This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

66710 

Vol. 88, No. 187 

Thursday, September 28, 2023 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

3Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined 

as an enclosed storage space, including but not 

limited to panels, doors, and refrigeration systems, 

refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, 

and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be 

walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of 

less than 3,000 square feet; however, the terms do 

not include products designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or research 

purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009] 

RIN 1905–AD79 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Walk-In 

Coolers and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of data availability 

regarding energy conservation 

standards. 

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2023, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), in which DOE 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers. (‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’) 

In this notification, DOE is summarizing 

and addressing comments that were 

considered but not discussed in the 

September 2023 NOPR. 

DATES: 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding the September 2023 NOPR as 

supplemented by this notice of data 

availability no later than November 6, 

2023. 

Meeting: DOE is holding a public 

meeting regarding the September 2023 

NOPR via webinar on Wednesday, 

September 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 

4:00 p.m. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments 

regarding the September 2023 NOPR as 

supplemented by this notice of data 

availability using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0009, by any of the 

following methods: 

Email: WICF2017STD0009@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009 in the 

subject line of the message. 

Non-electronic submissions: Please 

contact (202) 287–1445 for instructions 

if an electronic copy cannot be 

submitted. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0009. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section IV 

of this document for information on 

how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Troy Watson, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597– 

6265. Email: matthew.schneider@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. General 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

C. Engineering Analysis 

a. Display Doors 

b. Refrigeration Systems 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Consumer Sample 

2. Equipment Lifetime 

E. Conclusion 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) Such 

equipment includes walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers 3 (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’), the subject 

of this notification. 

The current energy conservation 

standards for walk-ins are set forth in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.306. 

Rather than establishing standards for 

complete walk-in systems, DOE has 

established standards for the principal 

components that make up a walk-in (i.e., 

doors, panels, and refrigeration 

systems). The current energy 

conservation standards for walk-in 

doors are in terms of maximum daily 

energy consumption, which is measured 

in kWh/day (see Table I.1). The current 

energy conservation standards for walkin panels are in terms of R-value, which 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66711 

is measured in h-ft2-°F/Btu (see Table 

I.2). The current energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration systems are 

in terms of annual walk-in energy factor 

(‘‘AWEF’’), which is measured in Btu/ 

(W-h) (see Table I.3). 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER DOORS

Equipment class 

Equations for maximum daily 

energy consumption 

(kWh/day) 

Display door, medium-temperature ....................................................................................................................... 0.04 × Add + 0.41. 

Display door, low-temperature ............................................................................................................................... 0.15 × Add + 0.29. 

Passage door, medium-temperature ..................................................................................................................... 0.05 × And + 1.7. 

Passage door, low-temperature ............................................................................................................................ 0.14 × And + 4.8. 

Freight door, medium-temperature ........................................................................................................................ 0.04 × And + 1.9. 

Freight door, low-temperature ............................................................................................................................... 0.12 × And + 5.6. 

Add or And = surface area of the display door or non-display door, respectively, expressed in ft2, as determined in appendix A to subpart R of 

10 CFR part 431. 

TABLE I.2—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER PANELS

Equipment class Minimum R-value 

(h-ft2-°F/Btu) 

Wall or ceiling panels, medium-temperature ........................................................................................................................... 25 

Wall or ceiling panels, low-temperature .................................................................................................................................. 32 

Floor panels, low-temperature ................................................................................................................................................. 28 

TABLE I.3—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZER

REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

Equipment class Minimum AWEF 

(Btu/W-h) 

Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, indoor ............................................................................... 5.61. 

Dedicated condensing system, medium-temperature, outdoor ............................................................................. 7.60. 

Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 British thermal 

units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’).

9.091 × 10¥5 × qnet + 1.81. 

Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥6,500 Btu/h ................... 2.40. 

Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <6,500 Btu/h ................. 6.522 × 10¥5 × qnet + 2.73. 

Dedicated condensing system, low-temperature, outdoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥6,500 Btu/h ................. 3.15. 

Unit cooler, medium-temperature .......................................................................................................................... 9.00. 

Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of <15,500 Btu/h ................................................ 1.575 × 10¥5 × qnet + 3.91. 

Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with a net capacity (qnet) of ≥15,500 Btu/h ................................................ 4.15. 

Where qnet is net capacity as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 429. 

To evaluate whether to propose 

amendments to the energy conservation 

standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) in the 

Federal Register on July 16, 2021 (‘‘July 

2021 RFI’’). 86 FR 37687. In the July 

2021 RFI, DOE sought data, information, 

and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86 

FR 37687, 37689. DOE subsequently 

announced the availability of the 

preliminary analysis it had conducted 

for the purpose of evaluating the need 

for amending the current energy 

conservation standards for walk-ins in 

the Federal Register on June 30, 2022, 

(‘‘June 2022 Preliminary Analysis’’). The 

analysis was set forth in the 

Department’s accompanying 

preliminary technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’). The June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis summarized and addressed the 

comments received in response to the 

July 2021 RFI in chapter 2 of the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE 

held a public meeting via webinar to 

discuss and receive comment on the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on July 

22, 2022. The meeting covered the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

that DOE used to evaluate potential 

standards; the results of the preliminary 

analyses performed by DOE; the 

potential energy conservation standard 

levels derived from those analyses; and 

other relevant issues. 

In a test procedure final rule 

published May 4, 2023 (‘‘May 2023 TP 

Final Rule’’), DOE amended the test 

procedures for walk-in components. 

DOE also established a new appendix, 

appendix C1 to subpart R (‘‘appendix 

C1’’), and a new energy metric, AWEF2, 

for refrigeration systems. (See 88 FR 

28780 and 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, 

appendix C1.) Manufacturers would be 

required to begin using appendix C1 as 

of the compliance date of an energy 

conservation standards promulgated as 

a result of this rulemaking. 

On September 5, 2023, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, 

regarding energy conservation standards 

for walk-in coolers and freezers 

(‘‘September 2023 NOPR’’). 88 FR 

60746. Specifically, DOE proposed 

amended standards for walk-in nondisplay doors and walk-in refrigeration 

systems based on the amended or new 

test procedures adopted in the May 

2023 TP Final Rule. For refrigeration 

systems, DOE proposed amended 

standards in terms of the AWEF2 metric 

based on appendix C1. The September 

2023 NOPR summarized and addressed 

comments received in response to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66712 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE–2017– 

BT–STD–0009, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

5 DOE received comments marked as confidential 

business information from Anthony International 

(see EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0040) and Lennox 

International (see EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009– 

0036). 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 

However, comments from one interested 

party, listed in Table I.4 of this 

document, were considered in 

developing the September 2023 NOPR, 

but were not summarized and discussed 

in the NOPR. 

TABLE I.4—JUNE 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS WRITTEN COMMENTS OMITTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR 

Commenter(s) Abbreviation 

Comment 

number in 

the docket 

Commenter 

type 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and 

Electric, and Southern California Edison; (collectively referred to as the ‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’).

CA IOUs ........ 43 Utilities. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

DOE notes that it also received 

comments in response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis in the form of 

confidential business information from 

two stakeholders, which have been 

restricted on the public docket.5 To the 

extent that these stakeholders provided 

confidential information, DOE did not 

address those comments directly due to 

the confidential nature of the comments 

received. However, DOE considered 

these confidential comments in its 

analysis presented in the September 

2023 NOPR. 

II. Discussion 

This section summarizes the 

comments received from the CA IOUs 

and provides DOE’s responses that were 

not addressed in the September 2023 

NOPR. Separate subsections address 

each component of DOE’s analyses on 

which DOE has received comment from 

the CA IOUs. 

A. General 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

consider linear AWEF energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

systems that vary with capacity. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 3) The CA IOUs 

stated that refrigeration efficiency 

typically increases with system capacity 

and pointed to the energy conservation 

standards for Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment and Automatic Commercial 

Ice Makers, which are dependent on 

capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs further 

provided examples supporting its 

assertion that efficiency increases with 

capacity for both dedicated condensing 

units and unit coolers. Specifically, the 

CA IOUs showed examples of standard 

options offered for model lines of 

medium- and low-temperature unit 

coolers; these examples show a larger 

capacity model line that is available 

with several options that are not 

available as standard features for the 

smaller capacity model line, including 

electronic expansion valves (‘‘EEVs’’), 

evaporator fan control boards, variablespeed electronically commutated fan 

motors (‘‘ECMs’’), and electronic 

controller systems that offer on-cycle 

evaporator fan controls and adaptive 

defrost capability. (Id. at pp. 3–4) The 

CA IOUs also included in its comment 

examples of dedicated condensing 

system model lines that showed higher 

cooling efficiencies (in terms of energy 

efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’)) for larger 

capacity systems. (Id. at p. 4) The CA 

IOUs also pointed to the baseline 

AWEFs presented in the preliminary 

analysis TSD, which increased with 

capacity. (Id. at pp. 5–7) 

In its analysis for the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE evaluated the economics of 

each efficiency level for each 

representative unit, which indicated 

that more stringent standards were 

generally economically justified for 

larger units. Therefore, DOE proposed 

standards that varied with capacity for 

many refrigeration system equipment 

classes in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 

FR 60746, 60748–60749. The proposed 

standards are summarized in section I of 

the September 2023 NOPR. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the equipment. 88 FR 60746, 

60760. This activity includes both 

quantitative and qualitative 

assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

equipment classes, (2) manufacturers 

and industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends; and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of walk-ins. 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE considered separate 

technology options for whole walk-ins, 

doors, and panels, and refrigeration 

systems. 88 FR 60746, 60764–60765. In 

the preliminary market analysis and 

technology assessment, DOE identified 

16 technology options that would be 

expected to improve the efficiency of 

refrigeration systems. DOE requested 

comment on the technology options in 

section ES.4.2 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response, 

the CA IOUs suggested several 

modifications to the technology options 

analyzed by DOE in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43 

at p. 8) 

In section 5.7.2.1 of chapter 5 of the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, 

DOE stated that at the time, it lacked 

data on the performance of multiplecapacity and variable-capacity 

compressors, but DOE intended to 

collect more data to evaluate these 

compressors as design options for the 

NOPR analysis. In response to the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs 

commented that they support the 

evaluation of variable-capacity 

compressors as a design option. (CA 

IOUs, No. 43 at p. 8) The CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE request full EER 

curves of amperage versus capacity for 

variable-capacity compressors from 

manufacturers. (Id.) The CA IOUs also 

recommended that DOE perform testing 

to record the efficiency gains of 

variable-capacity compressors and 

evaluate the reduction in compressor 

cycling and improved ability of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66713 

6The NOPR TSD can be found in the docket at 

regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD0009-0046. 

7Appendix C1 references industry test standard 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) Standard 1250–2020, 2020 

Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers 

and Freezers (‘‘AHRI 1250–2020’’). 

compressor to match the system cooling 

loads. (Id. at pp. 8–9) 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE analyzed variable-capacity 

compressors for low- and mediumtemperature refrigeration systems and 

assumed that the system was redesigned 

to take advantage of the variablecapacity compressor. 88 FR 60746, 

60776. However, DOE was unable to 

obtain performance data from 

manufacturers as recommended by the 

CA IOUs, and therefore based the 

variable-capacity design option 

performance on its test data. Additional 

details of the variable-capacity 

compressor design option 

implementation in the NOPR analysis 

can be found in chapter 5 of the 

accompanying TSD.6

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE analyzed floating head 

pressure and floating head pressure 

with an EEV as design options for 

outdoor dedicated condensing units. 

See section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response 

to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, 

the CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

analyze EEVs as a technology option 

separate from floating head pressure. 

(Ca IOUs, No. 43 at p. 10) The CA IOUs 

provided an example where the use of 

an EEV rather than a thermostatic 

expansion valve (‘‘TXV’’) saved energy 

by reducing cycling losses where the 

TXV ‘‘hunts’’ for the optimal opening 

range. (Id.) Further, the CA IOUs 

commented that EEVs allow for more 

precise superheat control over TXVs, 

which could improve energy efficiency. 

(Id. at p. 10) 

DOE notes that the tests conducted as 

part of the test procedures in appendix 

C1 are steady-state tests. Because of this, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that a 

test performed with a TXV would result 

in the same measured efficiency as a test 

of the same unit performed with an 

EEV. DOE acknowledges that a unit 

cooler installed with an EEV may be 

able to achieve more capacity for a given 

suction condition given that EEVs can 

achieve less superheat than a TXV 

would be able to. Considering feedback 

received during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that manufacturers would 

not recommend a lower superheat value 

for unit coolers installed with an EEV 

rather than a TXV. Additionally, DOE 

notes that Figure 8 presented in the CA 

IOUs comment shows that at the steadystate operation that is the basis of test 

procedures, systems equipped with 

TXVs are no less efficient than systems 

equipped with EEVs. As such DOE has 

tentatively concluded that when 

performing a valid refrigeration system 

test according to the DOE test 

procedure, replacing a TXV with an EEV 

would not improve measured efficiency. 

For this reason, DOE did not analyze 

EEVs as a standalone technology in the 

September 2023 NOPR analysis. See 

section 5.7.2.7 of the September 2023 

NOPR TSD for discussion of how DOE 

considered head pressure control in the 

analysis. 

See chapter 3 of the September 2023 

NOPR TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, the purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of each 

component of walk-ins (e.g., doors, 

panels, and refrigeration systems). 88 FR 

60746, 60767. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis; the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency walkins, DOE considers technologies and 

design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each walk-in component equipment 

class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, 

as well as the incremental cost for the 

walk-in component at efficiency levels 

above the baseline. The output of the 

engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in 

downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and 

PBP analyses and the NIA). 

In section ES4.4 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 

requested comment on the efficiency 

levels considered in the analysis. 

Specifically, DOE sought feedback on 

whether the efficiency levels beyond the 

baseline are appropriate, including the 

maximum technology efficiency level. 

a. Display Doors 

The CA IOUs commented that, based 

on its evaluation, the ratings in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management 

System Database (‘‘CCD’’) for display 

doors are conservative. The CA IOUs 

asserted that the ratings in CCD for 

display doors should not be used as the 

basis for establishing an updated energy 

conservation standard because their 

analysis suggests the ratings are 

conservative. Rather, the CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to independently 

evaluate the performance of 

representative display doors in its 

analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 7–8, 

21) 

In response, DOE notes that it did not 

analyze higher efficiency levels for 

display doors solely using data from 

CCD, but rather conducted testing on 

doors with varying glass pack designs. 

See sections 5.6.1 and 5.7.1.1 of the 

NOPR TSD for further discussion on 

DOE’s methodology for developing the 

baseline and higher efficiency energy 

consumption characteristics for the 

representative units of display doors 

analyzed. 

b. Refrigeration Systems 

The CA IOUs stated that the AWEF 

levels in CCD are based on the base 

model of a product line rather than the 

models that utilize higher efficiency 

design options. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 

3) The CA IOUs also commented that 

DOE’s performance modeling in the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

underestimated the efficiency benefits 

of the design options currently available 

in the market. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE validate the 

results of the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis by conducting testing on 

representative examples of walk-in 

refrigeration systems. (Id.) 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE used a design-option 

approach for dedicated condensing 

units and single-packaged dedicated 

systems. 88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE’s 

performance modeling of each design 

option for dedicated condensing units 

and single-packaged dedicated systems 

in the September 2023 NOPR analysis 

was developed with manufacturer 

feedback through confidential 

manufacturer interviews. Additionally, 

DOE notes that is has validated its 

results of the September 2023 NOPR 

analysis through its own walk-in 

refrigeration system testing. See section 

5.7.2 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD 

for details of the refrigeration systems 

engineering analysis. 

Furthermore, DOE used both an 

efficiency-level approach and design 

option approach for its analysis of unit 

coolers, depending on equipment class. 

88 FR 60746, 60768. DOE’s performance 

modeling of medium- and lowtemperature unit coolers in the 

September 2023 NOPR analysis was 

based on the capacities certified in the 

CCD, fan power data from product 

literature, and the default defrost energy 

use from AHRI 1250–2020 7 adjusted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66714 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

8The complete discussion of the differences 

between these metrics can be found in the May 

2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. 88 FR 28780, 

28810. 

such that the lowest calculated AWEFs 

match the current energy conservation 

standard. DOE notes that while most of 

the unit coolers in the CCD are rated at 

baseline, when AWEF is calculated 

using the data as described, many units 

appear to have efficiencies above 

baseline. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the results of these 

analyses are representative of the units 

and technologies currently available on 

the market. Details of the unit cooler 

engineering analysis are discussed in 

section 5.8 of the September 2023 NOPR 

TSD. 

Refrigerants Analyzed 

The CA IOUs commented that it 

expects that the use of R–404A to 

estimate the performance of CO2-based 

unit coolers (which DOE did in the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis) would result 

in a similar AWEF to that of an AWEF 

that was based on performance data of 

CO2. However, the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE use CO2 data in 

its analysis to avoid confusion. The CA 

IOUs stated that DOE should use 

available CO2-specific data, request 

information from manufacturers, and 

derive EER curves using software tools. 

(CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) 

DOE acknowledges that there is some 

performance data available for CO2 unitcoolers. However, the CCD and 

manufacturer product literature have 

more data available for unit coolers that 

use R–404A. In response to the 

preliminary analysis, as discussed in the 

September 2023 NOPR, HTPG 

supported the use of R–404A to analyze 

medium- and low-temperature unit 

coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60779. 

Additionally, as the CA IOUs stated, the 

performance results of unit coolers 

using R–404A and CO2 are similar. DOE 

has tentatively concluded that using R– 

404A as the refrigerant for the analysis 

of medium- and low-temperature unit 

coolers is representative of the unit 

cooler market. Therefore, as discussed 

in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE used 

R–404A as the refrigerant in its analysis 

of medium- and low-temperature unit 

coolers. 88 FR 60746, 60780. Further, 

DOE notes that the EERs used to 

calculate unit cooler AWEF and AWEF2 

are prescribed by the suction conditions 

and EER table of the DOE test procedure 

at section 3.4.14 of appendix C1. As 

such, DOE did not consider alternative 

EER curves in the September 2023 

NOPR analysis. 

Representative Units 

In section 2.2 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE stated 

that it has not seen condensate heaters 

on any of the single-packaged dedicated 

systems that it has tested. When making 

this statement in the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, DOE was referring 

to pan heaters. In response, the CA IOUs 

commented that they are aware of three 

manufacturers of packaged systems that 

currently offer a condensate heater 

element and showed examples of unit 

coolers that offer drain line heaters as 

standard features or options. (CA IOUs, 

No. 43 at pp. 12–14) Additionally, the 

CA IOUs stated that in specific 

applications (e.g., meat and dairy 

coolers) medium-temperature coolers 

typically use condensate heaters. (Id. at 

p. 12) Therefore, the CA IOUs 

recommended that AWEF should 

include an allocation for condensate 

heater energy use. (Id.) 

DOE has not encountered drain line 

heaters on any of the single-packaged 

dedicated systems or unit coolers that it 

has tested and DOE expects that drain 

line heaters would typically be provided 

as an optional feature and installed by 

a contractor. In the September 2023 

NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated what it 

considers to be ‘‘representative units’’ in 

the market; therefore, DOE did not 

evaluate units with drain line heaters. 

DOE has encountered lowtemperature unit coolers with pan 

heaters. In the September 2023 NOPR 

analysis, DOE based the lowtemperature unit cooler defrost power 

on the default defrost power 

calculations in AHRI 1250–2020. See 

section C10.2 of AHRI 1250–2020 for 

details. These calculated power values 

are representative of the power draw of 

the entire unit cooler during a defrost 

cycle. Additionally, the default defrost 

power calculations in AHRI 1250–2020 

include a set of calculations for units 

with hot gas coil defrost and an electric 

resistive pan heater. See section C10.1.2 

of AHRI 1250–2020. As such, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the AHRI 

1250–2020 default power calculations 

include representative pan heater power 

consumption and that an allocation for 

condensate heater energy use is not 

warranted at this time. 

Baseline Efficiency 

For each equipment class, DOE 

generally selects a baseline model as a 

reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each equipment class represents the 

characteristics of equipment typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. 

The CA IOUs stated that when DOE 

updates a test procedure for equipment 

already included in the DOE regulatory 

program, DOE typically performs a 

cross-walk analysis to ensure energy 

conservation standards set using the 

new test procedure do not result in 

backsliding. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs commented that the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD does not 

appear to include a cross-walk analysis 

(Id.) The CA IOUs stated that, therefore, 

its comments regarding the baseline 

efficiency assumed the analysis 

presented in the preliminary TSD was 

based on the current test procedure at 

appendix C to subpart R of 10 CFR part 

431. (Id. at pp. 2–3) Based on this 

assumption, the CA IOUs encouraged 

DOE to align the baseline efficiency 

level of all refrigeration systems with 

the current minimum energy 

conservation standards and indicated 

which representative units they 

interpreted as having efficiency levels 

below the current minimum energy 

conservation standards. Id. 

Current energy conservation 

standards for walk-in refrigeration 

systems are in terms of the AWEF 

metric and the energy conservation 

standards proposed in the September 

2023 NOPR use the AWEF2 metric. The 

primary difference between these two 

metrics is that AWEF2 includes offcycle power consumption.8 As 

discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, 

DOE set baseline efficiency levels for 

dedicated condensing units with energy 

conservation standards at the current 

minimum standard level using the 

appendix C test procedure (see 

appendix C to subpart R to 10 CFR 431). 

88 FR 60746, 60778. For example, for a 

medium-temperature, outdoor dedicated 

condensing unit, DOE determined 

which technology options would just 

meet the current AWEF standard of 7.6 

Btu/(W-h) using the appendix C test 

procedure. Id. Once each representative 

unit had its baseline design options set, 

DOE conducted the remainder of the 

efficiency analysis using the appendix 

C1 test procedure to determine AWEF2 

values for each efficiency level, 

including the baseline. Id. DOE notes 

that in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, refrigeration system efficiency 

values were labeled as AWEF; however, 

all efficiency values calculated in 

accordance with the appendix C1 test 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66715 

9Systems equipped with an EEV could operate 

with an even lower head pressure because the 

greater flexibility of the electronic controls allows 

an EEV to have a wider range of orifice open area 

without leading to unstable operation in warm 

ambient conditions. 

procedure were AWEF2 values, as 

defined in appendix C1. Id. 

The representative units that DOE 

modeled in the September 2023 NOPR 

analysis were based on actual units that 

are certified at the currently applicable 

minimum energy conservation 

standards (i.e., baseline AWEF) in CCD. 

To account for the differences between 

AWEF and AWEF2, DOE determined 

representative off-cycle power values for 

each representative unit analyzed in the 

September 2023 NOPR using product 

catalogs and feedback from 

manufacturer interviews. 

Additionally, in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE proposed more stringent 

energy conservation standards for the 

majority of refrigeration system 

equipment classes. 88 FR 60746, 60748– 

60749. The only equipment classes with 

standards proposed at the equivalent 

current baseline in terms of the new 

AWEF2 metric are medium-temperature 

indoor dedicated condensing systems 

with a capacity of less than 8,000 Btu/ 

h and low-temperature indoor dedicated 

condensing systems with a capacity of 

9,000 Btu/h. See section IV.C.1.d of the 

September 2023 NOPR for further 

discussion of the analysis based on 

AWEF2. 

Design Options 

In chapter 5 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 

analyzed improved condenser coils as a 

design option for dedicated condensing 

system equipment classes. See section 

5.7.2.2 of the Preliminary Analysis TSD 

for details of this analysis. Based on 

information gathered during previous 

rulemakings and feedback received 

during the preliminary analysis 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined representative improved 

midpoint condensing temperatures for 

the representative units analyzed. DOE 

published the following table to 

summarize the baseline and improved 

condensing midpoint temperatures. 

TABLE II.1—WALK-IN REFRIGERATION SYSTEM CONDENSER COIL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (‘‘TD’’) ASSUMPTIONS

Equipment class 

Temperature of 

air entering 

the condenser 

coil 

(°F) 

Baseline 

midpoint 

(°F) 

Baseline 

TD 

(°F) 

Improved 

midpoint 

(°F) 

Improved 

TD 

(°F) 

SPU.H.I ............................................................................ 90 115 20 110 15 

DC/SPU.M.I ...................................................................... 90 115 25 110 20 

DC/SPU.L.I ....................................................................... 90 110 20 105 15 

SPU.H.O .......................................................................... 95 120 20 115 15 

DC/SPU.M.O .................................................................... 95 120 25 115 20 

DC/SPU.L.O ..................................................................... 95 115 20 110 15 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE should review 

the baseline and improved condensing 

midpoint assumptions used for hightemperature single-packaged dedicated 

systems, as the temperature differences 

and ambient air temperatures do not 

sum to equal the corresponding 

midpoint temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 43 

at p. 16) 

DOE acknowledges that the baseline 

and improved temperature differences 

for high-temperature single-packaged 

dedicated condensing systems were 

incorrectly printed in table 5.7.13 in the 

June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. 

For high-temperature single-packaged 

dedicated condensing systems, the table 

should have listed the baseline 

temperature difference as 25 °F and the 

improved temperature difference as 

20 °F. These misprints only occurred in 

this table and the correct values were 

used in conducting the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis. Similarly, as 

discussed in section 5.7.2.2 of the 

September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE did 

not use the incorrect values in the 

September 2023 NOPR analysis. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE analyzed head pressure 

controls as a design option for outdoor 

dedicated condensing system 

equipment classes. See section 5.7.2.7 of 

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD 

for details. Head pressure controls allow 

outdoor condensing units’ head 

pressure to ‘‘float’’ down to a minimum 

condensing pressure as the ambient air 

temperature falls. This allows the 

compressor to operate more efficiently 

and therefore reduces the power 

consumption of the system without 

reducing the capacity. As discussed in 

section 5.7.2.7 of the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE 

evaluated two design options pertaining 

to head pressure control for the 

representative units of outdoor 

dedicated condensing units and outdoor 

single-packaged dedicated systems 

analyzed. These two design options 

were floating head pressure and floating 

head pressure with an EEV.9 DOE 

assumed fixed head pressure would be 

the baseline design. Based on 

information collected during previous 

rulemakings, DOE determined the 

minimum condensing pressure 

associated with these design options. 

DOE converted all minimum 

condensing pressures to minimum 

condenser dewpoint temperatures so 

that the values would be refrigerant 

agnostic. DOE assumed this minimum 

dewpoint would apply at the lowest 

ambient rating condition—35 °F. At the 

intermediate rating temperature of 59 °F, 

DOE estimated the head pressure for 

fixed and floating systems when using 

a TXV based on testing results. DOE did 

not have testing results for a system 

with an EEV, so DOE calculated the 

degree to which the pressure would 

‘‘float’’ down based on an assumption 

that the condenser TD would scale with 

the capacity. DOE used test results and 

scaling to estimate a minimum 

dewpoint offset at 59 °F. Minimum 

condensing dewpoints at the 35 °F C test 

point and at the 59 °F B test point are 

summarized in Table II.2. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66716 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS HEAD PRESSURE CONTROL DESIGN OPTIONS

Design option description 

Minimum condensing 

dewpoint at 35 °F 

(°F) 

Minimum condensing 

dewpoint at 59 °F 

(°F) 

Fixed head pressure ........................................................................................................................ 101.5 104.4 

Floating head pressure .................................................................................................................... 85 86.7 

Floating head pressure with an electronic expansion valve ........................................................... 67 85.9 

In addition to the minimum 

condensing dewpoints imposed by head 

pressure control strategies, different 

compressor types have different 

minimum condensing dewpoints. The 

minimum condensing dewpoint 

temperatures for hermetic, semihermetic, scroll and rotary compressors 

used in the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis are listed in Table II.3. 

TABLE II.3—MINIMUM CONDENSING DEWPOINT TEMPERATURES BY COMPRESSOR TYPE USED IN THE JUNE 2022 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Compressor type 

Minimum condensing 

dewpoint temperature 

(°F) 

Hermetic ............................................................................................................................................................................... 85 

Semi-hermetic ...................................................................................................................................................................... 67 

Scroll .................................................................................................................................................................................... 67 

Rotary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs 

stated that its interpretation of the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis assumed that 

the minimum condensing pressure is 

reached only at the 35 °F ambient C test 

condition. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) 

The CA IOUs commented that in its 

experience, the minimum condensing 

pressure is reached anytime the ambient 

temperature plus the condenser 

temperature difference is less than the 

minimum condensing temperature and 

that the minimum condensing pressure 

is ‘‘fixed’’ (i.e., does not change with 

lower ambient temperatures) and that 

controls and valves function to maintain 

that pressure. (Id. at pp. 14–15). 

Based on test data and feedback 

during manufacturer interviews, DOE 

tentatively concluded that the minimum 

condensing dewpoint temperature can 

be reached at ambient temperatures 

above 35 °F. DOE determined the 

condensing dewpoints at the B (59 °F) 

and C (35 °F) test points considering the 

minimum condensing dewpoint 

allowed by the floating head pressure 

controls and compressor type of the 

representative unit as well as the 

minimum condensing temperature 

necessary to achieve a sufficient 

condenser temperature difference. The 

details of this analysis can be found in 

section 5.7.2.7 of the September 2023 

NOPR TSD. 

Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that 

generally, fixed head pressure systems 

have minimum condensing dewpoint 

temperatures of 95 °F to 120 °F and that 

adding floating head pressure controls 

with TXVs to these systems allows 

minimum condensing dewpoint 

temperatures of 70 °F to 85 °F and 

changing the TXVs for EEVs on systems 

with floating head pressure controls 

allows temperatures of 55 °F to 70 °F. 

(CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 14) The CA IOUs 

stated that minimum condensing 

dewpoint temperature for lowtemperature systems can be lower than 

those for medium-temperature systems. 

Id. DOE determined the minimum 

condensing dewpoint temperature for 

the September 2023 NOPR analysis 

using feedback from confidential 

manufacturer interviews. DOE 

aggregated this feedback and tentatively 

determined that 72 °F is a representative 

minimum condensing dewpoint for the 

walk-in industry as a whole. During 

interviews, manufacturers indicated that 

this was a standard design on all walkin condensing systems and that this 

minimum condensing dewpoint 

temperature could be achieved by 

systems using TXVs, therefore DOE did 

not consider an additional step down in 

pressure associated with EEVs. Based on 

testing results, DOE tentatively 

determined that most dedicated 

condensing systems would need this 

floating head pressure design option to 

achieve the current AWEF standards. 

Feedback from the most recent round of 

manufacturer interviews confirmed this. 

As such DOE considered floating head 

pressure controls as the baseline design 

option for all dedicated condensing 

system representative units in the 

September 2023 NOPR analysis and did 

not consider floating head pressure 

controls with an EEV as a design option. 

See section 5.7.2.7 of the September 

2023 NOPR TSD for details of this 

analysis. 

Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that 

the minimum condensing dewpoints 

allowed by the compressor operating 

envelopes in DOE’s June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis are too high and 

provided examples of semi-hermetic 

compressors with lower minimum 

condensing dewpoints. (CA IOUs, No. 

43 at p. 15) 

Information obtained during previous 

rulemakings and manufacturer feedback 

received during the most recent 

interviews indicated that the operating 

envelope of hermetic reciprocating 

compressors would limit the minimum 

condensing dewpoint further. As such, 

DOE set the minimum condensing 

dewpoint for hermetic compressors at 

85 °F. DOE acknowledges that the 

published operating envelope of semihermetic, scroll, and rotary compressors 

may allow for condensing dewpoints 

lower than 72 °F. However, 

manufacturers indicated that in spite of 

the lower dewpoints published in 

compressor literature, they and their 

customers have concerns about the 

potential system reliability issues. The 

72 °F is representative of the lowest dew 

point levels used for rating purposes by 

manufacturers. In many cases this level 

can be adjusted in the field, and it often 

is set higher. As such, DOE did not 

consider condensing dewpoints lower 

than 72 °F in the September 2023 NOPR 

analysis. The floating head pressure 

design option is discussed in more 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66717 

detail in section 5.7.2.7 of chapter 5 of 

the September 2023 NOPR TSD. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

use the minimum condensing midpoint 

instead of the minimum condensing 

dewpoint in its analysis when 

discussing floating head pressure 

control. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 15) As 

discussed in section 5.5.3.1 of the 

September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE used 

the compressor model described in 

section 6.4 of AHRI Standard 540–2004, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Positive 

Displacement Refrigerant Compressors 

and Compressor Units’’ to determine 

compressor power consumption and 

mass flow at each test condition. This 

model requires condensing dewpoint, 

rather than mid-point, as an input. 

Therefore, DOE used condensing 

dewpoint to characterize the floating 

head pressure design option. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis, DOE did not analyze on-cycle 

evaporator fan control as a design 

option because DOE had tentatively 

determined that variable-capacity 

compressors are a prerequisite for oncycle evaporator fan controls to be 

effective. DOE did not analyze variablecapacity compressors as a design option 

in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

because it had insufficient data at the 

time to analyze them. See section 

5.7.2.13 of the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis TSD. 

In response, the CA IOUs agreed that 

on-cycle evaporator fan controls are 

most effective when paired with 

variable-capacity compressors, but 

referenced methods of fan control that 

could provide efficiency benefits 

without a multiple- or variable-capacity 

compressor. Therefore, the CA IOUs 

suggested that evaporator fan on-cycle 

control should be evaluated as a design 

option for single-packaged dedicated 

systems without a multiple- or variablecapacity compressor. (CA IOUs, No. 43 

at p. 9) The CA IOUs provided two 

examples of how evaporator fan control 

could result in energy savings: (1) 

setting fan speed using refrigerant liquid 

temperature change across the 

expansion valve; and (2) setting fan 

speed based on walk-in interior 

temperature and refrigerant coil 

temperature using an electronic 

expansion valve (‘‘EEV’’) to control 

superheat. Id. Further, the CA IOUs 

commented that evaporator fans 

included in a walk-in system are based 

on ambient design conditions, which 

may only occur a few days per year and 

provided an example of a unit cooler 

that has evaporator fans running below 

full load for a majority of the time. (Id. 

at pp. 9–10) 

DOE interprets the first fan control 

method described in the CA IOUs 

comment to be a reduction in fan power 

when the liquid line solenoid closes, 

indicating the compressor is cycling off. 

DOE considered off-cycle fan control for 

single-packaged dedicated systems in 

the September 2023 NOPR analysis, 

discussed in detail in section 5.7.2.8 of 

the September 2023 NOPR TSD. Based 

on the description of the second fan 

control method described in the CA 

IOUs comment, DOE has tentatively 

determined that when operating in a test 

chamber held at a constant temperature 

(consistent with the test procedure 

approach of testing with constant 

evaporator inlet air condition or 

constant condensing unit suction inlet 

condition) such a control system would 

not trigger any reduction in fan speed. 

Therefore, when tested according to the 

DOE test procedure in appendix C1 to 

10 CFR part 431 subpart R (‘‘appendix 

C1’’) a single-packaged dedicated 

system equipped with this evaporator 

fan control system would not have an 

improved efficiency. In addition, DOE 

notes that the figure provided as an 

example in the CA IOUs’ comment 

shows condenser fan run time, not 

evaporator fan run time. DOE did 

consider on-cycle condenser fan 

controls in the September 2023 NOPR 

analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60767. 

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

DOE analyzed permanent-split capacitor 

(‘‘PSC’’) and ECM motors as design 

options for improved condenser fan 

motors, and did not analyze improved 

evaporator fan motors as a design 

option. See sections 5.7.2.4 and 5.7.2.11 

of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis 

TSD. In response, the CA IOUs 

commented that DOE should consider 

permanent magnet AC (‘‘PMS’’) motors 

as the maximum-technologicallyfeasible design option for unit cooler fan 

motors and as a technology option for 

condensing unit fan motors. The CA 

IOUs cited examples of how PMS motor 

efficiency compares with ECM 

efficiency, specifically stating that PMS 

motors can offer an average of 17–27 

percent energy savings over ECMs for 

unit cooler fan motors and 40 percent 

savings over permanent-split capacitor 

(‘‘PSC’’) motors that are mostly installed 

in condensing units. The CA IOUs 

stated that several utility and efficiency 

organizations offer rebate programs to 

upgrade ECMs with PMS motors. 

However, the CA IOUs stated that PMS 

motors are not available in new 

equipment and that it was only aware of 

one manufacturer offering PMS motors. 

(CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 11–12) 

EPCA governs permissible evaporator 

and condenser fan motors in walk-ins 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(E) and (F)). For 

condenser fan motors under 1 

horsepower (‘‘HP’’), EPCA prescribes 

the use of either ECMs, permanent split 

capacitor (‘‘PSC’’) type motors, or 3- 

phase motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(F)) 

DOE only analyzed one representative 

unit with condenser fan motors equal to 

or greater than 1 HP in the September 

2023 NOPR analysis, which did not 

include a permanent magnet AC motor. 

Given that EPCA does not allow the use 

of any other motor types for motors 

under 1 horsepower, DOE did not 

consider permanent magnet AC motors 

as a design option for condenser fan 

motors. 

For evaporator fan motors under 1 HP, 

EPCA prescribes the use of either ECMs 

or 3-phase motors. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(1)(E)) DOE has adopted this 

requirement in its regulations at 10 CFR 

431.306(a)(5)(i)–(ii). DOE has 

encountered commercially available 

motor technologies that may perform 

more efficiently than the ECMs already 

required by the prescriptive standard. 

However, consistent with the EPCA 

requirements and existing regulations, 

DOE did not include them in its 

September 2023 NOPR analysis. See 

section 5.7.2.11 of the September 2023 

NOPR TSD. Additionally, DOE notes 

that all evaporator fan powers are under 

the 1 HP threshold for the representative 

units analyzed at the proposed standard 

levels in the September 2023 NOPR. 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for walk-ins. The effect of new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

on individual consumers usually 

involves a reduction in operating cost 

and an increase in purchase cost. DOE 

used the following two metrics to 

measure consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66718 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

10U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

2018, 2022. 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of walk-ins in the absence 

of new or amended energy conservation 

standards. In contrast, the PBP for a 

given efficiency level is measured 

relative to the baseline product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each equipment class, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for a 

nationally representative set of 

commercial consumers. As stated 

previously, DOE developed household 

samples from the 2018 Commercial 

Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘CBECS’’).10 For each sample, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the walk-ins and the appropriate energy 

price. By developing a representative 

sample of commercial consumers, the 

analysis captured the variability in 

energy consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of walk-ins. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and walk-ins 

user samples. The model calculated the 

LCC for products at each efficiency level 

per simulation run. The analytical 

results include a distribution of 30,000 

data points for refrigeration systems and 

10,000 data points for envelope 

components, showing the range of LCC 

savings for a given efficiency level 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

efficiency distribution. In performing an 

iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation 

for a given consumer, product efficiency 

is chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen product efficiency is greater than 

or equal to the efficiency of the standard 

level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation reveals that a consumer is 

not impacted by the standard level. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more-efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from increasing product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of walk-ins as if each were 

to purchase a new product in the 

expected year of required compliance 

with new or amended standards. 

Amended standards would apply to 

walk-ins manufactured three years after 

the date on which any new or amended 

standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(5)(B)(i)) At this time, DOE 

estimates publication of a final rule in 

2024; therefore, for purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards for walk-ins. 

Table II.4 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR 

TSD and its appendices. 

TABLE II.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2023 NOPR LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ......................................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used 

historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs. 

Installation Costs .................................. Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency 

level. 

Annual Energy Use .............................. The total annual energy use multiplied by the buildings containing WICF. Variability: Based on the 

CBECS 2018. 

Energy Prices ....................................... Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2021. Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9 

divisions. 

Energy Price Trends ............................ Based on AEO2023 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs ............ Assumed no change with efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime ................................... Average: between 9 and 12 years. 

Discount Rates ..................................... Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the 

considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Compliance Date .................................. 2027. 

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in 

chapter 8 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. 

1. Consumer Sample 

As discussed in the September 2023 

NOPR DOE conducts its analysis in 

support of a potential new minimum 

efficiency standard at the National level. 

This means that DOE must distribute its 

sample of consumers of walk-in 

equipment throughout the Nation to 

capture variability of key inputs of 

walk-ins operation. Specifically, for the 

annual energy use estimate, DOE is 

concerned about distributing the 

population of walk-in installations 

across different regions to capture 

variability in equipment installation 

saturations and electricity prices, which 

will impact the operating cost of the 

equipment. This distribution of 

installations is referred to as the 

‘‘consumer sample.’’ 

The CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

revise the distribution of weights of 

WICF equipment by sector. (CA IOUs, 

No. 43 at pp. 18–19) 

As stated in the September 2023 

NOPR, DOE used data supplied by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66719 

11A full breakdown of the consumer sample 

showing the distribution of equipment by Census 

Division can be found in appendix 8E of the 

September 2023 NOPR TSD. 

AHRI and CBECS to estimate the 

number of walk-in installations by 

sector and Census Division. 88 FR 

60746, 60792. The weights of each 

representative unit by sector are 

repeated from the September 2023 

NOPR here in Table II.5 through Table 

II.7.11 These weights show that 

dedicated condensing systems are 

evenly spread across all sectors, with 

small business sectors limited to smaller 

capacity equipment. Additionally, 

single-packaged dedicated condensing 

systems are limited to the small 

business sectors and concentrated in the 

food service sector. 

TABLE II.5—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—DEDICATED CONDENSING UNITS

[%] 

Equipment class 

Sector Capacity 

(kBtu/hr) 

Cat. Size 3 9 25 54 75 124 

DC.L.I .................................. Other .............. Large .............. 23 18 4 10 .................. ..................

Small .............. 1 1 0 0 .................. ..................

Sales .............. Large .............. 4 3 1 2 .................. ..................

Small .............. 3 3 1 0 .................. ..................

Service ........... Large .............. 5 4 1 2 .................. ..................

Small .............. 7 6 1 0 .................. ..................

DC.L.O ................................. Other .............. Large .............. 7 25 7 5 14 ..................

Small .............. 0 2 0 0 0 ..................

Sales .............. Large .............. 1 4 1 1 2 ..................

Small .............. 1 4 1 0 0 ..................

Service ........... Large .............. 1 6 1 1 3 ..................

Small .............. 2 8 2 0 0 ..................

DC.M.I ................................. Other .............. Large .............. * 12 30 7 4 0 ..................

Small .............. * 1 2 0 0 0 ..................

Sales .............. Large .............. * 2 5 1 1 0 ..................

Small .............. * 2 4 1 0 0 ..................

Service ........... Large .............. * 3 6 1 1 0 ..................

Small .............. * 4 9 2 0 0 ..................

DC.M.O ................................ Other .............. Large .............. * 3 30 9 2 6 6 

Small .............. * 0 2 1 0 0 0 

Sales .............. Large .............. * 1 5 2 0 1 1 

Small .............. * 0 4 1 0 0 0 

Service ........... Large .............. * 1 7 2 0 1 1 

Small .............. * 1 9 3 0 0 0 

* For the September 2023 NOPR DOE did not consider the impacts of representative units DC.M.I and DC.M.O at the 3 kBtu/hr capacity (see 

the Representative Units subsection of section IV.C.1.d of the September 2023 NOPR 88 FR 60746, 60780). However, these capacities persist 

within the consumer sample as they are still distributed in commerce, and the impacts for the fraction of these equipment must be accounted for 

when determining overall costs and benefits for DC.M.I and DC.M.O as equipment classes even if efficiency improvements are not being considered for these specific capacities. 

TABLE II.6—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS

[%] 

Equipment class 

Sector Capacity 

(kBtu/hr) 

Cat. Size 2 6 7 9 

SP.H.I ................................... Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 74 .................. 26 ..................

SP.H.ID ................................ Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 74 .................. 26 ..................

SP.H.O ................................. Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 22 .................. 78 ..................

SP.H.OD .............................. Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66720 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.6—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—SINGLE-PACKAGED DEDICATED SYSTEMS—Continued 

[%] 

Equipment class 

Sector Capacity 

(kBtu/hr) 

Cat. Size 2 6 7 9 

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. 0 ..................

Small .................................... 22 .................. 78 ..................

SP.L.I ................................... Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 9 4 .................. ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 19 9 .................. ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 41 18 .................. ..................

SP.L.O ................................. Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 3 9 .................. ..................

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 7 21 .................. ..................

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 0 .................. ..................

Small .................................... 15 45 .................. ..................

SP.M.I .................................. Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 3 .................. .................. 10 

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 6 .................. .................. 22 

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 14 .................. .................. 46 

SP.M.O ................................ Other .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 1 .................. .................. 12 

Sales .................................... Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 2 .................. .................. 26 

Service ................................. Large ................................... 0 .................. .................. 0 

Small .................................... 3 .................. .................. 56 

TABLE II.7—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—UNIT COOLERS

[%] 

Equipment class 

Sector Capacity 

(kBtu/hr) 

Cat. Size 3 9 25 54 75 

UC.H.I * ......................... Other ............................ Large ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Sales ............................ Large ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Service ......................... Large ............................ .................. 30 11 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 43 16 .................. ..................

UC.H.ID ........................ Other ............................ Large ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Sales ............................ Large ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 0 0 .................. ..................

Service ......................... Large ............................ .................. 30 11 .................. ..................

Small ............................ .................. 43 16 .................. ..................

UC.L.I ............................ Other ............................ Large ............................ 18 16 4 14 0 

Small ............................ 1 1 0 1 0 

Sales ............................ Large ............................ 3 3 1 3 0 

Small ............................ 3 2 1 2 0 

Service ......................... Large ............................ 4 3 1 3 0 

Small ............................ 6 5 1 5 0 

UC.L.M .......................... Other ............................ Large ............................ 2 21 28 8 8 

Small ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Sales ............................ Large ............................ 0 4 5 1 1 

Small ............................ 0 0 0 1 1 

Service ......................... Large ............................ 0 5 6 2 2 

Small ............................ 1 0 0 2 2 

UC.L.O .......................... Other ............................ Large ............................ 6 22 7 7 10 

Small ............................ 0 1 0 0 1 

Sales ............................ Large ............................ 1 4 1 1 2 

Small ............................ 1 3 1 1 2 

Service ......................... Large ............................ 1 5 2 2 2 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 66721 

12See: June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Executive 

Summary, p. ES–20, June 2022 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0009-0024. 

TABLE II.7—CONSUMER SAMPLE AND WEIGHTS—UNIT COOLERS—Continued 

[%] 

Equipment class 

Sector Capacity 

(kBtu/hr) 

Cat. Size 3 9 25 54 75 

Small ............................ 2 7 2 2 3 

UC.M.I ........................... Other ............................ Large ............................ 10 27 8 7 0 

Small ............................ 1 2 1 0 0 

Sales ............................ Large ............................ 2 5 1 1 0 

Small ............................ 1 4 1 1 0 

Service ......................... Large ............................ 2 6 2 1 0 

Small ............................ 3 9 2 2 0 

UC.M.M ......................... Other ............................ Large ............................ 2 29 19 8 8 

Small ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Sales ............................ Large ............................ 0 5 3 1 1 

Small ............................ 0 0 0 1 1 

Service ......................... Large ............................ 0 6 4 2 2 

Small ............................ 1 0 0 2 2 

* For unit coolers, the index I, O, and M indicate that the unit cooler is connected to an Indoor, Outdoor, or Multiplex condensing system. 

2. Equipment Lifetime 

When determining lifetimes, DOE 

calculates a Weibull distribution of 

potential lifetimes from average and 

maximum lifetime for the different 

types of equipment under consideration. 

In response to the June 2022 

Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs 

suggested alternative lifetime estimates 

for walk-ins. As published data on 

WICF lifetimes are unavailable, the CA 

IOUs’ lifetime estimates were sourced 

from technician interviews from a 

mechanical engineering firm. The stated 

lifetimes differ from those used by DOE 

in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis,12

and September 2023 NOPR (88 FR 

60746, 60798), and are shown in Table 

II.8 for comparison. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at 

pp. 17–18) 

TABLE II.8—ESTIMATED WICF LIFETIMES

[Years] 

Equipment category 

DOE CA IOU 

Average 

(years) 

Maximum 

(years) 

Average 

(years) 

Maximum 

(years) 

Panels .............................................................................................................. 12 25 20 25

Display Doors .................................................................................................. 12 25 7 15 

Non-display Doors ........................................................................................... 8.5 12 10 15 

Indoor Dedicated Condensing Systems .......................................................... 10.5 20 12 15 

Outdoor Condensing Systems ......................................................................... 10.5 20 6 15 

Medium Temperature Unit Coolers ................................................................. 10.5 20 17 20 

Low Temperature Unit Coolers ....................................................................... 10.5 20 17 15–20 

Sigle-packaged Condensing Systems ............................................................. 10.5 20 * 12 * 15 

* Indicates that an estimate was not available, however commenters indicated that lifetimes would be like indoor-dedicated condensing 

systems. 

The CA IOUs’ comment did not 

indicate if their interviewees were 

referencing lifetimes of walk-ins in the 

National scope or only California. DOE 

also notes that the very close average 

and maximum lifetime values for 

panels, indoor dedicated condensing 

systems, and unit coolers (medium-, and 

low-temperature) to be unlikely. DOE’s 

lifetimes were initially determined in 

response to comments for the June 2014 

Final Rule (79 FR 32086). Other than the 

information provided by the CA IOUs, 

DOE received comment from AHRI in 

response to the July 2021 RFI in support 

of the existing lifetimes. (AHRI, No. 16 

at p. 15) Given some of DOE’s questions 

about the CA IOUs supplied lifetimes, 

DOE tentatively determined to maintain 

its use of the lifetimes from the June 

2022 Preliminary Analysis in the 

September 2023 NOPR. DOE welcomes 

additional information on this topic in 

response to the September 2023 NOPR. 

E. Conclusion 

As discussed in the preceding 

sections, DOE has considered the 

comments provided by the CA IOUs in 

response to the June 2022 Preliminary 

Analysis. This document provides 

responses to the CA IOUs’ comments 

that were not included in the September 

2023 NOPR, but does not change the 

analysis or proposals presented in the 

NOPR. DOE welcomes comment on the 

information presented in the September 

2023 NOPR, including the additional 

comment summaries and responses 

presented in this notification. 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

DOE has concluded that the tentative 

determinations made pursuant to the 

various procedural requirements 

applicable to the September 2023 NOPR 

remain unchanged for this notification. 

These tentative determinations are set 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
66722 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1On September 19, 2023, the Commission voted 

4–0 to publish this termination of rulemaking. 

forth in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 

FR 60746, 60855–60861. 

IV. Public Participation 

Please refer to section VII of the 

September 2023 NOPR for information 

regarding the public webinar, 

submission of comments, and issues on 

which DOE seeks comment. 88 FR 

60746, 60861–60863. DOE additionally 

welcomes comment on the information 

presented in this notification. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of data 

availability regarding energy 

conservation standards. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 21, 

2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

25, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21190 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1025 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2016–0006] 

Rules of Practice for Adjudicative 

Proceedings 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission is withdrawing its 

proposed rule to update the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice for 

Adjudicative Proceedings because the 

Commission has not taken any action on 

this proposed rule since it was 

published in 2016. 

DATES: As of September 28, 2023, the 

proposed rule published on April 13, 

2016, at 81 FR 21775, is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Vice, Office of the General 

Counsel, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301– 

504–6996; dvice@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 

adjudications required by a statute to be 

determined on the record after an 

opportunity for an agency hearing are 

subject to certain procedural 

requirements. 5 U.S.C. 554. In 1980, the 

Commission adopted Rules of Practice 

for Adjudicative Proceedings (Rules) to 

govern such Commission proceedings. 

16 CFR part 1025. 

On April 13, 2016, the Commission 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) to update the Rules. 81 FR 21775. 

The Commission proposed to modernize 

the Rules to reflect changes in civil and 

administrative litigation and revisions 

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Federal Rules of Evidence since 

adoption of the Rules. The Commission 

received four comments on the 

proposed rule. 

In November 2019, Commission staff 

sent to the Commission a draft 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNPR). The draft SNPR 

proposed additional changes to the 

Rules in light of comments received on 

the NPR and the Commission’s 

experience with adjudicative 

proceedings since publication of the 

NPR. The Commission did not take any 

action on the draft SNPR. 

Because the Commission has not 

taken action on this proposed rule since 

2016, the Commission is terminating 

this proceeding.1 In the future, the 

Commission may consider revisions to 

the Rules in light of its experience with 

agency adjudications and relevant 

circumstances including changes to 

rules for Federal judicial proceedings. 

Elina Lingappa, 

Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21165 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 401 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to 

amend its Rules of Practice and 

Procedure to: resolve ambiguities 

around the automatic termination of 

project approvals issued by the 

Commission; make conforming 

amendments to related provisions as 

appropriate; update the Commission’s 

Water Resources Program and Project 

Review procedures to better conform 

them to current practice; remove 

references to the Federal Freedom of 

Information Act that create confusion 

about the regulations applicable to 

requests for Commission public records; 

and align pronouns with the 

Commission’s policies regarding 

diversity, inclusion, and belonging. 

DATES: 

Written comments: Written comments 

will be accepted through 5 p.m. on 

Thursday, November 30, 2023. 

Public hearings: Public hearings will 

be held remotely via Zoom on the 

following dates at the noted times. 

Details about accessing the hearings are 

available on the Commission’s website, 

www.drbc.gov. 

1. November 13, 2023, 1:30 p.m. to no 

later than 4 p.m. 

2. November 13, 2023, 6:30 p.m. to no 

later than 9 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

To submit written comments: Written 

comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. 

on Thursday, November 30, 2023 

through the Commission’s online public 

comment collection system at: https://

hearing.drbc.commentinput.com?id=

T95htQGAg. To request an exception 

from use of the online system based on 

lack of access to the internet, please 

contact: Commission Secretary, DRBC, 

P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628. 

To register to speak at public 

hearings: Although attendance at the 

hearings is not limited and requires no 

registration, those who wish to provide 

oral comment at a hearing must register 

in advance to do so. Registration will be 

through Zoom. Links to the Zoom 

registration for each of the public 

hearing dates and times are posted at 

www.drbc.gov. Online registration will 

remain open until 5 p.m. on the day 

prior to the hearing date or until all 

available speaking slots have been 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1