display and non-display doors, respectively. PTO assumptions are 
specified for some electrical components, such as anti-sweat heater 
wire. For any electricity consuming devices for which a PTO is not 
specified in Appendix A, today's final rule provides that if a 
manufacturer can demonstrate that the device is controlled by a 
preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system, the 
PTO is assumed to be 25 percent. For example, if a door has a 
thermometer mounted on it that consumes electricity, but the 
thermometer has a built in timer so that it shuts off at certain times, 
then the manufacturer of the door can use the PTO value of 25 percent 
when calculating the energy consumption of the thermometer.
    The test procedure also provides a means for measuring the heat 
generation of door electrical components that are located on the inside 
surface of the door. This heat is added to the heat transmitted through 
the door and the corresponding refrigeration energy use is calculated 
using the method described in section III.B.3.c. The refrigeration 
energy use is added to the electrical energy use to calculate the total 
energy consumption of the door.
    DOE received a comment challenging its assumptions about heat from 
electrical devices. Zero Zone disagreed with the assumption that all 
anti-condensate heat contributes to the walk-in heat load, and instead 
suggested that 50 to 75 percent of the anti-condensate heat going into 
the display case would be a more appropriate assumption. (Zero Zone, 
No. 0077.1 at p. 2) After further analysis, DOE agrees with Zero Zone's 
observation that not all anti-condensate heat necessarily contributes 
to the walk-in heat load because the anti-condensate heat is applied to 
the transparent surface of the display case. Because one side of the 
transparent surface is in contact with the surrounding external 
environment, a portion of the heat is transmitted from the display case 
to the surrounding environment. Therefore, DOE has revised the 
equations in sections 4.4.2and 4.5.2of Appendix A to capture only 75 
percent of the power from anti-sweat heaters as an additional 
compressor load.
c. Energy Efficiency Ratio
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that 
manufacturers measure the energy use of walk-in cooler and walk-in 
freezer envelopes in kWh/day. However, most metrics used to describe 
heat transfer losses are in units of British thermal units (Btu) per 
unit time. In order to convert the thermal energy transmission 
calculation (Btu/hr) into a measure of electrical energy consumed by 
the refrigeration equipment, DOE proposed to use an energy efficiency 
ratio based on a nominal efficiency of an assumed refrigeration system. 
The EER values proposed for coolers and freezers were 12.4 Btu/W-h and 
6.3 Btu/W-h respectively. The values were selected to provide a means 
of comparison and were not intended to represent the actual efficiency 
of the refrigeration system with which the envelope would ultimately be 
paired. 75 FR 186, 197 (Jan. 4, 2010). Although the test procedure no 
longer requires one to calculate the overall envelope energy, the 
concept is still relevant for calculating door energy.
    DOE received comments in response to the January 2010 NOPR 
regarding the use of an EER value, the assumptions used to calculate 
the EER value, and the proposed EER values for coolers and freezers. 
BASF commented that the proposed EER assumptions were reasonable. 
(BASF, No. 0021.1 at p. 4) Nor-Lake agreed with DOE's use of a

[[Page 21594]]

nominal EER value to convert the thermal energy transmission to 
electrical energy consumption. (Nor-Lake, No. 0047.1 at p. 5) Master-
Bilt also agreed with the proposed use of a nominal EER but stated that 
the proposed EER values are not achievable. (Master-Bilt, No. 0027.1 at 
p. 2) Kason requested that the nominal EER values be reassessed to 
represent real world values. (Kason, No. 0055.1 at p. 4) Nor-Lake 
commented that the EER values on their refrigeration models did not 
match DOE's proposed nominal values. (Nor-Lake, 0023.1 at p. 4)
    DOE considered these comments and, in conjunction with the 
supportive comments from Master-Bilt, Nor-Lake, and BASF, continues to 
use an EER value to relate the thermal energy transmission to the 
electrical energy consumed for doors. Despite the comments from Kason, 
Master-Bilt, and Nor-Lake, DOE finds 12.4 Btu/W-h and 6.3 Btu/W-h to be 
appropriate conversions for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 
respectively, because these EER values correspond to nominal EER values 
contained in the refrigeration test procedure for unit coolers 
connected to multiplex condensing systems (AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009). DOE 
is aware that the nominal values for this configuration may not 
represent all walk-ins, but notes that these EER values are intended to 
provide a means of comparison and not directly reflect a real walk-in 
installation. In particular, these EER assumptions are not intended to 
represent the expected efficiency of any particular refrigeration 
system produced by a manufacturer and are provided as a method to 
converting thermal energy to electrical energy consumed by a 
refrigeration system.
4. Heat Transfer via Air Infiltration
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE stated that, compared with other 
energy consumption factors such as conduction losses through 
insulation, air infiltration may be the largest contributing factor to 
envelope thermal load. That notice identified two infiltration 
pathways: steady state leakage and air losses due to door-opening 
events. To address this issue, DOE proposed to include test procedures 
to measure the steady state infiltration and infiltration from door 
opening events and subsequently modified these test procedures in 
response to comments to the September 2010 SNOPR. See 75 FR 196-197 
(Jan. 4, 2010) and 75 FR 55084-55086 (Sept. 9, 2010). Interested 
parties submitted comments pertaining to the topic of envelope 
infiltration, including steady state infiltration, door opening 
infiltration, calculations, and empirical methodologies for quantifying 
the effects of infiltration.
a. Steady State Infiltration
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that steady state 
infiltration of fully assembled envelopes must be tested using the 
method described in ASTM E741-06, ``Standard Test Method for 
Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas 
Dilution.'' 75 FR 196 (Jan. 4, 2010).
    Some interested parties stated that steady state infiltration 
should not be included in the test procedure. Hill Phoenix maintained 
that an insufficient amount of infiltration would occur in a properly 
installed walk-in, essentially suggesting that DOE abandon the 
inclusion of infiltration in the test. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0063.1 at p. 
2) AHRI concurred, stating that a steady-state infiltration test is not 
necessary due to the insignificant amount of infiltration present in a 
walk-in * * * (AHRI, No. 0070.1 at p. 3) Master-Bilt agreed, suggesting 
that testing steady-state infiltration is unnecessary because this 
infiltration is insignificant compared with infiltration from door 
openings. (Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 2) NRDC suggested that DOE 
confirm the assumption that the impact of infiltration and exfiltration 
through the envelope is minimal compared to the infiltration through 
the doors, and suggested that DOE should weigh each impact. (NRDC, No. 
0064.1 at p. 6)
    Other interested parties commented on the specific test methods DOE 
proposed in the January 2010 NOPR for measuring steady-state 
infiltration of walk-in envelopes. TAFCO stated that ASTM E741-06, 
Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by 
Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution, is an acceptable method for determining 
steady state air infiltration. (TAFCO, No. 0040.1 at p. 3) ACEEE also 
agreed with using ASTM E741-06. (ACEEE, 0052.1 at p. 3) NEEA commented 
that either ASTM E741-06 or a standard blower test is a reasonable 
method of calculating steady state infiltration, but noted that the 
blower test would be faster and less costly to administer. Therefore, 
NEEA recommended that DOE test ASTM E741-06 and the standard blower 
door test before prescribing which methodology must be used. (NEEA, No. 
0061.1 at p. 2) Kysor, on the other hand, stated that it is neither 
necessary nor cost effective to assemble an entire walk-in to test for 
air infiltration. Kysor stated that each component should be tested 
separately and recommended that DOE use ASTM E1424-08, Standard Test 
Method for Determining the Rate of Air Leakage Through Exterior 
Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under Specified Pressure and 
Temperature Differences Across the Specimen, and ASTM E2357-05, 
Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage of Air Barrier 
Assemblies, because either can test any assembly that will become part 
of a walk-in. (Kysor, No. 0053.1 at p. 3)
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that ASTM E741-06 should be 
used to measure infiltration; however, in the September SNOPR, DOE 
determined that ASTM E741-06 could present an undue burden for 
manufacturers with respect to the many door combinations that are 
possible. Therefore, DOE proposed in its September 2010 SNOPR to also 
consider measuring steady state infiltration through doors using NFRC 
400-2010-E0A1, ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Air 
Leakage.'' 75 FR 55068, 55084 (Sept. 9, 2010).
    Interested parties commented on NFRC 400-2010-E0A1 and suggested 
alternatives. NRDC agreed with using NFRC 400-2010-E0A1 to determine 
infiltration of individual envelope components, but also recommended 
using a pressurization test to determine infiltration of fully 
assembled envelopes, based on ASTM D6670, ``Standard Practice for Full-
Scale Chamber Determination of Volatile Organic Emissions from Indoor 
Materials/Products.'' (NRDC, No. 2.3.008 at p. 6) AHRI recommended that 
infiltration could be estimated for a family of doors by using a 
scaling methodology based on a limited number of tests. AHRI cautioned 
DOE against requiring the manufacturer to test every single door 
because it would be burdensome. (AHRI, No. 2.3.015 at p.3) Some 
interested parties commented on the prescribed testing conditions to be 
implemented with NFRC 400-2010-E0A1. American Panel stated that the 
proposed steady state infiltration test unit is not representative of 
the average walk-in size and suggested a more representative size of 8 
feet by 12 feet by 8 feet high. (American Panel, No. 2.3.001 at p. 3) 
American Panel, NEEA, and Bally concurred with DOE's assumption of 75 
percent relative humidity, which DOE proposed as a condition of 
testing. (American Panel, No. 2.3.001 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 2.3.005 at p. 
5; Bally, No. 0078.1 at p.2)
    DOE notes the specific comments and suggestions from TAFCO, NEEA, 
ACEEE, Kysor, NRDC, AHRI, and American Panel, but has decided not to 
include steady state infiltration in the WICF test procedure at this 
time. In response to NRDC's suggestion that DOE

[[Page 21595]]

weigh the impact of steady-state infiltration against other sources of 
infiltration, DOE believes that the contribution of steady state 
infiltration towards the aggregate energy consumption of a well-
constructed factory-built walk-in unit is most likely negligible 
compared to other energy consumption pathways for current WICF designs. 
Higher steady-state infiltration across the envelope for site-assembled 
walk-in coolers and freezers appears to be generally caused by poor 
installation and construction practices. As such, DOE is not 
incorporating an overall infiltration measurement, which is a factor 
that relies heavily on on-site assembly practices rather than the 
performance of individual components. Given that today's final rule 
includes a means to assess the performance of specific individual 
components, the performance of these components will be captured under 
the new procedure and should be sufficiently adequate prior to their 
installation as part of a completed walk-in unit. Should this prove not 
to be the case, DOE may re-examine the procedure and consider 
modifications to address its potential shortcomings.
b. Door Opening Infiltration
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate air 
infiltration associated with each door-opening event using established 
analytical methods based on equations and computational values 
published in the ASHRAE Refrigeration Handbook. DOE also made several 
assumptions in the test procedure that could have a significant impact 
on the predicted air exchange. The assumptions with the most impact 
were the number of doorway passages (the number of door-opening cycles 
for a given door), door open-close time, and the amount of time the 
door is held or propped open. 75 FR 186, 196 (Jan. 4, 2010). In the 
September 2010 SNOPR, DOE did not propose to change the basic 
methodology, but modified some of the assumptions in order to 
differentiate door types. 75 FR 55068, 55085 (Sept. 9, 2010).
    Some interested parties supported the proposed method. Hired Hand 
agreed with the methodology used for calculating the air infiltration 
from door openings. (Hired Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at 
p. 309) Hired Hand emphasized that air infiltration may be the largest 
contributing factor to envelope energy losses. (Hired Hand, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 28; Hired Hand, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 279; Hired Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0016 at p. 285) American Panel suggested the use of ASHRAE values 
for heat load as the best way to account for the effects of air 
infiltration. (American Panel, No. 0042.1 at p. 2) ThermalRite, Nor-
Lake, and Master-Bilt agreed with American Panel's suggestion. 
(ThermalRite, No. 0049.1 at p. 2; Nor-Lake, No. 0047.1 at p.4; Master-
Bilt, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 311) Master-Bilt and 
Zero Zone also agreed with DOE's assumptions regarding infiltration 
attributed to door openings. (Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 2; Zero 
Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 2)
    Other interested parties questioned the applicability of the method 
to walk-in cooler and freezer doors, or questioned DOE's assumptions in 
calculating door opening infiltration. Schott Gemtron contended that 
ASHRAE equations may be based on supermarket display cases, implying 
that they may not be applicable to some walk-in doors. (Schott Gemtron, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 314) Hired Hand was concerned 
that the proposed test procedures do not account for the effect of 
fast-acting doors on air infiltration. (Hired Hand, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 286) SCE and Hired Hand both stated that the 
parameters used to calculate air infiltration should clearly show the 
benefit of fast-acting doors. (SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 
at p. 320; Hired Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 320) 
Hired Hand also recommended that the equations used to calculate air 
infiltration should be based on the operational time the doors are 
opened over an assumed 24-hour day. (Hired Hand, No. 0051.1 at p. 4) 
Zero Zone stated that any air infiltration calculations should include 
additional air infiltration if the evaporator is discharging air in the 
direction of the display doors. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 1) Bally 
stated that hybrid walk-ins, that is, walk-ins sited within another 
walk-in, should be given beneficial consideration. Bally explained that 
a walk-in freezer sited inside a walk-in cooler would experience less 
infiltration because of the smaller temperature differential between 
the interior and exterior of the freezer. (Bally, No. 0078.1 at p.2)
    Interested parties also made specific comments on the effect of 
infiltration reduction devices (IRDs). ACEEE and ThermalRite supported 
the infiltration device effectiveness test methodology. (ACEEE, No. 
0052.1 at p. 3; ThermalRite, No. 0049.1 at p. 2) TAFCO also stated that 
ASTM E741-06 is an acceptable method for determining IRD effectiveness. 
(TAFCO, No. 0040.1 at p. 3) NRDC stated that the proposed door opening 
infiltration calculation from ASHRAE Fundamentals 2009 is acceptable 
for conventional doors, but when doorways are protected by an air 
curtain or other infiltration reduction device, calculations should 
include the effect of such devices on energy use. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at 
p. 6)
    Master-Bilt commented that air infiltration from door openings 
cannot be modeled in a meaningful way and should be excluded from the 
test methodology. (Master-Bilt, No. 0027.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix noted 
that the panel manufacturer has no bearing on door opening frequency, 
which accounts for the majority of the infiltration. (Hill Phoenix, No. 
0063.1 at p. 2) NEEA suggested that DOE should not make assumptions 
about the nature of the use of a particular walk-in. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 
at p. 5) Instead, it recommended that DOE include a prescriptive 
requirement for infiltration reduction devices. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 
5)
    DOE has decided not to include any test procedure for door opening 
infiltration following its decision to have component-level test 
procedures and standards. Door infiltration is primarily reduced by 
incorporating a separate infiltration reduction device at the assembly 
stage of the complete walk-in. Based on DOE's understanding of the door 
manufacturing industry, a typical door manufacturer has very few direct 
means for reducing the door infiltration on its own since IRDs are 
generally designed and manufactured independently from doors and they 
require proper field installation to achieve rated performance. 
Consequently, at this time, DOE is not incorporating provisions that 
would require measuring the effectiveness of the infiltration reduction 
devices and door infiltration, as suggested by Master-Bilt, Hill 
Phoenix, and NEEA. Likewise, reduction of door infiltration due to the 
location of the walk-in is not captured, as suggested by Bally.
    In response to NEEA's comment recommending a prescriptive standard, 
DOE notes that EPCA has already established a prescriptive requirement 
for infiltration reduction devices, and there may be limited if any 
benefit to DOE adding additional prescriptive standards for 
infiltration reduction devices. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(B)) Nevertheless, 
DOE will consider the need for these types of standards within the 
context of its ongoing energy standards rulemaking.
5. Electrical Components
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the energy 
consumption of electrical devices using their nameplate rating and duty 
cycle

[[Page 21596]]

assumptions about their daily operation. In addition, the heat loads 
from electrical devices were factored into the envelope refrigeration 
load calculations. DOE proposed to incorporate 100 percent of the 
electrical energy consumed to operate the devices that are internally 
located and to convert the electrical energy consumed to a thermal 
load. The associated thermal load was then used to calculate the 
additional refrigeration load using the nominal refrigeration EER 
values described in section III.B.3.c. DOE also proposed a variety of 
PTO values in the NOPR to account for reductions in energy use due to 
component control and hours of usage. 75 FR 186, 198 (Jan. 4, 2010).
    BASF supported including electricity consumption as part of the 
energy calculation, and concurred with the duty cycle assumptions. 
(BASF, No. 0021.1 at p. 5) Master-Bilt and Nor-Lake also agreed with 
the electrical duty cycle equation proposed by DOE. (Master-Bilt, No. 
0027.1 at p. 2; Nor-Lake, No. 0023.1 at p. 4) ACEEE supported the 
methods and assumptions for PTO values and electrical loads and agreed 
with the use of nameplate power ratings because it encouraged load 
reduction. (ACEEE, No. 0052.1 at p. 3) ThermalRite noted that while it 
did not fully understand how the proposed PTO values listed in the 
January 2010 NOPR were developed, it believed that the proposed values 
represented a fair method of comparison among manufacturers because the 
same assumptions are made for all users. ThermalRite asked that DOE 
ensure that the values include all device types. (ThermalRite, No. 
0049.1 at p. 2) ORNL requested that DOE include the ground heater below 
the floor insulation as part of the energy use calculation. (ORNL, No. 
0028.1 at p. 2) Craig Industries requested that DOE accommodate high-
efficiency heater wires that apply heat on demand. (Craig Industries, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 325 and No. 0054.1 at p. 3) 
Finally, Nor-Lake expressed the opinion that the proposed PTO values 
for lights are low because in most applications the lights would be 
shut off each night for 8 hours. (Nor-Lake, No. 0047.1 at p. 5)
    DOE notes support from BASF, Master-Bilt, Nor-Lake, ACEEE, and 
ThermalRite for its methodology and assumptions. DOE is also aware of 
the concerns presented by ORNL, Craig Industries, and Nor-Lake. 
However, since DOE will implement a component-based standard, 
electrical components not part of a door are not included in the 
component test or component metric. DOE notes that assemblers or 
manufacturers of complete walk-ins must still use lighting that 
complies with the efficacy standard prescribed in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(G)) DOE will continue to use the method proposed in the 
January 2010 NOPR to calculate the energy consumption of lights, 
sensors, and other miscellaneous electrical devices associated with 
walk-in doors. Regarding Craig Industries' specific comment about door 
heater wire, DOE's PTO assumptions take into account demand-based 
control of components, which includes the loads from door heater wires. 
PTO assumptions are given in sections 4.4.2 and 4.5.2 of Appendix A for 
display and non-display doors, respectively. See section III.B.3.b for 
further discussion of electrical components of doors.

C. Test Procedures for Refrigeration Systems

    The refrigeration system is the equipment that performs the 
mechanical work necessary to cool the interior space of a walk-in 
cooler or freezer. As previously discussed, DOE considers the 
refrigeration system an individual component of the walk-in cooler or 
walk-in freezer. Therefore, in this test procedure, DOE establishes a 
test of the performance of a refrigeration system itself, assuming 
nominal envelope characteristics. In the concurrent standards 
rulemaking, DOE intends to establish energy conservation standards for 
the refrigeration system. See generally 75 FR 17080 (April 5, 2010). 
The following sections address issues raised by interested parties on 
the January 2010 NOPR and September 2010 SNOPR.
1. Definition of Refrigeration System
    In the January 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition of 
refrigeration system that described three types of systems that would 
be covered: (1) Single-package systems containing the condensing and 
evaporator units; (2) split systems with the condensing unit and unit 
cooler physically separated and connected via refrigerant piping; or 
(3) unit coolers that receive refrigerant from a compressor rack system 
shared with other refrigeration equipment. 75 FR at 200 (Jan. 4, 2010). 
In the September 2010 SNOPR, DOE proposed minor revisions to that 
definition to clarify some of these terms. That notice proposed the 
following definitions:

    Refrigeration system means the mechanism (including all controls 
and other components integral to the system's operation) used to 
create the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in 
cooler or freezer, consisting of (1) a packaged system where the 
unit cooler and condensing unit are integrated into a single piece 
of equipment, (2) a split system with separate unit cooler and 
condensing unit sections, or (3) a unit cooler that is connected to 
a multiplex condensing system.

75 FR 55068, 55093 (Sept. 9, 2010).
    NRDC, Craig Industries, and Master-Bilt agreed with the revisions 
proposed in the September 2010 SNOPR. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 7; Craig 
Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 5; Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 3) Other 
interested parties did not agree with the classification contained in 
the definition or the types of systems covered. NEEA stated that the 
three refrigeration types do not accurately represent the market, and 
recommended that the equipment classification should instead match the 
classifications contained in DOE's regulations for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at pp. 2 and 4) The Joint 
Utilities also disagreed with the concept of defining systems as 
``matched'' (``packaged'' or ``split'' systems as termed in the 
proposed definition) or ``remote'' (a unit cooler connected to a 
multiplex condensing system as in the proposed definition). (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 2) Like NEEA, the Joint Utilities suggested 
that DOE change its proposed definition by adopting the approach taken 
with the commercial refrigeration equipment efficiency regulations: 
``packaged'' systems should be termed ``self-contained condensing 
units'' and all other condensing units should be considered ``remote 
condensing units.'' The Joint SNOPR comment also agreed with this 
approach, suggesting that DOE classify refrigeration systems as self-
contained (packaged systems) or unit coolers connected to remote 
condensing units (both dedicated and multiplex). It also suggested that 
for remote condensing systems, any applicable energy conservation 
standards should only apply to the unit cooler. (Joint SNOPR Comment, 
No. 0074.1 at p. 3)
    DOE believes the three types of refrigeration systems described in 
the definition accurately represent the range of refrigeration 
equipment that is used in walk-in coolers and freezers. Although the 
definition differs from the definition for commercial refrigeration 
equipment, there are key differences between commercial refrigeration 
equipment refrigeration systems and walk-in refrigeration systems that 
make a new definition necessary. NEEA and the Joint Utilities refer to 
two common types of commercial refrigeration equipment refrigeration 
units. Some are ``self-contained'' (meaning the entire refrigeration 
system is built into the case). Others are ``remote condensing'' 
(meaning the unit cooler is built into the

[[Page 21597]]

case, but the whole case is connected to a central system of 
compressors and condensers (called a ``rack'' or ``multiplex condensing 
system'') that is connected to most or all of the refrigeration units 
in a building). The latter configuration is common in supermarkets. For 
all remote condensing systems, the commercial refrigeration equipment 
test procedure rulemaking assumed a certain efficiency of the multiplex 
condensing system and the standards rulemaking did not regulate this 
part of the equipment. 71 FR 71340 and 74 FR 1092.
    However, ``remote condensing'' can also refer to a configuration in 
which the unit cooler is connected to a dedicated (that is, only 
serving that one unit) compressor and condenser that are located 
somewhere away from the walk-in. This configuration is very rare for 
commercial refrigeration equipment but comprises a large proportion of 
walk-in refrigeration system applications. For this reason, DOE does 
not agree with the suggestion of NEEA and the Joint Utilities that this 
configuration should be classified as ``remote condensing'' and does 
not agree that the compressor and condenser parts should not be covered 
under the walk-in coolers and freezers rulemaking. Rather, DOE believes 
that a dedicated condensing unit should be included in the rule, even 
if it is remotely located, because it could be viewed as part of the 
walk-in cooler as long as it is connected only to that cooler and not 
to other refrigeration equipment. For systems where the walk-in is 
connected to a multiplex condensing system that runs multiple pieces of 
equipment, the compressor and condenser would not be covered because 
they are not exclusively part of the walk-in.
    In consideration of the above, DOE believes the commercial 
refrigeration equipment definition cannot be applied to walk-ins, 
because there is a certain type of walk-in refrigeration--namely, a 
split system with a dedicated but remotely located condensing unit--
that is highly represented in walk-ins but rarely, if ever, represented 
in commercial refrigeration equipment. Thus, while the Joint Comment 
compares walk-in refrigeration systems to commercial refrigeration 
equipment, DOE believes this is not a relevant comparison. A closer 
comparison would be to residential central air conditioners--an example 
of equipment that almost always has a dedicated, but remotely located, 
condensing unit. In that instance, DOE's definition covers this type of 
remote condensing unit. Furthermore, DOE notes that manufacturers can 
optimize the dedicated, remote condensing unit with the unit cooler to 
take advantage of certain conditions such as low ambient outdoor 
temperatures. Therefore, DOE has retained the proposed definition's 
coverage of dedicated remote condensing systems. To further clarify 
this coverage, DOE has added the term ``dedicated'' to describe 
packaged systems and split systems in the definition it is adopting 
today.
2. Refrigeration Test Procedure: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009
    DOE proposed to incorporate the industry standard AHRI 1250-2009, 
``2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and 
Freezers,'' into the test procedure. (The January 2010 NOPR referred to 
the preliminary version of this standard, AHRI 1250P-2009. The SNOPR 
updated this reference to the final version.) 75 FR 186, 200-201 (Jan. 
4, 2010) and 75 FR 55068, 55086 (Sept. 9, 2010). DOE proposed that 
manufacturers use this standard to rate the refrigeration systems of 
walk-in coolers and freezers.
    AHRI 1250-2009 covers the testing of refrigeration systems for 
walk-in coolers and freezers, which includes unit coolers and 
condensing units that are sold together as a matched system, unit 
coolers and condensing units that are sold separately, and unit coolers 
connected to compressor racks. The procedure describes the method for 
measuring the refrigeration capacity and the electrical energy 
consumption for the condensing unit and the unit cooler, as well as the 
off-cycle fan energy and the defrost subsystem under specified test 
conditions. The standard test conditions specify the dry-bulb and wet-
bulb temperatures of the air surrounding the unit cooler and the 
condensing unit. The standard test conditions are different for indoor 
and outdoor locations for the condensing unit and for coolers and 
freezers.
    The AHRI procedure also specifies the calculations used to 
ascertain the nominal box loads under typical low-load and high-load 
conditions, expressed as a function of the ambient air temperature. 
(The ``nominal box load'' refers to the refrigeration load imposed on 
the system by the walk-in envelope.) During the test, the system must 
operate under steady-state conditions. For systems in which the 
condensing unit is located outdoors, the test procedure uses bin 
temperature data and bin hour data to represent the impact of the 
seasonal variation in outside ambient air temperature on energy use. 
The test procedure provides a calculation methodology to compute an 
annual walk-in efficiency factor (AWEF) for the refrigeration system 
under a specified load profile. For unit coolers and condensing units 
sold separately, the test procedure allows for testing the components 
individually and then calculating the system AWEF from the component 
test results.
    Several interested parties agreed with DOE's proposed methodology. 
AHRI urged DOE to allow a rating of walk-in refrigeration systems using 
the calculation methodologies in the proposed protocols contained in 
AHRI 1250. (AHRI, No. 0070.1 at p. 2) American Panel, Thermo-Kool, 
Bally, and NRDC also supported DOE's proposal to allow the evaporator 
and condensing unit to be tested separately according to the proposed 
methodology. (American Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 1; Thermo-Kool, No. 
0072.1 at p. 1; Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 3) 
Craig Industries supported a formula that would allow the efficiency of 
the refrigeration system to be calculated from testing data provided by 
each component supplier. (Craig, No. 0068.1 at p. 3) Heatcraft advised 
that the refrigeration system procedure should allow for testing new 
components. (Heatcraft, No. 0065.1 at p. 1) However, the Joint 
Utilities disagreed with the assumption in AHRI 1250-2009 that unit 
coolers and remote condensing units that are sold separately will be 
matched and installed together, and stated that AHRI 1250-2009 does not 
allow unit coolers to be compared with each other unless they have been 
tested on the same condensing unit. (Joint Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 
2) No parties opposed DOE's proposal to allow evaporator and condensing 
unit to be tested separately.
    DOE notes the support of AHRI, American Panel, and NRDC for the 
proposed method and incorporates it into this final rule. In response 
to Heatcraft's suggestion that the procedure should allow for testing 
new components, DOE anticipates that the method will lead to 
manufacturers testing unit coolers and condensing units when they are 
manufactured separately, so that they can be used in new systems. 
Regarding the issues raised by Craig Industries and the Joint 
Utilities, DOE emphasizes that the proposed procedure contains a 
calculation method by which the overall refrigeration performance can 
be calculated using testing data from a condensing unit and unit 
cooler, even if the two components are provided by different suppliers. 
The test results for a unit cooler or condensing unit are independent 
from whichever condensing unit or unit cooler is matched with the 
tested component. In

[[Page 21598]]

contrast, the test results for each component are in the form of a 
performance curve to facilitate calculation of matched performance, 
which, as suggested by the Joint Utilities, does not lend itself to 
meaningful comparisons between unit coolers without matching the 
particular unit coolers with the same condensing unit. DOE acknowledges 
this limitation but believes it is important to maintain the results in 
terms of the performance curve to facilitate calculation of the 
performance of the system as a whole, because the entire refrigeration 
system is treated as a component under the approach adopted in today's 
final rule. Given that the refrigeration system is treated as a single 
component under the procedure, the procedure offers a simple method for 
determining the energy efficiency profile of the walk-in refrigeration 
system because it allows the unit cooler and condensing unit to be 
tested separately.
    Additionally, DOE notes that if unit coolers are tested and rated 
as if they were to be combined with a multiplex condensing system, they 
could be compared against each other. The test data for unit coolers in 
a mix-match system include the data necessary for calculating the unit 
cooler's performance when paired with a multiplex condensing system. 
Thus, it would be relatively simple for manufacturers of unit coolers 
to provide both the performance data for matching purposes and the 
performance as connected to a multiplex condensing system. DOE may 
consider requiring this information as part of any related labeling 
requirements for WICF equipment.
    While interested parties generally agreed with the adoption of AHRI 
1250-2009, others disagreed with how that method would be applied to 
different system configurations. The Joint Utilities and NEEA both 
recommended that all remote condensing systems be tested using the 
``walk-in unit cooler match to parallel rack system'' test method and 
noted that the matched system approach only be used for self-contained 
condensing units. (Joint Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 
0061.1 at p. 4) The Joint Utilities further stated that the proposed 
AHRI 1250-2009 test method for rating dedicated remote condensing 
systems would create confusion and additional testing burden because 
there are many different test methods and categories for different 
locations and types of condensing units. (Joint Utilities, No. 0059.1 
at pp. 2 and 5) Other interested parties questioned the methodology for 
rating unit coolers connected to multiplex condensing systems. American 
Panel stated that the exemption of multiplex equipment would give that 
equipment an unfair advantage over single piece equipment. (American 
Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 3) Master-Bilt stated that the multiplex 
exemption seemed to suggest that any condensing unit connected to more 
than one unit cooler would not be covered. (Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at 
p. 3) NRDC stated that the proposed equations for evaluating the energy 
use of units with indoor condensing units and those connected to 
multiplex condensing systems should account for differences in the 
systems' ability to reject heat. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 at p. 7)
    Addressing the comments from the Joint Utilities and NEEA, as 
discussed in section III.C.1, DOE considers dedicated remote condensing 
units as distinct from multiplex condensing systems in that dedicated 
remote condensers are part of only one walk-in, while multiplex 
condensing systems are connected to more than one walk-in or other unit 
of refrigeration equipment. DOE believes that dedicated remote 
condensing units represent a substantial opportunity for energy savings 
in a regulation for walk-in components because the configuration of a 
dedicated remote condensing unit is widespread in several market 
segments such as restaurants. Manufacturers can optimize the dedicated 
remote condensing unit with the unit cooler to take advantage of 
certain conditions such as low ambient outdoor temperatures. The 
approach suggested by the Joint Utilities and NEEA would exclude 
dedicated remote condensing units from this regulation, but DOE views 
these units as part of the walk-in cooler or freezer if the unit is 
connected only to the walk-in and not to any other refrigeration 
equipment. Therefore, the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration 
equipment accounts for these units.
    To address Master-Bilt's request for clarification, for systems 
where the walk-in is connected to a central multiplex condensing system 
that runs multiple pieces of equipment, the compressor and condenser 
would not be covered because they are not exclusively part of the walk-
in. DOE realizes there are certain condensing units that are connected 
to more than one unit cooler inside a single walk-in. These systems 
would not be considered ``multiplex condensing systems'' because they 
are connected to a single walk-in. However, if the condensing unit were 
connected to more than one unit cooler inside more than one walk-in or 
other piece of equipment, DOE would consider that a multiplex 
condensing system because the system's performance could not be 
attributed to one walk-in alone. While DOE understands American Panel's 
concern that multiplex condensing systems could have an advantage 
because those condensing units would not need to be tested, the 
condensing unit and compressor part of a multiplex condensing system is 
not exclusively part of a walk-in unit. Therefore, DOE is not covering 
them in this test procedure. DOE notes that unit coolers connected to 
the multiplex condensing systems would still be considered part of the 
walk-in and would need to be tested. The procedure considers the 
different performance of multiplex condensing systems and indoor 
condensing systems as recommended by NRDC. For multiplex condensing 
systems, the calculation of energy use includes a nominal efficiency 
that accounts for that type of system's ability to reject heat. The 
rating conditions for indoor condensing units provide an opportunity 
for crediting energy savings that result from an increased ability to 
reject heat.
    Finally, one interested party proposed to expand the test procedure 
to provide more information than DOE previously proposed. NRDC 
suggested that testing data should be input into standardized 
calculations that would determine the overall system performance for 
each application and recommended that performance data should be able 
to be interpolated or extrapolated for hot climates. (NRDC, No. 0064.1 
at p. 3) DOE notes that standardized rating conditions are not 
typically application-specific and may not be useful for determining 
the performance of the system in conditions outside the rating 
conditions. To provide this flexibility, as suggested by NRDC, the AHRI 
1250 test procedure contains provisions for conducting testing with 
application ratings to obtain the performance for a particular 
application. However, DOE emphasizes that the standardized rating 
conditions are useful for comparing systems with each other and must be 
used for evaluating a product's compliance with a particular standard.
3. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    For some covered equipment, DOE has allowed manufacturers to use 
their own methods, whether a calculation or computer simulation, to 
rate their equipment after they substantiate those calculation or 
simulation methods with test data. The purpose of this provision is to 
reduce the burden of testing customized, low-volume equipment. DOE has 
allowed rating methods in the form of alternate rating methods (ARMs)

[[Page 21599]]

or alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs). An ARM, which 
is allowed for rating residential central air conditioners and heat 
pumps, must be a representation of the test data and calculations of a 
mechanical vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. Manufacturers may use 
an ARM after submitting documentation to DOE and receiving specific 
approval from DOE to use that ARM to rate their equipment. (10 CFR 
430.24(m)(4)-(6)) An AEDM, which is allowed for certain products and 
commercial equipment--including electric motors, distribution 
transformers, and commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, 
and water heating (HVAC and WH) equipment--is a rating method derived 
from a mathematical model that represents the mechanical and electrical 
characteristics of the equipment and is based on engineering or 
statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other 
analytical evaluations of performance data. An AEDM must be 
substantiated by test data before it can be used to rate equipment. (10 
CFR 431.17(a)(2)-(3); 10 CFR 431.197(a)(2); and 10 CFR 431.197(a)(2)-
(3))
    For the walk-in coolers and freezers rulemaking, DOE introduced the 
concept of an AEDM at the Framework public meeting (February 4, 2009) 
and requested comment on whether it could be applied to walk-ins. At 
the Framework public meeting, DOE asked how an AEDM could be 
implemented for walk-ins, what a sufficient test sample size for 
validating an AEDM would be, and how accurate (to what percentage) an 
AEDM should be. DOE did not receive any feedback regarding these 
questions. Several interested parties did, however, raise concerns in 
written comments on the Framework and during the Framework public 
meeting about the potential for inconsistency among manufacturers' 
rating methods. For example, Owens Corning stated that a single AEDM 
should be accepted to keep comparisons consistent (instead of different 
AEDMs from different manufacturers), and Craig said that requiring 
manufacturers to follow the same model (that is, not allowing 
manufacturers to use their own AEDMs) would provide consistent 
information to end users. (Owens Corning, No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-
0034.1 at p. 2; Craig, No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0025.1 at p. 5) DOE 
summarized and addressed these comments in the January NOPR. 75 FR 186, 
190 (Jan. 4, 2010).As a result, DOE did not propose any specific 
provisions regarding AEDMs or any other provisions that would allow 
manufacturers to develop their own rating methods for walk-ins. 
Instead, DOE proposed its own calculation methodology for manufacturers 
to use in rating similar units of walk-in equipment. 75 FR 186, 191 
(Jan. 4, 2010).
    While the procedure divides the envelope into its major components, 
the refrigeration system is considered as a single component. 
Consistent with this approach, DOE is incorporating a single metric to 
cover the performance of the refrigeration system. DOE noted in the 
September 2010 SNOPR that the proposed refrigeration test procedure, 
AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers,'' allows manufacturers to test condensing units 
and unit coolers separately in certain situations, and to calculate the 
performance of the combined system. DOE anticipated that this approach 
would reduce the overall testing burden by eliminating the need to test 
the many possible unit cooler and condensing unit combinations that 
could comprise a complete refrigeration system. 75 FR 55073 (Sept. 9, 
2010). In proposing this approach, DOE also recognized that there could 
still be some burdens due to system variations. To mitigate these 
burdens, DOE noted that it might consider allowing manufacturers of 
refrigeration to use AEDMs to rate their equipment. 75 FR 55089 (Sept. 
9, 2010).
    In comments on the September 2010 SNOPR, interested parties 
commented on the burden of testing refrigeration systems because a 
manufacturer's product line may have many different condensing units 
and unit coolers, which may be similar, but not identical, and need to 
be tested individually. Craig Industries stated that even if unit 
coolers and condensing units could be tested separately, testing each 
component with all the options available would substantially increase 
the need for testing and would discourage manufacturers from improving 
their equipment. (Craig Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 3) AHRI requested 
that DOE allow manufacturers to rate their equipment and demonstrate 
compliance with the Federal standard through the use of an AEDM to 
minimize testing burden. (AHRI, No. 0070.1 at p. 3) Manufacturers were 
also concerned about how they would rate custom units. Heatcraft stated 
that refrigeration system manufacturers would face an undue testing 
burden and asserted that manufacturers would not be able to sell a 
particular piece of equipment if it had been tested. (Heatcraft, No. 
0065.1 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that when a refrigeration system is 
tested, it undergoes some modifications in order to accommodate the 
apparatus for taking test measurements. As a result, these units can no 
longer be sold as new equipment after testing and are typically 
destroyed. This situation, in Heatcraft's view, would prevent them from 
selling custom equipment if the inclusion of a custom piece requires a 
separate test of the refrigeration system.
    DOE recognizes the potential for variability with respect to walk-
in components, in terms of their physical characteristics and, 
consequently, their energy performance or efficiency. To address 
Craig's concern that testing all equipment variations would be 
burdensome, and AHRI's request that DOE allow manufacturers to use 
AEDMs, DOE will continue to consider the application of AEDMs or ARMs. 
DOE recognizes the value of permitting the use of AEDMs and ARMs in 
limited instances and may consider the adoption of such methods for 
walk-in equipment, including the statistical basis and the sample size 
required to validate them, in a future rulemaking.

D. Other Issues--Definition of Walk-In Cooler or Freezer

    EPCA defines walk-in equipment at 42 U.S.C. 6311(20), codified at 
10 CFR 431.302.
    During the public meeting for the January 2010 NOPR, Hired Hand and 
several interested parties stated that DOE should clarify the 
definition of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers with respect to 
temperature limits. Multiple interested parties commented that DOE 
should set an upper temperature limit for walk-ins. After reviewing the 
comments from interested parties, DOE proposed in the September 2010 
SNOPR to modify the definition of ``refrigerated'' within the 
definition of walk-in cooler or freezer to mean at or below 55 [deg]F. 
75 FR 55068, 55069 (Sept. 9, 2010).
    The Joint Utilities, AHRI, American Panel, the Joint Manufacturers, 
NEEA, Craig Industries, Thermo-Kool, Master-Bilt, and Bally agreed to 
the proposed upper temperature limit of 55 [deg]F for walk-ins. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 0070.1 at p. 1; American 
Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 1; Joint Manufacturers, No. 0062.1 at p. 1, 
NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 2; Craig Industries, No. 0068.1 at p. 1; Thermo-
Kool, No. 0072.1 at p. 1; Master-Bilt, No. 0069.1 at p. 1; Bally, No. 
0078.1 at p. 1) The Joint Utilities also recommended that DOE develop 
definitions for walk-in coolers and freezers that are similar to 
California Title 24, Buildings Efficiency Standards, which contain a

[[Page 21600]]

definition for ``refrigerated warehouse'' that clarifies a temperature 
of 55 degrees or less. (Joint Utilities, No. 0059.1 at p. 6) NEEA 
suggested that walk-in coolers and freezers are essentially buildings 
and should be modeled as such. (NEEA, No. 0061.1 at p. 5)
    DOE notes that any regulation it develops must be consistent with, 
and fall within the parameters of, the statutory provisions set by 
Congress. Working within the confines of the statutorily-prescribed 
definition of the walk-in definition, DOE is clarifying what the term 
``refrigerated'' means in the context of the walk-in definition to help 
address the concerns raised by commenters. In particular, DOE is 
defining ``refrigerated'' for purposes of walk-ins to mean ``held at a 
temperature at or below 55 degrees Fahrenheit using a refrigeration 
system'' as suggested by commenters. Adopting this approach should 
enable DOE to sufficiently account for the range of walk-in equipment 
that exist.
    In comments on the January 2010 NOPR, interested parties expressed 
concern about the potential for abuse in light of the breadth of the 
exclusion in the statute and requested that DOE clarify the scope of 
this clause. At the public meeting for the January 2010 NOPR, Craig 
Industries stated that the definition of ``medical, scientific, and 
research walk-ins'' should be better defined, and Hired Hand agreed 
that the definition is unclear. (Craig Industries, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 19; Hired Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0016 at p. 26) These commenters were concerned because the current 
statutory language does not account for the fact that, in practice, 
walk-ins may be used interchangeably for either food storage or 
medical, scientific, or research usage. Because a given walk-in sold by 
a company could be used in any of these types of applications, Craig 
Industries and Hired Hand were both concerned that a company could 
market its walk-in as medical equipment and avoid having to meet any 
energy efficiency standards. Craig Industries and Hired Hand requested 
that DOE work to improve the definition of exempted uses for walk-ins 
because the definition could create ambiguity and loopholes. (Craig 
Industries, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 4; Hired Hand, 
No. 0051.1 at p. 2)
    DOE is sensitive to the potential for abuse regarding walk-ins. To 
ensure that such abuse does not occur and to help clarify the scope of 
the exclusion created by Congress, DOE notes that for any walk-in--
including those components that are covered by today's test procedure 
and any applicable standards that DOE may promulgate--a manufacturer 
seeking to avail itself of the statutory exclusion would, consistent 
with the statute, need to affirmatively demonstrate to DOE that its 
equipment is ``designed and marketed exclusively for medical, 
scientific, or research purposes.'' 42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B). Further, 
while DOE is currently unaware of any instances where this exclusion is 
being abused, DOE will monitor the situation and take steps to prevent 
these types of activities from occurring when it receives sufficient 
information substantiating the existence of such activities. In 
examining whether a given walk-in satisfies the statutory exclusion, 
DOE may consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, 
how a particular walk-in has been designed, how it has been marketed, 
to whom the equipment has been distributed, and steps taken by 
manufacturers. Accordingly, while DOE appreciates the concerns raised 
by Craig Industries and Hired Hand, DOE has decided that, at this time, 
the exclusion set by Congress is sufficiently clear. DOE may revisit 
this issue in the future if necessary.
    One commenter requested clarification of the 3,000 square foot 
provision. Bally suggested that DOE add a corroborating cubic foot 
threshold, and stated that the large variability in panel heights could 
impact the energy conservation standards. (Bally, No. 0078.1 at p. 1) 
Under the component-level test procedures established today, a cubic 
foot threshold for a walk-in is not necessary. Rather, a panel is 
considered as an individual component and its dimensions, including its 
height, are accounted for in the calculation methodology that DOE 
developed.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed the test procedures considered in today's final rule 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 
procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
    As discussed in detail below, DOE found that because these test 
procedures have not previously been required of manufacturers, all 
manufacturers, including small manufacturers, could experience a 
financial burden associated with new testing requirements. While 
examining this issue, DOE determined that it could not certify that 
this rule would not have a significant effect on a substantial number 
of small entities. Therefore, DOE prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this rulemaking. 75 FR 55068, 55087. 
The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) set forth below, which 
describes potential impacts on small businesses associated with walk-in 
cooler and freezer testing requirements, incorporates the IRFA and 
changes made to the IRFA in response to the comments from interested 
parties, including the Small Business Administration (SBA), on the 
September 2010 SNOPR.
1. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is stated 
elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
2. Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments, 
DOE's Response to These Issues, and Any Changes Made in the Proposed 
Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    The comments received on the IRFA and the economic impacts of the 
rule and responses thereto are provided in the analysis below.

[[Page 21601]]

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE uses the SBA small business size standards published on January 
31, 1996, as amended, to determine whether any small entities would be 
required to comply with the rule. 61 FR 3286; see also 65 FR 30836, 
30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended. 65 FR 53533, 53545 (September 5, 
2000). The size standards are codified at 13 CFR Part 121. The 
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code and industry description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.
    In the January 2010 NOPR and September 2010 SNOPR, DOE classified 
walk-in cooler and freezer equipment manufacturing under NAICS 333415, 
``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and 
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing,'' which has a size 
standard of 750 employees. 75 FR 186, 204 (Jan. 4, 2010) and 75 FR 
55068, 55087 (Sept. 9, 2010). After reviewing industry sources and 
publicly available data, DOE identified at least 37 small manufacturers 
of walk-in cooler and freezer envelopes and at least 5 small 
manufacturers of walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems that 
met this criterion. DOE also noted that the walk-in industry can be 
characterized by a few manufacturers that are subsidiaries of much 
larger companies (that would not be considered small businesses) and a 
large number of small companies as categorized by NAICS code 333415. 
Furthermore, more than half of small walk-in manufacturers have 100 or 
fewer employees. 75 FR at 55088 (Sept. 9, 2010).
    Interested parties commented on the market characterization DOE 
presented in the September 2010 SNOPR. SBA agreed with DOE's 
characterization of the walk-in manufacturing industry. (SBA, No. 
0066.1 at p. 2) American Panel stated that most walk-in companies are 
small businesses and would be at a disadvantage compared to the large 
conglomerates. American Panel characterized the majority of small walk-
in manufacturers as making between $10 and $25 million in sales while 
large manufacturers represent $75 million in walk-in sales and $250 
million in overall sales. (American Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 3) American 
Panel stated that the cost of testing would be passed down to the 
product selling price, which would trickle down and seriously impact 
small business restaurant owners. (American Panel, No. 0057.1 at p. 4) 
Zero Zone agreed that small manufacturers would be impacted by the 
regulations and stated that many will not be able to stay in business 
once they are burdened with the costs of certification. (Zero Zone, No. 
0077.1 at p. 2)
    In response to comments on the January 2010 NOPR and September 2010 
SNOPR regarding DOE's proposed standards for WICF, DOE is taking a 
component-level approach in the WICF test procedure rulemaking. 
Specifically, DOE is establishing test procedures for individual 
components of a walk-in: Panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. 
Manufacturers of these components will be required to test the 
components they manufacture for walk-ins and certify that they meet any 
applicable component performance standard. This approach will mitigate 
the overall burdens posed by this regulation and ensure that those 
burdens are borne on those manufacturers who are best suited and 
positioned to conduct these types of tests. See section III.A for 
further details on this approach.
    As a result of this approach, DOE re-evaluated the number of small 
manufacturers it identified in the September 2010 SNOPR for this final 
rule. Because DOE is considering refrigeration systems as a single 
component under the proposed approach, DOE estimates that there are 4 
small manufacturers of refrigeration systems. Furthermore, DOE notes 
that entities it previously considered walk-in envelope manufacturers 
also manufacture the panels. As a result, DOE estimates that there are 
37 small manufacturers of panels. For doors, DOE notes that some of the 
panel manufacturers make doors and others buy doors from suppliers. DOE 
researched manufacturers who solely manufacture the doors of WICF, and 
estimates that there are four small manufacturers of walk-in doors who 
do not also manufacture panels. DOE notes SBA's and American Panel's 
characterization of the walk-in industry as being composed mainly of 
small manufacturers. DOE believes the new approach of regulating WICFs 
at the component level will reduce burden on small manufacturers 
because the testing and compliance burden will be reduced due to an 
enhanced ability to apply the basic model concept. See section 
III.A.3.a for details. In response to American Panel's comment that the 
cost of testing would affect small restaurant owners, DOE notes that 
this analysis considers entities who are directly regulated by this 
test procedure rulemaking (i.e., manufacturers). The concurrent energy 
conservation standards rulemaking will address effects on walk-in 
manufacturers' customers.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements and Description 
of Steps To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Entities
    DOE recognizes the particular burden of the test procedures on 
small manufacturers. DOE does not expect that small manufacturers would 
have fewer basic models or component types than large manufacturers. 
Therefore, a small manufacturer could have the same total cost of 
testing as a large manufacturer, but this cost would be a higher 
percentage of a small manufacturer's annual revenues. Thus, the 
differential impact associated with walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
test procedures on small businesses may be significant even if the 
overall testing burden is reduced as described elsewhere in the 
preamble.
    Due to the nature of walk-in coolers and freezers within the 
appliance standards program, DOE is considering use of a component-
based approach to walk-in standards, setting individual performance 
standards for each component. This approach would require the component 
manufacturers to test the components they manufacture for walk-in 
applications, comply with the applicable performance standard for those 
components, and certify to DOE that those components meet the standard. 
See section III.A for details on this approach. At this time there are 
no performance standards in place for walk-in equipment, as those 
standards are being developed in a concurrent rulemaking. Details on 
the performance standards rulemaking can be found on the DOE Web site 
at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/wicf.html. However, manufacturers will be required to use 
these test procedures to certify performance once any final standards 
are issued and must use the test procedures outlined in this final rule 
if they make representations as to the performance of their components.
    To further address concerns about costs, DOE is anticipating 
developing a sampling plan in a future rulemaking to determine how many 
units of each walk-in component must be tested. In such a rulemaking, 
DOE will consider the impacts to small businesses.
a. Panel and Door Manufacturer Testing Impacts
    In the September 2010 SNOPR, DOE proposed to require envelope 
manufacturers to test their equipment in accordance with several 
industry test standards: ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard

[[Page 21602]]

Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus;'' DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made products of 
extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--Specification;'' DIN EN 13165:2009-02, 
``Thermal insulation products for buildings--Factory made rigid 
polyurethane foam (PUR) products--Specification;'' and NFRC 100-
2010[E0A1], ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-
factors.''
    DOE spoke with industry experts to determine the approximate cost 
of each test. Under the new component level approach to testing, entire 
walk-ins are not required to be tested or certified. Rather, component 
manufacturers are required to test and certify their own components. 
Therefore, DOE evaluated the cost of each test to the component 
manufacturer. For foam used in panels, a test using DIN EN 13164:2009-
02 or DIN EN 13165:2009-02 costs approximately $5,000 for each type of 
foam, though DOE has found that most manufacturers use only one type. 
The test result would be used to calculate the LTTR for all the 
manufacturer's panels that use that type of foam. For the panels 
themselves, a test using ASTM C1363-05 costs approximately $5,000. 
Manufacturers would need to test the core and edge U-factor of a pair 
of 4 ft. by 8 ft. panels, for each foam type, frame type, and panel 
thickness they manufacture. DOE estimated that manufacturers use either 
one or two types of foam and may have up to nine different combinations 
of frame type and panel thickness. Using this estimate, the total cost 
of testing compliance with a panel standard could be up to an average 
of $5,000-$10,000 for the foam panels and $45,000 to test the U-factors 
of the different panel configurations. However, for manufacturers who 
have fewer unique combinations of frame type and panel thickness, the 
testing cost would be substantially less. DOE has incorporated other 
burden reducing measures to reduce cost. Specifically, it incorporated 
a method that allows manufacturers to test a reference panel that is 4 
ft. by 8 ft. and then calculate the U-factor of other panels of 
different dimensions from those test results as long as certain aspects 
of the panels are the same. See section III.B.2 for details.
    For doors, a test of door U-factor using NFRC 100 costs 
approximately $5,000. DOE estimates that a typical door manufacturer 
would have to certify up to 20 to 40 basic models of doors, which would 
cost $100,000 to $200,000 if each door were to be physically tested. 
However, NFRC 100 also permits computer modeling of a door's U-factor, 
which could further reduce the testing cost. See section III.B.3 for 
discussion of the NFRC testing requirements for doors.
    The estimated costs only include the cost of one test on each basic 
model, and do not include additional testing on the same basic model 
that may be required as part of a sampling plan. As mentioned above, 
DOE anticipates developing sampling plans in a future rulemaking to 
determine how many tests need to be performed on the same type of 
envelope component, to ensure the test results are repeatable and 
statistically valid.
b. Refrigeration System Manufacturer Testing Impacts
    The test procedure for refrigeration systems will require 
manufacturers to perform testing in accordance with a single industry 
test standard: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.'' DOE researched the cost of 
performing this test and, based on discussions with experts, estimates 
that a test using AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009 would likely cost approximately 
$8,500. DOE estimates that the total testing cost for a typical 
refrigeration manufacturer could be approximately $425,000, based on an 
estimate of 50 basic models, but that it could be higher for 
manufacturers of more customized equipment. For instance, a 
manufacturer with 200 basic models would incur a testing cost of 
approximately $1.7 million.
    To address concerns of manufacturer impact, DOE is including 
burden-reducing measures for refrigeration system manufacturers. The 
test procedure referenced in this final rule, AHRI 1250-2009, allows 
for rating the condensing unit and the unit cooler separately and then 
calculating their combined efficiency. This reduces testing burden by 
not requiring testing of every combination. Allowing such a calculation 
to be used will significantly decrease the number of tests. See section 
III.C.2 for details. DOE also notes that the CCE final rule, published 
March 7, 2011, allows that in general, manufacturers may elect to group 
individual models of equipment into basic models at their discretion to 
the extent the models have essentially identical electrical, physical, 
and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency or energy 
consumption. Furthermore, manufacturers may rate models conservatively, 
meaning the tested performance of the model(s) must be at least as good 
as the certified rating, after applying the appropriate sampling plan. 
76 FR 12429. DOE believes these provisions will reduce the burden of 
testing for refrigeration manufacturers because they will reduce the 
number of basic models a manufacturer must test. DOE may also consider 
allowing manufacturers to use validated alternative methods to rate 
their equipment. See section III.C.3 for further discussion of these 
methods.
    DOE also considered a number of alternatives to these test 
procedures, including test procedures that incorporate industry test 
standards other than the referenced standards, DIN EN 13164:2009-02, 
DIN EN 13165:2009-02, ASTM C1363-05, and AHRI 1250-2009, all previously 
described in section III. (DOE also notes that NFRC 100, the test 
method adopted for determining the U-factor of doors, was the least 
burdensome test DOE identified.) Instead of requiring DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 or DIN EN 13165:2009-02 for testing the long-term thermal 
properties of insulation, DOE could require only ASTM C518-04, 
``Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties 
by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus,'' which tests the thermal 
properties of insulation at a certain point in time (that is, the point 
of manufacture). This test could also be used in place of ASTM 1363-05. 
A test conducted as per ASTM C518-04 would cost approximately $500 to 
$1,000, as compared to $5,000 for a test conducted as per DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 or DIN EN 13165:2009-02 and $5,000 for a test conducted 
as per ASTM C1363-05. DOE is including ASTM C1363-05 as part of the 
test procedure because heat conduction through structural members is a 
significant panel characteristic that is not addressed under ASTM C518-
04. See section III.B.2.a for details. DOE is including DIN EN 
13164:2009-02 and DIN EN 13165:2009-02 as part of the test procedure 
because these methods account for the effect of aging on foam's 
insulation performance, a phenomenon that is not captured under ASTM 
C518-04. See section III.B.2.b for details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components must 
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy 
conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedure for walk-in 
cooler and walk-in freezer components, including any amendments adopted 
for that test procedure. DOE has adopted regulations

[[Page 21603]]

for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including walk-in cooler 
and walk-in freezer components. 76 FR 12442 (March 7, 2011). The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping has been approved by OMB under control number 1910-1400. 
The public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to 
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Charles 
Llenza (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure for walk-
in coolers and walk-in freezers. DOE has determined that this rule 
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this rule establishes a test procedure without affecting 
the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, 
will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is 
covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, 
which applies to any rulemaking that does not result in any 
environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment 
nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's final rule according to 
UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains 
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in 
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under theTreasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule

[[Page 21604]]

that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule will not have any 
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. 
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a 
Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The procedures addressed by this action incorporate the following 
commercial standards: ASTM C1363-05, AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, DIN EN 
13164:2009-02, DIN EN 13165:2009-02, and NFRC 100-2010[E0A1]. DOE has 
evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully 
comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e. whether 
they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

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

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

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

0
2. Section 431.302 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, new 
definitions for ``Display door,'' ``Display panel,'' ``Door'', 
``Envelope,'' ``K-factor,'' ``Panel,'' ``Refrigerated,'' 
``Refrigeration system,'' and ``U-factor'' to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    Display door means a door designed for product movement, display, 
or both, rather than the passage of persons.
    Display panel means a panel that is entirely or partially comprised 
of glass, a transparent material, or both and is used for display 
purposes.
    Door means an assembly installed in an opening on an interior or 
exterior wall that is used to allow access or close off the opening and 
that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving manner of 
movement. For walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, a door includes the 
door panel, glass, framing materials, door plug, mullion, and any other 
elements that form the door or part of its connection to the wall.
    Envelope means--
    (1) The portion of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that 
isolates the interior, refrigerated environment from the ambient, 
external environment; and
    (2) All energy-consuming components of the walk-in cooler or walk-
in freezer that are not part of its refrigeration system.
    K-factor means the thermal conductivity of a material.
* * * * *
    Panel means a construction component that is not a door and is used 
to construct the envelope of the walk-in, i.e., elements that separate 
the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior.
    Refrigerated means held at a temperature at or below 55 degrees 
Fahrenheit using a refrigeration system.
    Refrigeration system means the mechanism (including all controls 
and other components integral to the

[[Page 21605]]

system's operation) used to create the refrigerated environment in the 
interior of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting of:
    (1) A packaged dedicated system where the unit cooler and 
condensing unit are integrated into a single piece of equipment; or
    (2) A split dedicated system with separate unit cooler and 
condensing unit sections; or
    (3) A unit cooler that is connected to a multiplex condensing 
system.
    U-factor means the heat transmission in a unit time through a unit 
area of a specimen or product and its boundary air films, induced by a 
unit temperature difference between the environments on each side.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 431.303 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c);
0
b. Adding at the end of the sentence in redesignated paragraph (c)(1), 
``and Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431''.
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (b), (c)(2), (d), and (e) to read as follows.

Sec.  431.303  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 600-0366, 
or http://www.ahrinet.org.
    (1) AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, (``AHRI 1250''), 2009 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, approved 2009, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (2) ASTM C1363-05, (``ASTM C1363''), Standard Test Method for 
Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 
Means of a Hot Box Apparatus, approved May 1, 2005, IBR approved for 
Appendix A to Subpart R of part 431.
    (d) CEN. European Committee for Standardization (French: Norme or 
German: Norm), Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: + 32 2 
550 08 11, Fax: + 32 2 550 08 19 or http://www.cen.eu/.
    (1) DIN EN 13164:2009-02, (``DIN EN 13164''), Thermal insulation 
products for buildings--Factory made products of extruded polystyrene 
foam (XPS)--Specification, approved February 2009, IBR approved for 
Appendix A to Subpart R of part 431.
    (2) DIN EN 13165:2009-02, (``DIN EN 13165''), Thermal insulation 
products for buildings--Factory made rigid polyurethane foam (PUR) 
products--Specification, approved February 2009, IBR approved for 
Appendix A to Subpart R of part 431.
    (e) NFRC. National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 
140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, (301) 589-1776, or http://www.nfrc.org/.
    (1) NFRC 100-2010[E0A1], (``NFRC 100''), Procedure for Determining 
Fenestration Product U-factors, approved June 2010, IBR approved for 
Appendix A to Subpart R of part 431.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
4. Section 431.304 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(2), 
(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) as (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4), 
respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), and 
(b)(8) to read as follows.

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Determine the U-factor, conduction load, and energy use of 
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer display panels, floor panels, and 
non-floor panels by conducting the test procedure set forth in Appendix 
A to this subpart, sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, respectively.
    (6) Determine the energy use of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
display doors and non-display doors by conducting the test procedure 
set forth in Appendix A to this subpart, sections 4.4 and 4.5, 
respectively.
    (7) Determine the Annual Walk-in Energy Factor of walk-in cooler 
and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by conducting the test 
procedure set forth in AHRI 1250 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
431.303).
    (8) Determine the annual energy consumption of walk-in cooler and 
walk-in freezer refrigeration systems:
    (i) For systems consisting of a packaged dedicated system or a 
split dedicated system, where the condensing unit is located outdoors, 
by conducting the test procedure set forth in AHRI 1250 and recording 
the annual energy consumption term in the equation for annual walk-in 
energy factor in section 7 of AHRI 1250:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.024

where tj and n represent the outdoor temperature at each 
bin j and the number of hours in each bin j, respectively, for the 
temperature bins listed in Table D1 of AHRI 1250.

    (ii) For systems consisting of a packaged dedicated system or a 
split dedicated system where the condensing unit is located in a 
conditioned space, by performing the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.025

where BLH and BLL for refrigerator and freezer systems are defined 
in sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, respectively, of AHRI 1250 and the 
annual walk-in energy factor is calculated from the results of the 
test procedures set forth in AHRI 1250.

    (iii) For systems consisting of a single unit cooler or a set of 
multiple unit coolers serving a single piece of equipment and connected 
to a multiplex condensing system, by performing the following 
calculation:

[[Page 21606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.026

where BLHand BLL for refrigerator and freezer systems are defined in 
section 7.9.2.2 and 7.9.2.3, respectively, of AHRI 1250 and the 
annual walk-in energy factor is calculated from the results of the 
test procedures set forth in AHRI 1250.

0
5.Appendix A to subpart R of part 431 is added to read as follows:

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

1.0 Scope

    This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the 
energy consumption of the components that make up the envelope of a 
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer.

2.0 Definitions

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

3.0 Additional Definitions

    3.1 Automatic door opener/closer means a device or control 
system that ``automatically'' opens and closes doors without direct 
user contact, such as a motion sensor that senses when a forklift is 
approaching the entrance to a door and opens it, and then closes the 
door after the forklift has passed.
    3.2 Core region means the part of the panel that is not the edge 
region.
    3.3 Edge region means a region of the panel that is wide enough 
to encompass any framing members and edge effects. If the panel 
contains framing members (e.g. a wood frame) then the width of the 
edge region must be as wide as any framing member plus 2 in.  0.25 in. If the panel does not contain framing members then 
the width of the edge region must be 4 in.  0.25 in. For 
walk-in panels that utilize vacuum insulated panels (VIP) for 
insulation, the width of the edge region must be the lesser of 4.5 
in.  1 in. or the maximum width that does not cause the 
VIP to be pierced by the cutting device when the edge region is cut.
    3.4 Surface area means the area of the surface of the walk-in 
component that would be external to the walk-in. For example, for 
panel, the surface area would be the area of the side of the panel 
that faces the outside of the walk-in. It would not include edges of 
the panel that are not exposed to the outside of the walk-in.
    3.5 Rating conditions means, unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
all conditions shown in Table A.1. For installations where two or 
more walk-in envelope components share any surface(s), the 
``external conditions'' of the shared surface(s) must reflect the 
internal conditions of the adjacent walk-in. For example, if a walk-
in component divides a walk-in freezer from a walk-in cooler, then 
the internal conditions are the freezer rating conditions and the 
external conditions are the cooler rating conditions.
    3.6 Percent time off (PTO) means the percent of time that an 
electrical device is assumed to be off.

                    Table A.1--Temperature Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Temperatures (cooled space within
 the envelope):
  Cooler Dry Bulb Temperature..............  35 [deg]F
  Freezer Dry Bulb Temperature.............  -10 [deg]F
External Temperatures (space external to
 the envelope):
  Freezer and Cooler Dry Bulb Temperatures.  75 [deg]F
Subfloor Temperatures:
  Freezer and Cooler Dry Bulb Temperatures.  55 [deg]F
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.0 Calculation Instructions

4.1 Display Panels

    (a) Calculate the U-factor of the display panel in accordance 
with section 5.3 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F.
    (b) Calculate the display panel surface area, as defined in 
section 3.4 of this appendix, Adp, ft\2\, with standard 
geometric formulas or engineering software.
    (c) Calculate the temperature differential, 
[Delta]Tdp, [deg]F, for the display panel, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.027

Where:

TDB,ext,dp = dry-bulb air external temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed in Table A.1; and
TDB,int, dp = dry-bulb air temperature internal to the 
cooler or freezer, [deg]F, as prescribed in Table A.1.

    (d) Calculate the conduction load through the display panel, 
Qcond-dp, Btu/h, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.028

Where:

Adp= surface area of the walk-in display panel, 
ft2;
[Delta]Tdp= temperature differential between refrigerated 
and adjacent zones, [deg]F; and
Udp = thermal transmittance, U-factor, of the display 
panel in accordance with section 5.3 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-
[deg]F.

    (e) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/W-h
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/W-h
    (f) Calculate the total daily energy consumption, 
Edp, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.029

Where:

Qcond, dp = the conduction load through the display 
panel, Btu/h; and
EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/W-h.

4.2 Floor Panels

    (a) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4 of 
this appendix, of the floor panel edge, as defined in section 3.3, 
Afp edge, ft\2\, with standard geometric formulas or 
engineering software as directed in section 5.1 of this appendix.
    (b) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4 of 
this appendix, of the floor panel core, as defined in section 3.2, 
Afp core, ft\2\, with standard geometric formulas or

[[Page 21607]]

engineering software as directed in section 5.1 of this appendix.
    (c) Calculate the total area of the floor panel, Afp, 
ft\2\, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.030

Where:

Afp core = floor panel core area, ft\2\; and
Afp edge = floor panel edge area, ft\2\.

    (d) Calculate the temperature differential of the floor panel, 
[Delta][Tgr]fp, [deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.031

Where:

Text, fp = subfloor temperature, [deg]F, as prescribed in 
Table A.1; and
TDB,int, fp = dry-bulb air internal temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed in Table A.1. If the panel spans both cooler and 
freezer temperatures, the freezer temperature must be used.

    (e) Calculate the floor foam degradation factor, 
DFfp, unitless, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.032

Where:

RLTTR,fp = the long term thermal resistance R-value of 
the floor panel foam in accordance with section 5.2 of this 
appendix, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu; and
Ro,fp = the R-value of foam determined in accordance with 
ASTM C518 (incorporated by reference; see section Sec.  431.303) for 
purposes of compliance with the appropriate energy conservation 
standard, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu.

    (f) Calculate the U-factor for panel core region modified by the 
long term thermal transmittance of foam, ULT,fp core, 
Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.033

Where:

Ufp core = the U-factor in accordance with section 5.1 of 
this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; and
DFfp = floor foam degradation factor, unitless.

    (g) Calculate the overall U-factor of the floor panel, 
Ufp, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.034

Where:

Afp edge = area of floor panel edge, ft\2\;
Ufp edge = U-factor for panel edge area in accordance 
with section 5.1 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
Afp core = area of floor panel core, ft\2\;
ULT,fp core = U-factor for panel core region modified by 
the long term thermal transmittance of foam, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; and
Afp = total area of the floor panel, ft\2\.

    (h) Calculate the conduction load through floor panels, 
Qcond-fp, Btu/h,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.035

Where:

[Delta]Tfp = temperature differential across the floor 
panels, [deg]F;
Afp = total area of the floor panel, ft\2\; and
Ufp = overall U-factor of the floor panel, Btu/h-ft\2\-
[deg]F.

    (i) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/W-h
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/W-h
    (j) Calculate the total daily energy consumption, 
Efp, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.036

Where:

Qcond-fp = the conduction load through the floor panel, 
Btu/h; and
EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/W-h.

4.3 Non-Floor Panels

    (a) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4, of 
the non-floor panel edge, as defined in section 3.3, 
Anf edge, ft\2\, with standard geometric formulas or 
engineering software as directed in section 5.1 of this appendix.
    (b) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4, of 
the non-floor panel core, as defined in section 3.2, 
Anf core, ft\2,\ with standard geometric formulas or 
engineering software as directed in section 5.1 of this appendix.
    (c) Calculate total non-floor panel area, Anf, ft\2\:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.037
    
Where:

Anf edge = non-floor paneledge area,ft\2\; and
Anf core = non-floor panel core area, ft\2\.

    (d) Calculate temperature differential, [Delta]Tnf, 
[deg]F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.038

Where:

TDB,ext, nf = dry-bulb air external temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed in Table A.1; and
TDB,int, nf = dry-bulb air internal temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed in Table A.1. If the non-floor panel spans both cooler 
and freezer temperatures, then the freezer temperature must be used.

    (e) Calculate the non-floor foam degradation factor, 
DFnf, unitless, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.039

Where:

RLTTR,nf = the R-value of the non-floor panel foam in 
accordance with section 5.2 of this appendix, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu; 
and

[[Page 21608]]

Ro,nf = the R-value of foam determined in accordance with 
ASTM C518 (incorporated by reference; see section Sec.  431.303) for 
purposes of compliance with the appropriate energy conservation 
standard, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu.

    (f) Calculate the U-factor, ULT,nf core, Btu/h-ft\2\-
[deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.040

Where:

Unf core = the U-factor, in accordance with section 5.1 
of this appendix, of non-floor panel, Btu/h- ft\2\-[deg]F; and
DFnf = the non-floor foam degradation factor, unitless.

    (g) Calculate the overall U-factor of the non-floor panel, 
Unf, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.041

Where:

Anf edge = area of non-floor panel edge, ft\2\;
Unf edge = U-factor for non-floor panel edge area in 
accordance with section 5.1 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
Anf core = area of non-floor panel core, ft\2\;
ULT,nf core = U-factor for non-floor panel core region 
modified by the long term thermal transmittance of foam, Btu/h-
ft\2\-[deg]F; and
Anf = total area of the non- floor panel, ft\2\.

    (h) Calculate the conduction load through non-floor panels, 
Qcond-nf, Btu/h,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.042

Where:

[Delta]Tnf = temperature differential across the non-
floor panels, [deg]F;
Anf = total area of the non-floor panel, ft\2\; and
Unf = overall U-factor of the non-floor panel, Btu/h-
ft\2\-[deg]F.

    (i) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/W-h
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/W-h
    (j) Calculate the total daily energy consumption, 
Enf, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.043

Where:

Qcond-nf = the conduction load through the non-floor 
panel, Btu/h; and
EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/W-h.

4.4 Display Doors

4.4.1 Conduction Through Display Doors

    (a) Calculate the U-factor of the door in accordance with 
section 5.3 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F
    (b) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4 of 
this appendix, of the display door, Add, ft\2\, with 
standard geometric formulas or engineering software.
    (c) Calculate the temperature differential, 
[Delta]Tdd, [deg]F, for the display door as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.044

Where:

TDB,ext, dd = dry-bulb air temperature external to the 
display door, [deg]F, as prescribed in Table A.1; and
TDB,int, dd = dry-bulb air temperature internal to the 
display door, [deg]F, as prescribed in Table A.1.

    (d) Calculate the conduction load through the display doors, 
Qcond-dd, Btu/h, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.045

Where:

[Delta]Tdd = temperature differential between 
refrigerated and adjacent zones, [deg]F;
Add = surface area walk-in display doors, ft\2\; and
Udd = thermal transmittance, U-factor of the door, in 
accordance with section 5.3 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F.

4.4.2 Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Component(s) of Display 
Doors

    Electrical components associated with display doors could 
include, but are not limited to: Heater wire (for anti-sweat or 
anti-freeze application); lights (including display door lighting 
systems); control system units; and sensors.
    (a) Select the required value for percent time off (PTO) for 
each type of electricity consuming device, PTOt (%)
    (1) For lights without timers, control system or other demand-
based control, PTO = 25 percent. For lighting with timers, control 
system or other demand-based control, PTO = 50 percent.
    (2) For anti-sweat heaters on coolers (if included): Without 
timers, control system or other demand-based control, PTO = 0 
percent. With timers, control system or other demand-based control, 
PTO = 75 percent. For anti-sweat heaters on freezers (if included): 
Without timers, control system or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 
0 percent. With timers, control system or other demand-based 
control, PTO = 50 percent.
    (3) For all other electricity consuming devices: Without timers, 
control system, or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 0 percent. If 
it can be demonstrated that the device is controlled by a 
preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system, 
PTO = 25 percent.
    (b) Calculate the power usage for each type of electricity 
consuming device, Pdd-comp,u,t, kWh/day, as follows:

[[Page 21609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.046

Where:

u = the index for each of type of electricity-consuming device 
located on either (1) the interior facing side of the display door 
or within the inside portion of the display door, (2) the exterior 
facing side of the display door, or (3) any combination of (1) and 
(2). For purposes of this calculation, the interior index is 
represented by u = int and the exterior index is represented by u = 
ext. If the electrical component is both on the interior and 
exterior side of the display door then u = int. For anti-sweat 
heaters sited anywhere in the display door, 75 percent of the total 
power is be attributed to u = int and 25 percent of the total power 
is attributed to u = ext;
t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Prated,u,t = rated power of each component, of type t, 
kW;
PTOu,t = percent time off, for device of type t, %; and
nu,t = number of devices at the rated power of type t, 
unitless.

    (c) Calculate the total electrical energy consumption for 
interior and exterior power, Pdd-tot, int (kWh/day) and 
Pdd-tot, ext (kWh/day), respectively, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.048

Where:

t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Pdd-comp,int, t = the energy usage for an electricity 
consuming device sited on the interior facing side of or in the 
display door, of type t, kWh/day; and
Pdd-comp,ext, t = the energy usage for an electricity 
consuming device sited on the external facing side of the display 
door, of type t, kWh/day.

    (d) Calculate the total electrical energy consumption, 
Pdd-tot, (kWh/day), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.049

Where:

Pdd-tot,int = the total interior electrical energy usage 
for the display door, kWh/day; and
Pdd-tot,ext = the total exterior electrical energy usage 
for the display door, kWh/day.

4.4.3 Total Indirect Electricity Consumption Due to Electrical Devices

    (a) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/Wh
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/Wh
    (b) Calculate the additional refrigeration energy consumption 
due to thermal output from electrical components sited inside the 
display door, Cdd-load, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.050

Where:

EER = EER of walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer, Btu/W-h; and
Pdd-tot,int = The total internal electrical energy 
consumption due for the display door, kWh/day.

4.4.4 Total Display Door Energy Consumption

    (a) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/W-h
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/W-h
    (b) Calculate the total daily energy consumption due to 
conduction thermal load, Edd, thermal, kWh/day, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.051

Where:

Qcond, dd = the conduction load through the display door, 
Btu/h; and
EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/W-h.
    (c) Calculate the total energy, Edd,tot, kWh/day,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.052
    

[[Page 21610]]

Where:

Edd, thermal = the total daily energy consumption due to 
thermal load for the display door, kWh/day;
Pdd-tot = the total electrical load, kWh/day; and
Cdd-load = additional refrigeration load due to thermal 
output from electrical components contained within the display door, 
kWh/day.

4.5 Non-Display Doors

4.5.1 Conduction Through Non-Display Doors

    (a) Calculate the surface area, as defined in section 3.4 of 
this appendix, of the non-display door, And, ft\2\, with 
standard geometric formulas or with engineering software.
    (b) Calculate the temperature differential of the non-display 
door, [Delta]Tnd,[deg]F, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.053

Where:

TDB,ext, nd = dry-bulb air external temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed by Table A.1; and
TDB,int, nd = dry-bulb air internal temperature, [deg]F, 
as prescribed by Table A.1. If the component spans both cooler and 
freezer spaces, the freezer temperature must be used.

    (c) Calculate the conduction load through the non-display door: 
Qcond-nd, Btu/h,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.054

Where:

[Delta]Tnd = temperature differential across the non-
display door, [deg]F;
Und = thermal transmittance, U-factor of the door, in 
accordance with section 5.3 of this appendix, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; 
and
And = area of non-display door, ft\2\.

4.5.2 Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display 
Doors

    Electrical components associated with a walk-in non-display door 
comprise any components that are on the non-display door and that 
directly consume electrical energy. This includes, but is not 
limited to, heater wire (for anti-sweat or anti-freeze application), 
control system units, and sensors.
    (a) Select the required value for percent time off for each type 
of electricity consuming device, PTOt (%)
    (1) For lighting without timers, control system or other demand-
based control, PTO = 25 percent. For lighting with timers, control 
system or other demand-based control, PTO = 50 percent.
    (2) For anti-sweat heaters on coolers (if included): Without 
timers, control system or other demand-based control, PTO = 0 
percent. With timers, control system or other demand-based control, 
PTO = 75 percent. For anti-sweat heaters on freezers (if included): 
Without timers, control system or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 
0 percent. With timers, control system or other demand-based 
control, PTO = 50 percent.
    (3) For all other electricity consuming devices: Without timers, 
control system, or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 0 percent. If 
it can be demonstrated that the device is controlled by a 
preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system, 
PTO = 25 percent.
    (b) Calculate the power usage for each type of electricity 
consuming device, Pnd-comp,u,t, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.055

Where:

u = the index for each type of electricity-consuming device located 
on either (1) the interior facing side of the display door or within 
the inside portion of the display door, (2) the exterior facing side 
of the display door, or (3) any combination of (1) and (2). For 
purposes of this calculation, the interior index is represented by u 
= int and the exterior index is represented by u = ext. If the 
electrical component is both on the interior and exterior side of 
the display door then u = int. For anti-sweat heaters sited anywhere 
in the display door, 75 percent of the total power is attributed to 
u = int and 25 percent of the total power is attributed to u = ext;
t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Prated,u,t = rated power of each component, of type t, 
kW;
PTOu,t = percent time off, for device of type t, %; and
nu,t = number of devices at the rated power of type t, 
unitless.

    (c) Calculate the total electrical energy consumption for 
interior and exterior power, Pnd-tot, int (kWh/day) and 
Pnd-tot, ext (kWh/day), respectively, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.057

Where:

t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Pnd-comp,int, t = the energy usage for an electricity 
consuming device sited on the internal facing side or internal to 
the

[[Page 21611]]

non-display door, of type t, kWh/day; and
Pnd-comp,ext, t = the energy usage for an electricity 
consuming device sited on the external facing side of the non-
display door, of type t, kWh/day. For anti-sweat heaters,

    (d) Calculate the total electrical energy consumption, 
Pnd-tot, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.058

Where:

Pnd-tot,int = the total interior electrical energy usage 
for the non-display door, of type t, kWh/day; and
Pnd-tot,ext = the total exterior electrical energy usage 
for the non-display door, of type t, kWh/day.

4.5.3 Total Indirect Electricity Consumption Due to Electrical Devices

    (a) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/Wh
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/Wh
    (b) Calculate the additional refrigeration energy consumption 
due to thermal output from electrical components associated with the 
non-display door, Cnd-load, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.059

Where:

EER = EER of walk-in cooler or freezer, Btu/W-h; and
Pnd-tot,int = the total interior electrical energy 
consumption for the non-display door, kWh/day.

4.5.4 Total Non-Display Door Energy Consumption

    (a) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/W-h
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/W-h
    (b) Calculate the total daily energy consumption due to thermal 
load, End, thermal, kWh/day, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.060

Where:

Qcond-nd = the conduction load through the non-display 
door, Btu/hr; and
EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/W-h.

    (c) Calculate the total energy, End,tot, kWh/day, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.061

Where:

End, thermal = the total daily energy consumption due to 
thermal load for the non-display door, kWh/day;
Pnd-tot = the total electrical energy consumption, kWh/
day; and
Cnd-load = additional refrigeration load due to thermal 
output from electrical components contained on the inside face of 
the non-display door, kWh/day.

5.0 Test Methods and Measurements

5.1 Measuring Floor and Non-Floor Panel U-Factors

    Follow the test procedure in ASTM C1363, (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.303), exactly, with these exceptions:
    (1) Test Sample Geometry Requirements
    (i) Two (2) panels, 8 ft.  1 ft. long and 4 ft. 
 1 ft. wide must be used.
    (ii) The panel edges must be joined using the manufacturer's 
panel interface joining system (e.g., camlocks, standard gasketing, 
etc.).
    (iii) The Panel Edge Test Region, see figure 1, must be cut 
using the following dimensions:
    1. If the panel contains framing members (e.g. a wood frame), 
then the width of edge (W) must be as wide as any framing member 
plus 2 in.  0.25 in. For example, if the face of the 
panel contains 1.5 in. thick framing members around the edge of the 
panel, then width of edge (W) = 3.5 in.  0.25 in and the 
Panel Edge Test Region would be 7 in.  0.5 in. wide.
    2. If the panel does not contain framing members, then the width 
of edge (W) must be 4 in.  0.25 in.
    3. Walk-in panels that utilize vacuum insulated panels (VIP) for 
insulation, width of edge (W) = the lesser of 4.5 in.  1 
in. or the maximum width that does not cause the VIP to be pierced 
by the cutting device when the edge region is cut.
    (iv) Panel Core Test Region of length Y and height Z, see Figure 
1, must also be cut from one of the two panels such that panel 
length = Y + X, panel height = Z + X where X = 2W.

[[Page 21612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP11.062

    (2) Testing Conditions
    (i) The air temperature on the ``hot side'', as denoted in ASTM 
C1363, of the non-floor panel should be maintained at 75 [deg]F 
 1 [deg]F.
    1. Exception: When testing floor panels, the air temperature 
should be maintained at 55 [deg]F  1 [deg]F.
    (ii) The temperature on the ``cold side'', as denoted in ASTM 
C1363, of the panel should be maintained at 35 [deg]F  1 
[deg]F for the panels used for walk-in coolers and -10 [deg]F  1 [deg]F for panels used for walk-in freezers.
    (iii) The air velocity must be maintained as natural convection 
conditions as described in ASTM C1363. The test must be completed 
using the masked method and with surround panel in place as 
described in ASTM C1363.
    (3) Required Test Measurements
    (i) Non-floor Panels
    1. Panel Edge Region U-factor: Unf, edge
    2. Panel Core Region U-factor: Unf, core
    (ii) Floor Panels
    1. Floor Panel Edge Region U-factor: Ufp, edge
    2. Floor Panel Core Region U-factor: Ufp, core

5.2 Measuring Long Term Thermal Resistance (LTTR) of Insulating 
Foam

    Follow the test procedure in Annex C of DIN EN 13164 or Annex C 
of DIN EN 13165 (as applicable), (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  431.303), exactly, with these exceptions:
    (1) Temperatures During Thermal Resistance Measurement
    (i) For freezers: 35 [deg]F  1 [deg]F must be used
    (ii) For coolers: 55 [deg]F  1 must be used
    (2) Sample Panel Preparation
    (i) A 800mm x 800mm square (x thickness of the panel) section 
cut from the geometric center of the panel that is being tested must 
be used as the sample for completing DIN EN 13165.
    (ii) A 500mm x 500mm square (x thickness of the panel) section 
cut from the geometric center of the panel that is being tested must 
be used as the sample for completing DIN EN 13164.
    (3) Required Test Measurements
    (i) Non-floor Panels
    1. Long Term Thermal Resistance: RLTTR,nf
    (ii) Floor Panels
    1. Long Term Thermal Resistance: RLTTR,fp

5.3 U-factor of Doors and Display Panels

    (a) Follow the procedure in NFRC 100, (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.303), exactly, with these exceptions:
    (1) The average convective heat transfer coefficient on both 
interior and exterior surfaces of the door should be based on the 
coefficients described in section 4.3 of NFRC 100.
    (2) Internal conditions:
    (i) Air temperature of 35 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) for cooler doors 
and -10 [deg]F (-23.3 [deg]C) for freezer doors
    (ii) Mean inside radiant temperature must be the same as shown 
in section 5.3(a)(2)(i), above.
    (3) External conditions
    (i) Air temperature of 75 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C)
    (ii) Mean outside radiant temperature must be the same as 
section 5.3(a)(3)(i), above.
    (4) Direct solar irradiance = 0 W/m\2\ (Btu/h-ft\2\).
    (b) Required Test Measurements
    (i) Display Doors and Display Panels
    1. Thermal Transmittance: Udd
    (ii) Non-Display Door
    1. Thermal Transmittance: Und

[FR Doc. 2011-8690 Filed 4-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```