Monday, 

January 4, 2010 

Part II 

Department of 

Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and WalkIn Freezers; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

186 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0014] 

RIN 1904–AB85 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is 

proposing test procedures for measuring 

the energy consumption of walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers 

(collectively ‘‘walk-in equipment’’ or 

‘‘walk-in(s)’’), definitions to delineate 

the products covered by the test 

procedures, and provisions (including a 

sampling plan) for manufacturers to 

implement the test procedures. The 

notice also addresses enforcement 

issues as they relate to walk-in 

equipment. Concurrently, DOE is 

undertaking an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for this 

equipment. Any data gathered through 

the use of the test procedure adopted by 

DOE will be used in evaluating any 

potential standards for this equipment. 

Once these standards are promulgated, 

the adopted test procedures will be used 

to determine equipment efficiency and 

compliance with the standards. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

in Washington, DC on Thursday, 

February 11, 2010, beginning at 9 a.m. 

DOE must receive requests to speak at 

the meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

January 28, 2010. DOE must receive a 

signed original and an electronic copy 

of statements to be given at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

January 28, 2010. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before or 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than March 22, 2010. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. To attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures, requiring a 30-day advance 

notice. If you are a foreign national and 

wish to participate in the public 

meeting, please inform DOE as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the 

necessary procedures can be completed. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 

for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers, and 

provide docket number EERE–2008– 

BT–TP–0014 and/or Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 1904–AB85. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: WICF-2008-TP0014@hq.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0014 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AB85 in the subject line of 

the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov or 

Mr. Michael Kido, Esq., U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of General 

Counsel, GC–72, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, (202) 586–8145, 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

III. Discussion 

A. Overall Approach 

1. Basic Model 

2. Approach Option 1: Test the Unit as a 

Whole 

3. Approach Option 2: Allow 

Manufacturers To Use Alternative 

Energy Determination Methods (AEDMs) 

4. Proposed Option and Recommendation: 

Separate Envelope and Refrigeration 

Tests 

B. Envelope 

1. Overview of the Test Procedure 

2. Test Methods 

a. Insulation 

b. Air Infiltration 

c. Steady-State Infiltration Test 

3. Calculations 

a. Energy Efficiency Ratio 

b. Heat Gain Through the Envelope Due to 

Conduction 

c. Heat Gain Due to Infiltration 

d. Envelope Component Electrical Loads 

e. Normalization 

f. Daily Energy Consumption Coefficients 

C. Refrigeration System 

1. Overview of the Test Procedure 

2. Test Conditions 

3. Test Methods 

4. Measurements and Calculations 

D. Compliance, Certification, and 

Enforcement 

1. Provisions for Energy Conservation 

Standards Developed by the Department 

of Energy 

2. Provisions for Existing Design Standards 

Prescribed by Congress 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

F. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration (FEA) Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Test Procedure Improvements 

2. Basic Model 

3. Separate Envelope and Refrigeration 

Tests 

4. Definition of Envelope 

5. Effect of Impermeable Skins on LongTerm R Value 

6. Measuring Long-Term R Value Using 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) C1303–08 

7. Infiltration 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 187 

8. Nominal Coefficient of Performance of 

Refrigeration 

9. Measuring the U Value of glass 

10. Floor R Value 

11. Electrical Duty Cycle 

12. Normalization Factor 

13. Daily Energy Consumption Coefficients 

14. Definition of Refrigeration System 

15. Measurements and Calculations of 

Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems 

16. Impacts on Small Businesses 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(EPCA or the Act) sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309) provides for the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. The 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act (NECPA), Public Law 95–619, 

amended EPCA to add Part C of Title III, 

which established an energy 

conservation program for certain 

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

6317) (These parts were subsequently 

redesignated as Parts A and A–1, 

respectively, for editorial reasons.) 

Section 312 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

further amended EPCA by adding 

certain equipment to this energy 

conservation program, including walkin coolers and walk-in freezers 

(collectively ‘‘walk-in equipment’’ or 

‘‘walk-ins’’), the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (2), 

6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) 

EPCA defines walk-in equipment as 

follows: 

(A) In general.— 

The terms ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and 

‘‘walk-in freezer’’ mean an enclosed 

storage space 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. 

(B) Exclusion.— 

The terms ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and 

‘‘walk-in freezer’’ do not include 

products designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or 

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

Walk-ins covered by this rulemaking 

may be located indoors or outdoors. 

They may be used exclusively for 

storage, but they may also have 

transparent doors or panels for the 

purpose of displaying stored items. 

Examples of items that may be stored in 

walk-ins include, but are not limited to, 

food, beverages, and flowers. DOE notes 

that any equipment that meets the above 

definition is potentially subject to 

regulation. 

Under the Act, the overall program 

consists essentially of the following 

parts: testing, labeling, and Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements for covered 

equipment consist of test procedures, 

prescribed under EPCA. These test 

procedures are used in several different 

ways: (1) Any data from the use of these 

procedures are used as a basis in 

developing standards for covered 

products or equipment; (2) the test 

procedure is used when determining 

equipment compliance with those 

standards; and (3) manufacturers of 

covered equipment must use the 

procedure to establish that their 

equipment complies with energy 

conservation standards promulgated 

pursuant to EPCA and when making 

representations about equipment 

efficiency. 

Section 343 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6314) 

sets forth generally applicable criteria 

and procedures for DOE’s adoption and 

amendment of such test procedures. 

That provision requires that the test 

procedures promulgated by DOE be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs of the covered equipment during 

a representative average use cycle. It 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). As part of the 

process for promulgating a test 

procedure, DOE must publish the 

procedure that it plans to propose and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

them. Consistent with Executive Order 

12889 and EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6314(b)), 

DOE provides a minimum comment 

period of 75 days on a proposed test 

procedure. As to the test procedures for 

walk-in equipment, EPCA prescribes the 

following requirements: 

(A) In general.— 

For the purpose of test procedures for 

walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers: 

(i) The R value shall be the 1/K factor 

multiplied by the thickness of the panel. 

(ii) The K factor shall be based on 

ASTM [American Society for Testing 

and Materials] test procedure C518– 

2004. 

(iii) For calculating the R value for 

freezers, the K factor of the foam at 20 

°F (average foam temperature) shall be 

used. 

(iv) For calculating the R value for 

coolers, the K factor of the foam at 55 

°F (average foam temperature) shall be 

used. 

(B) Test Procedure.— 

(i) In general.—Not later than January 

1, 2010, the Secretary shall establish a 

test procedure to measure the energyuse of walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. 

(ii) Computer modeling.—The test 

procedure may be based on computer 

modeling, if the computer model or 

models have been verified using the 

results of laboratory tests on a 

significant sample of walk-in coolers 

and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)) 

On February 4, 2009, DOE held a 

public meeting on the framework 

document it issued concerning the DOE 

rulemaking to evaluate walk-in 

equipment for energy conservation 

standards. See 74 FR 411 (Jan. 6, 2009) 

and 74 FR 1992 (Jan. 14, 2009). Both the 

framework document and meeting 

discussed the possible test procedures 

for this equipment that DOE was 

considering at that time, and gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

submit comments. Today’s notice 

addresses those comments and proposes 

test procedures for walk-in equipment. 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

In today’s notice, DOE proposes to 

adopt new test procedures for 

determining the energy use of walk-in 

cooler and walk-in freezer equipment to 

address the statutory requirement to 

establish a test procedure by January 1, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)) 

Concurrently, DOE is undertaking an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for walk-in equipment to 

address the statutory requirement to 

establish performance standards no later 

than January 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(4)(A)) DOE will use any data 

resulting from use of the test procedure 

that DOE adopts to evaluate potential 

performance standards for this 

equipment. Furthermore, once 

performance standards are issued, 

manufacturers would be required to use 

the test procedures to determine 

compliance with such standards and for 

any representations regarding the energy 

use of walk-in equipment they produce. 

This test procedure, once adopted, 

would serve as the means for 

ascertaining compliance with the 

appropriate standards in an enforcement 

action. 

For the reasons described below, DOE 

proposes to adopt a test procedure that 

contains two separate test methods. This 

approach is necessary because there are 

typically two manufacturers of walk-in 

equipment: One who manufactures the 

envelope (i.e., the insulated box in 

which the refrigerated or frozen items 

are stored) and one who manufactures 

the refrigeration system (i.e., the 

mechanism that provides the means by 

which to feed chilled air into the 

envelope). One method determines the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

energy consumption of the refrigeration 

system of the walk-in cooler or freezer. 

The other method determines the energy 

consumption of the envelope, which is 

the sum of the energy use associated 

with heat transmission through the 

envelope in the form of conduction 

through the walls and air infiltration 

through openings, and the power 

consumed by electrical components that 

are part of the envelope. Each of the two 

components, the refrigeration system 

and the envelope, is considered 

separately and the energy consumption 

of each component is calculated using 

the applicable test procedure. DOE 

believes that the approach is consistent 

with the requirements in EPCA because 

the results of the two tests will 

represent, in the aggregate, the total 

energy consumption of walk-in coolers 

and freezers. 

Using this approach, DOE believes 

that the proposed test procedures will 

adequately measure the energy 

consumption of walk-in equipment by 

capturing the energy consumption of 

both components. However, DOE 

requests comment from stakeholders on 

improvements or changes to the 

proposed test procedures and will 

consider modifications that improve the 

accuracy, appropriateness for the 

equipment being tested, repeatability of 

test results for the same or similar units, 

comparability of results for different 

types of units, burden on manufacturers, 

precision of language, or other elements 

of the procedures. In submitting 

comments, interested parties should 

state the nature of the recommended 

modification and explain how it would 

improve upon the test procedure 

proposed in this NOPR. Commenters 

should also submit data, if any, to 

support their positions. 

DOE’s adoption of the proposed test 

procedures, which would be applicable 

to all walk-in equipment, would not 

necessarily mean that DOE would adopt 

a single energy conservation standard or 

set of labeling requirements for all walkin equipment. In the separate 

rulemaking proceeding concerning 

energy conservation standards for walkin equipment, DOE may divide such 

equipment into classes and may 

conclude that standards are not 

warranted for some classes of 

equipment that are within the scope of 

today’s test procedure. Furthermore, 

DOE may create a separate standard for 

each class of equipment that includes a 

utility- or performance-related feature 

that another equipment class lacks, and 

that affects energy consumption. 

DOE also notes that the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113) directs 

Federal agencies to use voluntary 

consensus standards in lieu of 

Government standards whenever 

possible. Consequently, as described in 

the following paragraphs, DOE 

attempted to incorporate by reference in 

its test procedures generally accepted 

rules or recognized industry standards 

such as those issued by the AirConditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), the American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), and/or ASTM International 

(ASTM), that provide either specific 

aspect(s) of the test procedure, or the 

complete test procedure, for the 

specified equipment. 

III. Discussion 

In the following section, DOE 

describes the overall approach it 

proposes to follow with respect to the 

adoption of a test procedure for walkins. This approach results from the 

characteristics of walk-in equipment 

and is based in part on the basic model 

definition that DOE currently uses to 

help establish testing requirements for 

manufacturers to follow. The following 

section also addresses issues raised by 

commenters, which included: 

Manufacturers (Craig Industries (Craig), 

Manitowoc, Nor-Lake); trade 

associations (AHRI); utility companies 

(Southern California Edison (SCE), 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

(SMUD), San Diego Gas and Electric 

(SDG&E)); and advocacy groups 

(Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP), American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA)). 

A. Overall Approach 

DOE developed today’s proposed test 

procedure to set forth the testing 

requirements for walk-in equipment. In 

the framework document, DOE 

considered two overall approaches 

manufacturers could take to determine 

the energy consumption of walk-in 

coolers and freezers. First, DOE 

considered using a modified version of 

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute (ARI) Standard 1200–2006, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets’’ (ARI 1200–2006), 

which uses the test method described in 

the American National Standards 

Institute/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 

72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers’’ 

(ANSI/ASHRAE 72–2005). Second, DOE 

considered allowing manufacturers to 

determine the efficiency of some of their 

products using alternative efficiency 

determination methods (AEDMs). 

(An AEDM is a predictive mathematical 

model, developed from engineering 

analyses of design data and 

substantiated by actual test data, which 

represents the energy consumption 

characteristics of one or more basic 

models.) 

DOE received comments on these 

proposed approaches, many of which 

were opposed to both approaches. The 

comments DOE received, and DOE’s 

responses, are discussed in more detail 

below. After considering these 

comments and reviewing the matter 

further, DOE is proposing separate test 

procedures for the envelope (insulated 

box) and the refrigeration system. DOE 

discusses the details of its proposals and 

addresses manufacturer comments in 

the following subsections. 

1. Basic Model 

Under EPCA, which prohibits the 

distribution in commerce of covered 

equipment that do not comply with the 

applicable standard, each model of 

covered equipment is potentially subject 

to energy efficiency testing consistent 

with the relevant requirements for that 

equipment. However, walk-in 

manufacturers typically make numerous 

envelope models and, even within a 

single model, the units are often 

customized in multiple ways. To reduce 

this potential burden, DOE proposes 

following the approach it has used for 

other equipment by allowing 

manufacturers to group equipment or 

models with essentially identical energy 

consumption characteristics into a 

single family of models, called a basic 

model. This concept has been 

established both for residential 

appliances and commercial and 

industrial equipment covered under 

EPCA. (See Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 430.2, 

which covers 26 products, and 10 CFR 

431.12, 431.62, 431.132, 431.172, 

431.192, 431.202, 431.222, 431.262, and 

431.292, which cover various 

equipment.) 

Walk-in refrigeration systems are 

often manufactured according to the 

same basic blueprint design, and any 

particular model could incorporate 

modifications that do not significantly 

affect the energy efficiency of the 

system. For example, manufacturers 

often sell systems that are designed to 

operate at different voltages. This allows 

them to market to customers with 

different electrical capabilities. The 

operating voltage affects the energy 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 189 

efficiency of the system, but very 

minimally. If manufacturers were 

required to test the efficiency of each 

model with a different feature, the 

testing burden would be significant, but 

yield effectively redundant results. 

Therefore, DOE provides for testing of a 

basic model of refrigeration systems that 

may not be identical, but would not 

have any electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that 

significantly affect energy consumption. 

Features that may affect the energy 

consumption of walk-in cooler and 

freezer refrigeration systems include 

compressor size, fan motor type, and 

heat exchanger coil dimensions. 

Walk-in envelopes are often 

manufactured according to the same 

basic design, but the equipment is so 

highly customized that each walk-in a 

manufacturer builds may be unique, and 

potentially subject to testing as a 

separate basic model. For instance, 

changing the size of the envelope would 

affect the energy consumption obtained 

by the test procedure, even if the 

construction methods and materials 

were the same. To address this 

possibility, DOE proposes (1) grouping 

walk-in envelopes with essentially 

identical construction methods, 

materials, and components into a single 

basic model, and (2) adopting a 

calculation methodology for 

determining the energy consumption of 

units within the basic model. This 

methodology would require a 

manufacturer to test one unit of the 

basic model and then calculate daily 

energy consumption coefficients 

(DECCs) for that basic model according 

to the test procedure. The manufacturer 

could then apply those DECCs to other 

units within a basic model even if those 

units were not identical, to obtain the 

energy consumption of those units. 

Although units within a basic model 

need not share identical dimensions, 

finishes, and non-energy-related 

features (e.g., shelving or door kick 

plates), they must have been 

manufactured using substantially the 

same construction methods, materials, 

and components. A few examples of 

factors that would necessitate a different 

basic model include changing the type 

of insulating foam, the method of 

locking together the panels of the walkin envelope, or the electrical 

characteristics of the lighting. Examples 

of factors that may not constitute a 

different basic model include the type of 

exterior metal finish, the dimensions of 

the envelope, and the number of doors 

of the same type. The exterior metal 

finish would not have a substantial 

impact on the efficiency of the 

envelope. Dimensions and number of 

doors, on the other hand, would be 

accounted for in the energy 

consumption calculation using the 

DECCs from the unit of the basic model 

that was tested. (See section III.B.3.f for 

further discussion of DECCs.) 

All of the equipment included in a 

basic model must be within the same 

equipment class. Components of similar 

design may be substituted in a basic 

model without requiring additional 

testing if the represented energy 

consumption measurements continue to 

satisfy the provisions for sampling and 

testing. Only representative samples 

within each basic model would be 

tested. 

For walk-ins, DOE is considering 

adopting the following definition of 

‘‘basic model:’’ ‘‘Basic Model means all 

units of a given type of walk-in 

equipment manufactured by a single 

manufacturer, and—(1) With respect to 

envelopes, which do not have any 

differing construction methods, 

materials, components, or other 

characteristics that significantly affect 

the energy consumption characteristics. 

(2) With respect to refrigeration systems, 

which have the same primary energy 

source and which do not have any 

differing electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that 

significantly affect energy 

consumption.’’ DOE requests comment 

on its proposed basic model approach. 

2. Approach Option 1: Test the Unit as 

a Whole 

In the framework document, DOE 

considered developing a test procedure 

for walk-ins by adapting an existing test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, such as ARI 1200–2006. 

This approach would require an entire 

walk-in cooler or freezer to be 

physically tested within a controlled 

test chamber in order to evaluate its 

energy consumption over a period of 

time. During the standards framework 

public meeting, DOE requested 

comments on the feasibility of this 

approach. Interested parties responded 

with significant reservations about using 

a modified version of the ARI 1200– 

2006 test procedure, citing crucial 

differences between walk-ins and 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

In particular, interested parties noted 

that walk-ins are physically different 

from commercial refrigerators in ways 

that make a full-system test burdensome 

or impractical. Manitowoc stated that 

for very large walk-ins, around the 

3,000-square-foot limit in the EPCA 

definition, manufacturers might not 

have a large enough test facility to make 

the measurements necessary for the ARI 

1200–2006 test procedure in a 

controlled environment. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 

59) (In this and subsequent citations, 

‘‘Public Meeting Transcript’’ refers to 

the transcript of the February 4, 2009, 

public meeting on standards for walk-in 

coolers and freezers. ‘‘No. 15’’ refers to 

the document number of the transcript 

in the Docket for the DOE rulemaking 

on standards for walk-in coolers and 

freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

TP–0014; and the page references refer 

to the place in the transcript where the 

statement preceding appears.) Kason 

Industries also stated that it would be 

practically impossible to have a large 

enough controlled climate enclosure to 

test medium to large walk-ins, and 

added that if a walk-in were a freestanding structure, testing it as a whole 

building would not be practical. (Kason, 

No. 16 at pp. 1, 4) (In this and 

subsequent citations, the document 

number refers to the number of the 

comment in the Docket for the DOE 

rulemaking on standards for walk-in 

coolers and freezers, Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–TP–0014; and the page 

references refer to the place in the 

document where the statement 

preceding appears.) The AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) stated that the proposed 

test procedures were not practical 

because it would be costly to physically 

test walk-ins. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 2) 

Commenters also noted that the 

market for walk-in coolers and freezers 

is structured differently from the market 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

making a direct comparison between 

these types of equipment difficult. 

Manitowoc stated that the envelope of a 

particular unit of walk-in equipment 

may be manufactured by one company 

and the refrigeration system by another 

company. ARI 1200–2006 would require 

the two systems to be integrated before 

running the test, which would place the 

burden on the installer or someone 

beyond the manufacturer of the 

subsystems. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 59) 

AHRI agreed that the ARI 1200–2006 

standard might not be the right 

approach and that DOE would need to 

separate the mechanical system from the 

envelope. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at p. 62) 

In addition to these concerns, 

commenters identified a deficiency in 

the ARI 1200–2006 test procedure. SCE 

stated that the majority of potential 

energy savings can be achieved using 

floating head pressure and variablespeed evaporator fans, both of which 

have varying effects depending on the 

time of day and the regional climate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

because the savings associated with 

each feature can depend on the ambient 

temperature and usage patterns of the 

walk-in over the course of a day. 

Because ARI 1200–2006 is a steady-state 

test, it would not capture the energy 

savings from either option. (SCE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 63) 

AHRI agreed that the test procedure 

should capture savings from a control 

strategy or variable-speed components, 

both of which could optimize the 

operation of the walk-in for a variety of 

ambient conditions and usage patterns. 

An example of optimization would be 

allowing elements of the refrigeration 

system to turn off or reduce their 

operation at night when the walk-in is 

not being accessed. (AHRI, No. 33 at p. 

2) 

After considering these comments, 

DOE believes that an adapted version of 

ARI 1200–2006 would be inadequate to 

use as the test procedure for walk-in 

equipment. ARI 1200–2006 contains too 

many limitations and practical 

difficulties that would make it very 

difficult to effectively implement as a 

workable test procedure for walk-in. 

Therefore, DOE is no longer considering 

this approach. 

3. Approach Option 2: Allow 

Manufacturers To Use Alternative 

Energy Determination Methods 

(AEDMs) 

DOE’s framework document also 

presented an alternative that would 

permit the use of an AEDM when 

determining walk-in energy 

consumption to help relieve the testing 

burden on manufacturers. An AEDM is 

a predictive mathematical model, 

developed from engineering analyses of 

design data and substantiated by actual 

test data which represents the energy 

consumption characteristics of one or 

more basic models. After confirming the 

accuracy of an AEDM, the manufacturer 

would apply the AEDM to basic models 

to determine their energy consumption 

without conducting any physical 

testing. 

Applying this approach, the 

manufacturer would confirm the 

accuracy of the AEDM using the 

following method. First, the 

manufacturer would determine through 

actual testing the energy consumption of 

a certain number of its basic models that 

would be selected in accordance with 

criteria specified in the procedure. 

Second, the manufacturer would apply 

the AEDM to these same basic models. 

The AEDM would be considered 

sufficiently accurate only if: (1) The 

predicted total energy consumption of 

each of these basic models, calculated 

by applying the AEDM, is within a 

certain percentage of the total energy 

consumption determined from the 

testing of that basic model; and (2) the 

average of the predicted total energy 

consumption for the tested basic 

models, calculated by applying the 

AEDM, is within a certain percent of the 

average of the total energy consumption 

determined from testing these basic 

models. Under this approach, once the 

manufacturer verifies the accuracy of 

the AEDM, the manufacturer can use the 

AEDM to determine the energy 

consumption of other basic models 

without having to test those models. 

DOE requested comments on this 

approach during the framework public 

meeting, both in terms of how to 

implement the approach and whether 

such an approach was valid for walk-ins 

at all. DOE received several relevant 

comments, which are described and 

addressed below. 

Given the unprecedented nature of 

using an AEDM to rate this type of 

equipment, DOE needed to determine 

both an appropriate sample size for 

verifying an AEDM and an acceptable 

minimum accuracy percentage for an 

AEDM. During the framework public 

meeting, DOE requested comments on 

these two values. AHRI could not 

provide feedback on how accurate the 

AEDM should be because DOE had not 

yet determined the test metric to apply. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

15 at p. 69) Manitowoc agreed that the 

test methodology needs to be 

established and experiments conducted 

to collect data that would be used to 

validate AEDMs. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 70) In 

a written comment, Kason Industries 

stated that an AEDM with a minimum 

accuracy of 66 percent would 

encompass a majority of the wide range 

of walk-in cooler and freezer 

applications. (Kason, No. 16 at p. 2) No 

commenter provided substantive data 

that DOE would use in its analysis to 

help support a particular sample size. 

Accordingly, DOE did not receive 

enough data from stakeholders that 

could help it determine an appropriate 

sample size or accuracy range to 

substantiate an AEDM. 

During the public meeting, DOE also 

requested comments on the possibility 

of allowing manufacturers to take this 

approach to rate their walk-ins. Kason 

stated that an AEDM procedure would 

be preferable to using a physical test 

because the majority of walk-ins are 

custom-made by size, ambient 

temperature, and refrigeration demands. 

Therefore, it would be very difficult to 

create a test procedure that encompasses 

the range of walk-in equipment. (Kason, 

No. 16 at p. 1) Kason suggested that, as 

an alternative to testing the system as a 

whole, an AEDM could be based on 

determining efficiencies and 

performance characteristics for the 

principal components of a walk-in 

considering three factors: insulation and 

air tightness of the external envelope 

and door, efficiency of the refrigeration 

system for steady-state storage load 

(similar to the efficiency rating system 

for HVAC), and performance of the 

refrigeration system for removal of 

process heat and equipment-generated 

heat. (Kason, No. 16 at p. 2) 

Other interested parties commented 

that allowing manufacturers to develop 

their own calculation methodology or 

software program as an AEDM could be 

problematic. Owens Corning questioned 

whether there could be a comparison 

among ratings published by 

manufacturers that developed different 

AEDMs. (Owens Corning, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 64) 

Craig stated that manufacturers who 

devise their own test procedures could 

write them in a way that benefits their 

own company. (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at pp. 68–69) SCE 

stated that allowing manufacturers to 

develop their own software as an AEDM 

could be unfair to manufacturers with 

fewer resources, because the software is 

expensive and time-consuming to 

develop. Instead, SCE suggested that it 

would be better to have a transparent 

analysis method with the algorithms 

available to all participants and the data 

in a standardized format. (SCE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 71) 

Craig replied that many manufacturers 

have sizing programs, which may be 

proprietary, to calculate the total load of 

the walk-in, accessories, and product 

load, and to size the refrigeration system 

properly for the energy requirements of 

the envelope. (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at pp. 77–78 and No. 

22 at p. 4) However, Craig stressed that 

requiring manufacturers to follow the 

same model developed or approved by 

DOE, would be fair to different 

manufacturers and provide consistent 

information to end users. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 94 and 

No. 22 at p. 5) 

ACEEE asserted that it would be 

difficult for DOE to work with many 

proprietary models, some of which 

might be difficult to verify. (ACEEE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 

94) NEEA also said that if an AEDM 

were used, the software should be 

equally available to all manufacturers 

and code officials for the purpose of 

determining compliance. (NEEA, No. 18 

at p. 3) Crown Tonka stated that a 

standard configuration and standard test 

should be developed to create a baseline 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 191 

for energy usage, with normalizing 

factors associated with configuration 

changes. (Crown Tonka, No. 23 at p. 1) 

Owens Corning reiterated that a single 

AEDM should be accepted to keep 

comparisons consistent. (Owens 

Corning, No. 31 at p. 2) 

DOE had previously understood that 

manufacturers would develop their own 

AEDMs and would verify their accuracy 

by testing a small number of walk-in 

models. However, as discussed above, 

most interested parties indicated that 

allowing manufacturers to develop their 

own rating calculations or software 

could be problematic, despite the fact 

that the calculations and software 

would need to be verified. Therefore, 

DOE does not propose to allow 

manufacturers to develop their own 

AEDMs. Instead, DOE developed its 

own calculation methodology for 

manufacturers to use in rating similar, 

but not identical, units of walk-in 

equipment. For further discussion on 

this methodology, see section III.B.3.f. 

4. Proposed Option and 

Recommendation: Separate Envelope 

and Refrigeration Tests 

Both methods described above were 

predicated on the assumption that an 

entire walk-in unit is manufactured by 

a single entity, which could either test 

the walk-in as a whole according to ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, or calculate the 

overall efficiency using an AEDM. In 

fact, as DOE learned, most walk-ins 

have two main manufacturers: One who 

manufactures the envelope and one who 

manufactures the refrigeration system 

that cools the interior of the envelope. 

(Other manufacturers may be involved 

in producing secondary components 

—such as fan assemblies or lighting— 

that are then purchased by the main 

manufacturers and incorporated as part 

of the refrigeration system or envelope.) 

These two parts are manufactured 

separately, and are often assembled 

together in the field by a third-party 

contractor who may not have been 

responsible for the manufacture of 

either part, and who may not have 

testing or evaluation capabilities. 

Because of this situation, DOE 

developed, and is proposing, a different 

approach for testing walk-ins, as 

described below. 

Specifically, DOE proposes separate 

test procedures for the envelope and the 

refrigeration system. The envelope 

manufacturer would be responsible for 

testing the envelope according to the 

envelope test procedure, and the 

refrigeration system manufacturer 

would be responsible for testing the 

refrigeration system according to the 

refrigeration system test procedure. 

Such an approach would be more likely 

to generate usable data in support of 

standards for both the envelope and the 

refrigeration system during the 

development of any energy conservation 

standards for walk-in coolers and 

freezers. The two test procedures are 

described in sections III.B and III.C, 

respectively. 

There are several advantages to this 

approach. First, having separate test 

procedures would allow individual 

component manufacturers to test their 

components—the envelope and the 

refrigeration system. These component 

manufacturers would be more likely to 

have access to the resources, equipment, 

and personnel needed to conduct the 

tests. On the other hand, the 

‘‘manufacturer’’ of an entire walk-in 

system (i.e., envelope and refrigeration 

system combined), could be a third 

party: A contractor who assembles the 

walk-in from the separate components 

and/or installs it in the field. This thirdparty assembler may even be the enduser or owner of the equipment. If a 

walk-in is assembled in the field, testing 

of the entire assembled system may not 

be feasible due to lack of expertise and 

the need for additional testing 

equipment. 

Second, this approach would result in 

a significantly reduced testing burden 

while ensuring compliance with any 

standard DOE may develop. There are 

many more assemblers and installers of 

walk-ins than there are component 

manufacturers. Because EPCA requires 

manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards, interpreting the term 

‘‘manufacturer’’ to include assemblers 

and installers, who may be contractors 

or end-users, to demonstrate compliance 

with a standard would impose the 

compliance burden on entities who, 

more likely than not, may not have 

participated in the design and 

manufacture (and therefore energy 

efficiency) of the component parts. 

Furthermore, this approach would 

create substantial difficulties for DOE to 

enforce any standards it promulgates for 

walk-in equipment. While DOE 

considered the possibility that including 

assemblers and installers as parties 

involved in the manufacture of this 

equipment could encourage these 

parties to take steps to ensure that 

compliant equipment is installed, at this 

time, DOE believes that the testing 

burdens are best met by the envelope 

and refrigeration system manufacturers 

for the reasons discussed above. 

Accordingly, under today’s proposal, 

only envelope and refrigeration system 

manufacturers would need to 

demonstrate compliance with any 

proposed standard through the use of 

the test procedure. (DOE notes that 

possible remedial action for failing to 

satisfy these requirements include civil 

penalties and injunctive relief to 

prevent the continued sale and 

distribution of noncompliant 

equipment.) (42 U.S.C. 6303–6304) 

DOE requests comment on this 

proposed approach and whether it is 

appropriate for walk-ins. 

B. Envelope 

As described earlier, the envelope 

consists of the insulated box in which 

the stored items reside. The following 

discussion describes in greater detail the 

test procedure DOE is proposing for the 

walk-in envelope. DOE also addresses 

issues raised by interested parties. 

This procedure contains the proposed 

methodology for evaluating the 

performance characteristics of the 

insulation as well as methods for testing 

thermal energy gains related to air 

infiltration caused by use (door 

openings) and imperfections in wall 

interfaces or door gasketing material. 

Heat gain due to internal electrical 

components is an additional 

consideration. 

The proposed procedure utilizes the 

data obtained to calculate a measure of 

energy use associated with the 

envelope. In other words, the test 

procedure calculates the effect of the 

envelope’s characteristics and 

components on the energy consumption 

of the walk-in as a whole. This includes 

the energy consumption of electrical 

components present in the envelope 

(such as lights) and variation in the 

energy consumption of the refrigeration 

system due to heat loads introduced as 

a function of envelope performance, 

such as conduction of heat through the 

walls of the envelope. The effect on the 

refrigeration system is determined by 

calculating the energy consumption of a 

theoretical, or nominal, refrigeration 

system, were it to be paired with the 

tested envelope. Using the same 

nominal refrigeration system 

characteristics allows for direct 

comparison of the performance of walkin envelopes across a range of sizes, 

product classes, and levels of feature 

implementation. 

The test procedure obtains a metric of 

energy use associated with the envelope 

of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consistent 

with the statutory requirement (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)). For purposes of 

this rulemaking, DOE interprets the 

term ‘‘energy use’’ to describe the sum 

of (a) the electrical energy consumption 

of envelope components and (b) the 

energy consumption of the walk-in 

refrigeration equipment that is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

contributed by the performance of the 

envelope. 

1. Overview of the Test Procedure 

In accordance with EPCA, DOE is 

developing test procedures to evaluate 

the energy use associated with the 

envelope of walk-in coolers and 

freezers. The walk-in envelope includes, 

but may not be limited to, walls, floor, 

ceiling, seals, windows, and/or doors 

comprised of single or composite 

materials designed to isolate the 

interior, refrigerated environment from 

the ambient, external environment. For 

the purposes of developing this test 

procedure and evaluating potential 

performance standards for walk-in 

equipment, DOE considers the envelope 

to also include lighting and other 

energy-consuming components of the 

walk-in that are not part of its 

refrigeration system (e.g., motors for 

automatic doors, anti-sweat heaters, 

etc.). DOE is considering the following 

definition for ‘‘envelope,’’ which would 

be inserted into 10 CFR part 431: 

(1) The portion of a walk-in cooler or 

walk-in freezer that isolates the interior, 

refrigerated environment from the 

ambient, external environment; and 

(2) All energy-consuming components 

of the walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer 

that are not part of its refrigeration 

system. 

DOE requests comments on this 

proposed definition. 

DOE also evaluated several available 

industry test procedures to measure the 

energy performance of various 

components of the walk-in envelope, 

but was unable to find a test procedure 

that would evaluate the entire envelope 

system. Consequently, DOE developed 

its own methodology, including a 

prescriptive calculation procedure, 

which incorporates specific component 

tests and allows for an overall energy 

performance value of the envelope to be 

determined. The proposed test 

measurements and accompanying 

calculation procedures to ascertain the 

overall energy performance value are 

described in the following sections. 

2. Test Methods 

As discussed above, DOE was unable 

to find a single, existing comprehensive 

test procedure for evaluating walk-in 

cooler and freezer envelopes. However, 

DOE identified and evaluated many 

recognized industry standards that 

could be applied to the testing of certain 

components and characteristics of walkin envelopes. DOE incorporated an 

insulation test and an air infiltration 

test, with some modifications, into the 

proposed test procedure. The evaluation 

process, the results of the evaluation, 

and details of the proposed test methods 

are described in the following sections. 

a. Insulation 

Insulation comprises a significant 

component of walk-in units. EPCA 

specifies that ASTM C518–04, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Steady-State 

Thermal Transmission Properties by 

Means of the Heat Flow Meter 

Apparatus,’’ must be used, along with 

specific foam temperatures for freezer or 

cooler applications specified in EPCA, 

to determine the R value of individual 

walk-in envelope insulation materials. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)) Commenters 

identified two issues of significance for 

DOE to consider when developing a test 

procedure for insulation: aging and 

moisture absorption. DOE discusses 

these issues in the subsections that 

follow. 

i. Aging of Foam Insulation 

EPCA requires that the test procedure 

for walk-ins use an R value that shall be 

the 1/K factor multiplied by the 

thickness of the panel. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)(A)) The Act does not specify 

when the R value should be calculated, 

a key issue interested parties raised at 

the framework public meeting. 

Specifying when the R-value should be 

calculated is a critical consideration 

because several sources indicate that the 

R-value of certain materials can change 

over time. 

Craig stated that R values tend to 

deteriorate over time and that different 

materials exhibit unique rates of 

deterioration. (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at p. 215 and No. 8 

at p. 1) Craig expressed concern that 

using an initial R value (R value as 

measured within two weeks of 

manufacture) to determine compliance 

would ignore deterioration that occurs 

in blown foams over time. Craig argued 

that underestimating the energy use of 

walk-ins would be the likely outcome of 

using initial R-value, that it would be 

misleading for end-users, and that it 

would be inconsistent with the goals of 

the EISA 2007 legislation and the 

rulemaking process. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No.15 at p. 215) A 

comment submitted jointly by 

representatives of ASAP, ACEEE, and 

NRDC (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Joint 

Comment’’) stated that the test 

procedures used should account for the 

potential degradation of panel 

insulation and door seals over time. 

(Joint Comment, No. 21 at p. 2) Craig 

also recommended that DOE develop an 

accelerated test procedure that 

represents lifetime energy use and can 

be completed within 6 months. (Craig, 

No. 8 at p. 1) 

In the context of foam insulation for 

walk-ins and the building industry, 

long-term thermal resistance (LTTR), 

described in greater detail below, refers 

to the impact of diffusion on the thermal 

resistance of insulation materials. In 

other words, the concentration of 

gaseous blowing agents contained in the 

foam, and which provide the foam with 

much of its insulating value, is reduced 

by both the diffusion of air into the foam 

and the secondary process of the 

blowing agent diffusing out of the foam. 

Because air has a significantly lower 

insulating value, the increased ratio of 

air to blowing agent reduces the foam 

insulation performance (this process is 

also known as ‘‘aging’’). This diffusion 

process causes foam to lose insulating 

value, which is represented by its Rvalue. As a concept, LTTR represents 

the R-value of foam material over its 

lifetime by describing insulating 

performance changes due to diffusion 

over time. 

DOE investigated the issue of aging in 

foam insulation and found that it is 

widely accepted that the material 

properties of foam insulation made with 

gaseous blowing agents, other than air 

and including HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, cyclopentanes, change 

over time. The amount of degradation 

can range from roughly 10–35 percent 

within 2 years of manufacture. Because 

use of ASTM C518–04 reflects the 

properties of a material at the time it is 

tested, using ASTM C518–04 to measure 

the insulating performance of a foam 

material at the time of manufacture 

would yield a result that differs from 

that produced by the same test 

conducted at some later point in time. 

Additionally, research has found that 

the vast majority of diffusion into and 

out of foam materials manufactured 

with blowing agents other than air 

occurs within the first 5 years of 

manufacture. Because the rate of 

diffusion follows an exponential curve, 

the majority occurs within the first year, 

after which the diffusion curve changes 

very little as it asymptotically 

approaches the equilibrium point. 

DOE found that various methods of 

‘‘conditioning’’ foam prior to measuring 

its insulating ability with American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) C518 have been developed in 

order to test aged insulating value, or 

LTTR. These standards are contained in 

five foam material specifications: 

(1) ASTM C578–09, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Rigid, Cellular 

Polystyrene Thermal Insulation;’’ 

(2) ASTM C591–08a, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Unfaced Preformed 

Rigid Cellular Polyisocyanurate 

Thermal Insulation;’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 193 

(3) ASTM C1029–08, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Spray-Applied Rigid 

Cellular Polyurethane Thermal 

Insulation;’’ 

(4) ASTM C1126–04, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Faced or Unfaced Rigid 

Cellular Phenolic Thermal Insulation;’’ 

and 

(5) ASTM C1289–08, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Faced Rigid Cellular 

Polyisocyanurate Thermal Insulation 

Board.’’ 

DOE found that since their 

development in the 1980s, the most 

widely accepted conditioning methods 

are the 180-day conditioning at 73 °F or 

a 90-day conditioning at 140 °F. The 

goal of the 90-day conditioning method 

was to achieve the same aging result as 

the 180-day method in a shorter period 

of time. 180-day conditioning is used by 

ASTM C591–08a and ASTM C578–09 

and the 90-day condition is typically 

used for ASTM C1089–08 and ASTM 

C1126–04. By accelerating the 

conditioning, the 90-day test sought to 

reduce the time and cost burdens for 

manufacturers. Although elevating the 

temperature of foams did achieve a 

faster rate of aging, subsequent research 

found that the results were not reliable 

indicators of actual aging because the 

relationship between the diffusion 

coefficient (a proportionality constant 

that describes the force or rate of 

diffusion for a given substance) and 

temperature are different for each gas. 

(Therese Stovall, ‘‘Measuring the Impact 

of Experimental Parameters upon the 

Estimated Thermal Conductivity of 

Closed-Cell Foam Insulation Subjected 

to an Accelerated Aging Protocol: TwoYear Results,’’ p. 1) 

DOE found that efforts to develop an 

accelerated aging method that did not 

use elevated temperatures resulted in 

the creation of ASTM C1303, which in 

1995 introduced the slicing and scaling 

method, also known as the ‘‘thin 

slicing’’ method (a technique used to 

slice the foam so that it ages more 

rapidly as a function of reduced 

thickness). In contrast to ASTM C578– 

09, ASTM C591–08a, ASTM C1029–08, 

ASTM C1126–04, and ASTM C1289–08, 

which specify the use of either the 180- 

day conditioning method or 90-day 

accelerate conditioning method to age 

the foam before measuring its thermal 

resistance. In contrast, the thin slicing 

method used in ASTM C1303–08 (the 

most recent version of ASTM C1303) 

was designed specifically to test the 

aging of foam insulation in duration 

shorter than 180 days, and without the 

temperature elevation methodology 

used in the 90-day test. (ASTM C1303– 

08, section 5.3, at p. 3) By reducing the 

length of the pathway for diffusion to 

take place, the ‘‘aging’’ can be 

accelerated without the confounding 

effects caused by unique gas properties 

of the material and blowing agent. The 

results are used to determine the Rvalue of foam 5 years after manufacture, 

a value that has been shown to correlate 

strongly with the average R-value of 

foam 15 years after manufacture. (ASTM 

C1303–08, section 5.4, at p. 3) 

In early 2000, the National Research 

Council Canada and Institute for 

Research in Construction (NRC–IRC) 

developed CAN/ULC–S770–00. CAN/ 

ULC–S770–00 incorporated elements of 

ASTM C1303–95 (the first version of 

ASTM C1303) but altered that standard 

by clarifying the slicing procedure used 

in ASTM C1303–95, as differing 

interpretations of the previous 

procedure were thought to be causing 

variations in the test results among 

third-party testing facilities. These 

changes sought to eliminate 

inconsistency in the interpretation of 

the slicing procedure and test setup to 

ensure uniformity across testing labs. In 

December 2000, CAN/ULC–S770–00 

became the Canadian national 

mandatory test for calculating the LTTR 

of all foam insulation products (this test 

has since been updated; the most recent 

version is CAN/ULC–S770–03). 

Members of the U.S.-based 

Polyisocyanurate Insulation 

Manufacturers Association (PIMA) 

began to test their products using the 

same procedure on January 1, 2003. The 

LTTR calculated from this test 

procedure is used for all building 

insulation product labeling in Canada 

and PIMA products in the United States. 

Also in 2000, ASTM C1303–95 was 

updated as ASTM C1303–00. 

In a 2005 rule by the U.S. Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) in which the 

FTC considered requiring ASTM 

C1303–00 (the most recent version at 

that time) for product labeling on all 

foam insulation products, the FTC’s 

review process revealed several 

unresolved issues related to the test 

procedure. (70 FR 31258 (May 31, 2005); 

16 CFR Part 460, Labeling and 

Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade 

Regulation Rule, Final Rule) 

Subsequently, ASTM C1303–00 was 

updated to address these issues, which 

included foam stack composition, 

minimum slice thickness and slice 

source, the time between manufacture 

and test initiation, preparation of foamin-place samples, and other 

clarifications of the procedure. This 

updated version was published as 

ASTM C1303–08 and is the most recent 

version of the standard to date. 

Some commenters noted during the 

framework meeting that the application 

of an impermeable vapor barrier to the 

surface of the foam could reduce the 

impact of aging. Depending on its end 

use, foam insulation may have facers or 

skins applied to act as a vapor barrier 

and/or to enhance the bond of 

construction glues. Kysor stated that 

proper use of skins eliminates aging and 

the associated reduction of R-value in 

polyurethane panels. (Kysor 

(attachment), No. 29 at p. 1) 

DOE examined this issue and found 

that foams used in walk-in panels are 

sometimes protected by impermeable 

barriers designed to prevent vapor and/ 

or air exchange into or out of the foam 

or the interior of the walk-in. DOE 

found research conducted by the 

National Resource Council Canada 

(NRCC) suggesting that impermeable 

facers do not eliminate aging but may 

delay the rate of aging and/or the final 

equilibrium of the aged state. 

(Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Bomberg, M.T.; 

Kumaran, M.K.; Drouin, M.; Lackey, J.; 

van Reenen, D.; Normandin, N., ‘‘LongTerm Thermal Resistance of 

Polyisocyanurate Foam Insulation With 

Impermeable Facers’’; Mukhopadhyaya, 

P.; Bomberg, M.T.; Kumaran, M.K.; 

Drouin, M.; Lackey, J.; van Reenen, D.; 

Normandin, N., ‘‘Long-Term Thermal 

Resistance of Polyisocyanurate Foam 

Insulation With Gas Barrier’’; 

Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Kumaran, M.K. 

‘‘Long-Term Thermal Resistance Of 

Closed-Cell Foam Insulation: Research 

Update From Canada.’’) In one of the 

summary observations of ‘‘Long-Term 

Thermal Resistance of Polyisocyanurate 

Foam Insulation With Gas Barrier,’’ the 

NRCC noted, ‘‘a considerable amount of 

aging occurred in thin slice specimens 

despite having untouched impermeable 

facers, as well as a glass plate at the 

bottom of the specimens and edges 

sealed completely with epoxy coating.’’ 

Additionally, the relationship 

between the skin and the rate of aging 

in foam depends on preserving the 

integrity of both the skin surface and the 

bonding between the skin and 

insulation. Punctures, made to allow for 

the installation of light fixtures, doors, 

and shelving, undermine the integrity of 

the skin. Walk-in insulation panels and 

their skins also typically separate over 

time due to shrinkage of foam materials 

after manufacture. While most foam 

materials contract by less than 1 percent 

of their total volume, shrinkage at this 

level is enough to create significant air 

gaps. DOE found that current methods 

of conditioning foam materials do not 

account for impermeable facers. 

Finally, like the conditioning 

standards that are currently in use, 

ASTM C1303–08 is not designed to test 

impermeably faced foams that may be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

used with walk-ins. Significant research 

has been underway by the NRCC but no 

known test procedure is currently 

available that accounts for the effect of 

impermeable barriers. DOE requests 

feedback on this issue, including the 

submission of test results on the impact 

of impermeable skins on long-term Rvalue. DOE specifically requests that 

interested parties submit or identify 

peer-reviewed, published data on this 

issue. 

DOE also requests feedback on the use 

of ASTM C1303–08 with impermeably 

faced foams. DOE may recommend the 

use of a test procedure specifically 

designed for impermeably faced foam if 

one is developed. 

As a result of this evaluation, DOE 

proposes requiring manufacturers to use 

ASTM C1303–08 to determine the LTTR 

of walk-in foam insulation for the 

purposes of calculating the energy 

consumption of walk-in equipment. 

DOE requests comments on this 

proposal. 

DOE is also proposing and seeking 

comment on the following exceptions to 

ASTM C1303–08: 

(1) Section 6.6.2 of C1303–08 suggests 

that two standards for measuring the 

thermal resistance may be used. DOE 

proposes to allow use only of ASTM 

C518–04 (in EPCA, an incorrect form of 

the date suffix was used, e.g., ASTM 

C518–[20]04), as specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)(ii)) 

(2) In section 6.6.2.1, in reference to 

ASTM C518–04, the mean test 

temperature of the foam during R-value 

measurement would be ¥6.7 ± 2 °C (20 

± 4 °F) with a temperature difference of 

22 ± 2 °C (40 ± 4 °F) for freezers and 

12.8 ± 2 °C (55 ± 4 °F) with a 

temperature difference of 22 ± 2 °C (40 

± 4 °F) for coolers. This change replaces 

the standard mean temperature of 75 °F 

for ASTM C518–04 with the EPCA 

specified values. 

(3) For the purposes of preparing 

samples with foam-in-place method, 

section A2 should be followed exactly 

except for the following modifications 

to accommodate foam-in-place methods 

that may be used during the 

manufacture of walk-in panels: 

• (3.1) Instead of following A2.3, 

which specifies that the foam be 

sprayed onto a single sheet of wood, the 

sample shall be foamed into a fully 

closed box of internal dimension 60 cm 

x 60 cm by desired product thickness 

(2ft x 2ft x Desired thickness). The box 

shall be made of 3⁄4 inch plywood and 

internal surfaces wrapped in 4 to 6 mil 

polyethylene film to prevent the foam 

from adhering to the box material. 

• (3.2) Instead of following section 

A2.4, which specifies the spraying of 

foam layers onto a open sheet of 

plywood, the cavity shall be filled using 

the manufacturer’s typical foam-in-place 

method through a standard injection 

port or other process typically used to 

foam the product being tested. 

• (3.3) In section A2.6, which defines 

the single surface in contact with the 

board to be the ‘‘surface,’’ the definition 

of the foam’s ‘‘surface’’ shall be the two 

surface regions in contact with the 60 x 

60 cm sections of the box. 

• (3.4) Section A2.8 shall not be 

followed because the prepared sample 

will not have any ‘‘free rise’’ 

component. 

DOE proposes that manufacturers 

select foam test thicknesses based on 

design specifications and practice. If a 

foam’s thickness as manufactured varies 

from the tested product thickness, DOE 

proposes that the R-value of that foam 

at its manufactured thickness may be 

interpolated using the results of ASTM 

C1303–08, provided that the 

manufactured thickness does not vary 

from the tested product thickness by 

more than ± 0.5 inches. For example, if 

4-inch and 6-inch products were 

prepared, interpolation between 3.5 and 

4.5 inches would be allowed for the 4- 

inch foam and 5.5 and 6.5 inches for the 

6-inch foam. If the manufacturer 

determines that final foam thickness 

should be outside of the tested range, 

then additional testing would be 

necessary to fit the criterion for 

interpolation. Manufacturers should 

make their sample selections 

accordingly to avoid the need for 

additional testing. DOE requests 

feedback on the use of interpolation 

within the specified ± 0.5 inch range. 

DOE proposes that the results for each 

of the sample sets of three stacks should 

be reported as specified by ASTM 

C1303–08. As defined by ASTM C1303– 

08, after thin slices of foam are cut, the 

slices are organized into ‘‘stacks’’ of 

slices to match the original overall 

thickness of the sample. The procedure 

defines three stack types: (1) Stacks 

comprised of only surface slices of 

foam, (2) stacks of only core slices and 

(3) a mixture of core and surface slices. 

A ‘‘surface’’ slice and a ‘‘core’’ slice are 

defined in ASTM C1303 as ‘‘a thin-slice 

foam specimen that was originally 

adjacent to the surface of the fullthickness product and that includes any 

facing that was adhered to the surface of 

the original full-thickness product’’ and 

‘‘a thin-slice foam specimen that was 

taken at least 5 mm (0.2 in.) or 25% of 

the product thickness, whichever is 

greater, away from the surface of the full 

thickness product,’’ respectively. The Rvalue of only the mixed stack would be 

used to calculate the energy 

performance of walk-ins. DOE requests 

feedback on this approach. ASTM is 

currently conducting a 5-year 

‘‘ruggedness’’ test. Upon completion of 

the test, DOE may consider a 

rulemaking to modify the required 

number of stacks and/or which stack is 

best suited for labeling and calculating 

energy performance. DOE requests 

feedback on the use of the mixed stack 

R-value for the purpose of calculating 

walk-in energy use. 

Additionally, DOE notes that ASTM 

C1303–08 is specifically intended for 

measuring the LTTR of foam materials. 

In light of this situation, the process 

contained in this standard would not 

apply to advanced insulation 

technologies such as vacuum insulated 

panels (VIPs) or aerogels. However, 

ASTM C518–04 can be used to measure 

the thermal properties of these new 

technologies, which, as specified in 

EPCA, is the required test for measuring 

insulating performance. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)(A)(ii)) DOE requests feedback 

on whether non-foam advanced 

technologies, such as VIPs or aerogels, 

would be likely to be used for walk-ins 

in the next 5 years. If DOE determines 

that these materials may be used in 

walk-ins in the next 5 years, DOE may 

consider alternative test procedures for 

capturing the long-term insulating value 

of any non-foam materials. 

ii. Water Absorption in Foam 

At the framework public meeting, 

interested parties raised the issue of Rvalue deterioration in foams due to 

moisture absorption. Craig stated that 

moisture penetration causes a decline in 

the R-value of foam insulation, at a rate 

that depends on the type of foam used. 

(Craig, No. 22 at p. 3) As is the case with 

aging, insulating foams exhibit different 

characteristics in the presence of 

moisture. Polystyrene foam is highly 

resistant to water absorption, whereas 

polyurethanes and polyisocyanurates 

are more easily damaged by exposure to 

moisture. In general, the solution to 

moisture issues involves creating an 

impermeable barrier between the 

insulation and the moisture source. 

However, Owens Corning asserted that 

customers routinely puncture metal 

skins to allow for the installation of 

lighting fixtures, shelving, and doors, 

creating holes that allow moisture to 

enter the insulation. (Owens Corning, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 

61) 

Although vapor permeance and water 

absorption tests exist, they are designed 

for measuring specific material 

properties rather than measuring system 

performance of composite structures 

like walk-ins. For a variety of reasons, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 195 

these tests would be complex, costly, 

and time consuming to use because 

several sub-methods would need to be 

developed to quantify the impact of 

water on walk-ins. For every unique 

construction method and/or 

combination of materials (e.g., blowing 

agent, foam type, barriers, gasketing 

materials, panel joint type, and method), 

the following considerations exemplify 

the challenges inherent in accounting 

for and quantifying insulating 

performance: (1) The rate at which the 

walk-in envelope collects water over its 

life must be measured or predicted 

using an accelerated test; (2) a saturation 

level or maximum absorption, if any, 

must be determined; and (3) a 

correlation between water absorption 

levels and insulation performance must 

be quantified. At this time, test 

procedures for each of these 

considerations are not yet recognized by 

a nationally recognized organization 

such as ASTM. 

DOE reviewed several methods for 

testing vapor permeance and water 

absorption in foam insulation materials 

including ASTM E96, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Water Vapor Transmission 

of Materials,’’ ASTM C209, ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Cellulosic Fiber 

Insulation Board,’’ ASTM C272–01 

(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Water Absorption of Core Materials for 

Structural Sandwich Constructions,’’ 

and ASTM D2842–06, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Water Absorption of Rigid 

Cellular Plastics.’’ Each of these 

standards describes a method for 

submerging a sample in water for a 

specified amount of time and then 

measuring the amount of water absorbed 

on a volume or weight basis. However, 

each one specifies significantly different 

immersion durations (ranging from 2 to 

96 hours) and methods of weighing 

samples (blotting surfaces before 

measurement or using a buoyancy 

measurement). DOE believes that using 

the longest test period, 96 hours, would 

likely result in near worst case or 

maximum water absorption, but it is 

unclear how this directly translates to 

reduction in insulation performance for 

various materials. 

Additionally, ASTM E96–05 measures 

vapor permeance under low vapor 

pressure gradient conditions. However, 

the temperature differentials in which 

walk-ins operate cause a high vapor 

pressure gradient, which has the effect 

of continuously driving moisture 

through the envelope. Neither ASTM 

E96–05 nor any other known procedures 

currently provide a methodology to 

accurately calculate the vapor 

permeance in walk-ins at the pressure 

gradients typically experienced in the 

field. 

Some research has been completed, 

including a major study by the Cold 

Regions Research and Engineering Lab 

(CRREL). The CRREL study developed 

and applied a method for creating a 

vapor pressure gradient across various 

materials to quantify the rate at which 

these materials absorb and retain water 

over time. The insulating performance 

of the materials was also tested at 

various levels of moisture content to 

develop equations for the purpose of 

calculating the insulating properties at 

any moisture percentage relative to its 

dry weight. No other testing body has 

applied CRREL’s testing procedures to 

replicate the results and most of 

CRREL’s research was completed nearly 

20 years ago. One of DOE’s national labs 

has also begun development of 

procedures to evaluate the impact of 

moisture on insulation R-values, but 

this activity remains incomplete. 

Given the discussion above, DOE does 

not propose to include the impact of 

water absorption on R-value in the test 

procedure because no well-accepted 

method has been developed. However, 

DOE will evaluate such a procedure if 

it is developed in the future. 

b. Air Infiltration 

Another major pathway for energy 

loss in walk-ins is air infiltration, or air 

exchanged into and out of a walk-in 

while all access points are closed or 

during door-opening cycles (i.e., the 

openings of doors for the removal or 

stocking of product, or passage of 

customers, personnel, and/or 

machinery, also referred to as ‘‘dooropening events’’). Compared with other 

energy consumption factors such as 

conduction losses through insulation, 

air infiltration may be the largest 

contributing factor to envelope energy 

losses. Air infiltration can occur through 

steady-state leakage or from door 

opening events. As a result, designs and 

technologies that reduce infiltration 

during steady-state operation and dooropening events should be considered to 

reduce these losses. 

EPCA includes prescriptive 

requirements for doors used on walkins, recognizing that a major portion of 

energy is lost through door opening 

cycles. All walk-in coolers or freezers 

‘‘manufactured on or after January 1, 

2009, shall (A) have automatic door 

closers that firmly close all walk-in 

doors that have been closed to within 1 

inch of full closure, except * * * doors 

wider than 3 feet 9 inches or taller than 

7 feet; [and] (B) have strip doors, spring 

hinged doors, or other method of 

minimizing infiltration when doors are 

open * * *’’ (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) 

During the framework public meeting, 

interested parties suggested methods for 

calculating infiltration from dooropening events within the test 

procedure. 

These two infiltration pathways, 

steady-state leakage, and air losses due 

to door-opening events, are mitigated 

using distinct methods. 

Steady-state infiltration (the air 

exchanged between the interior and 

exterior of a walk-in while all doors are 

closed, also referred to as ‘‘leakage’’) 

occurs because of the significant 

pressure gradient caused by the large 

temperature difference between the 

refrigerated space and the external 

environment. This pressure differential 

continuously induces air movement 

from the outside to the inside of a walkin where leakage pathways exist. 

Leakage typically occurs through door 

frames, door gaskets, wall panel-topanel interfaces, and wall-to-floor and 

wall-to-ceiling junctions. While 

considered minimal for small walk-ins, 

leakage becomes more significant as the 

walk-in size increases. 

Air infiltration due to door openings 

is mostly a function of door area, 

opening frequency, duration, and air 

density. The primary means of reducing 

the amount of infiltration is by the use 

of active or passive infiltration 

reduction devices and devices that help 

reduce the time that doors are left 

accidentally ajar. Air curtains and strip 

curtains are good examples of active 

versus passive devices. The sections 

below describe the methods for testing 

the effectiveness of such devices and 

procedure for calculating air 

infiltration’s impact on energy use in 

walk-ins. 

Hired Hand recommended that the 

energy analysis for warehouse coolers 

and freezers include the performance of 

the door, including the number of dooropening cycles each day or week and 

factoring in optional door configurations 

such as automatic doors with or without 

strip curtains. (Hired Hand, No. 27 at p. 

1) Eliason recommended that DOE 

consider average door cycling and doorajar conditions in its test procedure. 

(Eliason, No. 19 at p. 1) Eliason noted 

that both of these conditions are part of 

the company’s internal life-cycling test 

and represent real-world conditions. 

(Eliason, No. 19 at p. 1) Hired Hand 

stated that a simple rating for door 

infiltration performance could be based 

on door-opening cycles per week. (Hired 

Hand, No. 27 at p. 2) Hired Hand also 

suggested that DOE require consumer 

labeling to indicate the cost per minute 

of leaving the door open based on door 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

size and application. (Hired Hand, No. 

27 at p. 2) 

Based on stakeholder comments and 

DOE review of the impact of air 

infiltration on energy use, DOE 

identified two methods that could be 

used to measure air infiltration in walkins: the blower door method and the gas 

tracer method. These methods are 

described in the following subsections. 

i. Blower Door Method 

DOE reviewed ASTM E1827–96 

(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Determining Airtightness of Buildings 

Using an Orifice Blower Door,’’ as a 

possible candidate test procedure for 

testing walk-ins. This method 

pressurizes or depressurizes the internal 

space using a large fan, typically placed 

in a doorway. The infiltration rate of the 

space can be directly calculated by 

measuring the pressure difference 

between the exterior and interior space 

and the air-flow rate through the fan. 

After reviewing this test method, DOE 

identified reasons why the test might 

not be suitable for walk-ins. The blower 

door method is better suited for 

structures with relatively high rates of 

infiltration, such as buildings and 

homes, rather than the relatively low 

levels typically observed in walk-ins. In 

addition, known calibration curves for 

the blower door method require small 

temperature differentials (generally less 

than 10 °F) between the inside and 

outside of the envelope. However, walkins typically operate with a far greater 

differential that is normally greater than 

40 °F. Another drawback to using this 

method with walk-ins is that the test 

setup procedure requires blocking a 

main entrance to the structure with the 

blower door. Because infiltration around 

the main door is a key source of 

infiltration in walk-ins and would not 

be measured as part of the test, this 

approach would not adequately capture 

the majority of the infiltration. For these 

reasons, DOE does not propose the use 

of the blower door method for 

measuring the air infiltration of walkins. 

ii. Gas Tracer Method 

DOE also reviewed ASTM E741–06, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Air Change in a Single Zone by Means 

of a Tracer Gas Dilution.’’ Although not 

as widely used as the blower door 

method, the gas tracer method has been 

used for decades by the building 

industry. The test is conducted by 

injecting a tracer gas, such as carbon 

dioxide or perfluorocarbons, into the 

internal space and measuring its 

concentration at recorded times. From 

these measurements, the average air 

change rate can be determined. While 

manual tools, such as syringes, or 

automated systems can be used to 

sample the air spaces, the test procedure 

lends itself to automation both for 

calibration and data collection. 

Depending on the gas and sampling 

method used, the gas concentration can 

be measured immediately with portable 

equipment. This method is also more 

accurate than the blower door method 

because it allows for direct 

measurement of infiltration without 

modification of the design conditions. 

(ASTM, ASTM E741–06 (2006), 

‘‘Determining Air Change in a Single 

Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas 

Dilution,’’ section 5.6, p. 3) 

c. Steady-State Infiltration Test 

For the reasons described above, DOE 

proposes using the gas tracer method 

described in ASTM–E741–06 for 

measuring the steady-state air 

infiltration of walk-ins, with the 

following six exceptions: 

First, DOE proposes using the 

‘‘concentration decay method’’ instead 

of other available options described in 

ASTM E741–06. DOE considers this 

method to be the simplest, fastest, most 

cost efficient, and most accurate. 

Second, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the 

recommended gas tracer for all testing 

because of the few human hazards 

related to its use, and the availability 

and relative cost of sampling 

equipment. 

Third, the test would use the ‘‘average 

air change rate’’ method, in changes per 

hour (1/h), rather than the ‘‘average air 

change flow’’ method described in 

ASTM E741–06. The ‘‘air change flow’’ 

method allows for the direct measure of 

the exchange of air in cubic feet per 

hour and does not require measurement 

of the internal volume of the space but 

requires a more complex test setup and 

sampling method. In contrast, the ‘‘air 

change rate’’ method measures the rate 

of exchange of air per unit of time can 

be completed using relatively simple 

equipment. However, converting this 

value to a measurement of the flow, e.g., 

volume of air exchanged per unit time, 

requires a precise measurement of 

internal volume. Since the precise 

internal volume of a given walk-in is 

readily available, DOE considers the 

‘‘air change rate’’ method preferable to 

the ‘‘air change flow’’ method because 

the equipment is less expensive and the 

measurements are easier to obtain. 

Fourth, ASTM E741–06 describes the 

importance of verifying proper gas 

mixing but does not describe where or 

how many spatial locations should be 

sampled. DOE proposes that spatial 

measurements shall be taken in a 

minimum of six locations or one 

location per 20 square feet (ft2) of floor 

area (whichever results in a greater 

number of measurements), at a height of 

3 ft ± 0.5 ft, or a minimum of 2 ft ± 0.5 

ft from the inside wall of the walk-in 

envelope, to verify that the air space is 

uniformly mixed. 

Fifth, DOE proposes the test be 

completed close to operational 

temperature to mimic the thermally 

induced pressure gradient seen in walkins. The internal air temperature shall 

be ¥23.3 (¥10 °F) ± 2 °C (4 °F) for 

freezers and 1.7 (35 °F) ± 2 °C (4 °F) for 

coolers. The external air temperature 

should be 24 °C (75 °F) ± 2.5 °C (5 °F). 

Sixth, the test should be completed 

with all doors closed. The resulting 

measurement shall be in units of 

changes per hour. 

DOE requests feedback on its proposal 

to use ASTM E741–06 as the method for 

determining air infiltration and on the 

proposed exceptions to the test 

procedure. 

For the purposes of administering the 

test, DOE considered the following 

options for the location of the test: (1) 

Require testing at a third-party testing 

facility. DOE believes that requiring that 

manufacturers to ship every walk-in 

manufactured, or a representative 

model, to a third-party facility for 

testing, would place a substantial 

burden on manufacturers; (2) require 

testing by a third party on site at a walkin manufacturing facility. Completing 

the infiltration test at the manufacturing 

facility reduces logistical complexity 

and costs associated with testing. Since 

the equipment used to complete 

infiltration testing was originally 

designed for testing the performance of 

buildings, the equipment and protocols 

are designed to be mobile. 

DOE believes that the most viable 

option is allowing testing to occur at the 

manufacturing facility, if preferred by 

the manufacturer. DOE requests 

feedback on the flexibility of location 

required for completion of any 

infiltration test. 

iii. Door Infiltration Reduction Device 

Test 

DOE is considering incorporating a 

door-opening test to quantify the impact 

of technologies such as strip curtains, 

air curtains, or other infiltration 

reduction devices during door-opening 

events. Due to the limited data available 

on these devices and the variety of 

technologies, DOE believes a 

standardized test would provide a more 

comprehensive and accurate picture 

regarding the effectiveness of these 

devices when compared to simply using 

effectiveness assumptions. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 197 

DOE proposes a two-part test to 

account for the effect of the door 

infiltration reduction device. First, 

measurements should be taken once the 

tracer gas has uniformly dispersed in 

the internal space using the 

methodology described in ASTM E741– 

06. Within 3 minutes ± 30 seconds, with 

the infiltration reduction device in 

place, a door should be opened at an 

angle of 90 degrees over a period no 

longer than 3 seconds, then held at 90 

degrees in the open position for 5 

minutes ± 5 seconds, then closed over 

a period no longer than 3 seconds. The 

gas concentration should be sampled 

again after the door has been closed. 

Samples should continue being taken 

until the gas concentration is once again 

uniformly mixed within the walk-in. 

Second, the test should be repeated 

exactly as described above with the 

infiltration reduction device removed or 

deactivated. 

Using the measured infiltration with 

the device in place and without the 

device in place, the infiltration 

reduction effectiveness can be directly 

calculated: 

E

V

V

rate,with-device

rate,without -device

= ×100% Eq. 1

Where: 

Vrate,with-device = air infiltration rate, with door 

open and reduction device active, using 

4.2, 1/h; 

Vrate,without-device = air infiltration rate, with 

door open and reduction device disabled 

or removed, using 4.2, 1/h. 

This calculation will yield a value 

between 0 and 100 percent, with 100 

percent meaning that the device 

prevents all air infiltration when the 

door is open. DOE proposes using this 

calculated effectiveness for every 

unique door-device combination that a 

manufacturer may offer. DOE requests 

feedback on the proposed method for 

measuring the effectiveness of an 

infiltration reduction device. 

iv. Infiltration Due to Door Openings 

DOE does not propose to require 

manufacturers to measure the 

infiltration from all door-opening 

events. The complexity of testing, the 

variation of walk-in design, and various 

end-use behavior factors would make 

such a recommendation very difficult to 

execute. Instead, DOE proposes using 

analytical methods based on equations 

published in the ASHRAE Refrigeration 

Handbook in combination with assumed 

door-opening frequency, and duration of 

door cycles, to calculate the air 

infiltration associated with each dooropening event. 

ASHRAE recommends using Gosney 

and Olama’s (1975) air exchange 

equations for fully established flow 

through door openings (Equation 2). 

Several key assumptions have the 

greatest impact on predicated air 

exchange and are related to the 

calculation of the decimal portion or 

time a doorway is open, Dt. (ASHRAE, 

Refrigeration Handbook, 2006, section 

13.5) 

D

P

Eq. 2 t

d

= ( ) × + × ( ) ⎢

⎣ ⎥⎦

[ ] ×

θ θ

3600 θ

p ο 60

Where: 

Dt = fractional door opening, 

P = the number of doorway passages (or 

number of door-opening cycles for a 

given door), 

qp = the door open-close time, 

qo = the time the door stands open, and 

qd = daily time period. 

Dt is important for properly 

calculating the energy impact of air 

infiltration due to door-opening events. 

Therefore, the assumed values of P, qp, 

and qo will drive the result. The daily 

time period, qd, is simply assumed to be 

24 hours. 

For display glass doors, a P of 72 per 

day, qp of 8 seconds per passage, qo of 

0 minutes and qd of 24 hours could be 

used. P of 72 per day is based on 

comments by Hired Hand and research 

on cold store infiltration. Hired Hand 

commented that the reach in frequency 

is approximately 400–600 per week (or 

one passage every 20 minutes assuming 

18 hours per day per week). (Hired 

Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 

at p. 154) However, DOE identified a 

study by A.R. East, P.B. Jeffrey, and D.J. 

Cleland, ‘‘Air Infiltration into Walk-in 

Cold Rooms,’’ which suggested that this 

number should be closer to one passage 

every 10 minutes (assuming 18 hours 

per day per week). DOE suggests that 

the average of the two values of one 

passage every 15 minutes or P of 72 per 

day could be used. DOE chose the value 

of 8 seconds per passage but seeks 

comment on whether another value may 

be more appropriate. 

For all other door or access types, a 

P of 60 per day, qp of 12 seconds per 

passage, qo of 15 minutes, and qd of 24 

hours could be used. The number of 

passages reflects that other door types 

are typically accessed less frequently 

than glass doors. The value of 12 

seconds per passage was selected based 

on the assumption that non-glass doors, 

such as those through which forklifts 

are driven in order to load product, will 

be open for longer periods of time than 

a typical display door. DOE selected the 

qo of 15 minutes due to the probability 

that a non-glass door will be propped 

open accidentally or intentionally. If an 

automatic door opener/closer is used for 

doors larger than 7 feet tall and 3 feet, 

9 inches wide, then a qp of 10 seconds 

should be used. 

DOE recognizes that with the variety 

of walk-in types and end-users, the 

frequency and duration of door-opening 

events is likely to vary significantly. As 

a result, DOE requests comments on the 

DOE assumed values for P, qp, and qo. 

3. Calculations 

In this section, DOE proposes a 

calculation methodology for using the 

results obtained from the measurements 

in the aforementioned tests, along with 

other known quantities, to calculate an 

energy use metric associated with the 

envelope. The steps in the proposed 

methodology are explained below. 

a. Energy Efficiency Ratio 

EPCA requires that the test procedure 

‘‘measure the energy use of walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) However, EPCA does 

not specify the units of measurement or 

units for reporting that are required. 

Based on a review of commonly used 

energy consumption metrics, DOE 

recommends the use of kWh/day as this 

unit is commonly recognized by endusers, manufacturers and other 

interested parties. However, a majority 

of metrics used to describe heat transfer 

losses are in units of British Thermal 

Units (BTU) per unit time. Therefore, to 

convert the British Thermal Units per 

hour (BTU/h) thermal energy 

transmission calculation into a measure 

of electrical energy consumed by the 

refrigeration equipment to remove the 

heat, DOE proposes using an energy 

efficiency ratio (EER) conversion based 

on a nominal efficiency of an assumed 

refrigeration system. 

Because an envelope manufacturer 

cannot control where the refrigeration 

equipment is sited and the EER is 

intended to provide a means of 

comparison and not directly reflect a 

real walk-in installation, DOE proposes 

that the EER be 12.4 Btu per Watt hour 

(Btu/W-h) for coolers and 6.3 Btu/W-h 

for freezers. The difference in EER for 

coolers and freezers reflects the relative 

efficiency of the refrigeration equipment 

for the associated application. As the 

temperature of the air surrounding the 

evaporator coil drops (that is, when 

considering a freezer relative to a 

cooler), thermodynamics dictates that 

the system effectiveness at removing 

heat per unit of electrical input energy 

decreases. DOE requests feedback on the 

relative EERs of refrigeration equipment 

for a comparison basis. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.025</MATH> EP04JA10.026</MATH>
198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

b. Heat Gain Through the Envelope Due 

to Conduction 

The energy calculation for all 

components that comprise the external 

surface area of the walk-in may be 

determined using the measured surface 

area, the measured foam R-value for the 

walls and ceiling, the R-value (or Uvalue) for glass doors, the design 

operation temperature, and the average 

ambient air temperature. Then, the 

associated heat transfer due to 

conduction can then be directly 

calculated. 

i. Conduction Through Glass Display 

Doors 

The heat conduction through the glass 

is one of the largest single contributors 

to energy consumption for walk-ins 

with a high ratio of glass surface area to 

non-glass surface. The thermal 

conductivity, the inverse of thermal 

resistivity or R-value, is commonly 

represented by the U-value in units of 

Btu/ft2-°F-h. The thermal conductivity 

for most glass products, such as glass 

doors and windows used in buildings, 

is certified by a third party organization 

such as the National Fenestration Rating 

Council (NFRC). After certification, the 

product is granted a NFRC label and 

thermal conductivity performance 

rating. This rating represents an overall 

component performance including but 

not limited to the glass and the glass 

frame. However, in the case of glass 

products manufactured for the use in 

walk-ins, such as display doors, inset 

window and glass walls, DOE believes 

that glass component manufacturers 

currently do not participate in any third 

party rating programs nor do they 

provide products with performance 

labels. In addition, the performance data 

of these products is not readily available 

able in product literature. 

In order for the thermal conductivity 

performance of glass products be 

incorporated into the walk-in test 

procedure, DOE proposes these two 

options: (1) If manufacturers of glass 

doors used in walk-ins participate in the 

same NFRC rating program, the 

performance of the door shall be simply 

read from its label and used for 

calculations in this test procedure. If 

glass door manufacturers do not 

participate in the same NFRC rating 

program, then (2) DOE would require 

manufacturers to use the free software 

package Window 5.2 (available here: 

http://windows.lbl.gov/software/ 

window/window.html), that calculates 

the U-value, or thermal conductivity, of 

a glass door given precise specifications 

such as the size of the door, the number 

of panes of glass, the gas fill between the 

panes, etc. This tool was developed by 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) 

and is known in the glass component 

industry to accurately predict glass door 

thermal performance from the given 

door characteristics. It has been used for 

many years and has been heavily 

verified by empirical test data. In order 

to ensure that inputs used to calculate 

overall door performance are not being 

manipulated by manufacturers, DOE 

intends to require the walk-in 

manufacturer to report the exact inputs 

and settings used in Window 5.2 to 

represent the door materials and glazing 

system. This will ensure transparency 

and accuracy by enabling other 

manufacturers and DOE to verify the 

integrity of the data and calculated 

performance. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

availability of performance data on glass 

products used in walk-in applications, 

glass component manufacturers’ 

participation in third party certification 

programs such as NFRC, and the 

proposed method for predicting the 

thermal performance of glass 

components using LBNL’s Window 5.2 

software package. 

ii. Conduction Through Floors 

In general, walk-in coolers are 

installed on top of concrete surfaces 

regardless of the walk-in type. For a 

walk-in cooler that does not have a floor 

supplied by the manufacturer, the 

average insulating performance of 

concrete will be assumed for the floor 

surface of the walk-in. Therefore, DOE 

proposes using an R-value of 0.6 ft2- 

F-h/Btu for calculating the energy lost 

assuming the walk-in cooler are sited on 

6-inch concrete floors of 150 lb/ft3

density (ASHRAE Fundamentals 

Handbook). DOE requests feedback on 

the use of this R-value for coolers that 

are not shipped with an insulated floor. 

Generally, walk-in manufacturers that 

sell large freezers do not install freezer 

floors. This task is normally 

subcontracted by the end-user before the 

walk-in is installed to ensure EPCA 

compliance. Therefore, DOE proposes 

using the minimum R-value specified in 

EPCA for walk-in freezer floors, R–28 

ft2-F-h/Btu, for energy performance 

calculations if the manufacture does not 

supply a floor to ensure EPCA 

compliance. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(D)) 

DOE requests comments on the use of 

this proposed R-value for freezer floors. 

c. Heat Gain Due to Infiltration 

The amount of embodied energy in an 

air sample is primarily a function of its 

temperature and density or what is 

typically referred to as the enthalpy in 

a thermodynamic system such as a 

walk-in. The required amount of energy 

needed to remove heat from the air is 

calculated as the difference between the 

enthalpy of air entering the refrigerated 

space and enthalpy of the air inside the 

refrigerated space. This calculation is 

commonly used when designing walkins and typically uses dry-bulb and wetbulb temperatures. The difference, per 

unit mass or volume of air, is calculated 

using the functional relationship 

between temperature and enthalpy. 

Using the measured infiltration rate 

from the required steady-state test 

described above or calculated analytical 

value for air infiltration for dooropening events and the calculated 

internal and external enthalpy, a rate of 

energy lost per hour (Btu/h) due to air 

exchange can be calculated. 

d. Envelope Component Electrical Loads 

Because the energy use of the walk-in 

refrigeration equipment is being 

analyzed separately from the envelope 

energy use, DOE is considering 

calculating the electricity consumption 

of lights, sensors, and other 

miscellaneous electrical devices using 

name-plate rating and assumptions 

about their daily operation, all of which 

would be incorporated into the 

evaluation of envelope energy use. In 

addition, because the test procedure for 

the refrigeration system will not include 

heating loads caused by lighting, heater 

wires, and other miscellaneous 

components, the thermal load from 

these components will be factored into 

the envelope calculations. DOE 

proposes as part of the test procedure 

calculations that 100 percent of the 

electrical energy consumed to operate 

the devices that are internal located in 

the walk-in, will be converted to 

thermal energy. This assumption is 

accurate since at steady-state, all the 

input electrical energy is converted 

completely into heat adhering to the 

physical laws of conservation of energy. 

While some electrical energy, which has 

been converted into light, may escape 

the controlled space via translucent 

glass display doors, this escaping energy 

is negligible. The associated thermal 

energy will then be used to calculate an 

additional compressor load that would 

be required to remove the additional 

heat generated by these components. 

DOE recommends using the following 

equation to calculate the power usage 

for each electricity-consuming device 

type, Pcomp, (kWh): 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 199 

P P comp,t rated,t t t = ×− ( ) 1 24 Eq. 3 PTO n × ×

Where: 

Prated,t = rated power of each component, 

PTOt = percent time off, and 

nt = the number of devices at the rated 

power. 

DOE proposes that the rated power 

must be read from each electricityconsuming device product data sheet or 

name plate, and the nt is the number of 

identical devices for which the Pcomp

calculation is being made. 

DOE further proposes the use of the 

following equation to calculate 

additional compressor load due to heat 

generated by electrical components, 

Cload, (kWh): 

C Btu

Wh load tot = × P ,int

3 412 .

EER Eq. 4

Where: 

EER = EER of walk-in (cooler = 12.4 or 

freezer = 6.3), Btu/W-h 

Ptot,int = The total electrical load due to 

components sited inside the walk-in 

envelope 

The percent time off (PTO) value 

accounts for the reduction in energy use 

in walk-ins with component control 

systems installed and to specify the 

possible number of hours for various 

component types. While this value may 

not reflect behaviorally related energy 

consumption, such as how long an enduser typically leaves the lights on, it 

will provide a means for comparison of 

walk-in performance. To address the 

wide variety of devices that could be 

employed in a walk-in unit, DOE 

proposes the following PTO values: 

(1) For lights, DOE proposes a PTO 

value of 25 percent for systems without 

timers or other auto shut-off systems 

and 50 percent for systems with timers 

or other auto shut-off systems installed. 

(2) For anti-sweat heaters, DOE 

proposes a PTO value of 0 percent for 

all systems without direct or indirect 

relative humidity sensing controls. DOE 

further proposes that a PTO value of 75 

percent be used for walk-in coolers, and 

50 percent for walk-in freezers with 

these controls. (Focus on Energy, BP– 

3429–0304, ‘‘Anti-Sweat Heater 

Controls,’’ 2004, p. 1) 

(3) For electrically powered devices 

(such as air curtains) that mitigate air 

infiltration but are not actively 

controlled based on door open or closed 

positions, DOE proposes a PTO value of 

25 percent. 

(4) For electrically powered devices 

that mitigate air infiltration that are also 

actively controlled based on door open 

or closed position for display doors, 

DOE proposes a PTO value of 99.33 

percent. 

(5) For electrically powered devices 

that mitigate air infiltration that are also 

actively controlled based on door open 

or closed position for all other doors, 

DOE proposes a PTO value of 99.17 

percent. 

(6) For all other devices, DOE 

proposes a PTO value of 0 percent, 

unless the walk-in manufacturer can 

demonstrate that the device is 

controllable by a preset control system. 

If this can be demonstrated, then DOE 

proposes a value of 25 percent for the 

device in question. 

DOE seeks comments on these 

assumptions. 

e. Normalization 

A single metric would make 

comparing the energy use of walk-ins 

much more straightforward. DOE 

proposes using a calculation for energy 

consumption per unit time and a 

normalization factor to account for 

differences in glass and non-glass 

external surface area depending on the 

product class. During the framework 

public meeting and in written 

comments, some interested parties 

recommended that DOE use volume as 

the normalization factor for performance 

standards. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at p. 56; EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 116; 

NEEA, No. 18 at p. 3) Crown Tonka, in 

a written comment, recommended that 

the test metric be kWh per cubic foot 

(i.e., energy consumption normalized by 

volume). (Crown Tonka, No. 23 at p. 1) 

The Joint Comment recommended that 

DOE use surface area as the 

normalization factor. (Joint Comment, 

No. 21 at p. 2) A comment submitted 

jointly by representatives of SCE, 

SMUD, and SDG&E (hereafter referred to 

as the Utilities Joint Comment) also 

stated that DOE should use surface area 

as a normalization factor. (Utilities Joint 

Comment, No. 32 at p. 7) 

Many established metrics use a perday time scale normalized by product 

volume. However, surface area is the 

key geometric characteristic related to 

both conduction and infiltration 

because volumetric normalization 

cannot directly account for the higher 

conduction and infiltration losses 

associated with glass doors and 

windows. Conduction and infiltration 

losses through glass become particularly 

important considerations as the ratio of 

glass door area to total wall area 

increases, as is the case in walk-ins 

designed for customer access. Using 

surface area as the normalization factor 

would account for these losses through 

any glass door or window used in a 

walk-in. Therefore, DOE proposes the 

use of surface area as a normalization 

factor for performance calculations of 

walk-ins. DOE requests comments on 

this proposed normalization method. 

f. Daily Energy Consumption 

Coefficients 

As discussed in section III.A.1, DOE 

proposes allowing manufacturers to 

group similar units together into a single 

‘‘basic model.’’ This approach would 

reduce the testing burden as only one 

unit of each basic model would be 

subject to testing. However, in the case 

of envelopes, the equipment is so highly 

customized that each unit a 

manufacturer builds may be unique. For 

example, units may have identical 

materials, components, or construction 

methods, but may be built to varied 

dimensions, which could result in 

different energy consumption values 

being obtained using the proposed test 

methods. 

In order to compare units that are 

similar enough to be included in the 

same basic model, but that are not 

identical, the test procedure allows for 

calculating daily energy consumption 

coefficients (or DECCs), using test 

results from a particular unit within a 

basic model, and then applying these 

DECCs to other units within a basic 

model to calculate the energy 

consumption of the other units. DECCs 

are essentially scaling factors that allow 

a manufacturer to change certain 

parameters of an envelope and calculate 

the corresponding change in energy 

consumption. In the case of today’s 

proposed procedure, these parameters 

would be wall surface area, non-glass 

door surface area, glass display door 

surface area, glass wall and inset 

window surface area, infiltration due to 

opening of non-display type doors and 

infiltration reduction due to reduction 

devices in place on non-display doors, 

infiltration due to opening of display 

type doors and infiltration reduction 

due to reduction devices in place on 

display doors, and electrical energy 

consumption due to devices including, 

but not limited to, lights, anti-sweat 

heaters, and motors to drive air mixing 

fans. The expression for daily energy 

consumption is formulated on the 

assumptions that: (1) Energy 

consumption due to conduction losses 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.027</MATH> EP04JA10.028</MATH>
200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

scales linearly with surface area; (2) 

energy consumption due to infiltration 

scales linearly with the number of doors 

of each type and total wall surface area; 

(3) energy consumption of anti-sweat 

door heaters scales linearly with total 

door surface area; and (4) energy 

consumption of other electrical 

components including lighting and 

stirring fans scales linearly with the 

interior volume of the envelope. 

Once the DECCs are calculated from 

a tested walk-in envelope, they are 

combined to provide a linear expression 

of the daily energy consumption of any 

walk-in envelope of the same basic 

model as the tested envelope (that is, 

having the same construction methods, 

materials, components, and other energy 

consumption characteristics as the 

tested envelope), as follows: 

E = DECC A + DECC A tot,system non-glass non-glass,tot glass glass, × × tot infilt,disp_dr_opn

disp_doors disp_dr_devic

+ DECC 

A + DECC

×

e disp_doors infilt,non-display,dr_opn non-display- × × n + DECC A doors

non-display-dr_device non-display-doors

+

DECC n + D

Eq. 5

× ECC V + DECC A +

DECC V

light ref_space ASH disp_doors

stir_fan ref

× ×

× _space other ref_space + DECC × V

Where: 

DECCnon-glass = DECC for non-glass, 

Anon-glass,tot = total non-glass surface area, 

DECCglass,door = DECC for glass doors, 

Aglass,glass, tot = total glass surface area, and 

DECCglass,wall = DECC for glass walls and inset 

windows, 

Aglass,wall, tot = total glass wall and inset 

window surface area, and 

DECCinfilt,disp_dr_opn = DECC for opening of 

display type doors, 

Adisp_doors = total area of display doors, 

DECC disp_dr_device = DECC for infiltration 

reduction device in place for display 

doors, 

ndisp_doors = total number of display doors, 

DECCinfilt,non-display_,dr_opn = DECC for nondisplay type doors, 

Anon-display_doors = total area of non-display 

type doors, 

DECCnon-display_dr_device = DECC for infiltration 

reduction device in place for non-display 

doors, 

nnon-display_doors = total number of non-display 

doors, 

DECClight = DECC for lights, 

Vref_space = total enclosed refrigerated 

volume(ft3), 

DECCASH = DECC for anti-sweat heaters, 

DECCstir_fan = DECC for motors used to drive 

air mixing fans, and 

DECCother = DECC for other electricity 

consuming devices. 

Only applicable DECCs shall be used. 

For example, if a certain basic model 

did not have glass display doors, DECCs 

and variables pertaining to glass display 

doors would not be calculated, nor 

would they be included in the equation 

of energy consumption. 

DOE believes that this approach 

would reduce the testing burden on 

manufacturers because it would not 

require manufacturers to test every unit 

produced with slight variations due to 

customer specification. However, by 

specifying a calculation methodology 

that manufacturers must use, the 

approach reduces the potential for 

inconsistency among manufacturers’ 

rating methods, a concern that 

interested parties raised about DOE’s 

previous idea to allow each 

manufacturer to develop its own AEDM 

for rating similar, but not identical, 

equipment. (See section III.A.3 for 

discussion of comments about this 

issue.) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed approach of specifying a 

formula based on DECCs, and on the 

assumptions that DOE made in 

generating this formula. DOE also asks 

if there are other parameters it should 

consider when calculating DECCs. 

C. Refrigeration System 

As previously discussed, a 

differentiation was made for the 

purposes of this test procedure between 

the envelope or structure of the walk-in 

cooler or freezer and the mechanical 

refrigeration system performing the 

physical work necessary to cool the 

interior space. The refrigeration system 

in this context is further subdivided into 

three categories, consisting of singlepackage systems containing both the 

condensing and evaporator units, split 

systems with the condensing unit and 

unit cooler physically separated and 

connected via refrigerant piping, and 

rack systems utilizing unit coolers, 

which receive refrigerant from a shared 

loop. The proposed test procedure 

contains separate specific provisions for 

the standardized testing of each 

refrigeration system type. Later sections 

provide a general overview of the test 

procedure for refrigeration systems of 

walk-in coolers and freezers and address 

some of the technical issues pertinent to 

the proposed test procedure. The 

following section also addresses issues 

raised by interested parties. 

1. Overview of the Test Procedure 

In accordance with EPCA, DOE 

proposes to adopt a test procedure for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

the refrigeration system of walk-in 

coolers and freezers. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) DOE is considering 

adding the following definition for 

‘‘refrigeration system’’ to 10 CFR part 

431, subpart R: ‘‘Refrigeration system 

means the mechanism used to create the 

refrigerated environment in the interior 

of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting 

of an integrated single-package 

refrigeration unit, or a split system with 

separate unit cooler and condensing 

unit sections, or a unit cooler that is 

connected to a central rack system; and 

including all controls and other 

components integral to the operation of 

this mechanism.’’ DOE requests 

comments on this proposed definition. 

In the framework document, DOE 

examined in detail six test procedures 

developed either by AHRI or ASHRAE 

that relate to the measurement of energy 

consumption of refrigeration equipment 

to determine whether they could apply 

to walk-in refrigeration systems. 

Although the six procedures collectively 

covered all of the components of the 

refrigeration systems of walk-in coolers 

and freezers (i.e., the compressor, the 

condenser, the condensing unit or the 

unit cooler), each of these existing 

procedures covered only one or some of 

the components, and none applied to 

the testing of the complete refrigeration 

system. The rating conditions specified 

in those procedures also are generally 

not representative of typical conditions 

found in walk-in equipment. 

During the framework public meeting 

and in a written comment, AHRI 

informed DOE that it has begun 

developing a standard for the 

performance rating of walk-in cooler 

and freezer refrigeration systems. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 

50; AHRI, No. 33 at p. 3) This standard, 

AHRI Standard 1250P, ‘‘2009 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Walk in 

Coolers and Freezers,’’ was published in 

September of 2009. DOE has reviewed 

the final, published version of AHRI 

Standard 1250P and proposes to 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.029</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 201 

incorporate it by reference into this test 

procedure. 

The test procedure DOE proposes to 

adopt covers testing of refrigeration 

systems for walk-in coolers and freezers, 

including unit coolers and condensing 

units that are sold together as a matched 

system (i.e., paired with each other in a 

way that optimizes the performance of 

the system), as well as unit coolers and 

condensing units sold separately, 

including unit coolers connected to 

compressor racks. The procedure 

describes the method for measuring the 

refrigeration capacity and the electrical 

energy consumption for the condensing 

unit and the unit cooler, as well as the 

off-cycle fan energy and the defrost 

subsystem under specified test 

conditions. The standard test conditions 

specify the dry-bulb and wet-bulb 

temperatures, the relative humidity for 

both the unit cooler and the condensing 

unit, and require that the system must 

operate under steady-state conditions. 

The test procedure groups walk-in 

cooler and freezer systems into four 

categories by distinguishing between 

indoor and outdoor locations for the 

condensing unit, and between coolers 

and freezers. The test procedure also 

specifies calculations for the nominal 

box loads for each of the four categories 

under typical low- and high-load 

conditions, expressed as a function of 

the ambient air temperature. (The 

‘‘nominal box load’’ refers to the 

refrigeration load imposed on the 

system by the walk-in envelope. Similar 

to the way in which the envelope was 

assumed to be paired with a 

refrigeration system of a given EER to 

provide a means of comparison between 

different envelopes, DOE assumes that 

the refrigeration system is paired with 

an envelope of given heat transfer 

characteristics. This assumption is made 

for comparison purposes. See section 

III.B.3.a for further discussion of this 

concept.) For systems in which the 

condensing unit is located outdoors, the 

test procedure uses bin temperature data 

and bin hour data to represent the 

impact of the seasonal variation in 

outside ambient air temperature on 

energy use. The test procedure 

computes an annual walk-in efficiency 

factor, or AWEF, for the refrigeration 

system under a specified thermal load 

profile over a 24-hour operation period. 

2. Test Conditions 

DOE received several comments on 

test conditions. The Utilities Joint 

Comment stated that most of the 

potential energy savings can be 

achieved using floating head pressure 

and variable-speed evaporator fans, both 

of which are time-varying and weather 

dependent, and a steady-state test may 

not capture these savings adequately. 

(Utilities Joint Comment, No. 32 at p. 4) 

Manitowoc stated that energy usage can 

depend on the heat load in the box 

consisting of defrost energy and fan 

energy, both of which depend on the 

refrigeration system control strategy. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 15 at p. 76) NEEA stated that the 

test conditions should reflect variations 

in the location of the condensing unit, 

thermal load conditions, and outdoor air 

temperature. (NEEA, No. 18 at p. 3) 

The test procedure DOE proposes 

specific conditions for both the interior 

and exterior of the walk-in to determine 

the net refrigeration capacity. The 

interior conditions of the unit cooler are 

specified as nominal temperature and 

humidity conditions: 2 °C dry-bulb and 

less than 50 percent relative humidity 

(RH) for coolers, and ¥23 °C dry-bulb 

and less than 50 percent RH for freezers. 

The proposed test procedure would 

measure both net refrigeration capacity 

and off-cycle fan power at those 

conditions for the unit cooler. For the 

condenser, the test procedure would 

specify three different ambient 

conditions for dry-bulb and wet-bulb 

temperatures: Hot (35 °C/24 °C), 

moderate (15 °C/12 °C) and cold (2 °C/ 

1 °C). The purpose of specifying three 

sets of ambient conditions is to capture 

the variation in capacity under different 

ambient temperatures. 

For two-capacity condensing units, 

the test procedure would measure the 

net refrigeration capacity under the 

same set of ambient conditions for the 

condenser at both the minimum and 

maximum capacity levels. Variablespeed condensing units would also have 

their refrigeration capacities measured 

at an additional intermediate capacity 

level. Because the test procedure 

provides for measurement of the 

compressor power and the fan power at 

two compressor capacity levels for twospeed systems and at three capacity 

levels for variable-speed systems at 

multiple outside ambient air 

temperature levels, DOE believes that 

the proposed test conditions reasonably 

reflect the energy savings that may be 

achieved through the control strategies 

referred to by interested parties. Also, as 

mentioned above, the proposed 

procedure includes a measurement of 

off-cycle fan power, which would 

account for energy savings due to 

variable-speed evaporator fans. 

The Joint Comment stated that test 

procedures should account for partialload conditions as well as maximum 

loading, and that test methods limited to 

maximum load conditions at steadystate operation are insufficient. (Joint 

Comment, No. 21 at p. 2) ACEEE also 

stated that the efficiency metric of the 

refrigeration system should reflect partload conditions. (ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 99) In 

the proposed test procedure, DOE has 

provided for testing of two-capacity and 

variable-capacity condensing units at 

the minimum capacity level, which 

would correspond to the appropriate 

low-load level condition for an 

appropriately sized unit. However, for a 

single-capacity unit, low-load 

conditions would lead to a higher 

frequency of equipment cycling because 

the equipment would be sized for a 

much larger load; that is, a load 

consistent with worst-case conditions. 

For single-speed equipment, the 

proposed test procedures do not capture 

the impact of this cyclic degradation. 

DOE believes that capturing the cyclic 

degradation is not necessary because, 

averaged over representative locations 

in the entire country, walk-in coolers 

may operate for many hours at the fullload condition. For instance, the daily 

pull-down-load in typical walk-in 

cooler and freezer installations is met 

over a period of 5 to 8 hours of full-load 

operation for a properly sized unit. 

Consequently, the impact of the cyclic 

degradation is not very significant for 

the walk-in cooler or freezer 

refrigeration system. 

Craig noted that the refrigeration 

systems of walk-in equipment are often 

oversized to account for the worst 

weather conditions and additional pulldown load (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 15 at p. 97). Nor-Lake 

stated that its methodology for 

determining the refrigeration load for 

the walk-in takes into account the worst 

conditions over the typical annual 

cycle, as well as product load, pulldown load, the number of door 

openings, and duration (Nor-Lake, No. 

30 at p. 2). The proposed test procedure 

computes the energy use on the basis of 

a nominal box load, which takes into 

account product load, infiltration load 

due to door openings, and transmission 

load through the box walls and roof. 

DOE believes that the values for the 

nominal box loads adequately reflect 

typical oversizing values. The proposed 

annual energy efficiency metric is based 

on weather conditions that are 

considered representative of the 

population-weighted average weather 

conditions of the country as a whole. 

3. Test Methods 

The net refrigeration capacity of the 

system is determined by one of the 

following test methods: (1) DX Dual 

Instrumentation measures the enthalpy 

change and the mass flow rate of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

refrigerant across the unit cooler using 

two independent measuring systems; or 

(2) DX Calibrated Box measures the 

enthalpy change and the mass flow rate 

of the refrigerant across the unit cooler 

and the heat input to the calibrated box. 

In the first method, the test unit cooler 

and the matched condensing unit are 

kept inside separate environmental 

chambers. In the second method, the 

condensing unit is placed inside the 

environmental chamber, while the unit 

cooler is kept inside a calibrated box, 

which is inside a temperaturecontrolled enclosure. 

DOE believes the test methods are 

appropriate for walk-ins because they 

were adapted from AHRI Standard 420– 

2008, ‘‘Performance rating of forcedcirculation free-delivery unit coolers for 

refrigeration,’’ and ASHRAE Standard 

23, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Positive Displacement Refrigerant 

Compressors and Condensing Units,’’ 

and have been widely used in the 

refrigeration industry for many years. 

Furthermore, these test methods were 

developed and approved by the industry 

and published by the industry trade 

association as a sufficiently adequate 

means of assessing the net refrigeration 

capacity of equipment that share many 

functional similarities with walk-ins, 

such as components, materials, and 

substances (e.g., the refrigerant) that 

provide the mechanical means of 

refrigeration. The test methods DOE is 

proposing today also account for ways 

in which walk-in refrigeration systems 

differ from commercial refrigeration 

equipment; as in their operating 

conditions, configurations, or patterns 

of use. For example, condensing units of 

walk-in refrigeration systems may be 

located outdoors and experience a wider 

range of operating temperatures than 

commercial refrigeration, which is 

generally located indoors; the walk-in 

refrigeration test procedure specifies 

three different ambient temperatures at 

which to test, in order to approximate 

actual conditions under which the 

system might operate. Furthermore, 

DOE’s proposed methods improve upon 

previously developed refrigeration test 

methods by accounting for the energysaving effects of advanced technologies 

such as variable-speed fans and defrost 

control strategies. 

4. Measurements and Calculations 

The test procedure DOE proposes to 

adopt, AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, 

measures certain parameters, including 

the net refrigeration capacity and the 

off-cycle fan power for both coolers and 

freezers. The defrost power and thermal 

energy transferred to the defrost drain 

water are measured for a defrost cycle 

for freezers only. Separate calculation 

procedures for single-capacity, twocapacity, and variable-capacity 

equipment are included in the test 

procedure. The test procedure 

determines the annual walk-in energy 

factor, or AWEF, as the ratio of the 

annual net heat removed from the box, 

which includes the internal heat gains 

from non-refrigeration components but 

excludes the heat gains from the 

refrigeration components in the box, to 

the annual electrical energy 

consumption. The final metric 

determined by this procedure is a 

measure of efficiency. However, DOE is 

required by EPCA to establish ‘‘a test 

procedure to measure * * * energy 

use.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) In light 

of this requirement, DOE proposes that 

manufacturers determine both the 

AWEF and the annual energy 

consumption of their equipment using 

the test procedure, which will enable 

the test procedure to be consistent with 

the requirements of EPCA to develop 

test procedures that measure the energy 

consumption of walk-in equipment. 

In the AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 

calculations, the annual net heat 

removed from the nominal box is 

represented as a function of ambient 

temperature surrounding the condenser 

and the measured net refrigeration 

capacity at the highest test temperature. 

For refrigeration systems consisting of a 

unit cooler and a dedicated condensing 

unit, the annual net heat removed from 

the box can be calculated from the 

system capacity and, for systems located 

outdoors, the net heat removed from the 

nominal box at a given bin temperature 

weighted by the number of hours 

corresponding to the bin temperature. 

The temperature bin data listed in Table 

D1 of AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 has 

been constructed from the ambient 

temperatures over a typical 

meteorological year for a specified 

location, corresponding closely to the 

use cycle parameters prescribed in other 

DOE standards. For refrigeration 

systems consisting of a unit cooler 

connected to a remote rack, the net heat 

removed is a function of the unit cooler 

capacity at the test points specified in 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009. 

DOE is considering deriving the 

expressions for the annual net heat 

removed from the box, that is, the 

numerator of the equations for energy 

consumption, by simplifying the 

equations in AHRI Standard 1250P– 

2009. As an example, the calculation 

methodology for indoor coolers using 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 would be as 

follows: 

The AWEF, for walk-in cooler systems 

with dedicated condensing units located 

indoors, is determined by 

AWEF BL t E t Eq. 6 = () () j j ⎡

⎣ ⎤ ∑ ⎦ / , j=1

n

Where S[BL(tj)] is the annual net heat 

removed from the box over the course of 

the year, and S[E(tj)] is the annual energy 

consumption of the system. Thus, 

E t BL t /AWEF. Eq. 7 j

j 1

n

j

j=1

n

( ) = ( ) =

∑ ∑

AWEF is calculated directly using the test 

procedure, while BL(tj) is calculated by: 

BL t 0.33 BLH t 0.67 BLL t n . Eq. 8 ( )j j jj = × ( ) + × ( ) ⎡

⎣ ⎤⎦ ×


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.030</MATH> EP04JA10.031</MATH> EP04JA10.032</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 203 

For indoor units, tj is assumed to be constant; 

thus, nj = 8760, the total number of hours 

in a year. BLH and BLL are given by, 

respectively, 

BLH 0.7 q 90 F Eq. 9 ss

o = × ( )

and 

BLL 0.1 q 90 F Eq. 10 ss

o = × ( ),

Where qss(90 °F) is the system steady state 

refrigeration capacity at 90 °F. When 

terms are combined and the expression 

simplified, the equation for annual 

energy consumption becomes 

Annual Energy Consumption 0.30 q 90 F

AWEF Eq. 11 ss

o

= × ( )×8760 .

DOE requests comment on using these 

equations to derive annual energy 

consumption. 

D. Compliance, Certification, and 

Enforcement 

Finally, DOE addresses below 

compliance, certification, and 

enforcement issues involving walk-ins. 

At this time, DOE is not proposing any 

specific requirements for this 

equipment. As discussed below, DOE 

will consider addressing these issues in 

a separate rulemaking. Any data on 

which a manufacturer relies for the 

purposes of certifying compliance with 

any applicable standards that DOE 

promulgates for this equipment would 

be derived from the test procedure that 

DOE adopts. The adopted procedure 

would also be used by DOE during 

enforcement-related testing. 

1. Provisions for Energy Conservation 

Standards Developed by the Department 

of Energy 

The purpose of establishing 

compliance, certification, and 

enforcement regulations is to provide 

reasonable assurance that manufacturers 

appropriately test and accurately 

represent the performance 

characteristics of commercial 

equipment. DOE recently incorporated 

the standards prescribed by EISA 2007, 

including those for walk-ins, into 10 

CFR parts 430 and 431. 74 FR 12074 

(March 23, 2009). However, DOE has 

not yet proposed or issued amended 

energy conservation standards for walkins. DOE will consider issuing 

compliance, certification, and 

enforcement provisions for walk-ins in 

a future rulemaking. Therefore, today’s 

notice proposes no certification, 

compliance, or enforcement provisions 

for energy conservation standards for 

walk-ins. 

2. Provisions for Existing Design 

Standards Prescribed by Congress 

DOE is responsible for enforcing 

Federal energy standards, whether those 

standards were developed through a 

DOE rulemaking pursuant to EPCA or 

prescribed by Congress. In EISA 2007, 

Congress prescribed design standards 

specifically for walk-ins that took effect 

on January 1, 2009. Typically, DOE 

establishes specific enforcement 

regulations for each product covered by 

existing standards, which may require 

manufacturers to file documents such as 

a compliance statement and a 

certification report. In a compliance 

statement, the manufacturer certifies its 

products meet the requirements. In a 

certification report, the manufacturer 

provides product-specific information 

that would enable DOE to determine 

whether the product meets the standard. 

DOE has already established compliance 

and certification requirements for other 

products. 

Until DOE finalizes regulations that 

require compliance statements and 

certification reports for walk-ins, 

manufacturers will not be required to 

report data to DOE, but they must still 

meet all prescribed design standards 

that went into effect on January 1, 2009. 

If there is a question on compliance 

with design standards, the manufacturer 

must make a reasonable case that the 

equipment meets those standards. 

To address concerns about the EISA 

2007 design requirements for walk-ins, 

DOE maintains a Frequently Asked 

Questions page on the DOE Web site at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

wicf_faqs.html. 

IV. 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 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

that Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

to adopt test procedures and related 

provisions for walk-in equipment. The 

test procedures would be used initially 

for the purpose of considering the 

adoption of energy conservation 

standards for walk-ins, and DOE would 

require their use only if standards were 

subsequently adopted. The proposed 

test procedures will not affect the 

quality or distribution of energy and, 

therefore, will not result in 

environmental impacts. Therefore, DOE 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the 

Department’s implementing regulations 

at 10 CFR part 1021. More specifically, 

today’s proposed rule is covered by the 

Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A6 

to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (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 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site, http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking 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 proposed test procedures have not 

previously been required of 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.033</MATH> EP04JA10.034</MATH> EP04JA10.035</MATH>
204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers, all manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers, could 

potentially experience a financial 

burden associated with new testing 

requirements. While examining this 

issue, DOE determined that it could not 

certify that the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant effect on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

DOE has prepared an IRFA for this 

rulemaking. The IRFA describes 

potential impacts on small businesses 

associated with walk-in cooler and 

freezer testing requirements. 

DOE has transmitted a copy of this 

IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

for review. 

1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule 

Title III of the EPCA sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part B of 

Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides 

for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. NECPA (Pub. L. 95–619) 

amended EPCA to add Part C of title III, 

which established an energy 

conservation program for certain 

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

6317) (These parts were subsequently 

redesignated as Parts A and A–1, 

respectively, for editorial reasons.) 

Section 312 of EISA 2007 further 

amended EPCA by adding certain 

equipment to this energy conservation 

program, including walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers (collectively ‘‘walk-in 

equipment’’ or ‘‘walk-ins’’), the subject 

of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C 6311(1), 

(2), 6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) The 

proposed rule would establish a test 

procedure for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

Under EPCA, the overall energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of the following parts: 

Testing, labeling, and Federal energy 

conservation standards. The testing 

requirements for covered equipment 

consist of test procedures, prescribed 

under EPCA. The test procedures, if 

adopted, would be used in one of three 

ways: (1) Any data from the use of the 

test procedure, would be used by DOE 

as a basis for developing standards for 

walk-in equipment; (2) the procedure 

would be used by DOE when 

determining equipment compliance 

with those standards; and (3) 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

would be required to use the procedure 

as the basis for establishing that their 

equipment complies with the relevant 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated pursuant to EPCA and 

when making representations regarding 

equipment efficiency. 

Section 343 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6314) 

sets forth generally applicable criteria 

and procedures for DOE’s adoption and 

amendment of test procedures for 

covered equipment. That provision 

requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. It also 

requires that the test procedure not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

concerning the background of this 

rulemaking is provided in Section I of 

this preamble. 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

Small businesses, as defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

for the walk-in cooler and freezer 

manufacturing industry, are 

manufacturing enterprises with 750 

employees or fewer. DOE used the small 

business size standards published on 

January 31, 1996, as amended, by the 

SBA to determine whether any small 

entities would be required to comply 

with the rule. 61 FR 3286; see also 65 

FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 

(September 5, 2000). The size standards 

are codified at 13 CFR Part 121. The 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/ 

groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

Walk-in cooler and freezer equipment 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 333415, Air-Conditioning and 

Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing. 

DOE reviewed AHRI’s listing of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturer members and surveyed 

the industry to develop a list of 

domestic manufacturers. DOE also 

asked stakeholders and AHRI 

representatives within the industry if 

they were aware of any other small 

business manufacturers. DOE then 

examined publicly available data, 

including regulatory databases such as 

state databases and the National 

Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Section 7 

database. DOE identified at least 37 

small manufacturers of walk-in cooler 

and freezer envelopes, and at least 5 

small manufacturers of walk-in cooler 

and freezer refrigeration systems. 

However, some manufacturers that DOE 

interviewed indicated that there could 

be many more small business 

manufacturers than were publicly listed. 

Such unlisted manufacturers could be 

very small (< 50 employees) and serve 

only a local market. They also may not 

submit any information to state or 

national regulators such as NSF. 

Therefore, DOE believes there may be 

more affected small entities than it 

estimated and seeks comment on the 

number of small entities that may be 

impacted by the test procedure. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Potential impacts of the proposed test 

procedures on manufacturers, including 

small businesses, come from impacts 

associated with the cost of testing. In 

this test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposes measures to reduce the 

financial burden of testing on all 

manufacturers, including small business 

manufacturers. First, where the 

procedure gives manufacturers options 

in terms of materials, equipment, or 

methodology to be used in performing 

the test, DOE proposes to allow 

manufacturers to use the lowest-cost 

option, where possible. For instance, 

ASTM E741–06 allows manufacturers to 

use any of about 12 tracer gases. DOE 

specifies a tracer gas to ensure that all 

manufacturers report at the same 

accuracy, but specifies the use of carbon 

dioxide, which would be the lowest cost 

option. Second, DOE proposes to reduce 

the total number of tests manufacturers 

would have to perform by allowing 

them to group similar equipment into a 

single family, or basic model, and only 

requiring them to test one unit of each 

basic model. (See section III.A.1 for a 

more detailed discussion of the basic 

model proposal.) 

The proposed test procedure for 

envelopes would require manufacturers 

to perform testing in accordance with 

two industry test standards: ASTM 

C1303–08, ‘‘Standard Test Method of 

Predicting Long-Term Thermal 

Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation,’’ and ASTM E741–06, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Air Change in a Single Zone by Means 

of a Tracer Gas Dilution.’’ DOE spoke 

with industry experts to determine the 

approximate cost of each test and 

determined that a test using ASTM 

C1303–08 costs between approximately 

$5,000 and $10,000, and a test using 

ASTM E741–06 costs between $1,000 

and $5,000. A typical manufacturer 

would have approximately 8 basic 

models, so the total cost of compliance 

would be approximately $84,000. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 205 

The proposed test procedure for 

refrigeration systems would require 

manufacturers to perform testing in 

accordance with a single industry test 

standard: AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, 

‘‘2009 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.’’ 

Because this test was recently 

developed by the industry and has not 

yet been widely used to test 

refrigeration systems, DOE could not 

determine how much the test currently 

costs. However, DOE researched the cost 

of other, similar standards and 

subsequently estimated that a test using 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 would 

likely cost approximately $5,000. A 

typical refrigeration manufacturer could 

have approximately 50 basic models, 

making the total cost of compliance 

approximately $250,000. 

Because the cost of running each test 

is the same for all manufacturers, and 

because DOE has proposed measures to 

reduce burden on all manufacturers, 

DOE believes that all manufacturers 

would incur comparable costs as a 

result of the proposed test procedures. 

However, DOE does not expect that 

small manufacturers would have fewer 

basic models than large manufacturers, 

because the equipment is highly 

customized throughout the industry. A 

small manufacturer could have the same 

total cost of testing as a large 

manufacturer, but this cost would be a 

higher percentage of a small 

manufacturer’s annual revenues. Thus, 

DOE cannot certify that the differential 

impact associated with walk-in cooler 

and freezer test procedures on small 

businesses would not be significant. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE considered a number of 

alternatives to the proposed test 

procedure, including test procedures 

that incorporate industry test standards 

other than the three proposed standards, 

ASTM C1303–08, ASTM E741–06, and 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, described 

above. Instead of requiring ASTM 

C1303–08 for testing the long-term 

thermal properties of insulation, DOE 

could require only ASTM C518–04, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Steady-State 

Thermal Transmission Properties by 

Means of the Heat Flow Meter 

Apparatus,’’ which tests the thermal 

properties of insulation at a certain 

point in time (i.e., the point of 

manufacture). (Because ASTM C1303– 

08 incorporates ASTM C518–04, 

requiring ASTM C1303–08 is consistent 

with the statutory requirement for 

basing measurement of the thermal 

conductivity of the insulation on ASTM 

C518–04.) (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)) A 

test of ASTM C518–04 alone costs 

approximately $500–$1,000. However, 

DOE is considering ASTM C1303 for 

other reasons; namely, the concern that 

ASTM C518–04 alone does not capture 

the performance characteristics of a 

walk-in over the period of its use, 

because it does not account for 

significant changes in the thermal 

properties of insulation over time. For 

more discussion on this issue, see 

Section III.B.2.a. 

DOE also considered ASTM E1827– 

96(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Determining Airtightness of Buildings 

Using an Orifice Blower Door,’’ instead 

of ASTM E741–06, for testing 

infiltration. ASTM E1827–96(2007) 

costs about $300–$500 for a single test. 

However, DOE believes that ASTM 

E1827–96(2007) is not appropriate for 

walk-ins because it is conducted by 

placing test equipment in the door, and 

thus does not account for in infiltration 

through the door, which is a major 

component of infiltration in walk-ins. In 

addition, it is not intended for testing 

envelope systems, such as a walk-in, 

that have a large temperature difference 

between the internal and external air. 

Therefore, to complete a blower-door 

test, the walk-in would not be able to be 

tested at or close to operational 

temperatures, resulting in a test that 

does not accurately reflect its 

performance. For more discussion on 

this issue, see Section III.B.2.b. 

In the framework document, DOE 

considered adapting an existing test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, such as ARI Standard 1200– 

2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

as an alternative to AHRI Standard 

1250P–2009. The two tests are based on 

a similar methodology for rating 

refrigeration equipment in general, but 

ARI Standard 1200–2006 requires 

testing at only one set of ambient 

conditions, whereas AHRI Standard 

1250P–2009 requires testing at 3 sets of 

ambient conditions for refrigeration 

systems with the condensing units 

located outdoors. The additional time 

required to test the system at 3 sets of 

conditions would incur additional cost 

and could make AHRI Standard 1250P– 

2009 more burdensome than ARI 

Standard 1200–2006. However, DOE 

believes that AHRI Standard 1250P– 

2009 is more appropriate for testing 

walk-ins than ARI Standard 1200–2006. 

A test procedure based on ARI Standard 

1200–2006 would require the entire 

walk-in to be tested as a whole, but 

manufacturers might not have a large 

enough test facility to make the 

measurements necessary for the ARI 

1200–2006 test procedure in a 

controlled environment. Also, the 

refrigeration system is often 

manufactured separately from the 

insulated envelope. In this case, 

whoever assembled the two components 

would bear the burden of conducting 

ARI 1200–2006; this party might not be 

the manufacturer of the refrigeration 

system. In contrast, AHRI 1250P–2009 

tests only the refrigeration system. It 

does not require a larger test chamber 

than other, similar tests, and can be 

conducted by the manufacturer of the 

refrigeration system. Furthermore, 

because AHRI 1250P–2009 requires the 

system to be tested at 3 ambient 

temperatures, it captures energy savings 

from features (for example, floating head 

pressure) that allow the system to use 

less energy at lower ambient 

temperatures. For more discussion on 

this issue, see Section III.A.2. 

DOE requests comment on the 

impacts to small business manufacturers 

for these and any other possible 

alternatives to the proposed rule. DOE 

will consider any comments received 

regarding impacts to small business 

manufacturers for all the alternatives 

identified. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Today’s proposed rule contains no 

record-keeping requirements. Therefore, 

today’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

would not impose any new reporting 

requirements requiring clearance by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Department recognizes, however, that if 

it adopts standards for walk-in coolers 

and walk-in freezers, once the standards 

become operative, manufacturers may 

become subject to record-keeping 

requirements associated with 

compliance with the standards. 

Therefore, the Department will comply 

with the record-keeping requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act if and 

when energy conservation standards are 

adopted. 

E. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

With respect to a proposed regulatory 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

action 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 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish estimates of 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 small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA (62 FR 

12820) (also available at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed rule 

published today does not provide for 

any Federal mandate likely to result in 

an aggregate expenditure of $100 

million or more. Therefore, the UMRA 

does not require a cost benefit analysis 

of today’s proposal. 

F. 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 

proposed 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. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and 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 today’s 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it does not preempt State law and does 

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. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 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, and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s notice under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

J. 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 the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

Is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any 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. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. The Administrator of OIRA 

also did not designate today’s action as 

a significant energy action. Therefore, it 

is not a significant energy action, and 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined pursuant to 

Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

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

that this proposed rule would not result 

in any takings which might require 

compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 207 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration (FEA) 

Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with section 32 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 

Energy Administration Authorization 

Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 

provides in part that, where a proposed 

rule contains or involves use of 

commercial standards, the rulemaking 

must inform the public of the use and 

background of such standards. The rule 

proposed in this notice incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: ASTM 

C1303–08, ‘‘Standard Test Method of 

Predicting Long-Term Thermal 

Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation;’’ ASTM E741–06, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determining Air 

Change in a Single Zone by Means of a 

Tracer Gas Dilution;’’ and AHRI 

Standard 1250P, ‘‘2009 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Walk in Coolers 

and Freezers.’’ The Department has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the Federal Energy Administration Act, 

i.e., whether they were developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review. As 

required by section 32(c) of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act, of 1974, as 

amended, DOE will consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission before 

prescribing a final rule concerning the 

impact on competition of requiring 

manufacturers to use the methods 

contained in these standards to test 

walk-in equipment. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are provided in the 

DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the 

beginning of this document. Anyone 

who wants to attend the public meeting 

must notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. As explained in the 

ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals 

visiting DOE headquarters are subject to 

advance security screening procedures. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is a representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the public 

meeting. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak to the address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Requests may 

also be sent by mail or email to: Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons who wish to speak should 

include in their request a computer 

diskette or CD in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

DOE requests that those persons who 

are scheduled to speak submit a copy of 

their statements at least one week prior 

to the public meeting. DOE may permit 

any person who cannot supply an 

advance copy of this statement to 

participate, if that person has made 

alternative arrangements with the 

Building Technologies Program in 

advance. When necessary, the request to 

give an oral presentation should ask for 

such alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also employ a professional facilitator to 

aid discussion. The public meeting will 

be conducted in an informal, conference 

style. The meeting will not be a judicial 

or evidentiary public hearing, but DOE 

will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). 

Discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws is not permitted. 

DOE reserves the right to schedule the 

order of presentations and to establish 

the procedures governing the conduct of 

the public meeting. A court reporter will 

record the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. 

At the public meeting, DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for presentations by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant may present a prepared 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE) before the 

discussion of specific topics. Other 

participants may comment briefly on 

any general statements. At the end of 

the prepared statements on each specific 

topic, participants may clarify their 

statements briefly and comment on 

statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions 

from DOE and other participants. DOE 

representatives may also ask questions 

about other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of procedures needed for the proper 

conduct of the public meeting. 

DOE will make the entire record of 

this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Anyone may 

purchase a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

no later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to 

DOE’s e-mail address for this 

rulemaking should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text (ASCII) file format. Interested 

parties should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and wherever possible, comments 

should include the electronic signature 

of the author. Absent an electronic 

signature, comments submitted 

electronically must be followed and 

authenticated by submitting a signed 

original paper document to the address 

provided at the beginning of this notice. 

Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE via mail or hand 

delivery/courier should include one 

signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

According 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 two copies: One copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the following 

issues: 

1. Test Procedure Improvements 

DOE requests comments on 

improvements in the test procedures 

that it should consider. In submitting 

comments, interested parties should 

state the nature of the recommended 

modification and an explanation of how 

it improves upon the test procedure 

proposed in this NOPR. See section II 

for details. 

2. Basic Model 

Because walk-in equipment tends to 

be highly customized, DOE is 

considering allowing manufacturers to 

group similar walk-in equipment under 

a single ‘‘basic model’’ and only 

subjecting one unit of each basic model 

to testing. DOE will use the term ‘‘basic 

model’’ to represent a single family of 

walk-in equipment, consisting of walkin equipment or models of equipment 

that do not have any differentiating 

electrical, physical, or functional 

features that significantly affect energy 

consumption characteristics. DOE 

requests comments on the proposed 

basic model approach. See section 

III.A.1 for details. 

3. Separate Envelope and Refrigeration 

Tests 

For any walk-in, two different 

manufacturers may make the two main 

components: The envelope, or insulated 

box, and the refrigeration system. In this 

notice, DOE proposes separate test 

procedures for the envelope and the 

refrigeration system. The envelope 

manufacturer would be responsible for 

testing the envelope according to the 

envelope test procedure, and the 

refrigeration system manufacturer 

would be responsible for testing the 

refrigeration system according to the 

refrigeration system test procedure. The 

purpose of this provision is to 

accurately reflect the structure of the 

walk-in market and assign testing 

responsibilities to the equipment 

manufacturers. DOE requests comments 

on the proposed approach to develop 

separate test procedures. See section 

III.A.4 for details. 

4. Definition of Envelope 

DOE requests comments on the 

following definition of ‘‘envelope:’’ ‘‘(1) 

a piece of equipment that is the portion 

of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer 

that isolates the interior, refrigerated 

environment from the ambient, external 

environment; and (2) all energyconsuming components of the walk-in 

cooler or walk-in freezer that are not 

part of its refrigeration system.’’ See 

section III.B.1 for details. 

5. Effect of Impermeable Skins on LongTerm R-Value 

DOE received many comments on the 

framework document regarding longterm R-value. After researching the 

issue, DOE determined that the R-value 

of insulating foams diminish after 

manufacture at rates that vary by 

material type and environmental 

conditions. Diffusion of gases and 

moisture infiltration are the key 

mechanisms of R-value decline. Many 

manufacturers seek to prevent or delay 

diffusion and moisture infiltration by 

sealing the foam in a ‘‘skin,’’ typically 

a metal material. DOE received 

comments suggesting that these skins 

can be made fully impermeable while 

other comments argued that full 

impermeability cannot be achieved due 

to imperfect sealing at panel joints, 

imperfect adherence of foam to metal 

during manufacture, deliberate 

punctures for fixtures and shelving, 

and/or inadvertent punctures that 

typically occur in the field. DOE 

requests feedback on this issue, 

including the submission of test results 

on the impact of impermeable skins on 

long-term R-value. Specifically, DOE 

requests that interested parties submit 

or identify any peer-reviewed, 

published data pertaining to the efficacy 

of skins in preventing or delaying Rvalue decline. See section III.B.2.a for 

details. 

6. Measuring Long-Term R-Value Using 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) C1303–08 

DOE proposes accounting for R-value 

decline due to diffusion of gases by 

requiring manufacturers to condition 

their foam prior to testing. DOE 

proposes requiring manufacturers to 

condition foam using ASTM C1303–08, 

which conditions foam using an 

accelerated aging method prior to 

testing its R-value. Because ASTM 

C1303–08 uses ASTM C518–2004, using 

ASTM C1303–08 would be consistent 

with EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)(ii)) 

DOE requests feedback on the proposal 

to require conditioning and testing foam 

using ASTM C1303–08. DOE recognizes 

that ASTM C1303–08 is designed for 

unfaced and permeably faced foams 

rather than the impermeably faced 

foams typical of walk-ins. DOE requests 

feedback on the use of ASTM C1303–08 

for foams that will be impermeably 

faced. 

DOE is considering several exceptions 

and clarifications to ASTM C1303–08 to 

satisfy requirements of EPCA and to 

make the test procedure more applicable 

to walk-ins. DOE requests feedback on 

the number of samples and sample 

thicknesses, the use of interpolation of 

results for foam thicknesses within the 

specified ±0.5 inch range, and the use of 

the core stack R-value out of a sample 

size of three stacks for the purpose of 

calculating walk-in energy use. 

Lastly, ASTM C1303–08 cannot be 

used for non-foam materials, but DOE is 

not aware of any non-foam materials 

currently being used as insulation in 

walk-in coolers or freezers. DOE 

requests comment on whether non-foam 

technologies, such as vacuum insulated 

panels or aerogels, are likely to be 

commercially available for walk-ins 

within the next 5 years. See section 

III.B.2.a for details. 

7. Infiltration 

Air infiltration causes a substantial 

amount of heat gain through the 

envelope. After evaluating several 

methods of testing and measuring the 

air infiltration, DOE proposes requiring 

ASTM E741–06, also referred to as the 

gas tracer method, as the test procedure 

for measuring steady-state infiltration 

and the effectiveness of infiltration 

reduction devices (for air infiltration 

unrelated to door opening events). 

Because door opening also contributes 

to infiltration, DOE proposes accounting 

for this infiltration pathway. DOE does 

not, however, propose to require 

manufacturers to individually measure 

the infiltration from door opening 

events, due to the complexity of this 

type of testing and the availability of 

accurate analytical models, which 

would make a test procedure very 

difficult to implement. DOE proposes 

using analytical methods based on 

ASHRAE fundamentals as well as 

assumed door-opening frequency and 

duration and the measured infiltration 

barrier effectiveness to calculate the air 

infiltration associated with each dooropening event. DOE requests comments 

on the proposed test method for steadystate infiltration. DOE requests input 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 209 

and feedback on the calculations and 

assumptions proposed for determining 

infiltration from door-opening events. 

See section III.B.2.b for details on the 

proposed analytical methods. 

8. Nominal Coefficient of Performance 

of Refrigeration 

In developing a test procedure for the 

envelope alone, without a refrigeration 

system, DOE had to determine the 

energy consumption associated with 

heat gain through the envelope due to 

conduction and infiltration. DOE 

proposes to assume a nominal EER for 

the refrigeration system to convert the 

heat gain through the box into a 

measure of the energy consumption of a 

theoretical refrigeration system that 

would be removing this heat from the 

box. For comparison purposes, DOE 

recommends that the EER be 12.4 Btu 

per watt hour (Btu/Wh) for coolers and 

6.3 Btu/Wh for freezers because these 

are typical EER values. DOE requests 

comments on this proposal and on the 

assumed value for the EER. See section 

III.B.3.a for details. 

9. Measuring the U-Value of Glass 

Because conduction through glass 

components can be a significant source 

of heat transfer through walk-in 

envelopes, DOE seeks to order to 

account for improvements in glass 

performance in the test procedure. DOE 

proposes two options for manufacturers: 

(1) If manufacturers of glass doors used 

in walk-ins participate in the NFRC 

rating program, the performance of the 

door shall be simply read from its label 

and used for calculations in this test 

procedure. If glass door manufacturers 

do not participate in the NFRC rating 

program, then (2) DOE proposes to 

require manufacturers to use the LBNL’s 

publicly available Window 5.2 software 

package to calculate glass door 

performance. DOE seeks comment on 

the availability of performance data on 

glass products used in walk-in 

applications, glass component 

manufacturers’ participation in third 

party certification programs such as 

NFRC, and the proposed method for 

predicting the thermal performance of 

glass components using Window 5.2. 

See section III.B.3.b for more 

information. 

10. Floor R-Value 

EPCA does not require walk-in cooler 

floors to meet a specific R-value. In 

many instances, walk-in coolers are 

shipped without additional insulating 

floors and are simply placed on top of 

an existing surface, such as a concrete 

slab. Since concrete is the floor surface 

most commonly used with floorless 

walk-in coolers DOE is considering 

using the R-value of 6-inch concrete to 

calculate energy lost through these 

floors. DOE proposes using an R-value 

of 0.6 ft2-° F-hr/Btu for 6-inch concrete. 

Since walk-in freezers are required to 

have a floor insulation of R–28, DOE 

will assume this R-value for purposes of 

calculating the energy loss through 

walk-in freezer floors if the 

manufacturer does not provide any 

additional insulating surface. DOE 

requests comments on these 

assumptions. See section III.B.3.b for 

details. 

11. Electrical Duty Cycle 

As part of the envelope test 

procedure, DOE recommends 

calculating the electricity consumption 

of lights, sensors, and other 

miscellaneous electrical devices not 

considered part of the refrigeration 

equipment using name-plate rating and 

an assumed daily operation. DOE 

incorporates assumed duty cycles of 

lights, anti-sweat heaters, and other 

devices based on whether they are 

controlled by a preset control system. 

While these assumptions may not reflect 

the actual behaviorally related energy 

consumption, they will provide a means 

for comparison. DOE requests comments 

on whether the duty cycle assumptions 

are appropriate. See section III.B.3.d for 

details. 

12. Normalization Factor 

For the envelope test procedure, DOE 

proposes to normalize the energy 

consumption by a certain factor related 

to the size of the walk-in so that 

manufacturers of larger walk-ins and 

walk-ins with glass doors are not 

unfairly penalized. DOE believes that 

the surface area of the envelope is an 

appropriate normalization factor, 

because surface area is the key 

geometric characteristic related to both 

conduction and infiltration and is 

particularly important as the ratio of 

glass door area to wall area increases. 

DOE requests comments on the proposal 

to normalize the energy consumption by 

the surface area of the walk-in. See 

section III.B.3.e for details. 

13. Daily Energy Consumption 

Coefficients 

In order to compare envelopes that are 

similar enough to be included in the 

same basic model but are not identical, 

the test procedure allows for calculating 

Daily Energy Consumption Coefficients, 

or DECCs, using test results from a 

particular envelope within a basic 

model, and then applying these DECCs 

to other envelopes within a basic model 

to calculate the energy consumption of 

the other units. DECCs are essentially 

scaling factors that allow a manufacturer 

to change certain parameters of an 

envelope and calculate the 

corresponding change in energy 

consumption. DOE believes that this 

approach would reduce the testing 

burden on manufacturers because it 

would not require manufacturers to test 

every unit produced with slight 

variations due to customer specification. 

DOE requests comment on this rating 

methodology. For formulas and more 

information, see section III.B.3.f. 

14. Definition of Refrigeration System 

DOE requests comments on the 

following definition of ‘‘refrigeration 

system:’’ ‘‘the mechanism used to create 

the refrigerated environment in the 

interior of a walk-in cooler or freezer, 

consisting of an integrated singlepackage refrigeration unit, or a split 

system with separate unit cooler and 

condensing unit sections, or a unit 

cooler that is connected to a central rack 

system; and including all controls and 

other components integral to the 

operation of this mechanism.’’ See 

section III.C.1 for details. 

15. Measurements and Calculations of 

Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems 

The test procedure DOE proposes to 

adopt, AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, 

determines the annual walk-in energy 

factor, or AWEF, which is a measure of 

the efficiency of a walk-in’s refrigeration 

system. However, DOE is required by 

EPCA to establish ‘‘a test procedure to 

measure * * * energy use.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) In light of this 

requirement, DOE proposes that 

manufacturers determine both the 

AWEF and the annual energy 

consumption of their equipment using 

the test procedure, which will enable 

the test procedure to be consistent with 

the requirements of EPCA to develop 

test procedures that measure the energy 

consumption of walk-in equipment. 

DOE is considering satisfying the 

statutory requirement by deriving the 

energy consumption of the walk-in 

refrigeration system from data obtained 

when the test procedure is performed. 

DOE’s derivation process, and further 

information, can be found in section 

III.C.4. 

16. Impacts on Small Businesses 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

substantial number of small entities. 

Upon examination of this NOPR, DOE 

could not certify that the rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; 

therefore, DOE prepared an IRFA for 

this rule. DOE requests comment on the 

number of small businesses affected by 

the proposed rule, and seeks comment 

on impacts to small business 

manufacturers for any possible 

alternatives to the proposed rule. More 

information, along with the text of the 

IRFA, can be found in section IV.C. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

14, 2009. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, to read as set 

forth below. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 431.302 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Basic model,’’ 

‘‘Envelope,’’ ‘‘Refrigeration system,’’ 

and ‘‘Walk-in equipment’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.302 Definitions concerning walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers. 

Basic Model means all units of a given 

type of walk-in equipment 

manufactured by a single manufacturer, 

and— 

(1) With respect to envelopes, which 

do not have any differing construction 

methods, materials, components, or 

other characteristics that significantly 

affect the energy consumption 

characteristics. 

(2) With respect to refrigeration 

systems, which have the same primary 

energy source and which do not have 

any differing electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that 

significantly affect energy consumption. 

Envelope means (1) the portion of a 

walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that 

isolates the interior, refrigerated 

environment from the ambient, external 

environment; and (2) all energyconsuming components of the walk-in 

cooler or walk-in freezer that are not 

part of its refrigeration system. 

Refrigeration system means the 

mechanism used to create the 

refrigerated environment in the interior 

of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting 

of an integrated single-package 

refrigeration unit, or a split system with 

separate unit cooler and condensing 

unit sections, or a unit cooler that is 

connected to a central rack system; and 

including all controls and other 

components integral to the operation of 

this mechanism. 

* * * * * 

Walk-in equipment means either the 

envelope or the refrigeration system of 

a walk-in cooler or freezer. 

3. Section 431.303 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 431.303 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) ASTM C1303–08, Standard Test 

Method of Predicting Long Term 

Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation, approved September 15, 

2008, IBR approved for § 431.304. 

(3) ASTM E741–06, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Air Change in 

a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas 

Dilution, approved October 1, 2006, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 

22201, (703) 600–0366, or http:// 

www.ahrinet.org. 

(1) AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, 2009 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, approved 

September 2009, IBR approved for 

§ 431.304. 

(2) Reserved. 

4. Section 431.304 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.304 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides test 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to 

EPCA, the energy consumption of walkin coolers and walk-in freezers. 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

(1) Determine the energy consumption 

of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

envelopes by conducting the test 

procedure specified in Appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(2) Determine the U-value of glass 

components from the product label in 

compliance with the National 

Fenestration Rating Council’s Product 

Certification Program, PCP–2007, or by 

using the Window 5.2 software to 

calculate the performance of the glass. 

(3) Determine the Annual Walk-in 

Efficiency Factor of walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by 

conducting the test procedure set forth 

in AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(4) Determine the energy consumption 

of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

refrigeration systems by: 

(i) For refrigeration systems with the 

condensing unit located inside a 

conditioned space, performing the 

following calculations for coolers and 

freezers, respectively: 

Annual Energy Consumption coolers 0.30 q 90 F

A

ss

o

( ) = × ( )×8760

nnual Walk-in Efficiency Factor

Annual Energy Consumption freezers 0.53 q 90 F

Annual Walk-in Efficiency

ss

o

( ) = × ( )×8760

 Factor

Where qss (90 °F) is the steady state net 

refrigeration capacity measured at 

an ambient condition of 90 °F, and 

the Annual Walk-In Efficiency 

Factor is calculated from the results 

of the test procedures set forth in 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.036</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 211 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(ii) For refrigeration systems with the 

condensing unit located outdoors, 

performing the following calculations 

for coolers and freezers, respectively: 

Annual Energy Consumption (coolers) =

0 24 95 0 06 . . ×q F ss ( ) + × o q Ft n ss o j

j

95 35

60

Annual Walk-in Effic

j=1

n ( )× − ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥ ∑ ×

ency Factor

Annual Energy Consumption (freezers) =

0 28 . ×qss 95 0 25

95 10

105

Annual

j=1

n o ss o j F j

q Ft ( ) + × n

( )× + ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥ ∑ . × 

 Walk-in Efficency Factor

Where qss (95 °F) is the steady state net 

refrigeration capacity measured at 

an ambient condition of 95 °F; tj

and nj represent the outdoor 

temperature at each bin j and the 

number of hours in each bin j, 

respectively, for the temperature 

bins listed in Table D1 of AHRI 

Standard 1250P–2009 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303); and the 

Annual Walk-In Efficiency Factor is 

calculated from the results of the 

test procedures set forth in AHRI 

Standard 1250P–2009 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303). 

(iii) For refrigeration systems 

consisting of a unit cooler connected to 

a rack system, performing the following 

calculations for coolers and freezers, 

respectively: 

Annual Energy Consumption (coolers) 0.30 q 8760

An

mix,evap = × × 

nual Walk-in Efficiency Factor

Annual Energy Consumption (freezers) 0.53 q 8760

Annual Walk-in Efficiency F

mix,evap = × × 

actor

Where qmix,evap is the net capacity of the 

evaporator coil, determined by 

testing the unit cooler at the 25 °F 

suction dewpoint for a cooler and 

the ¥20 °F suction dewpoint for a 

freezer, at the maximum evaporator 

fan speed, according to AHRI 

standard 1250P–2009 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303); and the 

Annual Walk-in Efficiency Factor is 

calculated from the results of the 

test procedures set forth in AHRI 

Standard 1250P–2009 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303). 

5. Appendix A is added to subpart R 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

the Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers 

1.0 Scope 

This appendix covers the test requirements 

used to measure the energy consumption of 

the envelopes of walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. 

2.0 Definitions 

The definitions contained in § 431.302 are 

applicable to this appendix. 

2.1 Additional Definitions 

(a) Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the 

surface area for all measurements is the area 

as measured on the external surface of the 

walk-in. 

(b) A device or control system that 

‘‘automatically’’ opens and closes doors 

without direct user contact (i.e., a motion 

sensor that senses when a forklift is 

approaching the entrance to a door, opens, 

and then closes after the forklift has passed). 

(c) Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all 

calculations and test procedure 

measurements shall use the temperature and 

relative humidity data shown in Table A.1. 

For installations where two or more walk-in 

envelopes share any surface(s), the ‘‘external 

conditions’’ of the shared surface(s) should 

reflect the internal conditions of the 

neighboring walk-in. 

TABLE A.1—TEMPERATURE AND

RELATIVE HUMIDITY CONDITIONS

Value Units 

Internal Conditions (cooled space within 

envelope) 

Cooler: 

Dry Bulb Temperature ... 35 F 

Relative Humidity .......... 60 % 

Freezer: 

Dry Bulb Temperature ... ¥10 F 

Relative Humidity .......... 60 % 

External Conditions (space external to the 

envelope) 

Freezer and Cooler: 

Dry Bulb Temperature ... 75 F 

Relative Humidity .......... 40 % 

3.0 Test Apparatus and General Instructions 

3.1 Conduction Heat Gain 

3.1.1 Glass Doors 

(a) All dimensional measurements for glass 

doors include the door frame and glass. 

(b) Calculate the individual and total glass 

door surface area (Aglass) as follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.037</MATH> EP04JA10.038</MATH>
212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

A W H n 3-1

A W

glass,i glass, i glass, i i

glass,tot glass, i

= × ( )× ( )

= × ∑( ) H n 3-2 glass, i i × ( ) l

i

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique glass door 

used in cooler or freezer being tested, 

ni = number of identical glass doors of type 

i, 

Wglass,i = width of glass door (including door 

frame), and 

Hglass,i = height of glass door (including door 

frame). 

(c) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 

DTi for each unique glass door (°F) as follows: 

ΔT T T (3-3) i DB,int,i DB,ext,i = −

Where: 

i = Index for each type of unique glass door 

used in cooler or freezer being tested, 

TDB,int,i = dry-bulb air temperature inside the 

cooler or freezer, °F 

TDB,ext,i = dry-bulb air temperature external to 

cooler or freezer, °F 

(d) Calculate the conduction load through 

the glass doors, (Qcond-glass,door): 

Q A T U n (3-4) cond-glass,door glass,i i glass,i i

l

= ×× × ∑ Δ

i

Where: 

ni = number of identical glass doors of type 

i; 

Uglass,i = thermal transmittance, U-value of 

the door, of type i, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Aglass,i = total surface area of all walk-in glass 

doors of type i, ft2; and 

DT1 = temperature differential between 

refrigerated and adjacent zones, °F. 

3.1.2 Wall Glass and Doors With Inset Glass 

(a) Calculate the individual and total glass 

surface area (Aglass,wall), as follows: 

A W H n (3-5) glass,wall,i glass,wall,i glass,wall,i i = × ( )×

A W H n (3-6) glass,wall,tot glass,wall,i glass,wall,i i

l

= × ∑( )×

i

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique glass door 

used in cooler or freezer being tested, 

ni = number of identical glass walls or insets 

of type i, 

Wglass,wall,,i = width of glass wall (including 

glass framing) 

Hglass,wall,i = height of glass wall (including 

glass framing) 

(b) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 

DTglass,wall,i for each unique glass wall (°F), as 

follows: 

ΔTT T glass wall i DB glass wall i DB ext glass wall i , , ,int, , , , , , , = − (3-7)

Where: 

i = Index for each type of unique glass door 

used in cooler or freezer 

TDB,int,glass,wall,i = dry-bulb air temperature 

inside the cooler or freezer, °F 

TDB,ext,glass,wall,i = dry-bulb air temperature 

external to cooler or freezer, °F 

(c) Calculate the conduction load through 

the glass walls and glass insets, 

(Qcond-glass,wall), as follows: 

Qcond glass wall - glass,wall,i glass,wall,i glass,wall, , = ×× A TU Δ i

l

∑ × n (3-8) i

i

Where: 

ni = number of identical glass walls or insets 

of type i; 

Uglass,wall,i = thermal transmittance, U-value of 

the glass wall, of type i, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Aglass,wall,i = total surface area of all walk-in 

glass walls and insets of type i, ft2; and 

DTglass,wall,i = temperature differential 

between refrigerated and adjacent zones, 

°F. 

3.1.3 Non-Glass Envelope Components 

(a) Calculate the total surface area of the 

walk-in non-glass envelope (Anon-glass,tot), as 

follows: 

A AAA non-glass,tot non-glass doo =++ + walls i floor j ceiling k ,, , r As,l (3-9)

l

i j k l

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

l 1 l


EP04JA10.039</MATH> EP04JA10.040</MATH> EP04JA10.041</MATH> EP04JA10.042</MATH> EP04JA10.043</MATH> EP04JA10.044</MATH> EP04JA10.045</MATH> EP04JA10.046</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 213 

Where: 

i,j,k,l = number of identical surface area 

regions of walls, floors, ceilings and nonglass doors, respectively, comprised of 

the same thickness and underlying 

materials and temperature differential— 

for example, if a walk-in has wall 

sections that are of two different 

thickness or of two different foam 

insulation products, i=2; 

Awalls,i = area of walls, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type i; 

Afloor,j = area of floor, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type j; 

Aceiling,k = area of ceiling, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type k; and 

Anon-glass door,l = area of doors, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type l. 

(b) Determine the R-value (Thermal 

resistance) of the walls, ceiling, and floor 

foam per 4.1, as follows: 

(c) Calculate the conduction or 

transmission load through all non-glass 

components (Qcond-non-glass), as follows: 

Q

A

R

walls i A

l

floo

cond-non-glass

non-glass,wall,i

=× + × ∑Δ Δ T T i

i

j , r j

l

ceiling k

l R

A

R

, ,

non-glass,floor,j non-glass,ceil,k

j

∑ + × ΔTk

k

l

l

∑ ∑+ × ΔT

A

R l

non-glass doors,l

non-glass,door,l

(3-10)

Where: 

Rnon-glass,wall, i = R-value of foam used in wall 

panels, of type i, h-ft2-°F/Btu; 

Rnon-glass,floor, j = R-value of foam used in floor 

panels, of type j, h-ft2-°F/Btu; 

Rnon-glass,ceil, k = R-value of foam used in 

ceiling panels, of type k, h-ft2-°F/Btu; 

Rnon-glass,door, l = R-value of foam used in nonglass doors, of type l, h-ft2-°F/Btu; 

Awalls,i = area of wall, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type i; 

Afloor,j = area of floor, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type j; 

Aceiling,k = area of ceiling, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type k; and 

Anon-glass door,l = area of doors, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type l. 

ΔTi = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

i, °F 

ΔTj = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

j, °F 

ΔTk = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

k, °F 

ΔTl = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

l, °F 

3.1.4 Total Conduction Load 

(a) Calculate total conduction load, Qcond, 

(Btu/h), as follows: 

QQ Q Q cond =++ cond-non-glass cond-glass,wall cond-glass,door (3-11)

Where: 

Qcond-non-glass = conduction load through nonglass components of walk-in, Btu/h; and 

Qcond-glass,wall = total conduction load through 

walk-in glass walls and inset windows, 

Btu/h. 

Qcond-glass,door = total conduction load through 

walk-in glass doors, Btu/h. 

3.2 Infiltration Heat Gain 

3.2.1 Steady State Infiltration Calculations 

(a) Convert dry-bulb internal and external 

air temperatures from °F to Rankine (°R), as 

follows: 

TT F

T T

o DB-int,R DB-int

DB-ext,R DB-ext

= +

= +

459 67

459 67

.

.

 (3-12)

o

F (3-13)

Where: 

TDB-int,R = the dry-bulb temperature of 

internal walk-in air, °R; and 

TDB-ext,R = the average dry-bulb temperature 

of air surrounding the walk-in, °R. 

(b) Calculate the water vapor saturation 

pressure for the external air and the internal 

refrigerated air, as follows: 

(1) If TDB,R < 491.67 °R (32 °F), using 

following equation to calculate water vapor 

saturation pressure (Pws in psia): 

P

T ws T CT CT

DB R

= DB R DB R DB R

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ exp ++ × ( ) + × ( ) + ×

,

,, ,

C C C 1

23 4

2

5

3 ( ) + × ( ) + × ( ) ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

C T C nT 6 DB R DB R

4

7 1 , , (3-14)

Where: 

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature in Rankine (for 

the internal or external air), 

C1 = ¥1.0214165 E+04, 

C2 = ¥4.8932428 E+00, 

C3 = ¥5.3765794 E–03, 

C4 = 1.9202377 E–07, 

C5 = 3.5575832 E–10, 

C6 = ¥9.0344688 E–14, and 

C7 = 4.1635019 E+00. 

(2) If TDB,R > 491.67 °R (32 °F), use the 

following equation to calculate water vapor 

saturation pressure (Pws in psia): 

P

T ws T CT CT

DB R

= DB R DB R DB

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ exp ++ × ( ) + × ( ) + ×

,

, ,

C C C 8

9 10 11

2

12 , , R DB R C nT 3

13 ( ) + × ( ) 1 ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

(3-15)

Where: 

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal 

and external air), °R; 

C8 = ¥1.0440397 E+04; 

C9 = ¥1.1294650 E+01; 

C10 = ¥2.7022355 E–02; 

C11 = 1.2890360 E–05; 

C12 = 2.4780681 E–09; and 

C13 = 6.5459673 E+00. 

(c) Calculate the absolute humidity ratio, w, 

as follows: 

ω =

× × ( )

− × ( )

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

0 62198

14 696

.

.

RH P

RH P

ws

ws

(3-16)

Where: 

RH = relative humidity in decimal format 

(e.g., 0.40 for 40 percent) (for the internal 

or external air), and 

Pws = water vapor saturation pressure. 

(d) Calculate air specific volume, n, (ft3/lb), 

as follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.047</MATH> EP04JA10.048</MATH> EP04JA10.049</MATH> EP04JA10.050</MATH> EP04JA10.051</MATH> EP04JA10.052</MATH>
214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ν ω = × ×+ × ⎢

⎣ ⎥⎦ ( . ) ( ( . )) , 0 025210942 1 1 6078 TDB R (3-17)

Where: 

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal 

or external air), °R, and 

w = absolute humidity ratio. 

(e) Calculate air density, air density (lb/ft3), 

as follows: 

ρ

ν = 1 (3-18)

Where: 

n = specific volume of air, ft3/lb. 

(f) Calculate the enthalpy for the internal 

and external air, h, (Btu/lb), as follows: 

hT T = × ( ) +× + × ( ) ( ) ⎢

⎣ ⎥⎦ 0 240 1061 0 444 . . DB,F DB,F ω (3-19)

Where: 

TDB,F = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal 

or external air), °F; and 

w = absolute humidity ratio. 

(g) Measure the steady-state infiltration rate 

per 4.2., Vrate(1/h) 

(h) Convert Vrate to V ̇ , (ft3/h), as follows: 

V =V V rate ref -space × (3-20)

Where: 

Vref-space = the total enclosed volume of the 

walk-in, ft3

Vrate = the infiltration rate per 4.2, 1/h 

(i) Calculate the total infiltration load due 

to steady-state infiltration, Qinfilt, (Btu/h), as 

follows: 

Q h infilt ext = ×−× ( ) ρ ρ × (3-21) ext int int h V

Where: 

V ̇ = the infiltration rate measured from 4.2, 

ft3/h; 

rint = internal air density, lb/ft3; 

rext = external air density, lb/ft3; 

hint = internal air enthalpy, Btu/lb; and 

hext = external air enthalpy, Btu/lb. 

3.2.2 Door Opening Infiltration Calculations 

(a) Calculate the portion of time each 

doorway is open, Dt, as follows: 

D

P

(3-22) t,i

d

= ( ) × + × ( ) ⎢

⎣ ⎥⎦

[ ] ×

θ θ

3600 θ

p ο 60

Where: 

i = index for each unique door. A unique 

door must be of the same geometry, 

underlying materials, function, and have 

the same temperature difference across 

the door 

P = number of doorway passages (i.e., 

number of doors opening events); 

qp = door open-close time, seconds per 

opening P; 

qo = time door stands open, minutes; and 

qd = daily time period, h. 

(1) Number of doorway passages: For 

display glass doors, P = 72, and all other 

doors, P= 60 

(2) Door open-close time: For display glass 

doors, qp = 8 seconds. For non-glass doors, 

if an automatic door opener/closer is used, qp

= 10 seconds and all other doors, qp = 15 

seconds. 

(3) Time door stands open: Display glass 

doors, qo = 0 minutes and all other doors, qo

= 15 minutes. 

(4) Daily time period: All walk-ins, qd = 24 

hours. 

(b) Calculate the density factor, Fm, for 

each door, as follows: 

Fm i

i

ext i

,

int,

,

/

/

=

+

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

2

1

13

3 2

ρ

ρ

(3-23)

Where: 

i = index for each unique door 

rint,i = internal air density, of door type i, lb/ 

ft3; and 

rext,i = external air density, of door type i, lb/ 

ft3. 

(c) Calculate the infiltration load for fully 

established flow through each door, qi (Btu/ 

h), as follows: 

q A i i ext i i i

ext i

i

= ×× − ( )× ×−

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ 795 6 1

1

. , int, int,

,

int,

h h ρ

ρ

ρ

/

/

,

2

1 2

× × ( ) gH F i mi × (3-24)

Where: 

i = index for each unique door 

Ai = doorway area, of door type i, ft2; 

hint,i = internal air enthalpy, of door type i, 

Btu/lb; 

hext,i = external air enthalpy, of door type i, 

Btu/lb; 

rint,i = internal air density, of door type i, lb/ 

ft3; 

rext,i = external air density, of door type i, lb/ 

ft3; 

Hi = doorway height, of door type i, ft; 

Fm,i = density factor, of door type i, and 

g = acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/s2. 

(d) Calculate the doorway infiltration 

reduction device effectiveness, E (%), at the 

same test conditions as described in steadystate infiltration section, as follows: 

(1) A sample set must be taken once the 

tracer gas has uniformly dispersed in the 

internal space using the methodology 

described in 4.2. 

(2) The test should be repeated exactly as 

described with the infiltration reduction 

device removed or deactivated. 

(3) Calculate the infiltration reduction 

effectiveness: 

E

V

V

rate,with-device

rate,without -device

= (3-25)

Where: 

Vrate,with-device = air infiltration rate, with door 

open and reduction device active, using 

4.2, 1/h; 

Vrate,without-device = air infiltration rate, with 

door open and reduction device disabled 

or removed, using 4.2, 1/h. 

(e) Calculate the total door opening 

infiltration load for a single door, Qopen,

(Btu/h), as follows: 


EP04JA10.053</MATH> EP04JA10.054</MATH> EP04JA10.055</MATH> EP04JA10.056</MATH> EP04JA10.057</MATH> EP04JA10.058</MATH> EP04JA10.059</MATH> EP04JA10.060</MATH> EP04JA10.061</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 215 

Q qD D E n open i i t i f i i , , =× × ×− ( ) 1 (3-26) ×

Where: 

q = infiltration load for fully established 

flow, Btu/h; 

Dt = doorway open-time factor; 

Df = doorway flow factor, 0.8 for freezers and 

coolers (from ASHRAE Fundamentals); 

E = effectiveness of doorway protective 

device, as measured by gas tracer test, %; 

and 

ni = number of doors (of the type i being 

considered in calculation). 

(f) Calculate the total load due to door 

opening infiltration for all doors, Qopen, (Btu/ 

h), as follows: 

Q Q open open i = ∑ ,

1

i

(3-27)

3.3 Energy Consumption Due To Total Heat 

Gain 

(a) Calculate the total thermal load, Qtot, 

(Btu/h), as follows: 

QQ Q Q tot open cond =++ infilt (3-28)

Where: 

Qinfilt = total load due to steady-state 

infiltration, Btu/h; 

Qcond = total load due to conduction, Btu/h; 

and 

Qopen= total load due to door opening 

infiltration, Btu/h. 

(b) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as 

follows: 

(1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/Wh 

(2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/Wh 

(c) Calculate the total daily energy 

consumption due to thermal load, Qtot,EER, 

(kWh/day), as follows: 

Q Q

EER

kW

W

h

day tot,EER tot = × ××

24

1000 (3-29)

Where: 

Qtot = total thermal load, Btu/h; and 

EER = EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/ 

Wh. 

3.4 Energy Consumption Related To 

Electrical Components. Electrical 

components contained within a walk-in 

could include, but are not limited to: heater 

wire (for anti-sweat or anti-freeze 

application); lights (including display door 

lighting systems); control system units; and 

sensors. 

3.4.1 Direct Energy Consumption of 

Electrical Components 

(a) Select the required value for percent 

time off for each type of electricity 

consuming device, PTOt (%) 

(1) For lights without timers, control 

system or other demand-based control, PTO 

= 25 percent. For lighting with timers, 

control system or other demand-based 

control, PTO = 50 percent. 

(2) For anti-sweat heaters on coolers (if 

required): Without timers, control system or 

other demand-based control, PTO = 0 

percent. With timers, control system or other 

demand-based control, PTO = 75 percent. For 

anti-sweat heaters on freezers (if required): 

Without timers, control system or other autoshut-off systems, PTO = 0 percent. With 

timers, control system or other demand-based 

control, PTO = 50 percent 

(3) For active infiltration reduction 

devices: Without control by door open or 

closed position, PTO = 25 percent. With 

control by door open or closed position for 

display doors, PTO = 99.33 percent. With 

control by door open or closed position for 

other doors, PTO = 99.17 percent. 

(4) For all other electricity consuming 

devices: Without timers, control system, or 

other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 0 percent. 

If it can be demonstrated that the device is 

controlled by preinstalled timers, control 

system or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO = 

25 percent. 

(b) Calculate the power usage for each type 

of electricity consuming device, Pcomp,t, 

(kWh), as follows: 

Pcomp,t rated,t t t = ×− P 1 24 (3-30) ( ) PTO n × ×

Where: 

t = index for each type of electricity 

consuming device with identical rated 

power; 

Prated,t = rated power of each component, of 

type t, kW; 

PTOt = percent time off, for device of type t, 

%; and 

nt = number of devices at the rated power of 

type t. 

(c) Calculate the total electrical energy 

consumption, Ptot, (kWh), as follows: 

P

l

tot comp, t

t

,int int, = ∑P (3-31)

P

l

tot ext comp,ext t

t

, , = ∑P (3-32)

Where: 

t = index for each type of electricity 

consuming device with identical rated 

power; 

Pcomp,int, t = the energy usage for an electricity 

consuming device sited inside the walkin envelope, of type t, kWh. 

Pcomp,ext, t = the energy usage for an electricity 

consuming device sited outside the 

walk-in envelope, of type t, kWh. 

3.4.2 Total Indirect Electricity Consumption 

Due to Electrical Devices 

(a) Calculate the additional compressor 

load due to thermal output from electrical 

components contained within the envelope, 

Cload, (kWh), as follows: 

Where: 

EER = EER of walk-in (cooler=12.4 or 

freezer=6.3), Btu/Wh; 

Ptot,int = The total electrical load due to 

components sited inside the walk-in 

envelope. 

3.5 Total Normalized Energy Consumption 

3.5.1 Total Energy Load 

(a) Calculate the total energy load of the 

walk-in envelope per unit of surface area, Etot

(kWh/ft2), as follows: 


EP04JA10.062</MATH> EP04JA10.063</MATH> EP04JA10.064</MATH> EP04JA10.065</MATH> EP04JA10.066</MATH> EP04JA10.067</MATH> EP04JA10.068</MATH> EP04JA10.069</MATH> EP04JA10.070</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Qtot,EER = the total thermal load, kWh; 

Ptot = the total electrical load, kWh; 

Anon-glass,tot = total surface area of the nonglass envelope, ft2; 

Aglass,tot = total surface area glass envelope, 

ft2. 

Cload = additional compressor load due to 

thermal output from electrical 

components contained within the 

envelope, kWh. 

4.0 Test Methods and Measurements 

4.1 R-Value Testing and Measurements 

4.1.1 Measuring R-Value of Insulating Foam 

(a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM 

C1303–08 exactly, except for these 

exceptions, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303): 

(1) Section 6.6.2, where several types of hot 

plate methods are recommended, ASTM 

C518–04, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303), must be used for measuring the 

R-value 

(2) Section 6.6.2.1, in reference to ASTM 

C518–04, the mean test temperature of the 

foam during R-value measurement must be: 

(i) For freezers: ¥ 6.7 ± 2 °C (20 ± 4 °F) 

with a temperature difference of 22 ± 2 °C (40 

± 4 °F) 

(ii) For coolers: 12.8 ± 2 °C (55 ± 4 °F) with 

a temperature difference of 22 ± 2 °C (40 ± 

4 °F) 

(b) At least one sample set must be 

prepared, comprised of three stacks, while 

adhering to all preparation methods and 

uniformity specifications described in ASTM 

C1303–08, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(c) The value resulting LTTR for the foam 

shall be reported as Rfoam, but for the 

purposes of calculations in this test 

procedure calculations, it will be converted 

to Rnon-glass, as follows: 

Where: 

Rfoam = R-value of foam as measured by 

ASTM C1303–08, h-ft2¥°F/Btu-in. 

4.1.2 Determining R-Value of Concrete 

Floors 

(a) For walk-ins in which the floor is 

concrete instead of insulated panels and has 

not been supplied by the walk-in 

manufacturer: 

(1) Coolers: Use an R-value of 0.6 for floors 

of walk-in coolers. 

(2) Freezers: Use an R-value of 28 for floors 

of walk-in freezers. 

4.2 Steady State Infiltration Testing 

(a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM 

E741–06 exactly, except for these changes 

and exceptions to the procedure, 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303): 

(1) Concentration decay method: The 

‘‘concentration decay method’’ must be used 

instead of other available options described 

in ASTM E741–06. 

(2) Gas Tracer: CO2 must be used as the gas 

tracer for all testing. 

(3) Air change rate: Measure the air change 

rate in ft3/h, rather than the air change flow 

described in ASTM E741–06, (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303). 

(4) Spatial measurements: Spatial 

measurements must be taken in a minimum 

of six locations or one location/20 ft2 of floor 

area (whichever results in a greater number 

of measurements) at a height of 3 ft ± 0.5 ft, 

at a minimum distance of 2 ft ± 0.5 ft from 

the walk-in walls or doors. 

(b) The internal air temperature for freezers 

and for coolers shall be ± 2 °C (4 °F) of the 

values shown in Table A.1. 

(c) The external air temperature must be 

24 °C (75 °F) ± 2.5 °C (5 °F) surrounding the 

walk-in. 

(d) The test must be completed with all 

reach or walk-in doors closed. 

(e) For testing the effectiveness ASTM 

E741–06 will be used, with the following 

changes or exceptions to the procedure: 

(1) Within 3 minutes ± 30 seconds, with 

the infiltration reduction device in place, a 

hinged door should be opened at an angle 

greater than or equal to 90 degrees. The 

elapsed time, from zero degrees position 

(closed) to greater than or equal to 90 degrees 

(open) must be no longer than 5 seconds. The 

door must then be held at an angle greater 

than or equal to 90 degrees for 5 min ±5 

seconds and then closed over a period no 

longer than 5 seconds. For non-hinged doors, 

the door must reach its maximum opened 

position, be held open, and reach a fully 

closed position for the same elapsed time as 

described above for hinge-type doors. 

(2) The gas concentration must be sampled 

again after the door has been closed. Samples 

should continue being taken until the gas 

concentration is once again uniform within 

the walk-in. 

5.0 Calculation of Daily Energy 

Consumption Coefficients (DECC) 

The calculation procedures described in 

this section are based on the test 

measurements and other performance 

parameters discussed and described in the 

previous sections. The Daily Energy 

Consumption Coefficients are each combined 

to provide a linear expression of the daily 

energy consumption of any walk-in system 

with the construction features or component 

design parameters of a tested walk-in design 

with similar components and features. The 

DECC figures established using 

measurements on the test unit may be used 

to derive the daily electrical energy 

consumption of other walk-in systems in the 

same class constructed with similar 

components of construction as follows: 

E = DECC A + DECC A tot,system non-glass non-glass,tot glass glass, × × tot infilt,disp_dr_opn

disp_doors disp_dr_devic

+ DECC 

A + DECC

×

e disp_doors infilt,non-display,dr_opn non-display- × × n + DECC A doors

non-display-dr_device non-display-doors

+

DECC n

Eq. 5-1

× + DECC V + DECC A +

DECC V

light ref_space ASH disp_doors

stir_fan r

× ×

× ef_space other ref_space + DECC × V

Where: 

DECCnon-glass= DECC for non-glass, 

Anon-glass,tot= total non-glass surface area, 

DECCglass,door= DECC for glass doors, 

Aglass,glass, tot= total glass surface area, and 

DECCglass,wall= DECC for glass walls and 

inset windows, 

Aglass,wall, tot= total glass wall and inset 

window surface area, and 

DECCinfilt,disp_dr_opn= DECC for opening of 

display type doors, 

Adisp_doors= total area of display doors, 

DECCdisp_dr_device= DECC for infiltration 

reduction device in place for display doors, 

ndisp_doors= total number of display doors, 

DECCinfilt,non-display_,dr_opn= DECC for nondisplay type doors, 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.071</MATH> EP04JA10.072</MATH> EP04JA10.073</MATH> EP04JA10.074</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 217 

Anon-display_doors= total area of non-display 

type doors, 

DECCnon-display_dr_device= DECC for 

infiltration reduction device in place for nondisplay doors, 

nnon-display_doors= total number of nondisplay doors, 

DECClight= DECC for lights, 

Vref_space= total enclosed refrigerated 

volume (ft3), 

DECCASH = DECC for anti-sweat heaters, 

DECCstir_fan= DECC for motors used to 

drive air mixing fans, and 

DECCother= DECC for other electricity 

consuming devices. 

(a) Calculate DECCnon-glass as follows: 

Where: 

Qcond,non-glass= conduction load due to nonglass surface area, 

Qcond,glass,wall= conduction load due to glass 

wall and inset window surface area, 

Qcond,glass,door= conduction load due to glass 

door surface area, 

Qinfilt= load due to steady-state infiltration, 

Anon-glass,tot= total non-glass surface area, 

Aglass,wall,tot= total glass wall and inset 

window surface area, 

Aglass,door,tot= total glass door surface area, 

EER= energy efficiency ratio for freezer or 

cooler, as described 3.3(b) 

(b) Calculate DECCglass,door as follows: 

Where: 

Qcond,non-glass= conduction load due to nonglass surface area, 

Qcond,glass,wall= conduction load due to glass 

wall and inset window surface area, 

Qcond,glass,door= conduction load due to glass 

door surface area, 

Qinfilt= load due to steady-state infiltration, 

Anon-glass,tot= total non-glass surface area, 

Aglass,wall,tot= total glass wall and inset 

window surface area, 

Aglass,door,tot= total glass door surface area, 

EER= energy efficiency ratio for freezer or 

cooler, as described 3.3(b) 

(c) Calculate DECCglass,wall as follows: 

Where: 

Qcond,non-glass= conduction load due to nonglass surface area, 

Qcond,glass,wall= conduction load due to glass 

wall and inset window surface area, 

Qcond,glass,door= conduction load due to glass 

door surface area, 

Qinfilt= load due to steady-state infiltration, 

Anon-glass,tot= total non-glass surface area, 

Aglass,wall,tot= total glass wall and inset 

window surface area, 

Aglass,door,tot= total glass door surface area, 

EER= energy efficiency ratio for freezer or 

cooler, as described 3.3(b) 


EP04JA10.075</MATH> EP04JA10.076</MATH> EP04JA10.077</MATH> EP04JA10.078</MATH> EP04JA10.079</MATH> EP04JA10.080</MATH> EP04JA10.081</MATH> EP04JA10.082</MATH> EP04JA10.083</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Compute DECCglass in an identical 

manner to DECCglass,door, described above. 

(e) Compute DECCinfilt,disp_dr_opn and 

DECCdisp_dr_device as follows: 

Where: 

Qopen,disp_dr= total infiltration load calculated 

for display door-opening events, and 

EER= energy efficiency ratio for freezer or 

cooler 

(f) Determine DECCdisp_dr_device as follows: 

(1) For passive infiltration reduction 

devices (e.g., strip curtains), the 

DECCdisp_dr_device is zero. 

(2) For active infiltration reduction devices 

(e.g., air curtains), DECCdisp_dr_device= Pcomp

where Pcomp is determined as in section 3.4.1 

using the appropriate PTO (percent time off) 

(g) Compute DECCinfilt, non-display_dr_opn and 

DECC non-display_dr_device in the same manner as 

DECCinfilt, disp_dr_opn and DECCdisp_dr_device

above. 

(h) Compute DECCASH in the following 

manner: 

Where: 

Pcomp,ASH = total energy consumed by antisweat heaters (per section 3.4.1), and 

Adisp-door = total surface area of display doors. 

(i) Compute DECCstir_fan, for stirring (nonevaporator) fans in the following manner: 

Where: 

Vref_space= total volume of the refrigerated 

space (ft 3), and 

Pcomp,stirring_fan = total energy consumed by 

stir fan(s) (per 3.4.1). 

(j) Compute DECCother for all other 

electricity consuming devices: For all lights 

and other electrical loads, Pcomp,j is 

determined per the provisions of the section 

3.4.1 and the DECCother is obtained by 

dividing the respective Pcomp,j by Vref_spac. 

[FR Doc. E9–30884 Filed 12–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP04JA10.084</MATH> EP04JA10.085</MATH> EP04JA10.086</MATH> EP04JA10.087</MATH>