Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 34 February 20, 2014 

Part III 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

Energy Conservation for Certain Industrial Equipment: Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods and Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024] 

RIN 1904–AC46 

Energy Conservation for Certain 

Industrial Equipment: Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods and 

Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers 

and Walk-In Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its 

existing regulations for walk-in coolers 

and walk-in freezers regarding the use of 

methods other than testing for certifying 

compliance and reporting ratings in 

accordance with energy conservation 

standards. DOE also proposes 

clarifications its test procedures for this 

equipment. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later 

than March 24, 2014. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, 

interested persons may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024 and/or RIN 

1904–AC46, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: AED-ARM-2011-TP-0024@

ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011–BT– 

TP–0024 and/or RIN 1904–AC46in the 

subject line of the message. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file 

format, and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585– 0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP0024. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for information on how 

to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For information on how to submit a 

comment or review other public 

comments and the docket, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@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. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

2. Test Procedures for WICF Refrigeration 

Equipment 

3. Test Procedures and Prescriptive 

Requirements for WICF Foam Panel 

R-Value 

4. Performance-Based Test Procedures for 

Energy Consumption of Envelope 

Components 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

1. Applicable Equipment 

2. Validation 

a. Number of Tested Units Required for 

Validation 

b. Tolerances for Validation 

3. Certified Rating 

4. Verification 

a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating 

b. Action Following Enforcement Testing: 

Determination of Noncompliance 

5. Re-Validation 

a. Change in Standards or Test Procedures 

b. Re-Validation Using Active Models 

c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation 

B. Refrigeration Test Procedure 

1. Rating of Refrigeration Components 

2. Defrost Test 

3. Refrigerant Oil Testing 

4. Temperature Measurement 

5. Test Condition Tolerances 

6. Insulation 

7. Composition Analysis 

8. Piping Length 

9. Other Clarifications and Modifications 

C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel R-Value 

(ASTM C518–04) 

D. Performance-Based Test Procedures for 

Walk-In Coolers and Freezers 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’, Pub. L. 94–163) sets forth 

a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. The National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(‘‘NECPA’’, Pub. L. 95–619) amended 

EPCA and established the energy 

conservation program for certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317) The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’) 

further amended EPCA to include, 

among others, two types of industrial 

equipment that are the subject of today’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9819 

notice: walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers (collectively, ‘‘walk-ins’’ or 

‘‘WICFs’’). (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) Walkins are enclosed storage spaces of less 

than 3,000 square feet that can be 

walked into and are refrigerated to 

temperatures above and at or below 32 

degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) This term, by 

statute, excludes equipment designed 

for medical, scientific, or research 

purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program generally consists of four parts: 

(1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) establishing 

Federal energy conservation standards; 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)), 

including those representations made to 

DOE that the covered equipment 

complies with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(h)) 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

requirements to determine whether the 

products comply with the relevant 

energy conservation standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(h)) For certain consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, DOE’s testing regulations 

currently allow manufacturers to use an 

alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM), in lieu of actual 

testing, to simulate the energy 

consumption or efficiency of certain 

basic models of covered products and 

equipment under DOE’s test procedure 

conditions. As explained in further 

detail below, an AEDM is a computer 

model or mathematical tool used to help 

determine the energy efficiency of a 

particular basic model. 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures that DOE 

must follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

products. EPCA provides, in relevant 

part, that any test procedures prescribed 

or amended under this section must be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated annual 

operating cost of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, and must not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine the extent to which the 

proposed procedure would alter the 

equipment’s measured energy 

efficiency. If DOE determines that the 

amended procedure would alter that 

equipment’s measured energy 

efficiency, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(D). 

B. Background 

1. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

As briefly noted above, AEDMs are 

computer modeling or mathematical 

tools that predict the performance of 

non-tested basic models. They are 

derived from mathematical models and 

engineering principles that govern the 

energy efficiency and energy 

consumption characteristics of a type of 

covered equipment. These computer 

modeling and mathematical tools, when 

properly developed, can provide a 

relatively straightforward and 

reasonably accurate means to predict 

the energy usage or efficiency 

characteristics of a basic model of a 

given covered equipment type. These 

tools can be useful in reducing a 

manufacturer’s testing burden. 

Where authorized by regulation, 

AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate 

and certify their basic models by using 

the projected energy use or energy 

efficiency results derived from these 

simulation models. DOE currently 

permits manufacturers of certain 

expensive or highly customized 

equipment to use AEDMs when rating 

and certifying their equipment. 

DOE believes other similar equipment 

that must currently be rated and 

certified through testing, such as walkin refrigeration systems, could also be 

rated and certified through the use of 

computer or mathematical modeling. 

Consequently, to examine whether 

AEDM usage would be appropriate for 

walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE 

sought comment on this topic and other 

related issues in a Request for 

Information (RFI), which was published 

in the Federal Register on April 18, 

2011. 76 FR 21673. 

DOE subsequently issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on May 31, 2012 (May 2012 NOPR), that 

proposed to expand and revise DOE’s 

existing AEDM requirements for certain 

commercial equipment covered under 

EPCA. 77 FR 32038. Specifically, the 

May 2012 NOPR proposed to allow 

manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration 

systems to use AEDMs when certifying 

the energy use or energy efficiency of 

basic models of equipment in lieu of 

testing. Id. 

Subsequent to the May 2012 NOPR’s 

publication, the Appliance Standards 

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC) unanimously 

decided to form a working group to 

engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort 

on the certification of commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment. During the Working Group’s 

first meeting on April 30, 2013, Working 

Group members voted to expand the 

scope of the negotiated rulemaking 

efforts to include developing methods of 

estimating equipment performance 

based on AEDM simulations for 

commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment. The issues 

discussed by the various participants 

during the negotiations with DOE were 

similar to those raised by the 

commenters in response to the May 

2012 NOPR, which included AEDM 

validation and DOE verification of 

ratings derived using an AEDM. DOE 

adopted the Working Group’s AEDM 

recommendation for commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment in a 

Final Rule published in the Federal 

Register on December 31, 2013. 78 FR 

79579. DOE notes that neither the 

Working Group nor the December 2013 

final rule addressed the use of AEDMs 

for WICF refrigeration systems. 

This supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) proposes to align 

DOE’s AEDM regulations by allowing 

the use of AEDMs when certifying the 

energy efficiency performance of walkin refrigeration equipment in a manner 

similar to that which was recently 

established for commercial HVAC, 

refrigeration, and WH equipment. This 

approach, which was recommended by 

the Working Group, would help DOE 

establish a uniform, systematic, and fair 

approach to the use of these types of 

modeling techniques that will enable 

DOE to ensure that products in the 

marketplace are correctly rated— 

irrespective of whether they are subject 

to actual physical testing or are rated 

using modeling—without unnecessarily 

burdening regulated entities. 

2. Test Procedures for WICF 

Refrigeration Equipment 

The refrigeration system performs the 

mechanical work necessary to cool the 

interior space of a walk-in. The system 

typically comprises two separate 

primary components, a condenser/

compressor (‘‘condensing unit’’) and an 

expansion valve/evaporator (‘‘unit 

cooler’’). DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.304, Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

incorporate by reference AHRI Standard 

1250–2009, ‘‘2009 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers 

and Freezers’’ (AHRI 1250) as the testing 

method for walk-in refrigeration 

systems. 10 CFR 431.304(b)(9). AHRI 

1250 establishes methods to follow 

when testing a complete refrigeration 

system (the ‘‘matched system’’ test), as 

well as separate methods to use for 

testing the unit cooler and condensing 

unit of a refrigeration system 

individually and then calculating a 

combined system rating (the ‘‘mixmatch’’ test). AHRI 1250 also contains 

standard rating conditions for cooler 

and freezer systems; systems where the 

condenser is located either indoors or 

outdoors; and systems with singlespeed, two-speed, or variable-speed 

compressors. AHRI 1250 also 

establishes a method for testing and 

rating unit coolers that are connected to 

a multiplex condensing system such as 

may be found in a supermarket. The 

rating produced by the AHRI 1250 test 

procedure is an annual walk-in energy 

factor (AWEF), defined as ‘‘a ratio of the 

total heat, not including the heat 

generated by the operation of 

refrigeration systems, removed, in Btu 

[British thermal units], from a walk-in 

box during one year period of usage for 

refrigeration to the total energy input of 

refrigeration systems, in watt-hours, 

during the same period.’’ AHRI 1250, at 

sec. 3.1. 

In addition to these activities, DOE 

recently proposed energy conservation 

standards for walk-ins. See 78 FR 55782 

(Sept. 11, 2013) (September 2013 

standards NOPR). In that notice, DOE 

proposed standards for complete walkin refrigeration systems that would 

require the ratings for the refrigeration 

system be derived using either the 

matched system or mix-match tests 

described above. DOE also proposed 

standards for unit coolers connected to 

a multiplex system, based on the unit 

cooler rating method described above. 

Responding to the NOPR, several 

interested parties discussed the concept 

of establishing separate standards for 

the unit cooler and condensing unit of 

a walk-in. In light of that discussion, 

and of the fact that the unit coolers and 

condensing units are often sold 

separately and in many cases are 

produced by different manufacturers, 

and that AHRI 1250 includes individual 

test methods for both components (i.e. 

the mix-match test method), DOE is 

proposing in this SNOPR to adopt a 

methodology that would require the 

manufacturer of either the unit cooler or 

condensing unit, if sold separately, to 

test and certify compliance with DOE’s 

standards and when making 

representations of the WICF 

refrigeration system. Manufacturers of a 

complete WICF refrigeration system 

may continue to develop a system rating 

for the purposes of certifying 

compliance with DOE’s standards and 

making representations of the WICF 

refrigeration system. 

Furthermore, in reviewing AHRI 1250 

and conducting limited testing on a 

WICF refrigeration system at a thirdparty laboratory to investigate the 

AEDM validation approach, DOE 

discovered several issues in the 

refrigeration test procedures that would 

require clarification and/or create 

unnecessary test burden. To simplify 

the procedure and to clarify certain 

aspects, DOE is also proposing to 

provide alternate language to certain 

requirements contained in AHRI 1250 

that DOE’s test procedure currently 

incorporates by reference. 

3. Sampling Plan 

In order to determine a certified rating 

for certifying compliance or making 

energy use representations, DOE 

requires manufacturers to test each basic 

model in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure and 

apply the sampling plan. In today’s 

notice, DOE is proposing a sampling 

plan for walk-ins consistent with other 

commercial equipment regulated under 

EPCA. 

4. Test Procedures and Prescriptive 

Requirements for WICF Foam Panel 

R-Value 

EPCA mandates prescriptive 

requirements for the thermal resistance 

of walk-in panels; wall, ceiling, and 

doors must have an insulation value of 

at least R–25 for coolers and R–32 for 

freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)) EPCA 

also requires the use of ASTM C518–04, 

Standard Test Method for Thermal 

Steady-State Thermal Transmission 

Properties by Means of the Heat Flow 

Meter Apparatus (‘‘ASTM C518–04’’) to 

measure the insulation thermal 

resistance. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(9)(A)) The 

walk-in test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.304 incorporates ASTM C518–04 by 

reference. This reference standard is the 

method by which the thermal 

conductivity (the ‘‘K factor’’) of a walkin panel is measured; the R-value of the 

panel is then determined by multiplying 

1/K (the reciprocal of K) by the 

thickness of the panel. The R-value of a 

freezer panel is determined at a mean 

insulation foam temperature of 20 

degrees Fahrenheit and the R-value of a 

cooler panel is determined at a mean 

insulation foam temperature of 55 

degrees Fahrenheit. (42 U.S.C. 6314 

(a)(9)(A)(iii) and (iv)) Manufacturers 

must currently use the test procedure 

detailed in 10 CFR 431.304(b) when 

certifying compliance with the panel 

energy conservation standards until 

January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must 

use the procedure in 10 CFR 431.304(c) 

when making representations of energy 

efficiency both currently and when 

certifying compliance starting on 

January 1, 2015. DOE is proposing to 

modify the test sample preparation 

procedures incorporated from ASTM 

C518–04 in both procedures to improve 

measurement accuracy. 

5. Performance-Based Test Procedures 

for Energy Consumption of Envelope 

Components 

In 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, 

Appendix A, DOE lays out a method for 

measuring performance-based efficiency 

metrics for certain WICF envelope 

components. This method draws from 

several existing industry test methods 

by incorporating by reference ASTM 

C1363–05 Standard Test Method for 

Thermal Performance of Building 

Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus and 

Annex C Determination of the aged 

values of thermal resistance and 

thermal conductivity from both DIN EN 

13164 and DIN EN 13165 (two European 

Union-developed testing protocols) for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

WICF floor and non-floor panels. 

Appendix A also incorporates NFRC 

100–2010[E0A1] Procedure for 

Determining Fenestration Product Ufactors for determining the energy use of 

walk-in display and non-display doors. 

In today’s notice, DOE is proposing to 

modify (1) the test procedures for WICF 

floor and non-floor panels to address 

comments received from stakeholders 

during the standards rulemaking and (2) 

the WICF display and non-display door 

test procedure to improve the clarity of 

the test method. 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Today’s proposal comprises five key 

elements. 

First, the Department proposes to 

allow WICF refrigeration system 

manufacturers to use AEDMs to rate and 

certify their basic models by using the 

projected energy efficiency derived from 

these simulation models in lieu of 

testing. DOE is proposing to align the 

validation requirements proposed for 

WICF refrigeration AEDMs with those 

that have already been adopted for 

commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

WH equipment. DOE is considering this 

approach because the cooling and 

refrigeration systems used by these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9821 

equipment types operate under similar 

principles as the refrigeration systems 

used in walk-ins. This similarity, along 

with the practical considerations 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, lend 

support for applying similar or identical 

validation requirements for walk-ins as 

well. Also as part of this approach, the 

Department is addressing comments 

received in response to the May 2012 

NOPR, which originally proposed to 

expand AEDMs to WICF refrigeration 

systems and proposed validation and 

verification requirements. 

Second, today’s SNOPR puts forth an 

alternative method for testing and rating 

the WICF refrigeration system for unit 

coolers and condensing units that are 

sold separately. Specifically, unit cooler 

manufacturers who distribute a unit 

cooler for use in a WICF refrigeration 

system must rate that cooler as though 

it were to be connected to a multiplex 

system, and must comply with the 

standard for a unit cooler connected to 

a multiplex system. Similarly, 

manufacturers who distribute a 

condensing unit for use in a WICF 

refrigeration system must determine the 

appropriate rating by using the nominal 

values for unit coolers proposed in this 

notice, in lieu of actual unit cooler test 

data, when calculating AWEF using the 

mix-match rating method in AHRI 1250. 

Consistent with this methodology and 

pending the outcome of the standards 

rulemaking, DOE is considering 

modifications to the certification 

requirements based on the following 

scheme: (1) A manufacturer that only 

produces unit coolers for use in a WICF 

refrigeration system would use the test 

method described above to establish the 

WICF refrigeration system rating for 

each unit cooler (system performance 

would be established by testing the unit 

cooler as though it is to be connected to 

a multiplex system (i.e., using the 

‘‘Walk-in Unit Cooler Match to Parallel 

Rack System’’ test method in AHRI 

1250, section 7.9))—then, the unit 

cooler manufacturer would certify the 

compliance of those basic models with 

the WICF refrigeration system standard; 

(2) a manufacturer that only produces 

condensing units would use the test 

method described above to establish the 

WICF refrigeration system rating for 

each condensing unit (system 

performance would be established by 

testing each condensing unit and 

combining it with the unit cooler 

nominal values (as proposed in this 

SNOPR))—then, the condensing unit 

manufacturer would certify compliance 

of those basic models with the WICF 

refrigeration system standard; or (3) a 

manufacturer that produces both unit 

cooler basic models and condensing 

unit basic models that are marketed and 

sold as a matched system would use the 

test method in AHRI 1250 to test the 

unit cooler and the condensing unit as 

a matched system to get a WICF 

refrigeration system rating for each 

matched system it produces and then 

certify compliance. 

Third, DOE proposes the following 

modifications to the test procedure for 

WICF refrigeration components: 

—Clarifications to the defrost test 

procedure; 

—An alternative method for calculating 

the defrost energy and heat load of a 

system with electric defrost in lieu of 

a frosted coil test; 

—A method for calculating defrost 

energy and heat load of a system with 

hot gas defrost; 

—Change to the minimum fan speed 

and duty cycle during the off-cycle 

evaporator fan test; 

—Removal of the refrigerant oil and 

refrigerant composition analysis 

testing requirements; 

—Clarifications and changes to the 

temperature measurement 

requirements, intended to reduce 

testing burden; 

—Addition of a test condition tolerance 

for electrical power frequency and 

removal the test condition tolerance 

for temperature of air leaving the unit; 

—Quantification of the requirements for 

insulating refrigerant lines; 

—Clarification of piping length 

requirement; 

—Changes to the list of tests for unit 

coolers in table 15 to achieve 

consistency with another similar test 

method; and 

—Clarification of voltage imbalance for 

three-phase power. 

Fourth, DOE proposes to modify the 

current test procedure for measuring the 

insulation R-value of WICF panels. (10 

CFR 431.304) The current DOE test 

procedure allows, but does not require, 

panels to be tested with non-foam facers 

or protective skins attached. (10 CFR 

431.304(b)(5), (6) and (c)(5), (6)) Also, 

the current DOE test procedure allows 

panel test samples to be up to 4 inches 

in thickness. (10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and 

(c)(5)) The test procedure requires that 

the R-value be measured at a mean 

temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit for 

freezer panels (10 CFR 431.304(b)(3) and 

(c)(3)) and 55 degrees Fahrenheit for 

cooler panels (10 CFR 431.304(b)(4) and 

(c)(4)); however no tolerance is 

currently specified for these 

temperatures. In light of recent concerns 

regarding the accuracy of ASTM 

C518–04 testing of which DOE had not 

previously been aware, DOE is 

proposing to require test samples be 1 

inch in thickness and without non-foam 

facers, protective skins, internal nonfoam members or edge regions. DOE is 

proposing to add flatness and 

parallelism constraints on the test 

sample surfaces that contact the hot and 

cold plates in the heat flow meter 

apparatus. DOE also proposes to add a 

tolerance of ±1 degree Fahrenheit for the 

mean temperature during panel R-value 

testing because DOE believes this will 

help ensure that the panel testing is 

conducted in a repeatable and 

reproducible manner at different 

laboratories. 

Fifth, to all walk-in manufacturers to 

make energy use representations DOE is 

proposing a sampling plan for walk-ins 

consistent with other commercial 

equipment regulated under EPCA. 

Sixth and finally, in response to 

manufacturer comments on the 

September 2013 standards NOPR, DOE 

is proposing to remove the existing 

performance-based test procedures for 

WICF floor and non-floor panels (10 

CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, 

sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2). DOE 

recognizes that these performance-based 

procedures for WICF floor and non-floor 

panels are in addition to the 

prescriptive requirements established in 

EPCA for panel insulation R-values and, 

therefore, may increase the test burden 

to manufacturers. 

All of the changes noted above, along 

with the appropriate sections of the CFR 

where these changes will appear, are 

detailed in the summary table below. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CFR CHANGES

Change 10 CFR Section 

Allowing manufacturers to use AEDMs to rate WICF refrigeration systems ................................................................. 429.53. 

Specific instructions for applying AEDMs to WICF refrigeration systems ..................................................................... 429.70(f). 

Changes to test procedures and prescriptive requirements for WICF foam panel R-value .......................................... 431.304(b)(3)–(6) and 

431.304(c)(3)–(6) 

Amendments to AHRI 1250 refrigeration system test method, and the panel and door test methods ........................ 431.304(c)(8). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CFR CHANGES—Continued 

Change 10 CFR Section 

Methods for rating refrigeration components sold separately ........................................................................................ 431.304(c)(11). 

Amendments to performance-based test procedures for energy consumption of envelope components .................... 431 Subpart R, Appendix 

A. 

In any rulemaking to amend a test 

procedure, DOE generally determines to 

what extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE 

has tentatively determined that there are 

no energy conservation standards in 

effect that would be significantly 

impacted by the proposed test 

procedure amendments. A full 

discussion follows in section III.E 

below. 

Discussion 

In response to the May 2012 NOPR, 

DOE received written comments from 

28 interested parties, including 

manufacturers, trade associations and 

advocacy groups. Seven additional 

interested parties commented during the 

May 2012 NOPR Public Meeting on June 

5, 2012. Table II.1 lists the entities that 

commented on the NOPR and their 

affiliation. These comments are 

discussed in more detail below, and the 

full set of comments, including the 

public meeting transcript, can be found 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%

252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=

25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024. 

TABLE III.1—INTERESTED PARTIES THAT COMMENTED ON THE MAY 2012 NOPR 

Name Acronym Organization type 

AAON, Inc. .............................................................................................................................. AAON ............................. Manufacturer. 

The ABB Group ...................................................................................................................... ABB ................................ Manufacturer. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ............................................................ AHRI .............................. Industry Trade Group. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project & American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Joint Comment ............... Advocacy Group. 

Baldor Electric ......................................................................................................................... Baldor Electric ................ Manufacturer. 

Bradford White Corporation .................................................................................................... Bradford White ............... Manufacturer. 

Burnham Commercial ............................................................................................................. Burnham ........................ Manufacturer. 

Cooper Power Systems .......................................................................................................... Cooper ........................... Manufacturer. 

Crown Boiler Company ........................................................................................................... Crown Boiler .................. Manufacturer. 

CrownTonka/ThermalRite/International Cold Storage ............................................................ CT/TR/ICS ..................... Manufacturer. 

Danfoss ................................................................................................................................... Danfoss .......................... Manufacturer. 

First Co. .................................................................................................................................. First Co. ......................... Manufacturer. 

Goodman Global, Inc. ............................................................................................................. Goodman ....................... Manufacturer. 

Heatcraft Refrigeration Products LLC .................................................................................... Heatcraft Refrigeration ... Manufacturer. 

Hillphoenix, Inc. ...................................................................................................................... Hillphoenix ..................... Manufacturer. 

Hussmann Corporation ........................................................................................................... Hussmann ...................... Manufacturer. 

Ingersoll Rand ......................................................................................................................... Ingersoll Rand ................ Manufacturer. 

Johnson Controls, Inc. ............................................................................................................ JCI .................................. Manufacturer. 

Lennox International, Inc. ....................................................................................................... Lennox ........................... Manufacturer. 

Lochinvar, LLC ........................................................................................................................ Lochinvar ....................... Manufacturer. 

Mitsubishi Electric ................................................................................................................... Mitsubishi Electric .......... Manufacturer. 

Modine Manufacturing Company ............................................................................................ Modine ........................... Manufacturer. 

Mortex Products, Inc. .............................................................................................................. Mortex ............................ Manufacturer. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ....................................................................... NEMA ............................. Industry Trade Group. 

Nidec Motor Corporation ........................................................................................................ Nidec .............................. Manufacturer. 

Nordyne, LLC .......................................................................................................................... Nordyne ......................... Manufacturer. 

Rheem Manufacturing Company ............................................................................................ Rheem ........................... Manufacturer. 

Schneider Electric ................................................................................................................... SE .................................. Manufacturer. 

Southern Store Fixtures, Inc. .................................................................................................. Southern Store Fixtures Manufacturer. 

Trane ....................................................................................................................................... Trane .............................. Manufacturer. 

True Manufacturing Co. Inc. ................................................................................................... True Manufacturing ........ Manufacturer. 

Unico, Inc. ............................................................................................................................... Unico .............................. Manufacturer. 

United Cool Air ....................................................................................................................... United Cool Air .............. Manufacturer. 

United Technologies Climate, Controls & Security and ITS Carrier ...................................... UTC/Carrier .................... Manufacturer. 

Zero Zone, Inc. ....................................................................................................................... Zero Zone ...................... Manufacturer. 

In response to the SNOPR on AEDMs 

for commercial HVAC, refrigeration and 

WH equipment, which was published in 

the Federal Register on October 22, 

2013, 78 FR 62472, DOE received a 

comment relevant to this rulemaking 

from Lennox International, Inc., a 

manufacturer of HVAC and commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 

The Department also received 

relevant comments from 23 interested 

parties in response to the September 

2013 Standards NOPR and related 

NOPR Public Meeting held on October 

9, 2013. Table III.2 lists the entities that 

commented on that NOPR and their 

affiliation. These comments are 

discussed in more detail below, and the 

full set of comments, including the 

public meeting transcript, can be found 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9823 

1 In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term 

substantiation to refer to the process manufacturers 

used to prove that their modeling tool, or AEDM, 

produced accurate results. The Working Group 

elected to use the term validation, instead of 

substantiation, for this process. DOE clarifies that 

substantiation and validation are synonymous and 

the Department will use the term validation 

henceforth. 

2 In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term DOE 

validation to refer to the process DOE used to check 

that the modeling tool, or AEDM, produced 

accurate results. The Working Group elected to use 

the verification, instead of DOE validation, for this 

process. DOE clarifies that DOE validation and 

verification are synonymous and the Department 

will use the term verification henceforth. 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD0015. 

TABLE III.2—INTERESTED PARTIES THAT COMMENTED ON THE SEPTEMBER 2013 STANDARDS NOPR 

Name Acronym Organization type 

Air Conditioning Contractors of America ................................................................................ ACCA ............................. Industry Trade Group. 

Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ............................................................. AHRI .............................. Industry Trade Group. 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy .............................................................. ACEEE ........................... Advocacy Group. 

American Panel Corp ............................................................................................................. American Panel ............. Manufacturer. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project ............................................................................... ASAP ............................. Advocacy Group. 

Architectural Testing Inc ......................................................................................................... AT ..................................

Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc ................................................................................................. Bally ............................... Manufacturer. 

CrownTonka Walk-Ins, ThermalRite & International Cold Storage ........................................ CT/TR/ICS ..................... Manufacturer 

Danfoss Group North America ............................................................................................... Danfoss .......................... Manufacturer. 

Heatcraft Refrigeration Products LLC .................................................................................... Heatcraft ........................ Manufacturer. 

Hillphoenix .............................................................................................................................. Hillphoenix ..................... Manufacturer. 

HussmanCorporation .............................................................................................................. HussmanCorp ................ Manufacturer. 

Imperial Brown ........................................................................................................................ IB .................................... Manufacturer. 

KysorWarren ........................................................................................................................... Kysor .............................. Manufacturer. 

Lennox International Inc ......................................................................................................... Lennox ........................... Manufacturer. 

Louisville Cooler Mfg .............................................................................................................. Louisville Cooler ............ Manufacturer. 

Manitowoc ............................................................................................................................... Manitowoc ...................... Manufacturer. 

National Coil Company ........................................................................................................... NCC ............................... Manufacturer. 

Nor-Lake, Inc .......................................................................................................................... Nor-Lake ........................ Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance & The Northwest Power and Conservation Council .. NEEA, et al .................... Advocacy Group. 

Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, San Diego 

Gas & Electric (Ca. State Independently Owned Utilities).

CA IOU’s ........................ Utility. 

Thermo-Kool ........................................................................................................................... Thermo-Kool .................. Manufacturer. 

US Cooler Co ......................................................................................................................... US Cooler ...................... Manufacturer. 

A. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method 

In the May 2012 NOPR, in which DOE 

proposed to expand and revise existing 

AEDM requirements for commercial 

equipment covered under EPCA, DOE 

proposed, among other things, to allow 

the use of AEDMs for WICFs and to 

establish specific requirements for 

AEDM validation 1—i.e., a process in 

which manufacturers demonstrate the 

accuracy of an AEDM model—and DOE 

verification 2—i.e., a process followed 

by DOE when verifying the accuracy of 

an AEDM model—that would apply to 

this equipment. 

Following the publication of the May 

2012 NOPR, the Commercial 

Certification Working Group was 

formed in April 2013 to discuss and 

negotiate certification provisions for 

commercial heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioner (HVAC), refrigeration, and 

water heater (WH) equipment. The 

Working Group expanded the scope of 

coverage to include AEDMs. As part of 

its negotiations, the Working Group also 

developed AEDM validation and 

verification requirements. These 

negotiations led to the publication of an 

SNOPR on October 22, 2013, hereafter 

referred to as the October 2013 SNOPR, 

in which DOE proposed for adoption 

the Working Group’s recommendation 

on AEDMs, basic model definitions, and 

compliance requirements for 

commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

water heating equipment. (78 FR 62472) 

On December 31, 2013, DOE issued a 

final rule for AEDM usage by 

manufacturers of these products. See 78 

FR 79579. Today’s SNOPR proposes to 

require that the AEDM validation 

regulations similar to those that apply to 

commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

WH equipment would also apply to 

WICF refrigeration systems. DOE is also 

addressing comments in response to the 

May 2012 NOPR. 

1. Applicable Equipment 

In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to allow the use of AEDMs for 

WICFs, but limited the proposal to 

apply only to WICF refrigeration 

systems. DOE explained that WICF 

refrigeration systems are low-volume 

and custom-made for the specific 

installation and could be accurately 

rated using a computer simulation to 

predict their behavior under DOE test 

conditions. DOE did not propose to 

permit a similar option when rating 

other WICF components. WICF panels 

are relatively simple pieces of 

equipment and the test results from a 

basic model of a given panel can be 

extrapolated to many other panel basic 

models under the provisions of the test 

procedure. As for WICF doors, the DOE 

test procedure already specifies the use 

of certain modeling techniques that are 

approved by the National Fenestration 

Rating Council (NFRC), which, in DOE’s 

view, makes a parallel AEDM provision 

for these components unnecessary. 77 

FR at 32041. 

Heatcraft and CT/TR/ICS supported 

this aspect of the proposal. (Heatcraft, 

No. 0049 at p. 2; CT/TR/ICS, No.0035 at 

p. 1) In addition, in response to the 

October 2013 SNOPR, DOE received a 

comment from Lennox recommending 

that DOE allow walk-in manufacturers 

to use AEDMs when rating their 

equipment. (Lennox, No. 0080 at p. 4) 

DOE also received AEDM-related 

comments in response to the September 

2013 standards NOPR. 78 FR 55781. 

AHRI, Bally, and ACEEE generally 

recommended that DOE include AEDM 

provisions for WICFs. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; AHRI, No. 

114 at p. 4; AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 58; Bally, No. 

102 at p. 3; ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 87) In addition 

to its comment from the commercial 

HVAC, refrigeration and WH 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

rulemaking, Lennox commented in the 

standards rulemaking that permitting 

walk-in refrigeration system 

manufacturers to use AEDMs would 

reduce the test burden faced by these 

manufacturers, particularly given the 

number of possible unit cooler and 

condenser combinations. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015], Lennox, 

No. 109 at p. 4) During the same 

rulemaking, Hillphoenix, KeepRite, and 

NEEA, et al. commented that permitting 

panel manufacturers to use AEDMs for 

panel certification would reduce their 

test burden as well. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 

107 at p. 3; KeepRite, No. 105 at p. 2; 

NEEA et al, No. 101 at p. 2) 

In today’s notice, DOE proposes as a 

modification of its earlier May 2012 

NOPR to allow WICF refrigeration 

system manufacturers to use AEDMs 

when rating the performance of this 

equipment. DOE is not extending this 

allowance to WICF panel manufacturers 

for the reasons described above, but is, 

instead, proposing other modifications 

to the walk-in panel test procedure to 

reduce the burden faced by panel 

manufacturers while ensuring the 

overall accuracy of the efficiency 

ratings. The proposed modifications to 

the WICF panel test procedure are 

outlined in section III. C. 

2. Validation 

a. Number of Tested Units Required for 

Validation 

In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a number of validation 

requirements that would apply to walkin refrigeration systems. DOE proposed 

that validating an AEDM would require 

a manufacturer to test a minimum of 

five basic models, including at least one 

basic model from each product class to 

which the AEDM will be applied. As 

part of these tests, the manufacturer 

would be required to test the smallest 

and largest capacity basic models from 

the product class with the highest sales 

volume. Additionally, the manufacturer 

would also need to test the basic model 

with the highest sales volume from the 

previous year or, for newly introduced 

basic models, the basic model which is 

expected to have the highest sales 

volume. Finally, all validation test data 

would need to meet the applicable 

Federal energy conservation standards 

and applicable DOE testing procedures. 

77 FR 32044–32045. 

Commenters responding to that 

proposal provided general comments, 

with none specifically relating to walkins. AHRI commented that it was 

unrealistic for a manufacturer who 

produces fewer than five models to be 

required to validate an AEDM based on 

a minimum sample of five units. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 

154) Furthermore, AHRI stated that it is 

disproportionately burdensome to 

require testing at least five basic models 

for small manufacturers who 

manufacture or plan to use an AEDM for 

only a few basic models compared to 

manufacturers who offer many basic 

models and many product classes. AHRI 

recommended that DOE require testing 

of only three basic models if the AEDM 

applies only to 15 or fewer basic 

models. (AHRI No. 61 at p. 3) 

Acknowledging how much work and 

testing validation of an AEDM requires, 

Zero Zone noted that it would be 

difficult for small manufacturers to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

and would represent a large amount of 

work since testing is so complex. Zero 

Zone recommended that small 

manufacturers either be exempt from 

the proposed requirements or have a 

different sample size requirement to 

meet. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 69 at p. 65) Zero Zone 

and Hillphoenix agreed with DOE’s 

proposal to require testing of at least one 

unit from each applicable product class 

and did not offer comment regarding the 

assigned product classes. (Zero Zone, 

No. 64 at p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 48 at p. 

1) 

Hillphoenix supported DOE’s 

proposals for the selection requirements 

of basic models used to validate an 

AEDM. (Hillphoenix, No. 48 at p. 2) 

Heatcraft disagreed with DOE’s 

proposed approach, stating that the 

requirement to test the smallest and 

largest capacity basic models from the 

highest sales volume product class is 

overly burdensome due to the wide 

range of equipment capacity. (Heatcraft, 

No. 49 at p. 3) Heatcraft also disagreed 

with DOE’s proposal to require 

manufacturers to test the highest sales 

volume basic model because it will not 

improve the accuracy of the AEDM and 

because the low-volume, built-to-order 

nature of WICF equipment will cause 

sales volumes to constantly shift. 

(Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 4) 

The Working Group recommended, 

and DOE adopted, an AEDM validation 

method for commercial HVAC, 

refrigeration, and WH equipment that 

differed from the Department’s May 

2012 validation proposal. The Working 

Group proposed to validate an AEDM 

for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

WH equipment, a manufacturer must 

select a minimum number of models 

from each validation class to which the 

AEDM is going to apply. (Validation 

classes are groupings of products based 

on equipment classes but used for 

AEDM validation). The Department 

proposes to extend this concept to WICF 

refrigeration systems and proposes the 

validation classes listed in Table III.3. A 

unit of each basic model selected must 

undergo a single test conducted in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure 

(or, if applicable, a test procedure 

waiver issued by DOE) at a 

manufacturer’s testing facility or a thirdparty testing facility. The test result 

must be directly compared to the result 

from the AEDM to determine the 

AEDM’s validity. A manufacturer may 

develop multiple AEDMs per validation 

class and each AEDM may span 

multiple validation classes; however, 

the minimum number of tests must be 

maintained per validation class for 

every AEDM a manufacturer chooses to 

develop. An AEDM may be applied to 

any model within the applicable 

validation classes at the manufacturer’s 

discretion. All documentation of test 

results for these models, the AEDM 

results, and subsequent comparisons to 

the AEDM would be maintained as part 

of both the test data underlying the 

certified rating and the AEDM 

validation package pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.71. 

TABLE III.3—VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System ..................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System .................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System ........................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System ........................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature ............................................................ 2 Basic Models 

Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing Unit, Low Temperature ................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Medium Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit ............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9825 

TABLE III.3—VALIDATION CLASSES—Continued 

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

Medium Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit .......................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Low Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit ................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Low Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit ................................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

In order to align with the validation 

requirements for commercial HVAC, 

refrigeration, and WH equipment, DOE 

proposes to adopt the validation 

approach shown above, which mirrors 

the approach recommended by the 

Working Group. In DOE’s view, the 

Working Group’s method addresses 

AHRI’s concerns regarding 

manufacturers that produce a limited 

number of equipment models. This 

proposal, if adopted, will also reduce 

the amount of testing burden noted by 

Zero Zone. Additionally, today’s 

proposal would not require that a 

manufacturer test the highest sales 

volume product, a concern raised by 

Heatcraft. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed AEDM validation approach as 

applied to walk-in refrigeration systems. 

b. Tolerances for Validation 

In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to adopt two tolerances that 

would be applied when validating a 

WICF refrigeration AEDM. One 

tolerance would be between the results 

from a test of a single basic model and 

the AEDM output for that basic model 

(i.e., an individual tolerance). A second 

tolerance would be applied between the 

average of the test results from all tested 

basic models and the average of the 

AEDM outputs for those tested basic 

models (i.e., an overall average 

tolerance). 77 FR at 32055–32056. DOE 

received one comment on this aspect of 

its proposal. Heatcraft commented that 

the average tolerance provides no added 

benefit because it does not necessarily 

encourage smaller product variation. 

(Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 3) 

DOE also proposed that both 

tolerances would apply on both sides of 

the AEDM output. 77 FR at 32055– 

32056. That is, a tolerance would be 

applied regardless of whether the test 

result indicated that the equipment was 

more efficient or more consumptive 

than the AEDM output for the purposes 

of validation. DOE received a number of 

comments regarding two-sided 

tolerances, but none specific to AEDMs 

for WICFs. Rheem and Hussmann stated 

that DOE’s tolerances should be onesided, with Hussmann recommending 

that DOE allow manufacturers to rate 

equipment conservatively using an 

AEDM. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 3; 

Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2) JCI also stated 

that tolerances should be one-sided, and 

there should be no requirement for revalidation if a manufacturer has 

conservative ratings. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 6) 

AAON, Trane, and ACEEE also 

supported one-sided tolerances and an 

approach that would allow 

manufacturers to rate conservatively. 

(AAON, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

69 at pp. 88 and 212; Trane, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 90; 

ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

69 at p. 90) AAON urged DOE to 

eliminate one side of the 5 percent 

tolerance and not penalize 

manufacturers whose basic models, 

when tested, achieve a higher rating 

than that predicted by an AEDM 

because allowing manufacturers to 

conservatively predict a basic model’s 

performance would simplify the process 

and give manufacturers incentives to 

improve AEDMs and manufacturing 

processes over time so that they could 

rate their equipment as efficiently as 

possible. In AAON’s view, this 

approach would not prevent a 

manufacturer who might be inclined to 

calibrate their models more 

conservatively from using its AEDM. 

(AAON, No. 40 at p. 5) 

Not all manufacturers, however, 

recommended that DOE remove the 

conservative tolerance. Instead of 

completely removing it, AHRI suggested 

that the conservative tolerance should 

be increased to 10 percent so that 

manufacturers can design AEDMs that 

provide conservative ratings. (AHRI, No. 

61 at p. 5) Cooper, on the other hand, 

stated that tolerances should be twosided because manufacturers must 

demonstrate that an AEDM’s output is 

accurate and repeatable. (Cooper, No. 43 

at p. 3) 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to set 

consistent tolerance levels for all 

products covered under AEDM 

requirements, except for motors and 

small electric motors. 77 FR at 32055– 

32056. DOE proposed a ±5% tolerance 

on the individual AEDM results as 

compared to the tested results and a 

±3% tolerance on the average of the 

AEDM outputs as compared to the 

average tested results. Regarding WICF 

refrigeration equipment, commenters 

generally agreed there will be variation 

in the results from testing, but 

commenters differed in their suggested 

tolerance levels. Heatcraft, Zero Zone, 

Hussmann, and True Manufacturing all 

commented that the proposed 5 percent 

tolerance was too tight. (Heatcraft, No. 

49 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 2; 

Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2; True, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 86) 

Zero Zone recommended a tolerance of 

8 percent. (Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 2) 

Heatcraft, Hussmann and True 

Manufacturing identified expected test 

variations of 10 percent, 11 percent, and 

8 percent respectively but did not 

suggest a tolerance for AEDM 

validation. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 3; 

Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2; True, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 86) 

Heatcraft suggested that DOE should 

work with manufacturers to determine 

the appropriate tolerance based on the 

expected variations. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at 

p. 3) CT/TR/ICS disagreed with these 

parties, stating that the 5 percent 

tolerance was acceptable so long as 

testing was conducted with the typical 

electric utility tolerance of 10 percent. 

(CT/TR/ICS, No. 35 at p. 1) 

The Working Group recommended 

that for energy efficiency metrics, the 

AEDM results for a model must be less 

than or equal to 105 percent of the 

tested results for that same model. DOE 

adopted this approach for commercial 

HVAC, refrigeration, and WH 

equipment in the December 31, 2013 

Final Rule and proposes to use it for 

WICF refrigeration systems in today’s 

notice to align DOE’s AEDM validation 

requirements for walk-ins with these 

other types of commercial equipment 

that are refrigerant-based systems. This 

approach would eliminate both the 

tolerance on the average of the AEDM 

results and two-sided tolerances. DOE 

requests comments on the proposed 

tolerances on the AEDM results as 

compared to the tested results for a 

given basic model. 

3. Certified Rating 

For each basic model of commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment distributed in U.S. 

commerce, manufacturers must 

determine the certified rating based on 

testing or use of a validated AEDM. 

DOE’s current regulations provide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers with some flexibility in 

rating each basic model by allowing the 

manufacturer the discretion to rate 

conservatively. For energy efficiency 

metrics, each model’s certified rating 

must be less than or equal to the 

model’s AEDM result and greater than 

or equal to the applicable Federal 

standard. DOE proposes to adopt these 

requirements for WICF refrigeration 

equipment rated with AEDMs. 

4. Verification 

DOE may randomly select and test a 

single unit of a basic model pursuant to 

10 CFR 429.104, which extends to all 

DOE covered products, including those 

certified using an AEDM. In the May 

2012 NOPR, DOE proposed a method for 

determining whether those products 

certified using an AEDM fail to meet 

federal energy conservation standards 

and/or fail to meet their certified rating, 

as well as actions that DOE would take 

in response to either outcome. 77 FR at 

32056. 

a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating 

In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require that the assessment 

test result would be compared to the 

certified rating for a model to determine 

if a model met its certified rating. If the 

test result fell outside of the proposed 

tolerance, the model would not meet its 

certified rating. In this case, DOE 

proposed to require that manufacturers 

re-validate the AEDM that was used to 

certify the product within 30 days of 

receiving the test report from DOE. 

Furthermore, DOE also proposed to 

require that manufacturers incorporate 

the test data obtained by the Department 

for that model into the re-validation of 

the AEDM. If, after inclusion of DOE’s 

test data and re-validation, the AEDMcertified ratings change for any models, 

the manufacturer would be required to 

re-rate and re-certify those models. The 

manufacturer would not be required to 

perform additional testing in this revalidation process unless the 

manufacturer finds it necessary in order 

to meet the requirements enumerated in 

the proposed 10 CFR 429.70 (e.g., 

number of tested units; proposed 

tolerances; etc.). 77 FR 32056. 

A few stakeholders commented on 

these proposals. Zero Zone commented 

that the failure of one unit to meet its 

certified rating should not automatically 

necessitate re-validation. It suggested 

that the manufacturer should decide on 

the appropriate course of action. (Zero 

Zone, No. 64 at p.3) Lennox further 

noted that although DOE should use 

independent, third-party labs for testing, 

using these entities does not ensure 

accuracy because third-party labs may 

not be as familiar with specialized 

commercial equipment. (Lennox, No. 47 

at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges these comments 

regarding how potential AEDM misrating situations should be addressed. 

First, DOE proposes to assess a unit’s 

performance through third party testing. 

Under this approach, DOE would begin 

the verification process by selecting a 

single unit of a given basic model for 

testing either from retail or by obtaining 

a sample from the manufacturer. DOE 

will select a third-party testing 

laboratory at its discretion to test the 

unit selected unless there are cases 

where there is not a third-party 

laboratory capable of testing the 

equipment, in which case DOE may 

request testing at a manufacturer’s 

facility. The Department will be 

responsible for the logistics of arranging 

the testing, and the laboratory is not 

allowed to communicate directly with 

the manufacturer. At no time may the 

test facility discuss DOE verification 

testing with the manufacturer without 

the Department present. 

If a unit is tested and determined to 

be outside the rating tolerances 

described in section I.C.4, DOE will 

notify the manufacturer. The 

manufacturer will receive all 

documentation related to the test set up, 

test conditions, and test results for the 

unit if the unit falls outside the rating 

tolerances. At that time, a manufacturer 

may present all claims regarding any 

issues directly with the Department. 

DOE requests comment on this 

proposal. The Department notes that 10 

CFR 429.13(b) applies to equipment 

certified using an AEDM, and DOE may 

require a manufacturer to conduct 

additional testing if the manufacturer 

has been found to be in violation of an 

applicable standard or certification 

requirement. 

b. Action Following Enforcement 

Testing: Determination of 

Noncompliance 

In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 

explained that if a model failed to meet 

the applicable federal energy 

conservation standard during 

assessment testing, DOE may pursue 

enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.110. DOE also stated that, after 

enforcement testing, if a model were 

determined to be noncompliant, then all 

other models within that basic model 

would be considered noncompliant. 

This is consistent with DOE’s approach 

for all covered products. All other basic 

models rated with the AEDM would be 

considered compliant pending 

additional investigation. Furthermore, 

DOE proposed that in a case where the 

noncompliant model was used for 

validation of an AEDM, then the AEDM 

must be re-validated within 30 days of 

notification, pursuant to the proposed 

requirements described in section 

III.A.2. DOE did not propose requiring 

a manufacturer re-test basic models that 

were tested previously for validation if 

DOE has not determined those models 

to be noncompliant. 77 FR at 32056. 

DOE received a general comment related 

to this proposal, but no comments 

specific to noncompliance 

determinations for WICF refrigeration 

equipment. JCI agreed that all AEDMrated models should not be disqualified 

if one model is found out of compliance. 

(JCI, No. 66 at p. 9) Furthermore, JCI 

stated that without additional 

information as to why a particular 

product failed a test, it is not reasonable 

to arbitrarily assume that all models 

rated with the AEDM must be re-rated. 

(JCI, No. 66 at p. 9, 10) 

After considering the comment 

received regarding DOE’s proposed 

response to a finding of noncompliance, 

DOE has decided to eliminate the 

proposal to require re-validation of the 

AEDM if the noncompliant model was 

used to validate the AEDM. Instead, the 

Department proposes that the 

underlying principle that each AEDM 

must be supported by test data obtained 

from physical tests of current models 

will control. Because a noncompliant 

model may not be distributed in 

commerce, the manufacturer will need 

to ensure that the AEDM continues to 

satisfy the proposed validation 

requirements described in section III. A. 

2. Additional testing would not be 

necessary unless the noncompliant 

product was used to satisfy those AEDM 

validation requirements. Pursuant to 

this requirement, should the revalidation result in a change in the 

ratings of products certified using the 

AEDM, those products must be re-rated 

and re-certified. DOE is not proposing to 

require re-testing of products that were 

not determined noncompliant by DOE. 

5. Re-Validation 

a. Change in Standards or Test 

Procedures 

DOE proposed in the May 2012 NOPR 

to require that manufacturers who use 

an AEDM to certify their products revalidate the AEDM upon publication of 

an amended test procedure or standard 

for the AEDM-rated product. 77 FR at 

32056. DOE proposed this requirement 

to account for potential changes to the 

AEDM as well as to ensure that the 

AEDM continues to be based upon test 

data derived from the applicable DOE 

test procedure and models that meet the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9827 

current standards. DOE identified the 

issuance of a new test procedure or a 

standard as likely to necessitate changes 

to the AEDM, either because a change in 

a test procedure may affect the tested 

values of the products used to validate 

the AEDM or because a change in a 

standard may require additional testing 

using models that meet the new 

standard or may force manufacturers to 

implement new technologies that are 

not covered by their current AEDM. 

DOE did not propose a periodic revalidation requirement in light of the 

potential testing burden involved. 

Among the comments received, a 

large majority of stakeholders suggested 

that a change in standards or test 

procedures should not automatically 

trigger AEDM re-validation, 

emphasizing that it may only be 

necessary in the case of a significant 

change in the regulations. (UTC/Carrier, 

No. 56 at p. 3; JCI, No. 66 at p. 10; 

NEMA, No. 44 at p. 5, 18, 19; Lennox, 

No. 46 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 61 at p. 7) 

Baldor Electric, Zero Zone, ABB, First 

Co., Goodman, Heatcraft Refrigeration, 

and Schneider Electric all argued that 

re-validation would not be necessary in 

a case of a change in a test procedure. 

(Baldor Electric, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 69 at p. 132–34; Zero 

Zone, No. 64 at p. 4; ABB, No. 39 at p. 

3; First Co., No. 45 at p. 3; Goodman, 

No. 53 at p. 3; Heatcraft Refrigeration, 

No. 49 at p. 5; SE., No. 41 at p. 12) 

According to Goodman, AAON, Zero 

Zone, Ingersoll Rand, and Baldor 

Electric, re-validation would also not be 

necessary if there is a change in a 

prescribed minimum energy efficiency 

standard. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 3; Zero 

Zone, No. 64 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 

134; AAON, No. 40 at p. 7; Baldor 

Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

69 at p. 132–34) NEMA echoed this 

view and explained that when an 

efficiency standard changes, it is 

possible that the determined energy 

consumption of basic models might still 

be higher than the new standard, and 

more testing would not be necessary. 

(NEMA, No. 44 at p. 5, 18, 19) 

Several stakeholders outlined specific 

circumstances that would necessitate revalidation due to a change in a standard 

or test procedure. AHRI and 

Hillphoenix stated that re-validation 

should only be required when a change 

in a test procedure is significant enough 

to result in a product having a different 

rated energy consumption or efficiency. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

69 at p. 238–39; Hillphoenix, No. 48 at 

p. 2) Nordyne, Rheem, Lennox, and CT/ 

TR/ICS added that re-validation should 

be required if a change in a DOE test 

procedure has an effect on simulated 

ratings of an AEDM. (Nordyne, No. 55 

at p. 3; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 5; Lennox, 

No. 46 at p. 6; CT/TR/ICS, No. 35 at p. 

2) ABB and Unico commented that revalidation may be necessary when a 

new federal standard is high enough 

that the basic models used for validation 

can no longer meet the minimum 

standard. (ABB, No. 39 at p. 3; Unico, 

No. 54 at p. 5) Baldor Electric agreed, 

stating that unless there is a significant 

change in technology or a test standard, 

a manufacturer should not have to revalidate its AEDM. (Baldor Electric, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at pp. 

132–34) NEMA suggested that DOE 

consider the necessity for re-validation 

on a case-by-case basis, and specifically 

address and solicit public comment on 

whether re-validation of an AEDM is 

needed as a result of changes in a test 

procedure at the time when DOE 

proposes to adopt the change in the test 

procedure. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 20) 

Many manufacturers advocated that 

re-validation should instead depend on 

significant changes to the technology of 

basic models, including changes to the 

components. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 3; 

First Co., No. 45 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 59 

at p. 5; Nordyne, No. 55 at p. 3; Unico, 

No. 54 at p. 3; SE., No. 41 at p. 12) 

Additionally, Baldor Electric and 

Ingersoll Rand pointed out during the 

public meeting that a change in 

technology should be an important 

factor in evaluating when re-validation 

may be necessary, with Ingersoll Rand 

adding that if there were no change in 

technology it is unclear why a change in 

standards would disqualify an AEDM. 

(Baldor Electric, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 69 at pp. 132–134; 

Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 69 at p. 137) Schneider 

Electric specified that manufacturers 

should revise and re-validate their 

AEDMs whenever they introduce new 

products, processes or materials, and 

that any changes to the AEDM itself 

should necessitate re-validation. 

(Schneider Electric, No. 41 at pp. 10 and 

12) 

DOE agrees with manufacturers’ 

assertions that re-validation should 

depend on the nature of the regulatory 

change involved because not every 

change to the standard or test procedure 

would necessarily affect a product’s 

energy consumption and/or efficiency 

or an AEDM’s output. DOE also agrees 

with NEMA that the requirement to revalidate should be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. Therefore, DOE is 

not proposing to require re-validation 

every time the test procedure or 

standard changes. 

However, should DOE believe that revalidation is necessary pursuant to a 

final rule standard or test procedure, 

DOE will propose this step in the NOPR 

for that standard or test procedure 

rulemaking to allow stakeholders to 

provide comment. 

b. Re-Validation Using Active Models 

DOE is concerned that an AEDM’s 

accuracy may be compromised if the 

models that are used to validate it 

become obsolete. To address this issue, 

DOE proposed to require manufacturers 

to re-validate their AEDMs if one of the 

basic models used for validation is no 

longer in production or if it becomes 

obsolete. 77 FR at 32056. DOE requested 

comment on this proposed approach. 

The majority of commenters on this 

topic disagreed with DOE’s proposal, 

stating that once an AEDM is validated, 

it is valid regardless of whether one of 

the basic models used for its validation 

is discontinued. Stakeholders further 

asserted that discontinuance of a basic 

model does not necessarily indicate a 

change in technology; therefore, it 

should not automatically invalidate the 

AEDM, and re-validation of the AEDM 

should not be required. (United Cool 

Air, No. 51 at p. 10; First Co., No. 45 at 

p. 3; Lennox, No. 46 at p. 6; Unico, No. 

54 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 134; 

JCI, No. 66 at p. 10) UTC/Carrier 

recommended that inactive models 

should be allowed for re-validation as 

long as they use the same technology as 

the products currently in production 

and meet the minimum energy 

efficiency standards. (UTC/Carrier, No. 

56 at p. 3) AAON further added that if 

the product was current at the time the 

test was performed, test data should 

remain valid for re-validation for at least 

five years after a unit becomes obsolete. 

(AAON, No. 40 at p. 7) JCI pointed out 

that continuous re-validation due to 

elimination of some models would 

create an unstable environment for new 

product development. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 

10) According to Rheem, AHRI and Zero 

Zone, the decision regarding when revalidation is necessary should be left to 

the manufacturer. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 

5; AHRI, No. 61 at p. 9; Zero Zone, No. 

64 at p. 4) Only Schneider Electric 

agreed with DOE’s proposal that AEDMs 

must be re-validated only with active 

models. (SE, No. 41 at p. 12) 

While DOE appreciates 

manufacturers’ concerns regarding the 

additional testing burden and possible 

turnover of AEDM models imposed by 

this requirement, DOE continues to have 

concerns regarding the accuracy of an 

AEDM based on data from obsolete 

models. Thus, DOE is retaining the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

proposal to require re-validation of an 

AEDM if a basic model used for its 

validation is discontinued or becomes 

obsolete. DOE believes that this 

requirement will ensure that AEDMs 

continue to produce accurate ratings, 

without imposing a significant testing 

burden on manufacturers. 

DOE notes that under its proposal, 

manufacturers may continue to test their 

models beyond the minimum validation 

requirements as a means to affirm an 

AEDM’s validity. As long as the 

manufacturer has sufficient test data 

underlying the AEDM to meet the 

validation requirements at all times, 

additional testing for re-validation 

would not be required by DOE. In other 

words, a manufacturer may continue to 

use data from an obsolete or 

discontinued model to internally 

validate an AEDM or as an input to its 

algorithms. However, the manufacturer 

must meet the minimum validation 

requirements with test data from active 

models. 

c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed that, 

should a manufacturer be required to revalidate an AEDM for any reason, it 

must complete the re-validation process 

and re-rate and re-certify basic models 

as necessary within 30 days. The 

requirement to re-validate may be a 

result of a change in federal standards, 

a change in the applicable test 

procedure, the basic model used to 

validate the AEDM becoming inactive or 

found to be noncompliant with 

standards, or the failure of a basic model 

to meet its certified rating during 

assessment or enforcement testing. DOE 

proposed that if a manufacturer failed to 

re-validate the AEDM and to re-rate and 

re-certify any models as necessary 

within 30 days, then the AEDM and all 

certifications made using the AEDM 

would be considered invalid. 77 FR at 

32056. 

A large majority of interested parties 

stated that 30 days is insufficient to 

perform the additional testing required 

for re-validation of an AEDM and 

suggested extending the proposed time 

limit. Sixty days was proposed as a 

more appropriate timeframe by 

Goodman and Schneider Electric; 180 

days by AAON and UTC/Carrier; and 90 

to 120 days by the remaining twelve 

stakeholders. (Bradford White, No. 38 at 

p. 1; ABB, No. 39 at p. 3; AAON, No. 

40 at p. 6; Modine, No. 42 at p. 4; 

Lennox, No. 47 at p. 3; Heatcraft 

Refrigeration, No. 49 at p. 4; Zero Zone, 

No. 64 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 53 at p. 

3; SE., No. 41 at p.11; UTC/Carrier, No. 

56 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 18; 

Hillphoenix, No. 48 at p. 2; Unico, No. 

54 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 4; AHRI, 

No. 61 at pp. 6–7) Zero Zone suggested 

that a time limit of 18 to 36 months 

would be an appropriate time to update 

an AEDM in case of a change in a 

standard or a test procedure. (Zero 

Zone, No. 64 at p. 4) Schneider Electric 

stated that 30 days after an AEDM’s 

revision would be sufficient to reevaluate and re-certify products in 

distribution. However, it added that if a 

manufacturer’s products are not in 

distribution at the time, the 

manufacturer should be allowed 180 

days to re-evaluate and re-certify them. 

(Schneider Electric, No. 41 at p. 11) 

After considering these suggestions, 

DOE is declining to propose a time limit 

to re-validate an AEDM. The AEDM 

must satisfy the fundamental 

requirement for validating an AEDM at 

all times. 

B. Refrigeration Test Procedure 

During DOE’s rulemaking to establish 

test procedures for WICF equipment, 

which resulted in a final rule published 

on April 15, 2011 (‘‘April 2011 test 

procedure final rule;’’ 76 FR 21580), 

interested parties supported DOE’s 

approach to use AHRI 1250 (I–P)–2009, 

‘‘2009 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1250’’), for WICF refrigeration 

testing. AHRI 1250 is an industrydeveloped testing protocol used to 

measure walk-in efficiency. However, 

DOE is proposing to add certain 

modifications to AHRI 1250. These 

modifications are designed to either 

clarify certain steps in AHRI 1250 or 

reduce the testing burden of 

manufacturers while ensuring that 

accurate measurements are obtained. 

1. Rating of Refrigeration Components 

The AHRI 1250 test procedure 

incorporated into DOE’s regulations 

applies to unit coolers and condensing 

units tested and sold together as a 

matched system, ‘‘mix-matched’’ unit 

coolers and condensing units (i.e., unit 

coolers and condensing units tested 

separately, with a system rating 

determined using a calculation 

methodology), and unit coolers 

connected to compressor racks or 

multiplex condensing systems. It also 

describes the methods for measuring the 

refrigeration capacity, on-cycle 

electrical energy consumption, off-cycle 

fan energy, and defrost energy. Standard 

test conditions, which differ for indoor 

and outdoor locations and for coolers 

and freezers, are also specified. The test 

procedure includes a calculation 

methodology to compute an annual 

walk-in energy factor (AWEF), which is 

the ratio of heat removed from the 

envelope to the total energy input of the 

refrigeration system over a year. AWEF 

is measured in Btu/W-h and measures 

the efficiency of a refrigeration system, 

meaning the unit cooler and condenser 

combination. 

In response to the September 2013 

standards NOPR, the Department 

received a number of comments 

regarding the potential certification 

problems related to establishing an 

efficiency metric for WICF refrigeration 

systems. Some stakeholders commented 

that a single metric would be difficult to 

enforce given the walk-in market 

structure, and observed that creating 

separate metrics for each component of 

the refrigeration system (i.e. the unit 

cooler and condenser unit) would allow 

manufacturers to certify equipment 

performance. ASAP expressed concern 

that treating the complete refrigeration 

system as a ‘‘component’’ could lead to 

a standard with a high rate of noncompliance. ASAP also commented that 

separate standards for unit coolers and 

remote condensing units would be more 

practical [than a single standard], since 

the proposed standard resulted in a lack 

of clarity for manufacturers producing 

only unit coolers, only condensing 

units, or mix-match systems; however, 

such an approach could allow 

manufacturers of components to 

circumvent the standard by claiming 

their product was not designed for use 

in walk-ins, and that DOE should ensure 

the definition of ‘‘covered equipment’’ 

does not create this loophole. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; ASAP, 

No. 113 at p. 1–3) NCC stated that 

standards based on the combined 

refrigeration system would rely on the 

contractors or designers to comply with 

the standard and would make DOE 

enforcement difficult. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; NCC, No. 

96 at p. 2) NCC commented that original 

equipment manufacturers of unit 

coolers and condensing units who sell 

these components separately do not 

have control over how their components 

are matched with others to form a mixmatch refrigeration system. As a result, 

in its view, design consultants and 

contractors would have to be relied 

upon for certifying the AWEF of a 

system comprised of components from 

two different manufacturers, making 

this proposed approach unenforceable 

due to the large number of design 

consultants and contractors as 

compared to the relatively small number 

of refrigeration manufacturers. In light 

of these concerns, NCC recommended 

DOE set energy efficiency standards for 

condensing units and unit coolers 

separately. ([Docket No. EERE–2008– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9829 

BT–STD–0015]; NCC, No 96 at p. 2) CA 

IOUs also suggested that DOE enforce 

separate standards for unit coolers and 

condensing units. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 385) 

Bally agreed that separate standards for 

condensers and evaporators were more 

practical than a combined standard for 

the refrigeration system. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; Bally, No. 

102 at p. 3) AHRI stated that often, the 

unit cooler and condensing unit are 

purchased independently and was 

concerned about treating the 

refrigeration system as a single 

component. ([Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015]; AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 42)) Keeprite 

agreed that that since evaporators and 

condensing units are often sold or 

distributed independently of each other, 

and with no knowledge of how the 

consumer would pair them, separate 

standards for each component would be 

more practical than a system standard. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Keeprite, No. 105 at p. 1) 

Other manufacturers described the 

potential burden created by having a 

single metric. AHRI commented that 

since walk-ins are often customdesigned, it would be impossible for 

manufacturers to accurately estimate the 

number of possible refrigeration system 

configurations that could potentially 

include any given combination of 

condensing unit/unit cooler options. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; AHRI, No. 114 at p.3) Heatcraft 

also remarked that unit coolers and 

condensing units should be treated 

separately because of the infinite 

number of possible combinations. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Heatcraft, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 41) American 

Panel noted that manufacturers can 

easily determine the efficiency of a 

paired condenser and evaporator if the 

two components were made by the same 

company and sold together, but given 

the number of different combinations of 

condensers and evaporators sold by a 

manufacturer, that manufacturer could 

be required to test or rate a thousand 

different systems to be able to certify all 

their possible combinations. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; 

American Panel, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 48 and 105) 

Manitowoc commented that requiring 

that manufacturers test matched 

refrigeration systems was not feasible 

because manufacturers of condensing 

units did not manufacture evaporators 

and vice versa; additionally, this 

approach would result in an infinite 

number of combinations. Manitowoc 

supported the idea of setting separate 

standards for condensing units and unit 

coolers, but noted that without an 

AEDM in place, these component level 

standards would still result in undue 

financial burden for manufacturers. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Manitowoc, No. 108 at pp. 1 and 

2) 

Commenters also noted that separate 

metrics for the unit cooler and 

condenser unit would simplify the 

testing and certification process. Lennox 

commented that regulating the 

condensing unit and unit cooler at the 

component, rather than system, level 

would greatly simplify manufacturer 

testing. ([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015]; Lennox, No. 109 at p.6) CA 

IOUs stated that DOE should consider 

splitting the refrigeration standard into 

condensing unit and unit cooler 

standards to simplify the certification 

process for assemblers and suggested 

that DOE provide a voluntary mix/

match standard level. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 

56) The CA IOUs also suggested that the 

test procedure be modified to require 

the testing of matching systems only for 

‘‘self-contained’’ units. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; CA IOUs, 

No. 110 at p. 2) ASAP supported the 

component level approach because a 

refrigeration system is not necessarily 

sold by a single manufacturer. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 

46) US Cooler supported a component 

level approach for refrigeration 

equipment because, in its view, the 

approach would give manufacturers 

more flexibility to meet the 

requirements since components would 

be certified individually and could be 

put together to determine the system’s 

energy consumption. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; US Cooler, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 

51) NEEA et al. also recommended that 

individual refrigeration system 

components, including all unit coolers 

and dedicated condensing units, should 

be rated and certified. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; NEEA et 

al., No. 101 at p. 3) 

Not all commenters, however, 

supported the refrigeration system 

component level approach. ACCA noted 

that it would be easier to enforce a 

standard for a matched system. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; ACCA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 

47) Louisville Cooler commented that 

certifying at a component level would 

discourage manufacturers from making 

system improvements in order to avoid 

repeating the certification process. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Louisville Cooler, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 50) Danfoss 

mentioned that refrigeration 

components are themselves composites 

of other components and subcomponents such as compressors, 

valves, controls, etc. Danfoss 

commented that requiring separate 

certification of condensing units, unit 

coolers, and other sub-components such 

as valves was a logical step, but was 

concerned that pushing the regulation 

down to the component level would be 

difficult to manage and DOE would lose 

the opportunity to pursue system level 

performance improvements. Danfoss 

suggested a non-regulatory approach to 

raise system level efficiency. Danfoss 

further pointed out that certified 

condensing units and evaporators must 

still be properly matched and, currently, 

no particular entity controls is 

responsible for this task. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; Danfoss, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 

32, 45 and 57) 

Commenters offered suggestions as to 

how the Department could regulate 

refrigeration components separately. 

Hussmann supported separate standards 

for WICF refrigeration condensing units 

and unit coolers and stated that AHRI 

should update the WICF refrigeration 

test procedure, AHRI 1250, to include a 

methodology to obtain separate AWEFs. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Hussmann, No. 93 at pp. 1 and 

3) NEEA, et al. commented that if unit 

coolers and condensing units were rated 

and certified separately, walk-in 

providers would have more flexibility to 

select components that best meet 

customer needs. The group also 

suggested that DOE utilize the mixmatch testing option in AHRI 1250 to 

facilitate component-level standards 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; NEEA, No. 101 at p. 3) ACEEE 

suggested DOE use an AEDM approach 

for separate certification of condensers 

and unit coolers. ACEEE suggested that 

a simple software tool could provide 

allowable versus forbidden matches 

with respect to size matching and other 

characteristics but did not suggest any 

specific software tools currently on the 

market. ([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015]; ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 43) Louisville 

Cooler suggested that given an 

evaporator rating, DOE could establish a 

plus-or-minus [capacity] range to match 

it with a particular compressor. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; 

Louisville Cooler, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 50) American 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Fan laws are theoretical principles that express 

the relationship between variables that impact fan 

performance. American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 

ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and 

Equipment, Section 20.4. 2008. 

Panel stated that the performance curves 

for unit coolers and condensing units 

should meet around a 10 degree 

temperature difference [between the 

internal dry-bulb temperature and the 

saturated evaporator temperature]. 

(([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; American Panel, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 88 at p. 59) 

Based on these comments noting the 

difficult nature of testing and rating 

walk-in refrigeration systems, 

particularly with respect to the large 

number of possible combinations of unit 

coolers and condensing units that can 

make up the WICF refrigeration system, 

the Department is proposing the 

following approach to allow 

manufacturers to test a condenser or 

unit cooler separately, but rate that 

component with an AWEF metric 

consistent with DOE’s proposed energy 

standard. Under this approach, a 

manufacturer who sells a unit without 

a matched condensing unit must rate 

and certify a refrigeration system 

containing that unit cooler by testing 

according to the methodology in AHRI 

1250 for unit coolers matched to a 

parallel rack system (see AHRI 1250, 

section 7.9). The manufacturer would 

use the calculation method in this 

section to determine the system AWEF 

and certify this AWEF to DOE. 

Additionally, all unit coolers tested and 

rated as part of a system unit this 

method must comply with the standards 

in the multiplex equipment classes. 

A manufacturer who sells a 

condensing unit separately must rate 

and certify that a refrigeration system 

containing that condensing unit by 

conducting the condensing unit portion 

of the AHRI 1250 mix/match test 

method. The results from the mix/match 

test would be combined with a nominal 

unit cooler capacity and power, based 

on nominal values for saturated suction 

temperature and unit cooler fan and 

electric defrost energy use factors, in 

order to calculate an AWEF for the 

refrigeration system basic model 

containing that condensing unit. 

(Condensing units built to utilize hot 

gas defrost must use the method for 

estimating hot gas defrost heat load and 

energy use outlined in the following 

section.) These nominal values are 

listed in Table III.6. (These values will 

be incorporated into 10 CFR 431.304.) 

DOE developed the nominal values 

from DOE testing and modeling of WICF 

refrigeration systems. DOE observed the 

following test and model results for oncycle fan power and used the average 

value for its nominal factor: 

TABLE III.4—EVAPORATOR FAN POWER TEST AND MODEL RESULTS

Unit tested or modeled 

On-cycle fan 

power 

(W) 

Gross capacity at 

highest ambient 

rating condition 

(Btu/h) 

On-cycle 

evaporator fan 

power, per Btu/h 

of gross capacity 

at highest ambient 

condition 

(W-h/Btu) 

Test: Cooler System—Unit 1 ..................................................................................... 320 23727 0.013 

Test: Cooler System—Unit 2 ..................................................................................... 208 15377 0.014 

Test: Freezer System—Unit 3 ................................................................................... 119 7325 0.016 

Test: Freezer System—Unit 4 ................................................................................... 113 7804 0.014 

Model: Cooler System—Unit 5 .................................................................................. 265 12831 0.021 

Model: Cooler System—Unit 6 .................................................................................. 252 14975 0.017 

Model: Freezer System—Unit 7 ................................................................................ 133 6998 0.019 

Model: Freezer System—Unit 8 ................................................................................ 126 8039 0.016 

Average .............................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. 0.016 

Off-cycle unit cooler fan power is 

expressed in terms of the on-cycle fan 

power and would represent 

performance consistent with a unit 

cooler meeting the energy conservation 

standard. The energy conservation 

standard assumes that manufacturers 

would implement variable speed fan 

controls in order to meet the standard, 

which reduces the fan speed by 50 

percent when the compressor is off. 

According to the fan laws,3 this would 

reduce power to 12.5 percent of fullspeed power, or 0.5∧(1/3). However, due 

to fan efficiency losses at lower speed, 

DOE is assuming that the power would 

be 20 percent of full speed power. 

For electric defrost energy, DOE also 

used test results from low temperature 

systems in developing the nominal 

factors. The results are as follows: 

TABLE III.5—DEFROST ENERGY TEST RESULTS

Unit tested 

Average defrost 

energy per cycle 

(Wh/cycle) 

Gross capacity at 

highest ambient 

rating condition 

(Btu/h) 

On-cycle evaporator fan power, 

per Btu/h of gross 

capacity at highest 

ambient condition 

(W-h/Btu) 

Test: Freezer System—Unit 3 ................................................................................... 880 7325 0.12 

Test: Freezer System—Unit 4 ................................................................................... 928 7804 0.12 

Average .............................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. 0.12 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9831 

Electric defrost heat contribution 

would be expressed in terms of the 

electric defrost power. In the AHRI 1250 

calculations, the electric defrost heat 

contribution is equivalent to the power 

contribution converted from Watts to 

Btu/h, less the heat embodied in the 

defrost meltwater which is drained from 

the unit. In testing, DOE observed that 

defrost meltwater heat accounted for 

approximately 5 percent of the heat 

input. Therefore, DOE is assuming that 

electric defrost heat contribution to the 

interior of the box is 95 percent of the 

electric defrost power, converted from 

Watts to Btu/h. 

The standards for the relevant 

equipment class of dedicated 

condensing refrigeration systems would 

apply to condensing unit basic models 

that were rated without a matched unit 

cooler. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow unit coolers and 

condensing units to be rated separately, 

and particularly the nominal values 

described in Table III.6. 

TABLE III.6—NOMINAL VALUES FOR UNIT COOLER SATURATED SUCTION TEMPERATURE AND ENERGY USE FACTORS

Coolers Freezers 

Saturated Suction Temperature (°F) ....................................................... 25 ¥20 

On-cycle evaporator fan power, per Btu/h of gross capacity at highest 

ambient condition (W-h/Btu).

0.016 0.016 

Off-cycle evaporator fan power (W) ........................................................ 0.2 × on-cycle evaporator fan power 

Electric defrost energy per cycle, per Btu/h of gross capacity (W-h/

cycle per Btu/h).

0 0.12 

Number of cycles per day ....................................................................... As specified in installation instructions or, if no instructions, 4 

Daily electric defrost heat contribution (Btu) ........................................... 0.95 × daily electric defrost energy use × 3.412 

2. Defrost Test 

The existing test procedure 

incorporates a mandatory defrost test for 

freezer systems with electric defrost 

(AHRI 1250, Section C11). This test is 

designed to calculate electric defrost 

power consumption based on the (1) 

amount of energy consumption per 

defrost under both dry and frosted coil 

conditions, (2) number of defrosts per 

day, and (3) temperature and weight of 

the melt-water exiting the unit through 

the defrost drain pipe. DOE testing has 

shown that the test may be overly 

burdensome for manufacturers to 

conduct due to the difficulty of 

maintaining the moist air infiltration 

conditions for the frosted coil test in a 

repeatable manner. To minimize this 

burden while ensuring that the test 

sufficiently measures the energy 

consumption of walk-in freezer systems, 

DOE proposes to make the full defrost 

test optional, allowing manufacturers to 

choose between performing the full test 

and using a shorter and less 

burdensome methodology described as 

follows. DOE requests comment on the 

following calculation methodology and 

nominal values for electric defrost. 

—First, the energy input for the dry coil 

condition shall be measured as 

specified in AHRI 1250, section C11.1 

to obtain DFd in W-h. 

—In lieu of testing in the frost load 

conditions, the frosted coil energy use 

(DFf) shall be the product of 1.05 

multiplied by DFd. (This value was 

developed from DOE test results.) 

—For systems without adaptive defrost, 

the number of defrosts per day (NDF) 

shall be based on the defrost 

frequency recommended in the 

installation instructions for the unit; if 

no defrost frequency is specified, the 

number of defrosts per day shall be 

set to 4. 

—For systems with adaptive defrost, the 

optional test in section C11.2 may be 

performed to establish the time 

between dry coil defrosts. The 

number of defrosts per day calculated 

by this optional test shall be averaged 

with the number of defrosts per day 

that would occur under frosted 

conditions (as calculated in the 

previous paragraph). Otherwise, for 

systems with adaptive defrost, if the 

optional test is not performed, the 

number of defrosts per day (NDF) shall 

be set to the average of 1 and the 

number of defrosts per day that would 

occur under frosted load conditions. 

—The daily contribution of the load 

attributed to defrost, Qdf (Btu) shall be 

95 percent of the daily defrost energy 

use in watt-hours, multiplied by 3.412 

Btu/W-h. (This percentage is based on 

DOE test data, which showed that 

water thermal load is approximately 5 

percent of the electric input (see 

discussion in previous section III. B. 

1. This thermal load is deducted from 

the defrost heat load calculation, 

consistent with AHRI 1250 equation 

C14.) 

The existing test is designed to 

measure the power consumption for 

electrical defrost and does not provide 

a method to measure the energy use 

associated with hot-gas defrost systems. 

DOE is tentatively proposing correction 

factors for calculating the heat 

contribution and energy use for hot gas 

defrost systems. The correction factors 

and calculations would apply to 

equipment tested as a matched pair 

system, to unit coolers, and to 

condensing units tested and rated 

individually. 

The correction factor for heat 

contribution is based on DOE’s 

assumption that the heat contribution 

from hot gas defrost is approximately 

half that of an equivalent electric 

defrost. This estimate is based on the 

fact that electric defrost heat is supplied 

through separate heater rods which 

radiate more heat to the surrounding 

environment, while for hot gas defrost, 

the hot gas is circulated through, and 

the heat is applied directly onto, the 

refrigerant tubes, increasing the amount 

of the coil in contact with the heat 

source and reducing the amount of heat 

lost. DOE is proposing to use a heat 

contribution factor of 0.18 Btu per 

defrost cycle per Btu/h of capacity at the 

highest ambient test condition—that is, 

heat contribution equal to half of the 

nominal factor for defrost watt-hours 

per cycle per Btu/h of gross capacity 

proposed in Table III.6, multiplied by a 

conversion factor of 3.412 Btu/W-h, and 

reduced by 10 percent due to meltwater 

drainage. The correction factor shall be 

applied to the AHRI 1250 calculation for 

daily contribution of the load attributed 

to defrost, as follows: 

QDF = 0.18 Btu/defrost per Btu/h 

capacity × Qref × NDF

Where: 

Qref = Gross refrigeration capacity in Btu/h as 

measured at the high ambient condition 

(90 °F for indoor systems and 95 °F for 

outdoor systems) 

NDF = Number of defrosts per day; shall be 

set to the number recommended in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

installation instructions for the unit (or 

if no instructions, shall be set to 4) for 

units without adaptive defrost and 2.5 

for units with adaptive defrost to be 

consistent with the nominal values 

determined previously for rating systems 

without performing the frosted-coil or 

optional dry coil defrost test 

The daily average defrost energy 

required for the refrigeration system 

(DF) shall be zero for a unit cooler 

connected to a multiplex condensing 

system because the evaporator would be 

acting as a condenser extension when 

taking hot gas from a compressor rack 

during defrost operation, and thus 

would not be expected to add to the 

rack’s energy use. For a dedicated 

condensing system, the daily defrost 

energy shall be equivalent to half of the 

calculated daily defrost heat (QDF) 

converted from Btu to W-h. This is 

based on the assumption that during a 

hot gas defrost cycle, part of the defrost 

heat would be supplied by compressor 

heat generated during normal cooling 

operation, and the refrigeration system 

would be acting as a heat pump (i.e., it 

would be operating in reverse) with a 

COP of approximately 2. DOE requests 

comment on this approach, particularly 

with respect to the proposed correction 

factors. DOE notes that should a hot gas 

defrost test be developed, DOE will 

consider adopting such a test in a future 

test procedure rulemaking. 

3. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Test 

AHRI 1250, section C10 contains a 

method for determining the off-cycle 

power of evaporator fans that are 

controlled by a ‘‘qualifying control,’’ 

which may include adjustable fan speed 

control or periodic ‘‘stir cycles’’ which 

turn the fans on and off according to a 

certain duty cycle. AHRI 1250, section 

C10 specifies that ‘‘stir cycle’’ controls 

shall be adjusted so that the greater of 

a 25 percent duty cycle or the 

manufacturer default is used for 

measuring off-cycle fan energy; and that 

variable speed controls shall be adjusted 

so that the greater of 25 percent fan 

speed or the manufacturer’s default fan 

speed shall be used for measuring offcycle fan energy. In comments on the 

WICF Standards preliminary analysis, 

which were discussed in the September 

2013 NOPR, interested parties 

mentioned that a 75 percent reduction 

in duty cycle or fan speed could cause 

temperature stratification in the interior 

of the walk-in, which would impact 

food safety. DOE proposed in the NOPR 

to change the fan speed control 

characteristics to be equivalent to a 50 

percent reduction in duty cycle or fan 

speed. (See 78 FR 55818.) Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing in this SNOPR to 

amend the test procedure such that ‘‘stir 

cycle’’ controls shall be adjusted so that 

the greater of a 50 percent duty cycle or 

the manufacturer default is used for 

measuring off-cycle fan energy; and that 

variable speed controls shall be adjusted 

so that the greater of 50 percent fan 

speed or the manufacturer’s default fan 

speed shall be used for measuring offcycle fan energy. DOE requests 

comment on this proposal. 

4. Refrigerant Oil Testing 

Most refrigeration systems use oillubricated compressors. A small amount 

of oil generally escapes the compressor 

through the discharge connection and 

circulates through the system, 

continually returning to the compressor 

in the suction line in a properlydesigned and installed system. Under 

AHRI 1250, a measurement of the ratio 

of oil to refrigerant in the liquid 

refrigerant passing from the condenser 

to the unit cooler is required per ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 41.4. This 

information is used to adjust the 

capacity measurement, since a portion 

of the liquid mass flow would be oil that 

does not contribute to refrigeration 

capacity (see AHRI 1250, section 

C3.4.6). DOE recognizes that this test 

requires additional test apparatus and 

may prove burdensome. Furthermore, 

DOE testing has shown that in 

equipment with integrated oilseparators, the ratio of oil to refrigerant 

tends to be lower than the maximum of 

1 percent mandated in AHRI 1250, 

section C3.4.6. Therefore, in light of the 

negligible amount of oil present in the 

refrigerant lines in these types of units 

and thus the very low likelihood of 

excess oil being present in the system, 

DOE is proposing that condensing units 

with on-board oil-filters would not be 

required to perform this test. 

5. Temperature Measurement 

The AHRI 1250 procedure specifies a 

tolerance of ±0.2 °F for all refrigerant 

temperature measurements and that 

temperature measuring instruments 

must be placed in thermometer wells 

(small devices that extend into the 

refrigerant tube that contact the 

refrigerant and provide a more accurate 

temperature measurement). DOE notes 

that measurements to a ±0.2 °F accuracy 

cannot be obtained by thermocouples 

and require use of resistance 

temperature detectors (RTDs). DOE also 

notes that thermometer wells are 

generally large enough to require large 

fittings with diameters significantly 

larger than those of most refrigerant 

tubes used for unit coolers. DOE further 

notes that thermocouples are available 

with accuracy close to the ±0.2 °F 

requirement in sheathed arrangements, 

which can more easily achieve the goal 

of immersing the temperature sensor 

into the refrigerant flow. Further, DOE 

notes that (a) the impact of the 

uncertainty of temperature 

measurements of refrigerant entering 

and leaving the unit cooler on the 

potential capacity measurement is small 

enough to be acceptable for an accuracy 

requirement of ±0.5 °F, and (b) the 

accuracy requirement for all other 

refrigerant temperature measurements 

could be relaxed further, since these 

other measurements have much less 

effect on overall test accuracy. In order 

to address these concerns and provide 

more flexibility for testing, DOE is 

proposing that the required tolerance for 

test temperature measurement be 

maintained at ±0.5 °F for measurements 

at the inlet and outlet of the unit cooler, 

but be altered to ±1.0 °F for all other 

temperature measurements, allowing for 

the use of smaller temperature 

measurement probes which can more 

easily be placed in contact with the 

refrigerant while not impeding its flow. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing to allow 

the test to be conducted using sheathed 

sensors immersed in the flowing 

refrigerant for refrigerant temperature 

measurements upstream and 

downstream of the unit cooler, in order 

to reduce test burden. No refrigerant 

temperature measurements other than 

those upstream and downstream of the 

unit cooler would require a 

thermometer well or sheathed sensor 

immersion. DOE requests comment on 

these proposed changes to the 

temperature measurement approach. 

6. Test Condition Tolerances 

AHRI 1250 specifies the operating test 

condition tolerances for the steady-state 

test (AHRI 1250, Table 2), including 

tolerances for electrical voltage. DOE 

recognizes the importance of also 

establishing a test condition tolerance of 

1 percent for electrical power frequency, 

and proposes to modify the existing test 

procedure to set a test condition 

tolerance for the frequency of electrical 

power, in keeping with most other 

industry-accepted test procedures for 

refrigeration systems and similar 

equipment. 

Additionally, since temperature 

measurements of air leaving the unit are 

not used in the calculation of AWEF 

and do not contribute to the test results, 

DOE is proposing to delete the 

requirements related to the condition 

tolerances or measurements of air 

leaving the unit. DOE also proposes to 

remove the tolerances for wet bulb 

temperature on the outdoor system 

conditions, except for units with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9833 

evaporative cooling, as wet bulb 

temperature (which is an indicator of 

humidity) is not expected to impact the 

performance of air-cooled condensing 

units. DOE is proposing to retain all 

other measurements of air entering the 

heat exchangers, including dry bulb 

outdoor conditions and dry bulb and 

wet bulb indoor conditions (wet bulb 

temperature or humidity levels greater 

than the required test conditions could 

cause excessive frosting of the coil and 

affect its rated capacity). 

7. Insulation 

The existing test procedure specifies 

that in the test setup, the pipe lines 

between the unit cooler and condensing 

unit ‘‘shall be well insulated’’—a 

description that lacks specificity. In 

recognition of this shortcoming, DOE 

proposes to modify the setup by 

requiring a minimum thermal resistance 

(R-Value). Based on the most commonly 

found insulation materials in field 

conditions, DOE is proposing that the 

insulation be set up as recommended by 

the manufacturer in installation 

literature or, if there is no 

recommendation, insulation shall be 

equivalent to a half-inch thick 

insulation with a material having an 

R-Value of at least 3.7 per inch. Adding 

this condition should not pose a 

significant test burden since insulation 

material with the specified resistivity is 

commonly used and readily available. 

Under the proposal, flow meters would 

not need to be insulated but must not 

contact the floor. DOE requests 

comment on this approach. 

8. Composition Analysis 

The AHRI 1250 test procedure 

requires that for systems using zeotropic 

refrigerant mixtures (that is, those that 

have ‘‘glide’’—i.e. refrigerant mixtures 

that change temperature during a phase 

change at constant pressure), a 

composition analysis of the refrigerant 

mixture shall be conducted in order to 

ensure compliance with AHRI Standard 

520. This test requires that a sample of 

the superheated vapor refrigerant be 

extracted while the system is still 

running. DOE recognizes that this 

procedure can represent substantial test 

burden, with comparably insignificant 

improvements to the accuracy of the 

final AWEF measured, and is proposing 

to delete this requirement from DOE’s 

test procedure. DOE requests comment 

on this amendment, given the limited 

effect on AWEF if refrigerants with glide 

are properly liquid-charged and there 

are no test system leaks. 

9. Piping Length 

While DOE’s test procedure currently 

requires that the length of piping 

between the condenser and unit cooler 

be 25 feet, DOE proposes to clarify that 

this length does not include the length 

of any flow meters that the refrigerant 

might flow through. Furthermore, in 

order to ensure an accurate replication 

of field conditions, and to prevent 

erroneous efficiency measurements due 

to excessive refrigerant pre-cooling, 

DOE proposes to specify that the length 

of piping allowed within the cooled 

space shall be a maximum of 15 feet. In 

cases where there are multiple unit 

coolers and, therefore, multiple 

branches of piping, the 15 feet limit 

would apply to each branch 

individually as opposed to the total 

length of the piping. 

10. Other Clarifications and 

Modifications 

DOE is also proposing to clarify the 

language of the test procedure in order 

to address potential areas of confusion. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing changes 

to the list of tests for unit coolers (Table 

15: Refrigerator Unit Cooler and Table 

16: Freezer Unit Cooler), in order to 

display additional data that are 

currently included only by reference to 

AHRI 420. (Testing standard AHRI 420, 

Performance Rating of ForcedCirculation Free-Delivery Unit Coolers 

for Refrigeration, establishes definitions 

and various requirements regarding 

testing, data collection marking/name 

plate information, and conformance 

conditions with respect to unit coolers.) 

Specifically, Tables 15 and 16 are 

modified to include the liquid inlet 

saturation temperature and outlet 

superheat conditions required in AHRI 

420 for testing these types of unit 

coolers. DOE is clarifying these values 

because they can significantly affect the 

rated capacity. Also, while the existing 

test procedure sets a maximum 

allowable voltage imbalance for threephase power supply, DOE proposes to 

add a clarification that the stated 

maximum imbalance of 2 percent refers 

to the maximum imbalance for voltages 

measured between phases (rather than 

phase-to-neutral). 

C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel RValue (ASTM C518–04) 

Currently, 10 CFR 431.304 Uniform 

test method for the measurement of 

energy consumption of walk-in coolers 

and walk-in freezers incorporates by 

reference ASTM C518–04, a standard 

method for determining the thermal 

transmission properties (i.e. the thermal 

conductance or conductivity) of a 

material using the heat flow meter 

apparatus. The heat flow meter 

apparatus determines the thermal 

conductivity of a material by inducing 

one-dimensional heat flow across a test 

specimen and measuring the heat flux 

and temperature difference across the 

specimen. The heat flux measurement is 

accomplished using a heat flux 

transducer, or thermopile. A thermopile 

consists of multiple thermocouples and 

produces an electrical voltage 

proportional to an applied thermal 

gradient. To ascertain the heat flux 

based on this electrical voltage, the 

thermopile must first be calibrated using 

a material having a known thermal 

conductivity. ASTM C518–04 

recommends using a standard material 

that is traceable to a national standards 

laboratory (Section 6.4.2).See ASTM 

C518–04. 

Walk-in wall panels are typically 

made of rigid foam insulation, either 

board-stock type or ‘‘foam-in-place’’ 

type foam, with thin ‘‘facers’’ made of 

metal or other suitable material on 

either side of the foam. In order to meet 

the efficiency standards set by EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6313 (f)(1)(C)), the foam core is 

typically 3.5 to 6 inches thick, with the 

thin facers making an insignificant 

contribution to the overall R-value of 

the panel. 

Currently, the DOE test procedure 

requires that ‘‘foam produced inside of 

a panel (‘‘i.e. foam-in-place’’) must be 

tested in its final foamed state.’’ See 10 

CFR 431.304(b)(5). Additionally, panels 

may be tested using ASTM C518–04 

with non-foam protective skins or facers 

still attached, but must not include 

structural members or other non-foam 

materials. The procedure does not 

require manufacturers to consider nonfoam member and/or edge regions when 

testing to ASTM C518–04. (10 CFR 

431.304 (b)(5)–(6) and (c)(5)–(6)). 

Regarding these provisions, DOE 

clarified in a final rule issued on 

October 21, 2011,that non-foam 

members and edge regions are only to be 

considered in U-factor testing using 

ASTM C1363. See 76 FR at 65364.DOE 

further stated that the measurement of 

the R-value of the foam with facers 

should be equal to a measurement of the 

R-value of the foam without the facers. 

See id. Metal facers make a negligible 

contribution to the overall R-value of 

the panel because of the high thermal 

conductivity of metals typically used as 

facer material and their small thickness. 

For example, for an R–25 foam walk-in 

cooler panel (4 inches thick) with two 

0.04-inch thick steel facers (each with a 

thermal conductivity of 21 Btu/h/ft/°F), 

the steel facers represent 0.001 percent 

of the panel’s overall thermal resistance. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4See ‘‘Aging of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in 

Simulated Refrigerator Panels—Initial Results with 

Third-Generation Blowing Agents’’ by Kenneth E. 

Wilkes et al., published by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory for presentation at The Earth 

Technologies Forum, October 26–28, 1998, Figures 

2 and 4(b). 

DOE now recognizes that in practice, 

the inclusion of facers, non-foam 

internal members, or edge regions in 

testing using ASTM C518–04 may 

produce unreliable results. ASTM 

C518–04 states that ‘‘special care shall 

be taken in the measurement procedure 

for specimens exhibiting appreciable 

inhomogeneities, anisotropies, rigidity, 

or especially high or low resistance to 

heat flow. The use of a heat flow meter 

apparatus when there are thermal 

bridges present in the specimen may 

yield very unreliable results.’’ (ASTM 

C518–04 (4.4)) DOE recognizes that 

ASTM C518–04’s heat flow apparatus 

testing is intended to measure the 

thermal conductivity of a single 

homogenous material, and that the 

industry’s standard practice is to 

remove facers prior to testing WICF 

panels. Additionally, DOE testing has 

shown a minimum of 31 percent and 

maximum of 62 percent difference in Rvalue per inch (R/in) in testing panels 

at freezer conditions (20 °F) with and 

without facers. 

DOE is also aware that the removal of 

facers will accelerate the aging process 

for polyurethane foams. Over time, the 

thermal conductivity of polyurethane 

foams used for insulation will increase 

(resulting in a decreased R-value) due to 

the diffusion of air into the foam. The 

rate at which the thermal conductivity 

increases depends on the blowing agent 

used, thickness of the foam, the 

permeability of a facing material, if 

present, and the temperature at which 

the foam is aged. The thermal 

conductivity of a 0.4 inch-thick foam 

core without facers can increase by as 

much as 20% when aged at 90 °F for 8 

days. However, a 1.5 inch-thick foam 

core without facers may show a 

negligible difference in thermal 

conductivity when aged at the same 

conditions.4 Additionally, ASTM C518– 

04, Section 7.3 states that materials 

must be conditioned according to their 

specifications where applicable, 

typically for a period of 24 hours. For 

the reasons cited above, DOE proposes 

a requirement that samples be tested 

without non-foam facers, protective 

skins, non-foam internal members, or 

edge regions. DOE also proposes that 

tests be completed within 48 hours of 

being cut to minimize the impact of the 

accelerated aging process on the test 

results. 

DOE further clarifies that edge regions 

should make up a small portion of the 

area of a full panel assembly and their 

exclusion should not have an impact 

when measuring panel R-value. If DOE 

later determines that edge regions 

comprise a large enough area to warrant 

their inclusion when measuring a 

panel’s R-value, DOE will revisit its 

regulations in order to ensure the test 

procedure still results in an R-value that 

accurately represents the panel. 

Currently, the DOE test procedure 

allows test samples for foam-in-place 

panels to be as thick as 4 inches. If the 

foam-in-place panel is thicker than 4 

inches, a sample less than or equal to 4 

inches thick would be taken from the 

center of the foam-in-place panel. If a 

panel incorporates foam produced as 

board stock, the board stock can be 

tested as-is before assembly into a panel. 

(10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and (c)(5)) In 

order to meet the minimum R-value 

requirements established in EPCA of R– 

25 (coolers) or R–32 (freezers) (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(1)(C)), walk-in cooler and freezer 

panels found on the market are often 4 

inches in thickness although DOE does 

not require a specific thickness to meet 

the current standards. 

ASTM C518–04 makes several 

recommendations with regard to test 

specimen thickness. The measurements 

obtained using the heat flow meter 

apparatus (as in ASTM C518–04) are 

relative to a calibration standard with 

known thermal conductivity. Section 

4.5.1.1 requires that this standard 

material be measured by a recognized 

national standards laboratory. Section 

6.1 of ASTM C518–04 states ‘‘the 

apparatus [heat flow meter] shall be 

calibrated with materials having similar 

thermal characteristics and thicknesses 

as the materials to be evaluated.’’ 

Section 6.5.4 states ‘‘if tests are to be 

conducted at thicknesses other than the 

calibrated thickness, make a thorough 

study of the error of the heat flow meter 

apparatus at other thicknesses.’’ 

Furthermore, ASTM C518–04 states 

‘‘the combined thickness of the 

specimen or specimens, the heat flux 

transducer and any damping material, 

which in total equals the distance 

between the cold and hot plates, must 

be restricted in order to limit the effect 

of edge losses on the measurements.’’ 

(ASTM C518–04 (7.6.1)) 

DOE recognizes that the most 

appropriate standard reference material 

(SRM) for calibration currently offered 

by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) is 1450d 

(previously 1450c, fibrous glass board 

material) which has a thickness of 1 

inch. NIST SRM 1453 (polystyrene 

board) has similar thermal conductivity 

but a thickness of 0.5 inches. A 4-inch 

thick, R–32 test specimen is, therefore, 

4 times thicker than the 1450c/d SRM 

and has approximately 8 times the 

thermal resistance. 

In light of recommendations in ASTM 

C518–04 cited above, DOE believes the 

current discrepancies between a test 

sample thickness and calibration 

standard thickness and between a test 

sample thermal resistance and 

calibration standard thermal resistance 

could contribute to error in measuring 

the thermal resistance of the test 

sample. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

reduce the allowable thickness of the 

sample from no more than 4 inches to 

no more than 1 inch. This thickness is 

the same as the NIST SRM 1450c/d 

calibration standard and DOE believes 

that this modification to the test 

procedure will reduce the error 

associated with the discrepancies listed 

above. DOE is also proposing that this 

1 inch thickness test sample be taken 

from the center of a panel (meaning 

centered on a plane half the distance 

between the surfaces on which facers 

were attached), as the foam aging 

process previously described occurs at a 

faster rate closer to exposed surfaces. 

Material at the center of the panel will 

have experienced the smallest effect of 

foam aging. 

The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.304 does not currently place any 

restriction on the uniformity of the 

shape of the test specimen surfaces that 

contact the hot and cold plates of the 

heat flow meter. However, accurate and 

reliable measurements of the heat flux 

and surface temperatures depend on 

uniform contact between the hot and 

cold plates and the specimen surfaces. 

Section 7.4.3 of ASTM C518–04 states 

that rigid or high conductance specimen 

surfaces ‘‘should be made flat and 

parallel to the same degree as the heatflow-meter.’’ Furthermore, any cutting 

operation used to remove the facers 

and/or reduce the thickness of the foam 

test specimen may leave undesirable 

surface incongruities or voids, resulting 

in poor contact between the plate and 

specimen and yielding unreliable test 

results. 

With regard to panel testing using 

ASTM C518–04, and in light of the 

evidence cited above, DOE is proposing 

that test specimens be 1 inch in 

thickness and cut from the center of a 

WICF panel (thus removing the facer 

material). This thickness is in keeping 

with currently available SRMs from 

NIST and would result in test 

specimens with the same thickness as 

the 1450c/d SRM and approximately 2 

times the thermal resistance. DOE also 

proposes tolerances of ±0.03 inches on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9835 

the flatness of both test specimen 

surfaces and a tolerance of ±0.03 inches 

on the parallelism between the test 

specimen surfaces to ensure uniform 

contact between theses surfaces and the 

hot and cold plates of the heat flow 

meter. DOE proposes that testing be 

completed within 48 hours of sample 

cutting in order to mitigate the effects of 

foam aging on the test results. 

DOE also proposes the addition of a 

tolerance of ±1 degree Fahrenheit on the 

mean temperature at which panels are 

tested. This is proposed to ensure 

repeatability of, and comparability 

between, tests. Currently, the test 

procedure does not specify a tolerance 

for these temperatures (20 degrees 

Fahrenheit for freezers and 55 degrees 

Fahrenheit for coolers). (10 CFR 

431.304(b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(3) and (c)(4)) 

DOE believes that with the reduction in 

test sample thickness and removal of 

facers or other non-foam elements, heat 

gain from the surrounding environment 

into the test apparatus and sample 

should be reduced. DOE testing showed 

that at freezer conditions 4 inch thick 

samples with facers maintained an 

average mean temperature of 22.8 °F 

while a 1 inch thick sample without 

facers maintained a mean temperature 

of 19.5 °F (as compared to mean 

temperature 20 °F as required by the 

DOE test procedure). (10 CRF 

431.304(b)(3) and(c)(3)) Based on 

research and test data described, DOE is 

proposing that the mean temperatures 

prescribed in the test procedure should 

be more precisely maintained and ±1 

degree Fahrenheit tolerance can be 

achieved. 

DOE clarifies the phrase ‘‘final 

chemical form’’ in 10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) 

and (c)(5). For ‘‘foam-in-place’’ or 

‘‘blown’’ foams (typically polyurethane), 

‘‘final chemical form’’ means the foam 

is cured as intended and ready for use 

as a finished panel. For foam produced 

as board stock (typically polystyrene), 

‘‘final chemical form’’ means after 

extrusion and ready for assembly into a 

panel or after assembly into a panel. 

DOE recognizes that air continuously 

diffuses into the foam as part of the 

aging process, and so ‘‘final chemical 

form’’ is ambiguous in this regard. As 

proposed, testing would be completed 

within 48 hours of samples being cut for 

testing to minimize the effect of 

accelerated aging on the thermal 

conductivity when the foam is directly 

exposed to air. Furthermore, DOE is 

proposing to remove language from 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) that is 

believed to be redundant. Specifically, 

the requirement that ‘‘foam produced 

inside of a panel (‘‘foam-in-place’’) must 

be tested in its final foamed state’’ 

would be removed, as the requirement 

that foam be in it final chemical form as 

described above is sufficient. 

DOE recognizes that some panels 

contain two or more different layers of 

insulating material. To accommodate 

these types of panels, DOE is proposing 

that for panels that have more than one 

type of insulating material, a sample of 

each material shall be tested as specified 

in 10 CFR 431.304 and the R-value of 

the panel shall be calculated according 

to the proportion the materials occur in 

the panel. Therefore, for a panel with i 

types of insulating material, the R-Value 

shall be calculated as follows: 

Where: 

ki is the k factor of type i material as 

measured by ASTM C518, and ti is the 

thickness of type i material that appears 

in the panel. 

DOE requests comment on this formula. 

In paragraphs (b), (b)(6), (c) and (c)(6) 

of 10 CFR 431.304, DOE is proposing to 

remove references to manufacturers. 

The requirements of these paragraphs 

are not limited to testing performed by 

manufacturers. Independent testing 

laboratories or other entities would be 

responsible for meeting these 

requirements for any testing that has its 

purpose as described in paragraphs (b) 

and (c), namely for certifying 

compliance with applicable energy 

conservation standards and, since 

October 12, 2011, for representations of 

energy efficiency or energy use. 

D. Performance-Based Test Procedures 

for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers 

As described above, WICF panels 

must meet prescriptive requirements for 

foam insulation R-values based on 

ASTM C518–04 testing incorporated in 

10 CFR 431.304. Additionally, the test 

procedure at Appendix A to Subpart R 

of Part 431 (Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

the Components of Envelopes of WalkIn Coolers and Walk-In Freezers) 

establishes the method and metrics by 

which the energy consumption 

(envelope components) or efficiency 

(refrigeration components) may be 

measured; this includes floor and nonfloor panels. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 

establish the calculation procedures that 

result in a thermal conductivity, Uvalue, metric for floor and non-floor 

panels, and sections 5.1 and 5.2 

establish the methods by which the 

required measurements are taken. 

Section 5.1 incorporates by reference 

ASTM C1363–05 Standard Test Method 

for Thermal Performance of Building 

Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus; section 

5.2 incorporates by reference Annex C 

Determination of the aged values of 

thermal resistance and thermal 

conductivity of DIN EN 13164 and DIN 

EN 13165. 

While ASTM C518–04 testing is 

intended to establish the thermal 

resistance of the center of a WICF panel, 

the required testing to ASTM C1363–05 

is intended to capture the overall 

thermal transmittance of a WICF panel, 

including thermal bridges and edge 

effects (Note: Thermal transmittance is 

the reciprocal of thermal resistance). 

Similar to ASTM C518–04, DIN EN 

13164/13165 testing is intended to 

measure the thermal resistance of the 

center of a WICF panel; however, DIN 

EN 13164/13165 also captures the 

effects of foam aging on the thermal 

resistance. 

In response the September 2013 

standards NOPR, the Department 

received a number of comments 

regarding the WICF panel test 

procedure. Some stakeholders 

supported the use of the U-value metric. 

Nor-Lake commented that U-factor was 

an acceptable metric for panels. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; NorLake, No 115 at p. 2) NEEA supported 

the use of a basic model U-value for 

specifying the panel efficiency. NEEA 

added that the current metric set by 

Congress—the R-value from ASTM 

C518—does not adequately measure the 

broad range of panel types and 

configurations available. In NEEA’s 

view, a panel U-value, as defined in the 

proposed standard, would be far more 

accurate in assessing panel efficiency. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; NEEA et al, No. 101 at p.2) 

DOE also received a number of 

comments expressing concern over the 

availability and capability of 

laboratories to conduct the DOE test 

procedure for determining panel Uvalue, specifically ASTM C1363–10, EN 

13164:2009–02, and EN 13165:2009–02. 

Thermo-Kool, Kysor, Imperial-Brown, 

and Hillphoenix each stated that they 

have not identified any laboratories 

capable of conducting the long-term 

thermal aging test methods required 

under EN 13164:2009–02 and EN 

13165:2009–02. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Thermo-Kool, No. 

97 at p. 1; Kysor, No. 88 at p. 67; 

Imperial-Brown, No. 98 at p. 1; 

Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) Bally 

recommended that long-term thermal 

aging be dropped from the proposed 

standard until more resources, which 

DOE infers to mean test labs, are 

available in the United States. ([Docket 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP20FE14.002</GPH>
9836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; Bally, 

No. 102 at p. 2) Thermo-Kool, Kysor, 

Manitowoc, Imperial-Brown, and 

Hillphoenix commented that only two 

laboratories in the United States are 

capable of conducting ASTM C1363–10. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at p. 1; 

Kysor, No. 88 at p. 67; Manitowoc, No. 

108 at p. 1; Imperial-Brown, No. 98 at 

p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) 

AHRI noted that American 

laboratories were largely unfamiliar 

with ASTM C1363–05, DIN EN 

13164:2009–02, and DIN EN 

13165:2009–02. Further, AHRI 

commented that the limited supply of 

testing capacity and the increased 

demand for testing as a result of the 

proposed rule could raise the cost of 

testing. ([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015]; AHRI, No. 114 at p.4) 

Manufacturers reiterated that the 

limited number of test facilities 

available would increase testing costs. 

Hillphoenix and Imperial-Brown 

commented that the insufficient number 

of third-party test facilities in the United 

States would significantly increase 

testing costs, which would heavily 

impact small manufacturers. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; 

Hillphoenix, No. 107 at pp. 2 and 6) 

Hillphoenix estimated that testing 

panels would result in testing costs 

higher than $500,000 per manufacturer. 

Hillphoenix recommended DOE allow 

AEDMs for walk-in panel certification to 

reduce this financial burden. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; 

Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p.6) Louisville 

Cooler also commented that the cost of 

testing panels was prohibitive, 

especially for small manufacturers, and 

stated that there was not a test facility 

or certification body that could perform 

the test. Louisville cooler suggested 

DOE determine if at least three test 

facilities are capable of performing the 

DOE test procedure for walk-in panels. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p.1 

and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at 

pp. 83–84) 

Other manufacturers commented that 

the current cost of testing at a thirdparty facility is too high. American 

Panel commented that the ASTM 

C1363–10 test has a cost-burden of 

around $4000 for each test (a cost it 

considers excessive) and that ATSM 

C518 is more practical for measuring the 

heat gain through insulation panels. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; American Panel, No. 99 at p. 1) 

American Panel further remarked that 

small manufacturers could not absorb 

this testing cost. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; American Panel, 

No. 99 at p. 2) Manitowoc, US Cooler, 

and Nor-Lake also commented that the 

testing requirements would cause a 

significant financial burden to small 

manufacturers ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Manitowoc, No. 

108 at p. 4; U.S. Cooler, No. 75 at p. 1; 

Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p.3) Imperial 

Brown estimated that the total cost of 

testing would be in the range of $2.5 

million per manufacturer, which is 

prohibitive particularly for small 

businesses.([Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015]; Imperial Brown, No. 98 

at pp. 2 and 4) Imperial Brown did not 

clarify if the $2.5 million test cost was 

solely for certification of walk-in panels. 

ICS, et al. stated that the high cost of 

testing to ASTM C1363–10 will create a 

significant burden on all manufacturers 

and recommended that DOE use ASTM 

C518. ([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015]; CT/TR/ICS, No. 100 at p. 5) 

Two manufacturers noted that 

laboratory availability would impact 

manufacturers’ ability to meet the test 

procedure effective date. Manitowoc 

commented that the limited number of 

laboratories makes it difficult for 

manufacturers to meet the test 

procedure effective date. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; 

Manitowoc, No. 108 at p.1) Kysor also 

recommended that DOE extend the test 

procedure effective date until more labs 

are qualified to perform the walk-in 

panel tests. ([Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015]; Kysor, No. 88 at p. 67; 

Kyson, No. 88 at p. 35) 

DOE also received comments 

opposing the long-term thermal aging 

test methods. Bally expressed confusion 

as to how the long-term thermal aging 

tests were incorporated into the 

proposed standard. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Bally, No. 102 at 

p. 2) Imperial-Brown noted that EN 

13165:2009–02 requires panels to be 

[aged] for 6 months, which creates 

additional burden for manufacturers. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; Imperial-Brown, No. 98 at p. 1) 

CT/TR/ICS commented that the thermal 

[aging] testing is unnecessary because 

the time frame required for a significant 

reduction in panel R-value is likely 

beyond the panel’s useable lifetime. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; CT/TR/ICS, No. 100 at p. 1) 

Interested parties also opposed using 

the U-value as the efficiency metric for 

walk-in panels. Bally did not support 

using the U-value as a metric for panels 

because of what it viewed as the lack of 

laboratories that are capable of 

performing ASTM C1363, the unknown 

cost of testing, and the variability in 

construction methods—all of which 

make it difficult to ascertain a U-value 

for a panel. In its view, ASTM C1363– 

05 is a cumbersome test method with 

little added value. Bally recommended 

DOE continue to use R-value as the 

metric because panel manufacturers are 

already accustomed to the DOE test 

procedure for determining R-value (10 

CFR 431.304(a)). ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Bally, No. 102 at 

p. 1–2) 

Thermo-Kool commented that the Ufactor test alone does not determine the 

overall energy use of the envelope 

because there are other factors that play 

a larger role in the envelope’s energy 

use such as the refrigeration system, 

lighting, and infiltration. Thermo-Kool 

asserted that R-value as measured by 

ASTM C518 was a sufficient metric for 

measuring panel performance and the Rvalue could be used to calculate Uvalue. ([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015]; Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at 

pp.1–2) 

Imperial-Brown, Kysor, and 

Hillphoenix recommended using the Rvalue calculated from ASTM C518 in 

order to reduce the burdensome test 

requirements. ([Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015]; Imperial-Brown, No. 98 

at p. 1–2; Kysor, No. 88 at p. 35; 

Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) AHRI 

recommended that DOE translate the 

proposed standard to prescriptive 

requirements to eliminate testing 

requirements or increase the current Rvalue standards. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; AHRI, No. 114 at 

p. 2) 

Several manufacturers suggested 

alternative methods of determining a 

walk-in panel’s overall thermal 

conductivity or resistance. Hillphoenix 

suggested DOE use a calculation 

methodology with thermal resistance 

values from the ASHRAE Fundamentals 

Handbook for components like the 

perimeter frame, additional blocking, 

metal layers and large metal lock 

housings to determine the panel’s 

overall U-value. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 

107 at p. 2) CA IOU recommended 

reducing testing burden by using a 

calculation approach for U-factor based 

on measured U-factor of foam and 

framing components. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; CA IOU, 

No. 88 at p. 86) Kysor agreed with CA 

IOU’s proposal because it is less costly 

to manufacturers. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; Kysor, No. 88 at 

p.86) ICS commented that thermal 

transmission properties of all panel 

components are available and can be 

used to calculate overall R-value. 

([Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015]; CT/TR/ICS, No. 100 at pp. 5–6) 

Bally recommended that a panel’s UVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:16 Feb 19, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20FEP3.SGM 20FEP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9837 

value be calculated using a ratio of the 

edge area to total area. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015]; Bally, No. 

88, at p. 367 and Bally, No. 102 at p. 5) 

American Panel commented that the 

ratio of frame to perimeter widely varied 

with panel size and its use was not 

sufficiently penalizing manufacturers of 

large panels using wooden frames or 

other inefficient designs. Further, 

American Panel suggested that the Rvalue of panels be calculated using a 

weighted average of the R-values of the 

frame and the core. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0015]; American Panel, 

No. 88 at p. 369) 

Architectural Testing, an independent 

test facility, suggested specific changes. 

It noted that 10 CFR 431.304 appendix 

A, section 5.1 describes a test sequence 

that is not efficient or cost effective. 

They recommended performing the 

ASTM C1363 on two assembled panels, 

after which a core sample from one of 

the panels tested with ASTM C1363 

could then be tested according to ASTM 

C518 at the same surface temperatures 

as the ASTM C1363 test. Architectural 

Testing also recommended that DOE 

align the test conditions described in 10 

CFR 431.304 appendix A, section 5.3 for 

ASTM C1363 to the conditions required 

for testing display and non-display 

doors with NFRC 100. Architectural 

Testing further stated that the long-term 

thermal aging tests, EN 13164 and EN 

13165, reference other European 

standards, like EN 12667 or EN 12939, 

which are similar to ASTM C518. 

Architectural Testing recommended that 

DOE modify the test procedure so that 

the intent of EN 13165 and 13165 is still 

followed, but that the thermal 

measurements would be conducted 

according to ASTM C518. Finally, 

Architectural Testing recommended that 

DOE remove the sample size limitations 

from 10 CFR 431.304 appendix A, 

section 5.2 because these sample sizes 

are uncommon and cause increased 

testing costs. ([Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015]; Architectural Testing, 

No. 111 at pp. 1–3) 

In response to the extensive number 

of comments DOE received regarding 

test burden and lab availability, DOE is 

proposing to remove the test procedures 

in 10 CFR 431, Appendix A to Subpart 

R that reference ASTM C1363–05 and 

DIN EN 13164/13165 and their 

accompanying calculation procedures, 

leaving only ASTM C518–04 testing in 

10 CFR 431.304 for establishing the 

thermal resistance of WICF panels. This 

would remove in their entirety sections 

4.2, 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2 from 10 CFR 431, 

Appendix A of Subpart R. 

DOE is also proposing several minor 

changes to section 5.3 for clarification 

purposes only. Specifically, DOE is 

proposing that section 5.3(a)(2)’s title 

change from ‘‘Internal conditions’’ to 

‘‘Cold-side conditions’’ and section 

5.3(a)(3)’s title change from ‘‘External 

conditions’’ to ‘‘Warm-side conditions.’’ 

The terms ‘‘internal’’ and ‘‘external’’ are 

irrelevant in the context of the testing 

apparatus described in NFRC 100[E0A1] 

(incorporated by reference). DOE also 

proposes to specify the surface 

convective heat transfer coefficients 

referred to in paragraph (a)(1); these 

values are 30 Watts per meter-Kelvin 

(W/m-K) for the cold side of the hot box 

apparatus and 7.7 W/m-K for the warm 

side. This proposed change would only 

clarify these terms. These values are 

specified in ASTM C1199–09 Standard 

Test Method for Measuring the SteadyState Thermal Transmittance of 

Fenestration Systems Using Hot Box 

Methods which is referred to by NFRC 

100[E0A1]. 

E. Sampling Plan 

In order to determine a certified rating 

for certifying compliance or making 

energy use representations, DOE 

requires manufacturers to test each basic 

model in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure and 

apply the sampling plan. In today’s 

notice, DOE is proposing a sampling 

plan for walk-ins consistent with other 

commercial equipment regulated under 

EPCA. The sampling requirements are 

included in the proposed section 429.53 

of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 429. For 

consistency with other commercial 

equipment regulated under EPCA, DOE 

is proposing that a minimum of two 

units of a WICF component basic model 

be tested to develop a representative 

rating, as prescribed in 10 CFR 429.11. 

However, manufacturers may test more 

units of a basic model, if desired. DOE 

is proposing that any represented energy 

consumption values of a walk-in basic 

model shall be lower than or equal to 

the higher of the mean of the sample or 

the 95 percent lower confidence limit 

(UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing that any 

represented energy efficiency values of 

a walk-in basic model shall be greater 

than or equal to the lower of the mean 

of the sample or the 95 percent lower 

confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 

divided by 0.95. 

F. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

In amending a test procedure, EPCA 

generally directs DOE to determine to 

what extent, if any, the proposed 

amendments would alter the measured 

energy efficiency or measured energy 

use of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If the amended test 

procedure alters the measured energy 

efficiency or measured energy use, the 

Secretary must amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

With regard to the AEDMs for WICF 

refrigeration systems, energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

systems have not been established. 

Therefore, this aspect of DOE’s proposal 

(i.e. permitting the use of separate 

AEDMs when rating the unit cooler and 

condenser unit) would not implicate 

this particular provision. DOE will, of 

course, consider any impacts from the 

adopted approach it finalizes as part of 

its standards analysis. 

DOE tentatively concludes the 

amendments to the test procedure for 

walk-in cooler and freezer panels at 10 

CFR 431.304 described in section III.B 

above will not have an impact on the 

measurement of energy consumption. 

With regards to the removal of facers as 

described above in section III.B, the thin 

metal facers that are adjoined to the 

foam WICF panel would ensure accurate 

and reliable test results and to better 

align the DOE test procedure with the 

requirements of ASTM C518–04. 

With regard to the proposed 

requirements for the thickness of the 

WICF panel test specimen in section 

III.B, the thermal conductivity that is 

measured during ASTM C518–04 is an 

intrinsic property of the material itself 

and this requirement is proposed to 

ensure reliable measurement of this 

property. The nominal thickness of the 

original WICF panel assembly would 

still be divided by this thermal 

conductivity (1/K multiplied by panel 

thickness) to arrive at the panel R-value. 

Therefore, the R-value obtained is still 

comparable to the currently prescribed 

energy conservation standards. 

The proposed requirements of section 

III.B concerning the flatness and 

parallelism of the test specimen surfaces 

are intended to ensure accurate test 

results. While the incorporated by 

reference ASTM C518–04 makes 

recommendations regarding the flatness 

and parallelism of these surfaces, DOE 

believes it is necessary to prescribe 

greater specificity for these parameters 

to improve consistency and 

repeatability during testing. Again, this 

proposed requirement would not alter 

the end R-value result in such a way as 

to require amendment of the energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE also tentatively concludes that 

the addition of tolerances to the mean 

temperature of the test will have no 

effect on the measurement of panel Rvalue. The mean temperatures 

prescribed for testing (20 degrees 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Fahrenheit for freezer panels and 55 

degrees Fahrenheit for cooler panels) are 

not being altered from their current 

values. Rather this tolerance is proposed 

as a means for ensuring test 

repeatability and comparability. 

Performance-based energy 

conservation standards that would rely 

on the test procedures described in 10 

CFR part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, 

as well as the AHRI 1250 test procedure, 

have not yet been established by DOE. 

Therefore, the changes proposed in 

today’s notice—i.e., the removal of 

ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13165, and DIN 

EN 13164; the amendments to NFRC 

100[E0A1]; and the amendments to 

AHRI 1250—will not affect the 

measurement of any current energy 

conservation standards. 

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 regulatory action was not subject to 

review under the Executive Order by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s SNOPR under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. 

DOE reviewed the AEDM 

requirements and the test procedure 

modifications being proposed under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. As 

discussed in more detail below, DOE 

found that because the provisions of this 

proposed rule will not result in 

increased testing and/or reporting 

burden for manufacturers and would, if 

adopted, permit additional 

manufacturers to use an AEDM for the 

purposes of rating and certifying their 

equipment, which would reduce 

manufacturer testing burden. 

Accordingly, based on DOE’s review, 

manufacturers are unlikely to 

experience increased financial burden if 

the provisions presented in today’s 

proposal are adopted. 

First, DOE is proposing to allow walkin manufacturers to use an AEDM to 

certify their products. Previously, no 

walk-in manufacturers were eligible to 

use an AEDM. Today’s proposal would 

adopt voluntary methods for certifying 

compliance in lieu of conducting actual 

physical testing—which in turn, would 

reduce the testing and reporting burden 

of walk-in manufacturers who elect to 

use an AEDM to certify their equipment. 

Furthermore, the proposed validation 

requirements for an AEDM would not 

require more testing than that which is 

currently required under DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 429.12. While the 

Department believes that permitting 

greater use of AEDMs will reduce the 

affected manufacturer’s test burden, 

their use is at the manufacturer’s 

discretion. If, as a result of any of the 

regulations herein, a manufacturer 

believes that use of an AEDM would 

increase rather than decrease their 

financial burden, the manufacturer may 

choose not to employ the method. 

Should a manufacturer choose to 

abstain from using an AEDM, this 

provision, if adopted, would not apply 

and the manufacturer would continue to 

remain subject to the requirements of 

the applicable DOE test procedures for 

walk-ins, which would result in no 

change in burden from that which is 

required currently. 

DOE is also codifying alternate 

methods for certifying individual walkin cooler and freezer components, 

which should further decrease the 

burden of existing DOE regulations. 

DOE is currently undertaking an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking to 

set performance standards for walk-in 

cooler components, including panels, 

doors, and refrigeration systems. Under 

the provisions of the March 2011 Final 

Rule, the ‘‘component’’ manufacturer 

would be required to certify compliance 

with these standards once they go into 

effect—however, there were no 

provisions for manufacturers of 

individual refrigeration components (i.e. 

unit coolers and condensing units) to 

separately certify their components to 

an energy conservation standard, since 

the proposed refrigeration system 

standard would apply to the whole 

refrigeration system. These 

manufacturers could potentially have 

incurred a large burden by having to test 

all combinations of the components 

they wished to certify. Additionally, 

manufacturers of only one type of 

component could have been 

inadvertently prevented from selling 

their equipment because there would 

have been no available certification 

mechanism. This SNOPR proposes an 

alternate certification methodology by 

which manufacturers of either 

component of a walk-in refrigeration 

system—the condensing unit or the unit 

cooler—may certify compliance with 

the applicable standard without having 

to test every combination of components 

that they produce. DOE believes this 

approach will significantly reduce the 

testing and certification burden for all 

manufacturers, including small 

businesses. 

Finally, DOE is proposing to adopt 

several clarifications and modifications 

to the existing test procedures that are 

intended to further reduce testing 

burden. For example, DOE is proposing 

not to require the use of long-term 

thermal resistance testing of foam and to 

allow manufacturers to certify their 

panels based on testing to ASTM C518, 

a simpler test method that is already in 

use in the industry. For a complete list 

of test procedure modifications, see 

section III. 

For the reasons enumerated above, 

DOE is certifying that this proposal, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

A walk-in manufacturer must certify 

to DOE that its equipment complies 

with all applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

walk-in equipment, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures, on the date that compliance 

is required. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including direct 

heating equipment and pool heaters. 76 

FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for certification and recordkeeping is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9839 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is proposing amendments to its 

test procedures and related provisions 

for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. 

DOE has determined that this proposal 

falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This 

proposed rule would amend the existing 

test procedures without affecting the 

amount, quality, or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, would not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States, and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. (65 FR 

13735) DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Regarding the 

review required by section 3(a), section 

3(b) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 

whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and tentatively determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, the 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201, 

codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) For regulatory 

actions likely to result in a rule that may 

cause the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA 

also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

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 them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. (62 FR 12820) (This policy is 

also available at www.gc.doe.gov/gc/

office-general-counsel.) DOE examined 

today’s proposed rule according to 

UMRA and its statement of policy and 

has tentatively determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any year. Accordingly, no 

further assessment or analysis is 

required under UMRA. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s proposed rule under 

the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

DOE has reviewed today’s proposal 

and determined, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this rulemaking. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), DOE must 

comply with all laws applicable to the 

former Federal Energy Administration, 

including section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by the 

Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95– 

70). (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

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. Today’s proposed rule 

does not propose to incorporate any 

commercial standards. The commercial 

standards discussed in today’s 

rulemaking were already adopted in the 

Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers, which was published 

in the Federal Register on April 15, 

2011. 76 FR 21580. DOE conducted a 

review under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 in 

the April 2011 test procedure final rule. 

76 FR 21580, 21604. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and docket 

number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail also will be 

posted to www.regulations.gov. If you 

do not want your personal contact 

information to be publicly viewable, do 

not include it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information in a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, email address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9841 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and are free 

of any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to align AEDM validation 

requirements for WICF refrigeration 

equipment to the validation 

requirements for commercial HVAC, 

refrigeration, and WH equipment. 

2. DOE requests comment on the 

following tolerances for WICF AEDMs. 

For energy consumption metrics, the 

AEDM result for a model must be equal 

to or greater than 95 percent of the 

tested results for that same model. For 

energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM 

results for a model must be less than or 

equal to 105 percent of the tested results 

for that same model. 

3. DOE seeks comment regarding the 

proposed requirement imposed on the 

manufacturer to re-certify any basic 

model with test data, including test data 

provided by DOE, in the case of a model 

failing to meet its AEDM rating. 

4. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to not require re-validation of 

an AEDM upon every change in a 

federal conservation standard or test 

procedure, but retain discretion to 

evaluate each case individually and 

require re-validation on a case-by-case 

basis in the NOPR upon issuance of a 

final standard rule or test procedure. 

5. DOE requests comment on whether 

90 days is an appropriate amount of 

time to complete the re-validation, rerating and re-certification steps for cases 

where they are necessary for AEDMs. 

6. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow unit coolers and 

condensing units to be rated separately, 

and particularly the nominal values 

described in Table III.6. 

7. DOE seeks comment on its nominal 

values for calculating electric defrost 

power and heat load in the absence of 

a full defrost test or for an individual 

condensing unit. DOE also seeks 

comment on its nominal values for 

calculating hot gas defrost power and 

heat load. The nominal values may be 

found in sections III. B. 1. and III. B. 2. 

8. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed amendments and 

clarifications to the test procedure; 

specifically (but not limited to) its 

modifications to the off-cycle evaporator 

fan test (section III. B. 3.), temperature 

measurement (section III. B. 5.), 

refrigerant line insulation (section III. B. 

7.), and composition analysis (section 

III. B. 8.). 

9. DOE asks whether the proposed 

requirement to remove facers or 

protective skins from panels before 

measuring thermal resistance is 

appropriate. 

10. DOE asks whether the proposed 

requirement that a test sample for panel 

thermal resistance measurement be 1 

inch in thickness and from the center of 

a WICF panel is appropriate. 

11. DOE asks whether the tolerances 

specified for flatness (+/¥0.03) and 

parallelism (.030 inches) for WICF 

panels before measuring thermal 

resistance are appropriate and 

sufficient. 

12. DOE asks whether a tolerance of 

±1 degree Fahrenheit for mean 

temperature during thermal resistance 

measurement is appropriate and 

sufficient. 

13. DOE asks whether a 48-hour 

period after cutting the WICF panel for 

measuring thermal resistance is 

appropriate and sufficient, 

14. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to remove the test procedures 

in 10 CFR 431, Appendix A to Subpart 

R that reference ASTM C1363–05 and 

DIN EN 13164/13165 and their 

accompanying calculation procedures, 

leaving only ASTM C518–04 testing in 

10 CFR 431.304 for establishing the 

thermal resistance of WICF panels. 

15. DOE asks whether the surface heat 

transfer coefficients prescribed by NFRC 

100[E0A1] are appropriate. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, 

Subchapter D of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.53 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.53 Walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. 

(a) Determination of represented 

value. 

(1) Refrigeration equipment: 

Manufacturers shall determine the 

represented value, which includes the 

certified rating, for each basic model of 

walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration 

equipment, either by testing, in 

conjunction with the applicable 

sampling provisions, or by applying an 

AEDM. 

(i) Units to be tested. 

(A) If the represented value for a given 

basic model is determined through 

testing, the general requirements of 

§ 429.11 apply; and 

(B) For each basic model selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

And x is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n–1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B). And, 

(2) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

And, x is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n–1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B). 

(ii) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of a 

walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration 

system must be determined through the 

application of an AEDM pursuant to the 

requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(A) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(B) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

(2) WICF components other than 

those specified in (a)(1) of this 

subsection. 

(i) Units to be tested. 

(A) If the represented value for a given 

basic model is determined through 

testing, the general requirements of 

§ 429.11 apply; and 

(B) For each basic model selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

And x is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n–1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B). And, 

(2) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

And, x is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n–1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B). 

(b) Certification reports. (1) Except 

that § 429.12(b)(6) applies to the 

certified component, the requirements 

of § 429.12 are applicable to 

manufacturers of the components of 

walk-in coolers and freezers (WICFs) 

listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 

and; 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: 

(i) For WICF doors: The door type, Rvalue of the door insulation, and a 

declaration that the manufacturer has 

incorporated the applicable design 

requirements. In addition, for those 

WICFs with transparent reach-in doors 

and windows: The glass type of the 

doors and windows (e.g., double-pane 

with heat reflective treatment, triplepane glass with gas fill), and the power 

draw of the antisweat heater in watts 

per square foot of door opening. 

(ii) For WICF panels: The R-value of 

the insulation (except for glazed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP20FE14.003</GPH> EP20FE14.004</GPH> EP20FE14.005</GPH> EP20FE14.006</GPH> EP20FE14.007</GPH> EP20FE14.008</GPH> EP20FE14.009</GPH> EP20FE14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9843 

portions of the doors or structural 

members) 

(iii) For WICF refrigeration systems: 

The motor purpose (i.e., evaporator fan 

motor or condenser fan motor), the 

horsepower, and a declaration that the 

manufacturer has incorporated the 

applicable design requirements. 

■ 3. Section 429.70 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency or energy 

use. 

* * * * * 

(f) Alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) for walkin refrigeration equipment. 

(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A 

manufacturer may not apply an AEDM 

to a basic model to determine its 

efficiency pursuant to this section 

unless: 

(i) The AEDM is derived from a 

mathematical model that estimates the 

energy efficiency or energy 

consumption characteristics of the basic 

model as measured by the applicable 

DOE test procedure; 

(ii) The AEDM is based on 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, or 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data; and 

(iii) The manufacturer has validated 

the AEDM, in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before 

using an AEDM, the manufacturer must 

validate the AEDM’s accuracy and 

reliability as follows: 

(i) The manufacturer must select at 

least the minimum number of basic 

models for each validation class 

specified in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this 

section to which the particular AEDM 

applies. Using the AEDM, calculate the 

energy use or energy efficiency for each 

of the selected basic models. Test a 

single unit of each basic model in 

accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 

this section. Compare the results from 

the single unit test and the AEDM 

output according to paragraph (f)(2)(ii) 

of this section. The manufacturer is 

responsible for ensuring the accuracy 

and repeatability of the AEDM. 

(ii) Individual Model Tolerances: 

(A) The predicted efficiency for each 

model calculated by applying the AEDM 

may not be more than five percent 

greater than the efficiency determined 

from the corresponding test of the 

model. 

(B) The predicted energy efficiency 

for each model calculated by applying 

the AEDM must meet or exceed the 

applicable federal energy conservation 

standard. 

(iii) Additional Test Unit 

Requirements: 

(A) Each AEDM must be supported by 

test data obtained from physical tests of 

current models; and 

(B) Test results used to validate the 

AEDM must meet or exceed current, 

applicable Federal standards as 

specified in part 431 of this chapter; 

(C) Each test must have been 

performed in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure with 

which compliance is required at the 

time the basic model is distributed in 

commerce; and 

(D) For a mismatched WICF 

refrigeration system, an AEDM may not 

simulate or model portions of the 

system that are not required to be tested 

by the DOE test procedure. That is, if 

the test results used to validate the 

AEDM are for either a unit cooler only 

or a condensing unit only, the AEDM 

must estimate the system rating using 

the nominal values specified in the DOE 

test procedure for the other part of the 

refrigeration system. 

(iv) WICF Refrigeration Validation 

Classes 

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System ..................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System .................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System ........................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System ........................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing Unit, Medium Temperature ............................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Unit Cooler connected to a Multiplex Condensing Unit, Low Temperature ................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Medium Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit ............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Medium Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit .......................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Low Temperature, Indoor Condensing Unit ................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Low Temperature, Outdoor Condensing Unit ................................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

(3) AEDM Records Retention 

Requirements. If a manufacturer has 

used an AEDM to determine 

representative values pursuant to this 

section, the manufacturer must have 

available upon request for inspection by 

the Department records showing: 

(i) The AEDM, including the 

mathematical model, the engineering or 

statistical analysis, and/or computer 

simulation or modeling that is the basis 

of the AEDM; 

(ii) Equipment information, complete 

test data, AEDM calculations, and the 

statistical comparisons from the units 

tested that were used to validate the 

AEDM pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section; and 

(iii) Equipment information and 

AEDM calculations for each basic model 

to which the AEDM has been applied. 

(4) Additional AEDM Requirements. If 

requested by the Department the 

manufacturer must perform at least one 

of the following: 

(i) Conduct simulations before 

representatives of the Department to 

predict the performance of particular 

basic models of the product to which 

the AEDM was applied; 

(ii) Provide analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer; or 

(iii) Conduct certification testing of 

basic models selected by the 

Department. 

(5) AEDM Verification Testing. DOE 

may use the test data for a given 

individual model generated pursuant to 

§ 429.104 to verify the certified rating 

determined by an AEDM as long as the 

following process is followed: 

(i) Selection of units: DOE will obtain 

units for test from retail, where 

available. If units cannot be obtained 

from retail, DOE will request that a unit 

be provided by the manufacturer. 

(ii) Lab Requirements: DOE will 

conduct testing at an independent, 

third-party testing facility of its 

choosing. In cases where no third-party 

laboratory is capable of testing the 

equipment, it may be tested at a 

manufacturer’s facility upon DOE’s 

request. 

(iii) Manufacturer Participation: 

Testing will be performed without 

manufacturer representatives on-site. 

(iv) Testing: All verification testing 

will be conducted in accordance with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
9844 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the applicable DOE test procedure, as 

well as each of the following to the 

extent that they apply: 

(A) Any active test procedure waivers 

that have been granted for the basic 

model; 

(B) Any test procedure guidance that 

has been issued by DOE; 

(C) If during test set-up or testing, the 

lab indicates to DOE that it needs 

additional information regarding a given 

basic model in order to test in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, DOE may organize a meeting 

between DOE, the manufacturer and the 

lab to provide such information. 

(D) At no time during the process may 

the lab communicate directly with the 

manufacturer without DOE present. 

(v) Failure to meet certified rating: If 

a model tests worse than its certified 

rating by an amount exceeding the 

tolerance prescribed in paragraph 

(f)(5)(vi) of this section, DOE will notify 

the manufacturer. DOE will provide the 

manufacturer with all documentation 

related to the test set up, test conditions, 

and test results for the unit. Within the 

timeframe allotted by DOE, the 

manufacturer may then present all 

claims regarding testing validity. 

(vi) Tolerances: 

(A) For consumption metrics, the 

result from a DOE verification test must 

be less than or equal to the certified 

rating × (1 + the applicable tolerance). 

(B) For efficiency metrics, the result 

from a DOE verification test must be 

greater than or equal to the certified 

rating × (1 ¥ the applicable tolerance). 

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Refrigeration 

systems (including components) ........ AWEF 5% 

(vii) Invalid Rating: If, following 

discussions with the manufacturer and 

a retest where applicable, DOE 

determines that the testing was 

conducted appropriately in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure, the rating 

for the model will be considered 

invalid. Pursuant to 10 CFR 429.13(b), 

DOE may require a manufacturer to 

conduct additional testing as a remedial 

measure. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 5. Section 431.304 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, and (b)(3) through (6); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(7); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, and (c)(3) through (6); 

■ d. Re-designating paragraphs (c)(7) 

through (c)(10) as paragraphs (c)(8) 

through (c)(11), respectively; 

■ e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7); 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c)(8) through (10); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (c)(12). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 431.304 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. 

* * * * * 

(b) This paragraph (b) shall be used 

for the purposes of certifying 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standards of the R-value of 

panels until January 1, 2015. 

* * * * * 

(3) For calculating the R value for 

freezers, the K factor of the foam at 20 

± 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam 

temperature) shall be used. 

(4) For calculating the R value for 

coolers, the K factor of the foam at 55 

± 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam 

temperature) shall be used. 

(5) Foam shall be tested after it is 

produced in its final chemical form. 

(For foam produced inside of a panel 

(‘‘foam-in-place’’), ‘‘final chemical 

form’’ means the foam is cured as 

intended and ready for use as a finished 

panel. For foam produced as board stock 

(typically polystyrene), ‘‘final chemical 

form’’ means after extrusion and ready 

for assembly into a panel or after 

assembly into a panel.) Foam from 

foam-in-place panels must not include 

any structural members or non-foam 

materials. Foam produced as board 

stock may be tested prior to its 

incorporation into a final panel. A test 

sample no more than one inch in 

thickness must be taken from the center 

of a panel (meaning, centered on a plane 

half the distance between the surfaces 

on which facers were attached) and any 

protective skins or facers must be 

removed. The two surfaces of the test 

sample that will contact the hot plate 

assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518) 

must both maintain ±0.03 inches 

flatness tolerance and also maintain 

parallelism with respect to one another 

within ±0.03 inches. Testing must be 

completed within 48 hours of samples 

being cut for testing. 

(6) Internal non-foam member and/or 

edge regions shall not be considered in 

ASTM C518 testing. 

(7) For panels consisting of two or 

more layers of dissimilar insulating 

materials (excluding facers or protective 

skins), test each material as described in 

paragraph (4). For a panel with n layers 

of insulating material, the R-Value shall 

be calculated as follows: 

Where: 

ki is the k factor of type i material as 

measured by ASTM C518, and ti is the 

thickness of type i material that appears 

in the panel. 

(c) This paragraph (c) shall be used for 

any representations of energy efficiency 

or energy use starting on October 12, 

2011 and to certify compliance to the 

energy conservation standards of the 

R-value of panels on or after January 1, 

2015. 

* * * * * 

(3) For calculating the R value for 

freezers, the K factor of the foam at 20 

± 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam 

temperature) shall be used. 

(4) For calculating the R value for 

coolers, the K factor of the foam at 55 

± 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam 

temperature) shall be used. 

(5) Foam shall be tested after it is 

produced in its final chemical form. 

(For foam produced inside of a panel 

(‘‘foam-in-place’’), ‘‘final chemical 

form’’ means the foam is cured as 

intended and ready for use as a finished 

panel. For foam produced as board stock 

(typically polystyrene), ‘‘final chemical 

form’’ means after extrusion and ready 

for assembly into a panel or after 

assembly into a panel.) Foam from 

foam-in-place panels must not include 

any structural members or non-foam 

materials. Foam produced as board 

stock may be tested prior to its 

incorporation into a final panel. A test 

sample no more than one inch in 

thickness must be taken from the center 

of a panel (meaning, centered on a plane 

half the distance between the surfaces 

on which facers were attached) and any 

protective skins or facers must be 

removed. The two surfaces of the test 

sample that will contact the hot plate 

assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518) 

must both maintain ±0.03 inches 

flatness tolerance and also maintain 

parallelism with respect to one another 

within ±0.03 inches. Testing must be 

completed within 48 hours of samples 

being cut for testing. 

(6) Internal non-foam member and/or 

edge regions shall not be considered in 

ASTM C518 testing. 

(7) For panels consisting of two or 

more layers of dissimilar insulating 

materials (excluding facers or protective 

skins), test each material as described in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP20FE14.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9845 

paragraph (4). For a panel with n layers 

of insulating material, the R-Value shall 

be calculated as follows: 

Where: 

ki is the k factor of type i material as 

measured by ASTM C518, and 

ti is the thickness of type i material that 

appears in the panel. 

(8) Determine the U-factor, 

conduction load, and energy use of 

walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

display panels by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in appendix A to 

this subpart section 4.1. 

(9) Determine the energy use of walkin cooler and walk-in freezer display 

doors and non-display doors by 

conducting the test procedure set forth 

in appendix A to this subpart, sections 

4.4 and 4.5, respectively. 

(10) Determine the Annual Walk-in 

Energy Factor of walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by 

conducting the test procedure set forth 

in AHRI 1250 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 431.303), with the 

following modifications: 

(i) In Table 2, Test Operating and Test 

Condition Tolerances for Steady-State 

Test, electrical power frequency shall 

have a Test Condition Tolerance of 1 

percent. Also, refrigerant temperature 

measurements shall have a tolerance of 

+/¥0.5F for unit cooler in/out, +/¥1.0F 

for all others temperature 

measurements. 

(ii) In Table 2, the Test Operating 

Tolerances and Test Condition 

Tolerances for Air Leaving 

Temperatures shall be deleted. 

(iii) In Table 2, The Test Condition 

Tolerance for Outdoor Wet Bulb 

Temperature of 0.3 applies only to units 

with evaporative cooling. 

(iv) In section C3.1.6, refrigerant 

temperature measurements upstream 

and downstream of the unit cooler may 

use sheathed sensors immersed in the 

flowing refrigerant instead of 

thermometer wells. 

(v) In section C3.5, for a given motor 

winding configuration, the total power 

input shall be measured at the highest 

nameplate voltage. For three-phase 

power, voltage imbalances shall be no 

more than 2 percent from phase to 

phase. 

(vi) In the test setup (section C8.3), 

the condenser and unit cooler shall be 

connected by pipes of the manufacturer 

specified size. The pipe lines shall be 

insulated with a minimum total thermal 

resistance equivalent to 1⁄2′′ thick 

insulation having a flat-surface R-Value 

of 3.7 ft2-°F-hr/Btu per inch or greater. 

Flow meters need not be insulated but 

must not be in contact with the floor. 

The lengths of each of the connected 

liquid line and suction line shall be 25 

feet, not including the requisite flow 

meters. Of this length, no more than 15 

feet shall be in the conditioned space. 

In the case that there are multiple 

branches of piping, the maximum length 

of piping applies to each branch 

individually as opposed to the total 

length of the piping. 

(vii) In section C3.4.5, for verification 

of sub-cooling downstream of mass flow 

meters, only the sight glass and a 

temperature sensor located on the tube 

surface under the insulation are 

required. 

(viii) Delete section C3.3.6. 

(ix) In section C11.1, to determine 

frost load defrost conditions, the Frost 

Load Conditions Defrost Test (C11.1.1) 

is optional. If the frost load test is not 

performed, the frost load defrost DFf

shall be equal to 1.05 times the dry coil 

energy consumption DFd measured 

using the dry coil condition test in 

section C11.1 and the number of 

defrosts per day NDF shall be set to 4. 

(x) In section C11.2, if the system has 

an adaptive or demand defrost system, 

the optional test may be run as specified 

to establish the number of defrosts per 

day under dry coil conditions and this 

number shall be averaged with the 

number of defrosts per day calculated 

under the frost load conditions. If the 

system has an adaptive or demand 

defrost system and the optional test is 

not run, the number of defrosts per day 

NDF shall be set to the average of 1 and 

the number of defrosts per day 

calculated under the frost load 

conditions (section (c)(8)(ix)). 

(xi) In section C11.3, if the frost load 

test is not performed, the daily 

contribution of the load attributed to 

defrost QDF in Btu shall be calculated as 

follows: 

Where: 

DFd = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the dry 

coil condition 

DFf = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the 

frosted coil condition 

NDF = the number of defrosts per day 

(xii) In section C11, if the unit utilizes 

hot gas defrost, QDF and DF shall be 

calculated as follows: 

QDF = x NDF

Where: 

Qref = Gross refrigeration capacity in Btu/h as 

measured at the high ambient condition 

(90 °F for indoor systems and 95 °F for 

outdoor systems) 

NDF = Number of defrosts per day; shall be 

set to the number recommended in the 

installation instructions for the unit (or 

if no instructions, shall be set to 4) for 

units without adaptive defrost and 2.5 

for units with adaptive defrost 

For unit coolers connected to a 

multiplex system: The defrost energy, 

DF, in W-h = 0. 

For dedicated condensing systems or 

condensing units tested separately: 

(xiii) In section C3.4.6, for units with 

integrated oil separators, the ratio of oil 

to refrigerants can be assumed to be less 

than 1% without the need for 

confirmatory testing. 

(xiv) Section C10 shall be revised to 

read: 

Off-cycle evaporator fan test. Upon 

the completion of the steady state test 

for walk-in systems, the compressors of 

the walk-in systems shall be turned off. 

The unit coolers fans’ power 

consumption shall be measured in 

accordance with the requirements in 

Section C 3.5. Off-cycle fan power shall 

be equal to on-cycle fan power unless 

evaporator fans are controlled by a 

qualifying control. Qualifying 

evaporator fan controls shall have a user 

adjustable method of destratifying air 

during the off-cycle including but not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP20FE14.012</GPH> EP20FE14.013</GPH> EP20FE14.014</GPH>
9846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

limited to: adjustable fan speed control 

or periodic ‘‘stir cycles.’’ Controls shall 

be adjusted so that the greater of a 50% 

duty cycle or the manufacturer default 

is used for measuring off-cycle fan 

energy. For variable speed controls, the 

greater of 50% fan speed or the 

manufacturer’s default fan speed shall 

be used for measuring off-cycle fan 

energy. When a cyclic control is used at 

least three full ‘‘stir cycles’’ are 

measured. 

(xv) Table 15 and Table 16 are 

modified as follows: 

TABLE 15—REFRIGERATOR UNIT COOLER

Test description 

Unit cooler 

air entering 

dry-bulb, °F 

Unit cooler 

air entering 

relative 

humidity, % 

Saturated 

suction 

temp, 

°F 

Liquid inlet 

saturation 

temp, °F 

Liquid inlet 

subcooling, 

°F 

Compressor 

capacity 

Outlet 

superheat, 

°F 

Test objective 

Off Cycle Fan 

Power.

35 <50 .................... .................... .................... Compressor Off .................... Measure fan 

input power 

during compressor off 

cycle. 

Refrigeration Capacity Suction 

A.

35 <50 25 105 9 Compressor On 6.5 Determine Net 

Refrigeration 

Capacity of 

Unit Cooler. 

Refrigeration Capacity Suction 

B.

35 <50 20 105 9 Compressor On 6.5 Determine Net 

Refrigeration 

Capacity of 

Unit Cooler. 

TABLE 16—FREEZER UNIT COOLER

Test description 

Unit cooler 

air entering 

dry-bulb, °F 

Unit cooler 

air entering 

relative 

humidity, % 

Saturated 

suction 

temp, 

°F 

Liquid inlet 

saturation 

temp, °F 

Liquid inlet 

subcooling, 

°F 

Compressor 

capacity 

Outlet 

superheat, 

°F 

Test objective 

Off Cycle Fan 

Power.

¥10 <50 .................... .................... .................... Compressor Off .................... Measure fan 

input power 

during compressor off 

cycle. 

Refrigeration Capacity Suction 

A.

¥10 <50 25 105 9 Compressor On 6.5 Determine Net 

Refrigeration 

Capacity of 

Unit Cooler. 

Refrigeration Capacity Suction 

B.

¥10 <50 20 105 9 Compressor On 6.5 Determine Net 

Refrigeration 

Capacity of 

Unit Cooler. 

Defrost ............... ¥10 (1) .................... .................... .................... Compressor Off .................... Test according 

to Appendix C 

Section C11. 

1Various. 

* * * * * 

(12) Rating of walk-in cooler and 

freezer refrigeration system components 

sold separately 

(i) A unit cooler, if sold separately, 

shall be rated using the method for 

testing a unit cooler connected to a 

multiplex condensing system. 

(ii) A condensing unit, if sold 

separately, shall be rated using the 

following nominal values: 

Saturated suction temperature at the 

evaporator coil exit Tevap (°F) = 25 

for coolers and ¥20 for freezers 

On-cycle evaporator fan power EFcomp,on

(W) = 0.016 W-h/Btu × qmix,cd (Btu/ 

h); where qmix,cd is the gross cooling 

capacity at the highest ambient 

rating condition (90 °F for indoor 

units and 95 °F for outdoor units) 

Off-cycle evaporator fan power EFcomp,off

(W) = 0.2 × EFcomp,on (W) 

For medium temperature (cooler) 

condensing units: Daily defrost 

energy use DF (W-h) = 0 and daily 

defrost heat load contribution QDF

(Btu) = 0 

For low temperature (freezer) 

condensing units without hot gas 

defrost capability: 

Daily defrost energy use DF (W-h) = 

0.12 (W-h/cycle)/(Btu/h) × qmix,cd

(Btu/h) × NDF for freezers 

Defrost heat load contribution QDF

(Btu) = 0.95 × DF (W-h)/3.412 Btu/ 

W-h 

For low temperature (freezer) 

condensing units with hot gas 

defrost capability, DF and QDF shall 

be calculated using the method in 

paragraph (10)(xii) of this section. 

The number of defrost cycles per day 

(NDF) shall be set to the number 

recommended in the installation 

instructions for the unit (or if no 

instructions, shall be set to 4) for 

units without adaptive defrost and 

2.5 for units with adaptive defrost. 

(iii) Only fixed capacity condensing 

units may be certified in this manner. 

Multiple-capacity condensing units 

must be rated and certified as part of a 

matched system. 

■ 6. Appendix A to Subpart R of part 

431 is amended by: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 9847 

■ a. Removing and reserving sections 

4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2; 

■ b. Revising paragraph 5.3(a)(1); 

■ c. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(2) the 

word ‘‘Internal’’ and adding in its place 

the words ‘‘Cold-side’’; and 

■ d. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(3) the 

word ‘‘External’’ and adding in its place 

the words ‘‘Warm-side’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

the Components of Envelopes of WalkIn Coolers and Walk-In Freezers 

* * * * * 

4.2 [Removed and Reserved] 

4.3 [Removed and Reserved] 

* * * * * 

5.1 [Removed and Reserved] 

5.2 [Removed and Reserved] 

5.3 * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) The average surface heat transfer 

coefficient on the cold-side of the apparatus 

shall be 30 Watts per square-meter-Kelvin 

(W/m2*K) ± 5%. The average surface heat 

transfer coefficient on the warm-side of the 

apparatus shall be 7.7 Watts per squaremeter-Kelvin (W/m2*K) ± 5%. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–03101 Filed 2–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3