```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9817-9847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03101]

[[Page 9817]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 34

February 20, 2014

Part III

 Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation for Certain Industrial Equipment: Alternative 
Efficiency Determination Methods and Test Procedures for Walk-In 
Coolers and Walk-In Freezers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 9818]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AC46

Energy Conservation for Certain Industrial Equipment: Alternative 
Efficiency Determination Methods and Test Procedures for Walk-In 
Coolers and Walk-In Freezers

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its 
existing regulations for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers regarding 
the use of methods other than testing for certifying compliance and 
reporting ratings in accordance with energy conservation standards. DOE 
also proposes clarifications its test procedures for this equipment.

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information 
regarding this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no 
later than March 24, 2014. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
details.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, 
interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number 
EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024 and/or RIN 1904-AC46, by any of the following 
methods:
     Email: AED-ARM-2011-TP-0024@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE-2011-
BT-TP-0024 and/or RIN 1904-AC46in the subject line of the message. 
Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 
ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form 
of encryption.
     Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. If possible, please submit all 
items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 6th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and 
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024. This Web 
page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the 
www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains 
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
    For information on how to submit a comment or review other public 
comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 
or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: 
Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov.
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    2. Test Procedures for WICF Refrigeration Equipment
    3. Test Procedures and Prescriptive Requirements for WICF Foam 
Panel R-Value
    4. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Energy Consumption of 
Envelope Components
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    1. Applicable Equipment
    2. Validation
    a. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    b. Tolerances for Validation
    3. Certified Rating
    4. Verification
    a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating
    b. Action Following Enforcement Testing: Determination of 
Noncompliance
    5. Re-Validation
    a. Change in Standards or Test Procedures
    b. Re-Validation Using Active Models
    c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation
    B. Refrigeration Test Procedure
    1. Rating of Refrigeration Components
    2. Defrost Test
    3. Refrigerant Oil Testing
    4. Temperature Measurement
    5. Test Condition Tolerances
    6. Insulation
    7. Composition Analysis
    8. Piping Length
    9. Other Clarifications and Modifications
    C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel R-Value (ASTM C518-04)
    D. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 
Freezers
    E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(``EPCA'' or ``the Act'', Pub. L. 94-163) sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. The National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act (``NECPA'', Pub. L. 95-619) amended EPCA and 
established the energy conservation program for certain industrial 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) The Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007'') further amended EPCA to include, among 
others, two types of industrial equipment that are the subject of 
today's

[[Page 9819]]

notice: walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, ``walk-
ins'' or ``WICFs''). (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) Walk-ins are enclosed 
storage spaces of less than 3,000 square feet that can be walked into 
and are refrigerated to temperatures above and at or below 32 degrees 
Fahrenheit, respectively. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) This term, by 
statute, excludes equipment designed for medical, scientific, or 
research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program generally consists of 
four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) establishing Federal energy 
conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for making 
representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)), including those representations made to DOE that the covered 
equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(h)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with 
the relevant energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(h)) For 
certain consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, 
DOE's testing regulations currently allow manufacturers to use an 
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM), in lieu of actual 
testing, to simulate the energy consumption or efficiency of certain 
basic models of covered products and equipment under DOE's test 
procedure conditions. As explained in further detail below, an AEDM is 
a computer model or mathematical tool used to help determine the energy 
efficiency of a particular basic model.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy 
use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use, and must not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine the extent to which the proposed 
procedure would alter the equipment's measured energy efficiency. If 
DOE determines that the amended procedure would alter that equipment's 
measured energy efficiency, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(D).

B. Background

1. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method
    As briefly noted above, AEDMs are computer modeling or mathematical 
tools that predict the performance of non-tested basic models. They are 
derived from mathematical models and engineering principles that govern 
the energy efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type 
of covered equipment. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, 
when properly developed, can provide a relatively straightforward and 
reasonably accurate means to predict the energy usage or efficiency 
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered equipment type. 
These tools can be useful in reducing a manufacturer's testing burden.
    Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate 
and certify their basic models by using the projected energy use or 
energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models. DOE 
currently permits manufacturers of certain expensive or highly 
customized equipment to use AEDMs when rating and certifying their 
equipment.
    DOE believes other similar equipment that must currently be rated 
and certified through testing, such as walk-in refrigeration systems, 
could also be rated and certified through the use of computer or 
mathematical modeling. Consequently, to examine whether AEDM usage 
would be appropriate for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE sought 
comment on this topic and other related issues in a Request for 
Information (RFI), which was published in the Federal Register on April 
18, 2011. 76 FR 21673.
    DOE subsequently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), 
which was published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012 (May 2012 
NOPR), that proposed to expand and revise DOE's existing AEDM 
requirements for certain commercial equipment covered under EPCA. 77 FR 
32038. Specifically, the May 2012 NOPR proposed to allow manufacturers 
of walk-in refrigeration systems to use AEDMs when certifying the 
energy use or energy efficiency of basic models of equipment in lieu of 
testing. Id.
    Subsequent to the May 2012 NOPR's publication, the Appliance 
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously 
decided to form a working group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking 
effort on the certification of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment. During the Working Group's first meeting on April 30, 2013, 
Working Group members voted to expand the scope of the negotiated 
rulemaking efforts to include developing methods of estimating 
equipment performance based on AEDM simulations for commercial HVAC, 
WH, and refrigeration equipment. The issues discussed by the various 
participants during the negotiations with DOE were similar to those 
raised by the commenters in response to the May 2012 NOPR, which 
included AEDM validation and DOE verification of ratings derived using 
an AEDM. DOE adopted the Working Group's AEDM recommendation for 
commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment in a Final Rule 
published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2013. 78 FR 79579. 
DOE notes that neither the Working Group nor the December 2013 final 
rule addressed the use of AEDMs for WICF refrigeration systems.
    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) proposes to 
align DOE's AEDM regulations by allowing the use of AEDMs when 
certifying the energy efficiency performance of walk-in refrigeration 
equipment in a manner similar to that which was recently established 
for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment. This approach, 
which was recommended by the Working Group, would help DOE establish a 
uniform, systematic, and fair approach to the use of these types of 
modeling techniques that will enable DOE to ensure that products in the 
marketplace are correctly rated--irrespective of whether they are 
subject to actual physical testing or are rated using modeling--without 
unnecessarily burdening regulated entities.
2. Test Procedures for WICF Refrigeration Equipment
    The refrigeration system performs the mechanical work necessary to 
cool the interior space of a walk-in. The system typically comprises 
two separate primary components, a condenser/compressor (``condensing 
unit'') and an expansion valve/evaporator (``unit cooler''). DOE's 
regulations at 10 CFR 431.304, Uniform test method for the measurement 
of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers,

[[Page 9820]]

incorporate by reference AHRI Standard 1250-2009, ``2009 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers'' (AHRI 1250) as the 
testing method for walk-in refrigeration systems. 10 CFR 431.304(b)(9). 
AHRI 1250 establishes methods to follow when testing a complete 
refrigeration system (the ``matched system'' test), as well as separate 
methods to use for testing the unit cooler and condensing unit of a 
refrigeration system individually and then calculating a combined 
system rating (the ``mix-match'' test). AHRI 1250 also contains 
standard rating conditions for cooler and freezer systems; systems 
where the condenser is located either indoors or outdoors; and systems 
with single-speed, two-speed, or variable-speed compressors. AHRI 1250 
also establishes a method for testing and rating unit coolers that are 
connected to a multiplex condensing system such as may be found in a 
supermarket. The rating produced by the AHRI 1250 test procedure is an 
annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF), defined as ``a ratio of the total 
heat, not including the heat generated by the operation of 
refrigeration systems, removed, in Btu [British thermal units], from a 
walk-in box during one year period of usage for refrigeration to the 
total energy input of refrigeration systems, in watt-hours, during the 
same period.'' AHRI 1250, at sec. 3.1.
    In addition to these activities, DOE recently proposed energy 
conservation standards for walk-ins. See 78 FR 55782 (Sept. 11, 2013) 
(September 2013 standards NOPR). In that notice, DOE proposed standards 
for complete walk-in refrigeration systems that would require the 
ratings for the refrigeration system be derived using either the 
matched system or mix-match tests described above. DOE also proposed 
standards for unit coolers connected to a multiplex system, based on 
the unit cooler rating method described above. Responding to the NOPR, 
several interested parties discussed the concept of establishing 
separate standards for the unit cooler and condensing unit of a walk-
in. In light of that discussion, and of the fact that the unit coolers 
and condensing units are often sold separately and in many cases are 
produced by different manufacturers, and that AHRI 1250 includes 
individual test methods for both components (i.e. the mix-match test 
method), DOE is proposing in this SNOPR to adopt a methodology that 
would require the manufacturer of either the unit cooler or condensing 
unit, if sold separately, to test and certify compliance with DOE's 
standards and when making representations of the WICF refrigeration 
system. Manufacturers of a complete WICF refrigeration system may 
continue to develop a system rating for the purposes of certifying 
compliance with DOE's standards and making representations of the WICF 
refrigeration system.
    Furthermore, in reviewing AHRI 1250 and conducting limited testing 
on a WICF refrigeration system at a third-party laboratory to 
investigate the AEDM validation approach, DOE discovered several issues 
in the refrigeration test procedures that would require clarification 
and/or create unnecessary test burden. To simplify the procedure and to 
clarify certain aspects, DOE is also proposing to provide alternate 
language to certain requirements contained in AHRI 1250 that DOE's test 
procedure currently incorporates by reference.
3. Sampling Plan
    In order to determine a certified rating for certifying compliance 
or making energy use representations, DOE requires manufacturers to 
test each basic model in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure and apply the sampling plan. In today's notice, DOE is 
proposing a sampling plan for walk-ins consistent with other commercial 
equipment regulated under EPCA.
4. Test Procedures and Prescriptive Requirements for WICF Foam Panel R-
Value
    EPCA mandates prescriptive requirements for the thermal resistance 
of walk-in panels; wall, ceiling, and doors must have an insulation 
value of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(C)) EPCA also requires the use of ASTM C518-04, Standard 
Test Method for Thermal Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by 
Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus (``ASTM C518-04'') to measure 
the insulation thermal resistance. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(9)(A)) The walk-in 
test procedure at 10 CFR 431.304 incorporates ASTM C518-04 by 
reference. This reference standard is the method by which the thermal 
conductivity (the ``K factor'') of a walk-in panel is measured; the R-
value of the panel is then determined by multiplying 1/K (the 
reciprocal of K) by the thickness of the panel. The R-value of a 
freezer panel is determined at a mean insulation foam temperature of 20 
degrees Fahrenheit and the R-value of a cooler panel is determined at a 
mean insulation foam temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit. (42 U.S.C. 
6314 (a)(9)(A)(iii) and (iv)) Manufacturers must currently use the test 
procedure detailed in 10 CFR 431.304(b) when certifying compliance with 
the panel energy conservation standards until January 1, 2015. 
Manufacturers must use the procedure in 10 CFR 431.304(c) when making 
representations of energy efficiency both currently and when certifying 
compliance starting on January 1, 2015. DOE is proposing to modify the 
test sample preparation procedures incorporated from ASTM C518-04 in 
both procedures to improve measurement accuracy.
5. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Energy Consumption of Envelope 
Components
    In 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, DOE lays out a method 
for measuring performance-based efficiency metrics for certain WICF 
envelope components. This method draws from several existing industry 
test methods by incorporating by reference ASTM C1363-05 Standard Test 
Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope 
Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus and Annex C Determination of 
the aged values of thermal resistance and thermal conductivity from 
both DIN EN 13164 and DIN EN 13165 (two European Union-developed 
testing protocols) for measuring the energy consumption of WICF floor 
and non-floor panels. Appendix A also incorporates NFRC 100-2010[E0A1] 
Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors for 
determining the energy use of walk-in display and non-display doors. In 
today's notice, DOE is proposing to modify (1) the test procedures for 
WICF floor and non-floor panels to address comments received from 
stakeholders during the standards rulemaking and (2) the WICF display 
and non-display door test procedure to improve the clarity of the test 
method.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Today's proposal comprises five key elements.
    First, the Department proposes to allow WICF refrigeration system 
manufacturers to use AEDMs to rate and certify their basic models by 
using the projected energy efficiency derived from these simulation 
models in lieu of testing. DOE is proposing to align the validation 
requirements proposed for WICF refrigeration AEDMs with those that have 
already been adopted for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH 
equipment. DOE is considering this approach because the cooling and 
refrigeration systems used by these

[[Page 9821]]

equipment types operate under similar principles as the refrigeration 
systems used in walk-ins. This similarity, along with the practical 
considerations discussed elsewhere in this notice, lend support for 
applying similar or identical validation requirements for walk-ins as 
well. Also as part of this approach, the Department is addressing 
comments received in response to the May 2012 NOPR, which originally 
proposed to expand AEDMs to WICF refrigeration systems and proposed 
validation and verification requirements.
    Second, today's SNOPR puts forth an alternative method for testing 
and rating the WICF refrigeration system for unit coolers and 
condensing units that are sold separately. Specifically, unit cooler 
manufacturers who distribute a unit cooler for use in a WICF 
refrigeration system must rate that cooler as though it were to be 
connected to a multiplex system, and must comply with the standard for 
a unit cooler connected to a multiplex system. Similarly, manufacturers 
who distribute a condensing unit for use in a WICF refrigeration system 
must determine the appropriate rating by using the nominal values for 
unit coolers proposed in this notice, in lieu of actual unit cooler 
test data, when calculating AWEF using the mix-match rating method in 
AHRI 1250. Consistent with this methodology and pending the outcome of 
the standards rulemaking, DOE is considering modifications to the 
certification requirements based on the following scheme: (1) A 
manufacturer that only produces unit coolers for use in a WICF 
refrigeration system would use the test method described above to 
establish the WICF refrigeration system rating for each unit cooler 
(system performance would be established by testing the unit cooler as 
though it is to be connected to a multiplex system (i.e., using the 
``Walk-in Unit Cooler Match to Parallel Rack System'' test method in 
AHRI 1250, section 7.9))--then, the unit cooler manufacturer would 
certify the compliance of those basic models with the WICF 
refrigeration system standard; (2) a manufacturer that only produces 
condensing units would use the test method described above to establish 
the WICF refrigeration system rating for each condensing unit (system 
performance would be established by testing each condensing unit and 
combining it with the unit cooler nominal values (as proposed in this 
SNOPR))--then, the condensing unit manufacturer would certify 
compliance of those basic models with the WICF refrigeration system 
standard; or (3) a manufacturer that produces both unit cooler basic 
models and condensing unit basic models that are marketed and sold as a 
matched system would use the test method in AHRI 1250 to test the unit 
cooler and the condensing unit as a matched system to get a WICF 
refrigeration system rating for each matched system it produces and 
then certify compliance.
    Third, DOE proposes the following modifications to the test 
procedure for WICF refrigeration components:

--Clarifications to the defrost test procedure;
--An alternative method for calculating the defrost energy and heat 
load of a system with electric defrost in lieu of a frosted coil test;
--A method for calculating defrost energy and heat load of a system 
with hot gas defrost;
--Change to the minimum fan speed and duty cycle during the off-cycle 
evaporator fan test;
--Removal of the refrigerant oil and refrigerant composition analysis 
testing requirements;
--Clarifications and changes to the temperature measurement 
requirements, intended to reduce testing burden;
--Addition of a test condition tolerance for electrical power frequency 
and removal the test condition tolerance for temperature of air leaving 
the unit;
--Quantification of the requirements for insulating refrigerant lines;
--Clarification of piping length requirement;
--Changes to the list of tests for unit coolers in table 15 to achieve 
consistency with another similar test method; and
--Clarification of voltage imbalance for three-phase power.

    Fourth, DOE proposes to modify the current test procedure for 
measuring the insulation R-value of WICF panels. (10 CFR 431.304) The 
current DOE test procedure allows, but does not require, panels to be 
tested with non-foam facers or protective skins attached. (10 CFR 
431.304(b)(5), (6) and (c)(5), (6)) Also, the current DOE test 
procedure allows panel test samples to be up to 4 inches in thickness. 
(10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and (c)(5)) The test procedure requires that the 
R-value be measured at a mean temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit for 
freezer panels (10 CFR 431.304(b)(3) and (c)(3)) and 55 degrees 
Fahrenheit for cooler panels (10 CFR 431.304(b)(4) and (c)(4)); however 
no tolerance is currently specified for these temperatures. In light of 
recent concerns regarding the accuracy of ASTM C518-04 testing of which 
DOE had not previously been aware, DOE is proposing to require test 
samples be 1 inch in thickness and without non-foam facers, protective 
skins, internal non-foam members or edge regions. DOE is proposing to 
add flatness and parallelism constraints on the test sample surfaces 
that contact the hot and cold plates in the heat flow meter apparatus. 
DOE also proposes to add a tolerance of 1 degree Fahrenheit 
for the mean temperature during panel R-value testing because DOE 
believes this will help ensure that the panel testing is conducted in a 
repeatable and reproducible manner at different laboratories.
    Fifth, to all walk-in manufacturers to make energy use 
representations DOE is proposing a sampling plan for walk-ins 
consistent with other commercial equipment regulated under EPCA.
    Sixth and finally, in response to manufacturer comments on the 
September 2013 standards NOPR, DOE is proposing to remove the existing 
performance-based test procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels 
(10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 
5.2). DOE recognizes that these performance-based procedures for WICF 
floor and non-floor panels are in addition to the prescriptive 
requirements established in EPCA for panel insulation R-values and, 
therefore, may increase the test burden to manufacturers.
    All of the changes noted above, along with the appropriate sections 
of the CFR where these changes will appear, are detailed in the summary 
table below.

                   Table II.1--Summary of CFR Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Change                           10 CFR Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing manufacturers to use      429.53.
 AEDMs to rate WICF refrigeration
 systems.
Specific instructions for          429.70(f).
 applying AEDMs to WICF
 refrigeration systems.
Changes to test procedures and     431.304(b)(3)-(6) and 431.304(c)(3)-
 prescriptive requirements for      (6)
 WICF foam panel R-value.
Amendments to AHRI 1250            431.304(c)(8).
 refrigeration system test
 method, and the panel and door
 test methods.

[[Page 9822]]

 
Methods for rating refrigeration   431.304(c)(11).
 components sold separately.
Amendments to performance-based    431 Subpart R, Appendix A.
 test procedures for energy
 consumption of envelope
 components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE generally 
determines to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would 
alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If 
DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE has 
tentatively determined that there are no energy conservation standards 
in effect that would be significantly impacted by the proposed test 
procedure amendments. A full discussion follows in section III.E below.

Discussion

    In response to the May 2012 NOPR, DOE received written comments 
from 28 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations 
and advocacy groups. Seven additional interested parties commented 
during the May 2012 NOPR Public Meeting on June 5, 2012. Table II.1 
lists the entities that commented on the NOPR and their affiliation. 
These comments are discussed in more detail below, and the full set of 
comments, including the public meeting transcript, can be found at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-TP-0024.

                       Table III.1--Interested Parties That Commented on the May 2012 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Name                                Acronym                           Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON, Inc..........................  AAON.................................  Manufacturer.
The ABB Group......................  ABB..................................  Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and       AHRI.................................  Industry Trade Group.
 Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness        Joint Comment........................  Advocacy Group.
 Project & American Council for an
 Energy-Efficient Economy.
Baldor Electric....................  Baldor Electric......................  Manufacturer.
Bradford White Corporation.........  Bradford White.......................  Manufacturer.
Burnham Commercial.................  Burnham..............................  Manufacturer.
Cooper Power Systems...............  Cooper...............................  Manufacturer.
Crown Boiler Company...............  Crown Boiler.........................  Manufacturer.
CrownTonka/ThermalRite/              CT/TR/ICS............................  Manufacturer.
 International Cold Storage.
Danfoss............................  Danfoss..............................  Manufacturer.
First Co...........................  First Co.............................  Manufacturer.
Goodman Global, Inc................  Goodman..............................  Manufacturer.
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products     Heatcraft Refrigeration..............  Manufacturer.
 LLC.
Hillphoenix, Inc...................  Hillphoenix..........................  Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation...............  Hussmann.............................  Manufacturer.
Ingersoll Rand.....................  Ingersoll Rand.......................  Manufacturer.
Johnson Controls, Inc..............  JCI..................................  Manufacturer.
Lennox International, Inc..........  Lennox...............................  Manufacturer.
Lochinvar, LLC.....................  Lochinvar............................  Manufacturer.
Mitsubishi Electric................  Mitsubishi Electric..................  Manufacturer.
Modine Manufacturing Company.......  Modine...............................  Manufacturer.
Mortex Products, Inc...............  Mortex...............................  Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers    NEMA.................................  Industry Trade Group.
 Association.
Nidec Motor Corporation............  Nidec................................  Manufacturer.
Nordyne, LLC.......................  Nordyne..............................  Manufacturer.
Rheem Manufacturing Company........  Rheem................................  Manufacturer.
Schneider Electric.................  SE...................................  Manufacturer.
Southern Store Fixtures, Inc.......  Southern Store Fixtures..............  Manufacturer.
Trane..............................  Trane................................  Manufacturer.
True Manufacturing Co. Inc.........  True Manufacturing...................  Manufacturer.
Unico, Inc.........................  Unico................................  Manufacturer.
United Cool Air....................  United Cool Air......................  Manufacturer.
United Technologies Climate,         UTC/Carrier..........................  Manufacturer.
 Controls & Security and ITS
 Carrier.
Zero Zone, Inc.....................  Zero Zone............................  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SNOPR on AEDMs for commercial HVAC, 
refrigeration and WH equipment, which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 22, 2013, 78 FR 62472, DOE received a comment 
relevant to this rulemaking from Lennox International, Inc., a 
manufacturer of HVAC and commercial refrigeration equipment.
    The Department also received relevant comments from 23 interested 
parties in response to the September 2013 Standards NOPR and related 
NOPR Public Meeting held on October 9, 2013. Table III.2 lists the 
entities that commented on that NOPR and their affiliation. These 
comments are discussed in more detail below, and the full set of 
comments, including the public meeting transcript, can be found at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/

[[Page 9823]]

!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015.

               Table III.2--Interested Parties That Commented on the September 2013 Standards NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Name                                Acronym                           Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioning Contractors of      ACCA.................................  Industry Trade Group.
 America.
Air-conditioning, Heating, and       AHRI.................................  Industry Trade Group.
 Refrigeration Institute.
American Council for an Energy       ACEEE................................  Advocacy Group.
 Efficient Economy.
American Panel Corp................  American Panel.......................  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness        ASAP.................................  Advocacy Group.
 Project.
Architectural Testing Inc..........  AT...................................  ....................................
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc......  Bally................................  Manufacturer.
CrownTonka Walk-Ins, ThermalRite &   CT/TR/ICS............................  Manufacturer
 International Cold Storage.
Danfoss Group North America........  Danfoss..............................  Manufacturer.
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products     Heatcraft............................  Manufacturer.
 LLC.
Hillphoenix........................  Hillphoenix..........................  Manufacturer.
HussmanCorporation.................  HussmanCorp..........................  Manufacturer.
Imperial Brown.....................  IB...................................  Manufacturer.
KysorWarren........................  Kysor................................  Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc...........  Lennox...............................  Manufacturer.
Louisville Cooler Mfg..............  Louisville Cooler....................  Manufacturer.
Manitowoc..........................  Manitowoc............................  Manufacturer.
National Coil Company..............  NCC..................................  Manufacturer.
Nor-Lake, Inc......................  Nor-Lake.............................  Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency          NEEA, et al..........................  Advocacy Group.
 Alliance & The Northwest Power and
 Conservation Council.
Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern     CA IOU's.............................  Utility.
 California Gas, Southern
 California Edison, San Diego Gas &
 Electric (Ca. State Independently
 Owned Utilities).
Thermo-Kool........................  Thermo-Kool..........................  Manufacturer.
US Cooler Co.......................  US Cooler............................  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method

    In the May 2012 NOPR, in which DOE proposed to expand and revise 
existing AEDM requirements for commercial equipment covered under EPCA, 
DOE proposed, among other things, to allow the use of AEDMs for WICFs 
and to establish specific requirements for AEDM validation \1\--i.e., a 
process in which manufacturers demonstrate the accuracy of an AEDM 
model--and DOE verification \2\--i.e., a process followed by DOE when 
verifying the accuracy of an AEDM model--that would apply to this 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term substantiation to 
refer to the process manufacturers used to prove that their modeling 
tool, or AEDM, produced accurate results. The Working Group elected 
to use the term validation, instead of substantiation, for this 
process. DOE clarifies that substantiation and validation are 
synonymous and the Department will use the term validation 
henceforth.
    \2\ In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE used the term DOE validation to 
refer to the process DOE used to check that the modeling tool, or 
AEDM, produced accurate results. The Working Group elected to use 
the verification, instead of DOE validation, for this process. DOE 
clarifies that DOE validation and verification are synonymous and 
the Department will use the term verification henceforth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of the May 2012 NOPR, the Commercial 
Certification Working Group was formed in April 2013 to discuss and 
negotiate certification provisions for commercial heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioner (HVAC), refrigeration, and water heater (WH) 
equipment. The Working Group expanded the scope of coverage to include 
AEDMs. As part of its negotiations, the Working Group also developed 
AEDM validation and verification requirements. These negotiations led 
to the publication of an SNOPR on October 22, 2013, hereafter referred 
to as the October 2013 SNOPR, in which DOE proposed for adoption the 
Working Group's recommendation on AEDMs, basic model definitions, and 
compliance requirements for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and water 
heating equipment. (78 FR 62472) On December 31, 2013, DOE issued a 
final rule for AEDM usage by manufacturers of these products. See 78 FR 
79579. Today's SNOPR proposes to require that the AEDM validation 
regulations similar to those that apply to commercial HVAC, 
refrigeration, and WH equipment would also apply to WICF refrigeration 
systems. DOE is also addressing comments in response to the May 2012 
NOPR.
1. Applicable Equipment
    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow the use of AEDMs for 
WICFs, but limited the proposal to apply only to WICF refrigeration 
systems. DOE explained that WICF refrigeration systems are low-volume 
and custom-made for the specific installation and could be accurately 
rated using a computer simulation to predict their behavior under DOE 
test conditions. DOE did not propose to permit a similar option when 
rating other WICF components. WICF panels are relatively simple pieces 
of equipment and the test results from a basic model of a given panel 
can be extrapolated to many other panel basic models under the 
provisions of the test procedure. As for WICF doors, the DOE test 
procedure already specifies the use of certain modeling techniques that 
are approved by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC), which, 
in DOE's view, makes a parallel AEDM provision for these components 
unnecessary. 77 FR at 32041.
    Heatcraft and CT/TR/ICS supported this aspect of the proposal. 
(Heatcraft, No. 0049 at p. 2; CT/TR/ICS, No.0035 at p. 1) In addition, 
in response to the October 2013 SNOPR, DOE received a comment from 
Lennox recommending that DOE allow walk-in manufacturers to use AEDMs 
when rating their equipment. (Lennox, No. 0080 at p. 4) DOE also 
received AEDM-related comments in response to the September 2013 
standards NOPR. 78 FR 55781. AHRI, Bally, and ACEEE generally 
recommended that DOE include AEDM provisions for WICFs. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; AHRI, No. 114 at p. 4; AHRI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 88 at p. 58; Bally, No. 102 at p. 3; ACEEE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 87) In addition to its comment from 
the commercial HVAC, refrigeration and WH

[[Page 9824]]

rulemaking, Lennox commented in the standards rulemaking that 
permitting walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers to use AEDMs 
would reduce the test burden faced by these manufacturers, particularly 
given the number of possible unit cooler and condenser combinations. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015], Lennox, No. 109 at p. 4) During 
the same rulemaking, Hillphoenix, KeepRite, and NEEA, et al. commented 
that permitting panel manufacturers to use AEDMs for panel 
certification would reduce their test burden as well. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3; KeepRite, No. 105 
at p. 2; NEEA et al, No. 101 at p. 2)
    In today's notice, DOE proposes as a modification of its earlier 
May 2012 NOPR to allow WICF refrigeration system manufacturers to use 
AEDMs when rating the performance of this equipment. DOE is not 
extending this allowance to WICF panel manufacturers for the reasons 
described above, but is, instead, proposing other modifications to the 
walk-in panel test procedure to reduce the burden faced by panel 
manufacturers while ensuring the overall accuracy of the efficiency 
ratings. The proposed modifications to the WICF panel test procedure 
are outlined in section III. C.
2. Validation
a. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed a number of validation 
requirements that would apply to walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE 
proposed that validating an AEDM would require a manufacturer to test a 
minimum of five basic models, including at least one basic model from 
each product class to which the AEDM will be applied. As part of these 
tests, the manufacturer would be required to test the smallest and 
largest capacity basic models from the product class with the highest 
sales volume. Additionally, the manufacturer would also need to test 
the basic model with the highest sales volume from the previous year 
or, for newly introduced basic models, the basic model which is 
expected to have the highest sales volume. Finally, all validation test 
data would need to meet the applicable Federal energy conservation 
standards and applicable DOE testing procedures. 77 FR 32044-32045.
    Commenters responding to that proposal provided general comments, 
with none specifically relating to walk-ins. AHRI commented that it was 
unrealistic for a manufacturer who produces fewer than five models to 
be required to validate an AEDM based on a minimum sample of five 
units. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 154) Furthermore, 
AHRI stated that it is disproportionately burdensome to require testing 
at least five basic models for small manufacturers who manufacture or 
plan to use an AEDM for only a few basic models compared to 
manufacturers who offer many basic models and many product classes. 
AHRI recommended that DOE require testing of only three basic models if 
the AEDM applies only to 15 or fewer basic models. (AHRI No. 61 at p. 
3)
    Acknowledging how much work and testing validation of an AEDM 
requires, Zero Zone noted that it would be difficult for small 
manufacturers to comply with the proposed requirements and would 
represent a large amount of work since testing is so complex. Zero Zone 
recommended that small manufacturers either be exempt from the proposed 
requirements or have a different sample size requirement to meet. (Zero 
Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 65) Zero Zone and 
Hillphoenix agreed with DOE's proposal to require testing of at least 
one unit from each applicable product class and did not offer comment 
regarding the assigned product classes. (Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 1; 
Hillphoenix, No. 48 at p. 1)
    Hillphoenix supported DOE's proposals for the selection 
requirements of basic models used to validate an AEDM. (Hillphoenix, 
No. 48 at p. 2) Heatcraft disagreed with DOE's proposed approach, 
stating that the requirement to test the smallest and largest capacity 
basic models from the highest sales volume product class is overly 
burdensome due to the wide range of equipment capacity. (Heatcraft, No. 
49 at p. 3) Heatcraft also disagreed with DOE's proposal to require 
manufacturers to test the highest sales volume basic model because it 
will not improve the accuracy of the AEDM and because the low-volume, 
built-to-order nature of WICF equipment will cause sales volumes to 
constantly shift. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 4)
    The Working Group recommended, and DOE adopted, an AEDM validation 
method for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment that 
differed from the Department's May 2012 validation proposal. The 
Working Group proposed to validate an AEDM for commercial HVAC, 
refrigeration, and WH equipment, a manufacturer must select a minimum 
number of models from each validation class to which the AEDM is going 
to apply. (Validation classes are groupings of products based on 
equipment classes but used for AEDM validation). The Department 
proposes to extend this concept to WICF refrigeration systems and 
proposes the validation classes listed in Table III.3. A unit of each 
basic model selected must undergo a single test conducted in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure (or, if applicable, a test procedure waiver 
issued by DOE) at a manufacturer's testing facility or a third-party 
testing facility. The test result must be directly compared to the 
result from the AEDM to determine the AEDM's validity. A manufacturer 
may develop multiple AEDMs per validation class and each AEDM may span 
multiple validation classes; however, the minimum number of tests must 
be maintained per validation class for every AEDM a manufacturer 
chooses to develop. An AEDM may be applied to any model within the 
applicable validation classes at the manufacturer's discretion. All 
documentation of test results for these models, the AEDM results, and 
subsequent comparisons to the AEDM would be maintained as part of both 
the test data underlying the certified rating and the AEDM validation 
package pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71.

                     Table III.3--Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Minimum number of distinct models
         Validation class                   that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium       2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium       2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Outdoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low          2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low          2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Outdoor System.
Unit Cooler connected to a         2 Basic Models
 Multiplex Condensing Unit,
 Medium Temperature.
Unit Cooler connected to a         2 Basic Models.
 Multiplex Condensing Unit, Low
 Temperature.
Medium Temperature, Indoor         2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.

[[Page 9825]]

 
Medium Temperature, Outdoor        2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
Low Temperature, Indoor            2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
Low Temperature, Outdoor           2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to align with the validation requirements for commercial 
HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment, DOE proposes to adopt the 
validation approach shown above, which mirrors the approach recommended 
by the Working Group. In DOE's view, the Working Group's method 
addresses AHRI's concerns regarding manufacturers that produce a 
limited number of equipment models. This proposal, if adopted, will 
also reduce the amount of testing burden noted by Zero Zone. 
Additionally, today's proposal would not require that a manufacturer 
test the highest sales volume product, a concern raised by Heatcraft. 
DOE requests comment on the proposed AEDM validation approach as 
applied to walk-in refrigeration systems.
b. Tolerances for Validation
    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt two tolerances that 
would be applied when validating a WICF refrigeration AEDM. One 
tolerance would be between the results from a test of a single basic 
model and the AEDM output for that basic model (i.e., an individual 
tolerance). A second tolerance would be applied between the average of 
the test results from all tested basic models and the average of the 
AEDM outputs for those tested basic models (i.e., an overall average 
tolerance). 77 FR at 32055-32056. DOE received one comment on this 
aspect of its proposal. Heatcraft commented that the average tolerance 
provides no added benefit because it does not necessarily encourage 
smaller product variation. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 3)
    DOE also proposed that both tolerances would apply on both sides of 
the AEDM output. 77 FR at 32055-32056. That is, a tolerance would be 
applied regardless of whether the test result indicated that the 
equipment was more efficient or more consumptive than the AEDM output 
for the purposes of validation. DOE received a number of comments 
regarding two-sided tolerances, but none specific to AEDMs for WICFs. 
Rheem and Hussmann stated that DOE's tolerances should be one-sided, 
with Hussmann recommending that DOE allow manufacturers to rate 
equipment conservatively using an AEDM. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 3; 
Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2) JCI also stated that tolerances should be 
one-sided, and there should be no requirement for re-validation if a 
manufacturer has conservative ratings. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 6) AAON, 
Trane, and ACEEE also supported one-sided tolerances and an approach 
that would allow manufacturers to rate conservatively. (AAON, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at pp. 88 and 212; Trane, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 69 at p. 90; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 
at p. 90) AAON urged DOE to eliminate one side of the 5 percent 
tolerance and not penalize manufacturers whose basic models, when 
tested, achieve a higher rating than that predicted by an AEDM because 
allowing manufacturers to conservatively predict a basic model's 
performance would simplify the process and give manufacturers 
incentives to improve AEDMs and manufacturing processes over time so 
that they could rate their equipment as efficiently as possible. In 
AAON's view, this approach would not prevent a manufacturer who might 
be inclined to calibrate their models more conservatively from using 
its AEDM. (AAON, No. 40 at p. 5)
    Not all manufacturers, however, recommended that DOE remove the 
conservative tolerance. Instead of completely removing it, AHRI 
suggested that the conservative tolerance should be increased to 10 
percent so that manufacturers can design AEDMs that provide 
conservative ratings. (AHRI, No. 61 at p. 5) Cooper, on the other hand, 
stated that tolerances should be two-sided because manufacturers must 
demonstrate that an AEDM's output is accurate and repeatable. (Cooper, 
No. 43 at p. 3)
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to set consistent tolerance levels for 
all products covered under AEDM requirements, except for motors and 
small electric motors. 77 FR at 32055-32056. DOE proposed a 5% tolerance on the individual AEDM results as compared to the 
tested results and a 3% tolerance on the average of the 
AEDM outputs as compared to the average tested results. Regarding WICF 
refrigeration equipment, commenters generally agreed there will be 
variation in the results from testing, but commenters differed in their 
suggested tolerance levels. Heatcraft, Zero Zone, Hussmann, and True 
Manufacturing all commented that the proposed 5 percent tolerance was 
too tight. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 2; 
Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 
86) Zero Zone recommended a tolerance of 8 percent. (Zero Zone, No. 64 
at p. 2) Heatcraft, Hussmann and True Manufacturing identified expected 
test variations of 10 percent, 11 percent, and 8 percent respectively 
but did not suggest a tolerance for AEDM validation. (Heatcraft, No. 49 
at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 57 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
69 at p. 86) Heatcraft suggested that DOE should work with 
manufacturers to determine the appropriate tolerance based on the 
expected variations. (Heatcraft, No. 49 at p. 3) CT/TR/ICS disagreed 
with these parties, stating that the 5 percent tolerance was acceptable 
so long as testing was conducted with the typical electric utility 
tolerance of 10 percent. (CT/TR/ICS, No. 35 at p. 1)
    The Working Group recommended that for energy efficiency metrics, 
the AEDM results for a model must be less than or equal to 105 percent 
of the tested results for that same model. DOE adopted this approach 
for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment in the December 
31, 2013 Final Rule and proposes to use it for WICF refrigeration 
systems in today's notice to align DOE's AEDM validation requirements 
for walk-ins with these other types of commercial equipment that are 
refrigerant-based systems. This approach would eliminate both the 
tolerance on the average of the AEDM results and two-sided tolerances. 
DOE requests comments on the proposed tolerances on the AEDM results as 
compared to the tested results for a given basic model.
3. Certified Rating
    For each basic model of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment distributed in U.S. commerce, manufacturers must determine 
the certified rating based on testing or use of a validated AEDM. DOE's 
current regulations provide

[[Page 9826]]

manufacturers with some flexibility in rating each basic model by 
allowing the manufacturer the discretion to rate conservatively. For 
energy efficiency metrics, each model's certified rating must be less 
than or equal to the model's AEDM result and greater than or equal to 
the applicable Federal standard. DOE proposes to adopt these 
requirements for WICF refrigeration equipment rated with AEDMs.
4. Verification
    DOE may randomly select and test a single unit of a basic model 
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, which extends to all DOE covered products, 
including those certified using an AEDM. In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE 
proposed a method for determining whether those products certified 
using an AEDM fail to meet federal energy conservation standards and/or 
fail to meet their certified rating, as well as actions that DOE would 
take in response to either outcome. 77 FR at 32056.
a. Failure To Meet a Certified Rating
    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the assessment 
test result would be compared to the certified rating for a model to 
determine if a model met its certified rating. If the test result fell 
outside of the proposed tolerance, the model would not meet its 
certified rating. In this case, DOE proposed to require that 
manufacturers re-validate the AEDM that was used to certify the product 
within 30 days of receiving the test report from DOE. Furthermore, DOE 
also proposed to require that manufacturers incorporate the test data 
obtained by the Department for that model into the re-validation of the 
AEDM. If, after inclusion of DOE's test data and re-validation, the 
AEDM-certified ratings change for any models, the manufacturer would be 
required to re-rate and re-certify those models. The manufacturer would 
not be required to perform additional testing in this re-validation 
process unless the manufacturer finds it necessary in order to meet the 
requirements enumerated in the proposed 10 CFR 429.70 (e.g., number of 
tested units; proposed tolerances; etc.). 77 FR 32056.
    A few stakeholders commented on these proposals. Zero Zone 
commented that the failure of one unit to meet its certified rating 
should not automatically necessitate re-validation. It suggested that 
the manufacturer should decide on the appropriate course of action. 
(Zero Zone, No. 64 at p.3) Lennox further noted that although DOE 
should use independent, third-party labs for testing, using these 
entities does not ensure accuracy because third-party labs may not be 
as familiar with specialized commercial equipment. (Lennox, No. 47 at 
p. 3)
    DOE acknowledges these comments regarding how potential AEDM mis-
rating situations should be addressed. First, DOE proposes to assess a 
unit's performance through third party testing. Under this approach, 
DOE would begin the verification process by selecting a single unit of 
a given basic model for testing either from retail or by obtaining a 
sample from the manufacturer. DOE will select a third-party testing 
laboratory at its discretion to test the unit selected unless there are 
cases where there is not a third-party laboratory capable of testing 
the equipment, in which case DOE may request testing at a 
manufacturer's facility. The Department will be responsible for the 
logistics of arranging the testing, and the laboratory is not allowed 
to communicate directly with the manufacturer. At no time may the test 
facility discuss DOE verification testing with the manufacturer without 
the Department present.
    If a unit is tested and determined to be outside the rating 
tolerances described in section I.C.4, DOE will notify the 
manufacturer. The manufacturer will receive all documentation related 
to the test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit if 
the unit falls outside the rating tolerances. At that time, a 
manufacturer may present all claims regarding any issues directly with 
the Department. DOE requests comment on this proposal. The Department 
notes that 10 CFR 429.13(b) applies to equipment certified using an 
AEDM, and DOE may require a manufacturer to conduct additional testing 
if the manufacturer has been found to be in violation of an applicable 
standard or certification requirement.
b. Action Following Enforcement Testing: Determination of Noncompliance
    In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE explained that if a model failed to meet 
the applicable federal energy conservation standard during assessment 
testing, DOE may pursue enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. 
DOE also stated that, after enforcement testing, if a model were 
determined to be noncompliant, then all other models within that basic 
model would be considered noncompliant. This is consistent with DOE's 
approach for all covered products. All other basic models rated with 
the AEDM would be considered compliant pending additional 
investigation. Furthermore, DOE proposed that in a case where the 
noncompliant model was used for validation of an AEDM, then the AEDM 
must be re-validated within 30 days of notification, pursuant to the 
proposed requirements described in section III.A.2. DOE did not propose 
requiring a manufacturer re-test basic models that were tested 
previously for validation if DOE has not determined those models to be 
noncompliant. 77 FR at 32056. DOE received a general comment related to 
this proposal, but no comments specific to noncompliance determinations 
for WICF refrigeration equipment. JCI agreed that all AEDM-rated models 
should not be disqualified if one model is found out of compliance. 
(JCI, No. 66 at p. 9) Furthermore, JCI stated that without additional 
information as to why a particular product failed a test, it is not 
reasonable to arbitrarily assume that all models rated with the AEDM 
must be re-rated. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 9, 10)
    After considering the comment received regarding DOE's proposed 
response to a finding of noncompliance, DOE has decided to eliminate 
the proposal to require re-validation of the AEDM if the noncompliant 
model was used to validate the AEDM. Instead, the Department proposes 
that the underlying principle that each AEDM must be supported by test 
data obtained from physical tests of current models will control. 
Because a noncompliant model may not be distributed in commerce, the 
manufacturer will need to ensure that the AEDM continues to satisfy the 
proposed validation requirements described in section III. A. 2. 
Additional testing would not be necessary unless the noncompliant 
product was used to satisfy those AEDM validation requirements. 
Pursuant to this requirement, should the re-validation result in a 
change in the ratings of products certified using the AEDM, those 
products must be re-rated and re-certified. DOE is not proposing to 
require re-testing of products that were not determined noncompliant by 
DOE.
5. Re-Validation
a. Change in Standards or Test Procedures
    DOE proposed in the May 2012 NOPR to require that manufacturers who 
use an AEDM to certify their products re-validate the AEDM upon 
publication of an amended test procedure or standard for the AEDM-rated 
product. 77 FR at 32056. DOE proposed this requirement to account for 
potential changes to the AEDM as well as to ensure that the AEDM 
continues to be based upon test data derived from the applicable DOE 
test procedure and models that meet the

[[Page 9827]]

current standards. DOE identified the issuance of a new test procedure 
or a standard as likely to necessitate changes to the AEDM, either 
because a change in a test procedure may affect the tested values of 
the products used to validate the AEDM or because a change in a 
standard may require additional testing using models that meet the new 
standard or may force manufacturers to implement new technologies that 
are not covered by their current AEDM. DOE did not propose a periodic 
re-validation requirement in light of the potential testing burden 
involved.
    Among the comments received, a large majority of stakeholders 
suggested that a change in standards or test procedures should not 
automatically trigger AEDM re-validation, emphasizing that it may only 
be necessary in the case of a significant change in the regulations. 
(UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 3; JCI, No. 66 at p. 10; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 
5, 18, 19; Lennox, No. 46 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 61 at p. 7) Baldor 
Electric, Zero Zone, ABB, First Co., Goodman, Heatcraft Refrigeration, 
and Schneider Electric all argued that re-validation would not be 
necessary in a case of a change in a test procedure. (Baldor Electric, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 132-34; Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 
4; ABB, No. 39 at p. 3; First Co., No. 45 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 53 at 
p. 3; Heatcraft Refrigeration, No. 49 at p. 5; SE., No. 41 at p. 12) 
According to Goodman, AAON, Zero Zone, Ingersoll Rand, and Baldor 
Electric, re-validation would also not be necessary if there is a 
change in a prescribed minimum energy efficiency standard. (Goodman, 
No. 53 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 134; AAON, No. 40 at p. 7; Baldor 
Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 132-34) NEMA echoed 
this view and explained that when an efficiency standard changes, it is 
possible that the determined energy consumption of basic models might 
still be higher than the new standard, and more testing would not be 
necessary. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 5, 18, 19)
    Several stakeholders outlined specific circumstances that would 
necessitate re-validation due to a change in a standard or test 
procedure. AHRI and Hillphoenix stated that re-validation should only 
be required when a change in a test procedure is significant enough to 
result in a product having a different rated energy consumption or 
efficiency. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 238-39; 
Hillphoenix, No. 48 at p. 2) Nordyne, Rheem, Lennox, and CT/TR/ICS 
added that re-validation should be required if a change in a DOE test 
procedure has an effect on simulated ratings of an AEDM. (Nordyne, No. 
55 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 5; Lennox, No. 46 at p. 6; CT/TR/ICS, 
No. 35 at p. 2) ABB and Unico commented that re-validation may be 
necessary when a new federal standard is high enough that the basic 
models used for validation can no longer meet the minimum standard. 
(ABB, No. 39 at p. 3; Unico, No. 54 at p. 5) Baldor Electric agreed, 
stating that unless there is a significant change in technology or a 
test standard, a manufacturer should not have to re-validate its AEDM. 
(Baldor Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at pp. 132-34) NEMA 
suggested that DOE consider the necessity for re-validation on a case-
by-case basis, and specifically address and solicit public comment on 
whether re-validation of an AEDM is needed as a result of changes in a 
test procedure at the time when DOE proposes to adopt the change in the 
test procedure. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 20)
    Many manufacturers advocated that re-validation should instead 
depend on significant changes to the technology of basic models, 
including changes to the components. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 3; First 
Co., No. 45 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 5; Nordyne, No. 55 at p. 3; 
Unico, No. 54 at p. 3; SE., No. 41 at p. 12) Additionally, Baldor 
Electric and Ingersoll Rand pointed out during the public meeting that 
a change in technology should be an important factor in evaluating when 
re-validation may be necessary, with Ingersoll Rand adding that if 
there were no change in technology it is unclear why a change in 
standards would disqualify an AEDM. (Baldor Electric, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 69 at pp. 132-134; Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 69 at p. 137) Schneider Electric specified that 
manufacturers should revise and re-validate their AEDMs whenever they 
introduce new products, processes or materials, and that any changes to 
the AEDM itself should necessitate re-validation. (Schneider Electric, 
No. 41 at pp. 10 and 12)
    DOE agrees with manufacturers' assertions that re-validation should 
depend on the nature of the regulatory change involved because not 
every change to the standard or test procedure would necessarily affect 
a product's energy consumption and/or efficiency or an AEDM's output. 
DOE also agrees with NEMA that the requirement to re-validate should be 
determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to 
require re-validation every time the test procedure or standard 
changes.
    However, should DOE believe that re-validation is necessary 
pursuant to a final rule standard or test procedure, DOE will propose 
this step in the NOPR for that standard or test procedure rulemaking to 
allow stakeholders to provide comment.
b. Re-Validation Using Active Models
    DOE is concerned that an AEDM's accuracy may be compromised if the 
models that are used to validate it become obsolete. To address this 
issue, DOE proposed to require manufacturers to re-validate their AEDMs 
if one of the basic models used for validation is no longer in 
production or if it becomes obsolete. 77 FR at 32056. DOE requested 
comment on this proposed approach.
    The majority of commenters on this topic disagreed with DOE's 
proposal, stating that once an AEDM is validated, it is valid 
regardless of whether one of the basic models used for its validation 
is discontinued. Stakeholders further asserted that discontinuance of a 
basic model does not necessarily indicate a change in technology; 
therefore, it should not automatically invalidate the AEDM, and re-
validation of the AEDM should not be required. (United Cool Air, No. 51 
at p. 10; First Co., No. 45 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 46 at p. 6; Unico, No. 
54 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 
134; JCI, No. 66 at p. 10) UTC/Carrier recommended that inactive models 
should be allowed for re-validation as long as they use the same 
technology as the products currently in production and meet the minimum 
energy efficiency standards. (UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 3) AAON further 
added that if the product was current at the time the test was 
performed, test data should remain valid for re-validation for at least 
five years after a unit becomes obsolete. (AAON, No. 40 at p. 7) JCI 
pointed out that continuous re-validation due to elimination of some 
models would create an unstable environment for new product 
development. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 10) According to Rheem, AHRI and Zero 
Zone, the decision regarding when re-validation is necessary should be 
left to the manufacturer. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 5; AHRI, No. 61 at p. 9; 
Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 4) Only Schneider Electric agreed with DOE's 
proposal that AEDMs must be re-validated only with active models. (SE, 
No. 41 at p. 12)
    While DOE appreciates manufacturers' concerns regarding the 
additional testing burden and possible turnover of AEDM models imposed 
by this requirement, DOE continues to have concerns regarding the 
accuracy of an AEDM based on data from obsolete models. Thus, DOE is 
retaining the

[[Page 9828]]

proposal to require re-validation of an AEDM if a basic model used for 
its validation is discontinued or becomes obsolete. DOE believes that 
this requirement will ensure that AEDMs continue to produce accurate 
ratings, without imposing a significant testing burden on 
manufacturers.
    DOE notes that under its proposal, manufacturers may continue to 
test their models beyond the minimum validation requirements as a means 
to affirm an AEDM's validity. As long as the manufacturer has 
sufficient test data underlying the AEDM to meet the validation 
requirements at all times, additional testing for re-validation would 
not be required by DOE. In other words, a manufacturer may continue to 
use data from an obsolete or discontinued model to internally validate 
an AEDM or as an input to its algorithms. However, the manufacturer 
must meet the minimum validation requirements with test data from 
active models.
c. Time Allowed for Re-Validation
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed that, should a manufacturer be required 
to re-validate an AEDM for any reason, it must complete the re-
validation process and re-rate and re-certify basic models as necessary 
within 30 days. The requirement to re-validate may be a result of a 
change in federal standards, a change in the applicable test procedure, 
the basic model used to validate the AEDM becoming inactive or found to 
be noncompliant with standards, or the failure of a basic model to meet 
its certified rating during assessment or enforcement testing. DOE 
proposed that if a manufacturer failed to re-validate the AEDM and to 
re-rate and re-certify any models as necessary within 30 days, then the 
AEDM and all certifications made using the AEDM would be considered 
invalid. 77 FR at 32056.
    A large majority of interested parties stated that 30 days is 
insufficient to perform the additional testing required for re-
validation of an AEDM and suggested extending the proposed time limit. 
Sixty days was proposed as a more appropriate timeframe by Goodman and 
Schneider Electric; 180 days by AAON and UTC/Carrier; and 90 to 120 
days by the remaining twelve stakeholders. (Bradford White, No. 38 at 
p. 1; ABB, No. 39 at p. 3; AAON, No. 40 at p. 6; Modine, No. 42 at p. 
4; Lennox, No. 47 at p. 3; Heatcraft Refrigeration, No. 49 at p. 4; 
Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 53 at p. 3; SE., No. 41 at 
p.11; UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 18; Hillphoenix, 
No. 48 at p. 2; Unico, No. 54 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 
61 at pp. 6-7) Zero Zone suggested that a time limit of 18 to 36 months 
would be an appropriate time to update an AEDM in case of a change in a 
standard or a test procedure. (Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 4) Schneider 
Electric stated that 30 days after an AEDM's revision would be 
sufficient to re-evaluate and re-certify products in distribution. 
However, it added that if a manufacturer's products are not in 
distribution at the time, the manufacturer should be allowed 180 days 
to re-evaluate and re-certify them. (Schneider Electric, No. 41 at p. 
11)
    After considering these suggestions, DOE is declining to propose a 
time limit to re-validate an AEDM. The AEDM must satisfy the 
fundamental requirement for validating an AEDM at all times.

B. Refrigeration Test Procedure

    During DOE's rulemaking to establish test procedures for WICF 
equipment, which resulted in a final rule published on April 15, 2011 
(``April 2011 test procedure final rule;'' 76 FR 21580), interested 
parties supported DOE's approach to use AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 
Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers'' 
(``AHRI 1250''), for WICF refrigeration testing. AHRI 1250 is an 
industry-developed testing protocol used to measure walk-in efficiency. 
However, DOE is proposing to add certain modifications to AHRI 1250. 
These modifications are designed to either clarify certain steps in 
AHRI 1250 or reduce the testing burden of manufacturers while ensuring 
that accurate measurements are obtained.
1. Rating of Refrigeration Components
    The AHRI 1250 test procedure incorporated into DOE's regulations 
applies to unit coolers and condensing units tested and sold together 
as a matched system, ``mix-matched'' unit coolers and condensing units 
(i.e., unit coolers and condensing units tested separately, with a 
system rating determined using a calculation methodology), and unit 
coolers connected to compressor racks or multiplex condensing systems. 
It also describes the methods for measuring the refrigeration capacity, 
on-cycle electrical energy consumption, off-cycle fan energy, and 
defrost energy. Standard test conditions, which differ for indoor and 
outdoor locations and for coolers and freezers, are also specified. The 
test procedure includes a calculation methodology to compute an annual 
walk-in energy factor (AWEF), which is the ratio of heat removed from 
the envelope to the total energy input of the refrigeration system over 
a year. AWEF is measured in Btu/W-h and measures the efficiency of a 
refrigeration system, meaning the unit cooler and condenser 
combination.
    In response to the September 2013 standards NOPR, the Department 
received a number of comments regarding the potential certification 
problems related to establishing an efficiency metric for WICF 
refrigeration systems. Some stakeholders commented that a single metric 
would be difficult to enforce given the walk-in market structure, and 
observed that creating separate metrics for each component of the 
refrigeration system (i.e. the unit cooler and condenser unit) would 
allow manufacturers to certify equipment performance. ASAP expressed 
concern that treating the complete refrigeration system as a 
``component'' could lead to a standard with a high rate of non-
compliance. ASAP also commented that separate standards for unit 
coolers and remote condensing units would be more practical [than a 
single standard], since the proposed standard resulted in a lack of 
clarity for manufacturers producing only unit coolers, only condensing 
units, or mix-match systems; however, such an approach could allow 
manufacturers of components to circumvent the standard by claiming 
their product was not designed for use in walk-ins, and that DOE should 
ensure the definition of ``covered equipment'' does not create this 
loophole. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; ASAP, No. 113 at p. 1-3) 
NCC stated that standards based on the combined refrigeration system 
would rely on the contractors or designers to comply with the standard 
and would make DOE enforcement difficult. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015]; NCC, No. 96 at p. 2) NCC commented that original equipment 
manufacturers of unit coolers and condensing units who sell these 
components separately do not have control over how their components are 
matched with others to form a mix-match refrigeration system. As a 
result, in its view, design consultants and contractors would have to 
be relied upon for certifying the AWEF of a system comprised of 
components from two different manufacturers, making this proposed 
approach unenforceable due to the large number of design consultants 
and contractors as compared to the relatively small number of 
refrigeration manufacturers. In light of these concerns, NCC 
recommended DOE set energy efficiency standards for condensing units 
and unit coolers separately. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-

[[Page 9829]]

BT-STD-0015]; NCC, No 96 at p. 2) CA IOUs also suggested that DOE 
enforce separate standards for unit coolers and condensing units. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 88 at p. 385) Bally agreed that separate standards for 
condensers and evaporators were more practical than a combined standard 
for the refrigeration system. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; 
Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) AHRI stated that often, the unit cooler and 
condensing unit are purchased independently and was concerned about 
treating the refrigeration system as a single component. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 
42)) Keeprite agreed that that since evaporators and condensing units 
are often sold or distributed independently of each other, and with no 
knowledge of how the consumer would pair them, separate standards for 
each component would be more practical than a system standard. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Keeprite, No. 105 at p. 1)
    Other manufacturers described the potential burden created by 
having a single metric. AHRI commented that since walk-ins are often 
custom-designed, it would be impossible for manufacturers to accurately 
estimate the number of possible refrigeration system configurations 
that could potentially include any given combination of condensing 
unit/unit cooler options. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; AHRI, 
No. 114 at p.3) Heatcraft also remarked that unit coolers and 
condensing units should be treated separately because of the infinite 
number of possible combinations. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; 
Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 41) American Panel 
noted that manufacturers can easily determine the efficiency of a 
paired condenser and evaporator if the two components were made by the 
same company and sold together, but given the number of different 
combinations of condensers and evaporators sold by a manufacturer, that 
manufacturer could be required to test or rate a thousand different 
systems to be able to certify all their possible combinations. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 88 at pp. 48 and 105) Manitowoc commented that requiring that 
manufacturers test matched refrigeration systems was not feasible 
because manufacturers of condensing units did not manufacture 
evaporators and vice versa; additionally, this approach would result in 
an infinite number of combinations. Manitowoc supported the idea of 
setting separate standards for condensing units and unit coolers, but 
noted that without an AEDM in place, these component level standards 
would still result in undue financial burden for manufacturers. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Manitowoc, No. 108 at pp. 1 and 2)
    Commenters also noted that separate metrics for the unit cooler and 
condenser unit would simplify the testing and certification process. 
Lennox commented that regulating the condensing unit and unit cooler at 
the component, rather than system, level would greatly simplify 
manufacturer testing. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Lennox, No. 
109 at p.6) CA IOUs stated that DOE should consider splitting the 
refrigeration standard into condensing unit and unit cooler standards 
to simplify the certification process for assemblers and suggested that 
DOE provide a voluntary mix/match standard level. ([Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0015]; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 56) 
The CA IOUs also suggested that the test procedure be modified to 
require the testing of matching systems only for ``self-contained'' 
units. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 2) 
ASAP supported the component level approach because a refrigeration 
system is not necessarily sold by a single manufacturer. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 
46) US Cooler supported a component level approach for refrigeration 
equipment because, in its view, the approach would give manufacturers 
more flexibility to meet the requirements since components would be 
certified individually and could be put together to determine the 
system's energy consumption. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; US 
Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 51) NEEA et al. also 
recommended that individual refrigeration system components, including 
all unit coolers and dedicated condensing units, should be rated and 
certified. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; NEEA et al., No. 101 at 
p. 3)
    Not all commenters, however, supported the refrigeration system 
component level approach. ACCA noted that it would be easier to enforce 
a standard for a matched system. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; 
ACCA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 47) Louisville Cooler 
commented that certifying at a component level would discourage 
manufacturers from making system improvements in order to avoid 
repeating the certification process. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-
0015]; Louisville Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 50) 
Danfoss mentioned that refrigeration components are themselves 
composites of other components and sub-components such as compressors, 
valves, controls, etc. Danfoss commented that requiring separate 
certification of condensing units, unit coolers, and other sub-
components such as valves was a logical step, but was concerned that 
pushing the regulation down to the component level would be difficult 
to manage and DOE would lose the opportunity to pursue system level 
performance improvements. Danfoss suggested a non-regulatory approach 
to raise system level efficiency. Danfoss further pointed out that 
certified condensing units and evaporators must still be properly 
matched and, currently, no particular entity controls is responsible 
for this task. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Danfoss, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 32, 45 and 57)
    Commenters offered suggestions as to how the Department could 
regulate refrigeration components separately. Hussmann supported 
separate standards for WICF refrigeration condensing units and unit 
coolers and stated that AHRI should update the WICF refrigeration test 
procedure, AHRI 1250, to include a methodology to obtain separate 
AWEFs. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Hussmann, No. 93 at pp. 1 
and 3) NEEA, et al. commented that if unit coolers and condensing units 
were rated and certified separately, walk-in providers would have more 
flexibility to select components that best meet customer needs. The 
group also suggested that DOE utilize the mix-match testing option in 
AHRI 1250 to facilitate component-level standards ([Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0015]; NEEA, No. 101 at p. 3) ACEEE suggested DOE use an 
AEDM approach for separate certification of condensers and unit 
coolers. ACEEE suggested that a simple software tool could provide 
allowable versus forbidden matches with respect to size matching and 
other characteristics but did not suggest any specific software tools 
currently on the market. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; ACEEE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 43) Louisville Cooler suggested 
that given an evaporator rating, DOE could establish a plus-or-minus 
[capacity] range to match it with a particular compressor. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Louisville Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 88 at p. 50) American

[[Page 9830]]

Panel stated that the performance curves for unit coolers and 
condensing units should meet around a 10 degree temperature difference 
[between the internal dry-bulb temperature and the saturated evaporator 
temperature]. (([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; American Panel, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 59)
    Based on these comments noting the difficult nature of testing and 
rating walk-in refrigeration systems, particularly with respect to the 
large number of possible combinations of unit coolers and condensing 
units that can make up the WICF refrigeration system, the Department is 
proposing the following approach to allow manufacturers to test a 
condenser or unit cooler separately, but rate that component with an 
AWEF metric consistent with DOE's proposed energy standard. Under this 
approach, a manufacturer who sells a unit without a matched condensing 
unit must rate and certify a refrigeration system containing that unit 
cooler by testing according to the methodology in AHRI 1250 for unit 
coolers matched to a parallel rack system (see AHRI 1250, section 7.9). 
The manufacturer would use the calculation method in this section to 
determine the system AWEF and certify this AWEF to DOE. Additionally, 
all unit coolers tested and rated as part of a system unit this method 
must comply with the standards in the multiplex equipment classes.
    A manufacturer who sells a condensing unit separately must rate and 
certify that a refrigeration system containing that condensing unit by 
conducting the condensing unit portion of the AHRI 1250 mix/match test 
method. The results from the mix/match test would be combined with a 
nominal unit cooler capacity and power, based on nominal values for 
saturated suction temperature and unit cooler fan and electric defrost 
energy use factors, in order to calculate an AWEF for the refrigeration 
system basic model containing that condensing unit. (Condensing units 
built to utilize hot gas defrost must use the method for estimating hot 
gas defrost heat load and energy use outlined in the following 
section.) These nominal values are listed in Table III.6. (These values 
will be incorporated into 10 CFR 431.304.)
    DOE developed the nominal values from DOE testing and modeling of 
WICF refrigeration systems. DOE observed the following test and model 
results for on-cycle fan power and used the average value for its 
nominal factor:

                            Table III.4--Evaporator Fan Power Test and Model Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    On-cycle
                                                                                                 evaporator fan
                                                                            Gross capacity at   power, per Btu/h
                 Unit tested or modeled                     On-cycle fan     highest ambient   of gross capacity
                                                             power  (W)      rating condition      at highest
                                                                                 (Btu/h)       ambient condition
                                                                                                   (W-h/Btu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test: Cooler System--Unit 1............................                320              23727              0.013
Test: Cooler System--Unit 2............................                208              15377              0.014
Test: Freezer System--Unit 3...........................                119               7325              0.016
Test: Freezer System--Unit 4...........................                113               7804              0.014
Model: Cooler System--Unit 5...........................                265              12831              0.021
Model: Cooler System--Unit 6...........................                252              14975              0.017
Model: Freezer System--Unit 7..........................                133               6998              0.019
Model: Freezer System--Unit 8..........................                126               8039              0.016
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average............................................  .................  .................              0.016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Off-cycle unit cooler fan power is expressed in terms of the on-
cycle fan power and would represent performance consistent with a unit 
cooler meeting the energy conservation standard. The energy 
conservation standard assumes that manufacturers would implement 
variable speed fan controls in order to meet the standard, which 
reduces the fan speed by 50 percent when the compressor is off. 
According to the fan laws,\3\ this would reduce power to 12.5 percent 
of full-speed power, or 0.5[supcaret](1/3). However, due to fan 
efficiency losses at lower speed, DOE is assuming that the power would 
be 20 percent of full speed power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fan laws are theoretical principles that express the 
relationship between variables that impact fan performance. American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 
ASHRAE Handbook--HVAC Systems and Equipment, Section 20.4. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For electric defrost energy, DOE also used test results from low 
temperature systems in developing the nominal factors. The results are 
as follows:

                                    Table III.5--Defrost Energy Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    On-cycle
                                                                                                 evaporator fan
                                                          Average defrost   Gross capacity at   power, per Btu/h
                      Unit tested                         energy per cycle   highest ambient   of gross capacity
                                                             (Wh/cycle)      rating condition      at highest
                                                                                 (Btu/h)       ambient condition
                                                                                                   (W-h/Btu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test: Freezer System--Unit 3...........................                880               7325               0.12
Test: Freezer System--Unit 4...........................                928               7804               0.12
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Average............................................  .................  .................               0.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9831]]

    Electric defrost heat contribution would be expressed in terms of 
the electric defrost power. In the AHRI 1250 calculations, the electric 
defrost heat contribution is equivalent to the power contribution 
converted from Watts to Btu/h, less the heat embodied in the defrost 
meltwater which is drained from the unit. In testing, DOE observed that 
defrost meltwater heat accounted for approximately 5 percent of the 
heat input. Therefore, DOE is assuming that electric defrost heat 
contribution to the interior of the box is 95 percent of the electric 
defrost power, converted from Watts to Btu/h.
    The standards for the relevant equipment class of dedicated 
condensing refrigeration systems would apply to condensing unit basic 
models that were rated without a matched unit cooler. DOE requests 
comment on its proposal to allow unit coolers and condensing units to 
be rated separately, and particularly the nominal values described in 
Table III.6.

      Table III.6--Nominal Values for Unit Cooler Saturated Suction
                   Temperature and Energy Use Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Coolers             Freezers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturated Suction Temperature             25                  -20
 ([deg]F).
On-cycle evaporator fan power,          0.016                0.016
 per Btu/h of gross capacity at
 highest ambient condition (W-h/
 Btu).
                                ----------------------------------------
Off-cycle evaporator fan power     0.2 x on-cycle evaporator fan power
 (W).
                                ----------------------------------------
Electric defrost energy per               0                  0.12
 cycle, per Btu/h of gross
 capacity (W-h/cycle per Btu/h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of cycles per day.......        As specified in installation
                                  instructions or, if no instructions, 4
Daily electric defrost heat        0.95 x daily electric defrost energy
 contribution (Btu).                            use x 3.412
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Defrost Test
    The existing test procedure incorporates a mandatory defrost test 
for freezer systems with electric defrost (AHRI 1250, Section C11). 
This test is designed to calculate electric defrost power consumption 
based on the (1) amount of energy consumption per defrost under both 
dry and frosted coil conditions, (2) number of defrosts per day, and 
(3) temperature and weight of the melt-water exiting the unit through 
the defrost drain pipe. DOE testing has shown that the test may be 
overly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct due to the difficulty of 
maintaining the moist air infiltration conditions for the frosted coil 
test in a repeatable manner. To minimize this burden while ensuring 
that the test sufficiently measures the energy consumption of walk-in 
freezer systems, DOE proposes to make the full defrost test optional, 
allowing manufacturers to choose between performing the full test and 
using a shorter and less burdensome methodology described as follows. 
DOE requests comment on the following calculation methodology and 
nominal values for electric defrost.
--First, the energy input for the dry coil condition shall be measured 
as specified in AHRI 1250, section C11.1 to obtain DFd in W-
h.
--In lieu of testing in the frost load conditions, the frosted coil 
energy use (DFf) shall be the product of 1.05 multiplied by 
DFd. (This value was developed from DOE test results.)
--For systems without adaptive defrost, the number of defrosts per day 
(NDF) shall be based on the defrost frequency recommended in 
the installation instructions for the unit; if no defrost frequency is 
specified, the number of defrosts per day shall be set to 4.
--For systems with adaptive defrost, the optional test in section C11.2 
may be performed to establish the time between dry coil defrosts. The 
number of defrosts per day calculated by this optional test shall be 
averaged with the number of defrosts per day that would occur under 
frosted conditions (as calculated in the previous paragraph). 
Otherwise, for systems with adaptive defrost, if the optional test is 
not performed, the number of defrosts per day (NDF) shall be 
set to the average of 1 and the number of defrosts per day that would 
occur under frosted load conditions.
--The daily contribution of the load attributed to defrost, 
Qdf (Btu) shall be 95 percent of the daily defrost energy 
use in watt-hours, multiplied by 3.412 Btu/W-h. (This percentage is 
based on DOE test data, which showed that water thermal load is 
approximately 5 percent of the electric input (see discussion in 
previous section III. B. 1. This thermal load is deducted from the 
defrost heat load calculation, consistent with AHRI 1250 equation C14.)

    The existing test is designed to measure the power consumption for 
electrical defrost and does not provide a method to measure the energy 
use associated with hot-gas defrost systems. DOE is tentatively 
proposing correction factors for calculating the heat contribution and 
energy use for hot gas defrost systems. The correction factors and 
calculations would apply to equipment tested as a matched pair system, 
to unit coolers, and to condensing units tested and rated individually.
    The correction factor for heat contribution is based on DOE's 
assumption that the heat contribution from hot gas defrost is 
approximately half that of an equivalent electric defrost. This 
estimate is based on the fact that electric defrost heat is supplied 
through separate heater rods which radiate more heat to the surrounding 
environment, while for hot gas defrost, the hot gas is circulated 
through, and the heat is applied directly onto, the refrigerant tubes, 
increasing the amount of the coil in contact with the heat source and 
reducing the amount of heat lost. DOE is proposing to use a heat 
contribution factor of 0.18 Btu per defrost cycle per Btu/h of capacity 
at the highest ambient test condition--that is, heat contribution equal 
to half of the nominal factor for defrost watt-hours per cycle per Btu/
h of gross capacity proposed in Table III.6, multiplied by a conversion 
factor of 3.412 Btu/W-h, and reduced by 10 percent due to meltwater 
drainage. The correction factor shall be applied to the AHRI 1250 
calculation for daily contribution of the load attributed to defrost, 
as follows:

QDF = 0.18 Btu/defrost per Btu/h capacity x Qref x NDF

Where:

Qref = Gross refrigeration capacity in Btu/h as measured 
at the high ambient condition (90 [deg]F for indoor systems and 95 
[deg]F for outdoor systems)
NDF = Number of defrosts per day; shall be set to the 
number recommended in the

[[Page 9832]]

installation instructions for the unit (or if no instructions, shall 
be set to 4) for units without adaptive defrost and 2.5 for units 
with adaptive defrost to be consistent with the nominal values 
determined previously for rating systems without performing the 
frosted-coil or optional dry coil defrost test

    The daily average defrost energy required for the refrigeration 
system (DF) shall be zero for a unit cooler connected to a multiplex 
condensing system because the evaporator would be acting as a condenser 
extension when taking hot gas from a compressor rack during defrost 
operation, and thus would not be expected to add to the rack's energy 
use. For a dedicated condensing system, the daily defrost energy shall 
be equivalent to half of the calculated daily defrost heat 
(QDF) converted from Btu to W-h. This is based on the 
assumption that during a hot gas defrost cycle, part of the defrost 
heat would be supplied by compressor heat generated during normal 
cooling operation, and the refrigeration system would be acting as a 
heat pump (i.e., it would be operating in reverse) with a COP of 
approximately 2. DOE requests comment on this approach, particularly 
with respect to the proposed correction factors. DOE notes that should 
a hot gas defrost test be developed, DOE will consider adopting such a 
test in a future test procedure rulemaking.
3. Off-Cycle Evaporator Fan Test
    AHRI 1250, section C10 contains a method for determining the off-
cycle power of evaporator fans that are controlled by a ``qualifying 
control,'' which may include adjustable fan speed control or periodic 
``stir cycles'' which turn the fans on and off according to a certain 
duty cycle. AHRI 1250, section C10 specifies that ``stir cycle'' 
controls shall be adjusted so that the greater of a 25 percent duty 
cycle or the manufacturer default is used for measuring off-cycle fan 
energy; and that variable speed controls shall be adjusted so that the 
greater of 25 percent fan speed or the manufacturer's default fan speed 
shall be used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. In comments on the 
WICF Standards preliminary analysis, which were discussed in the 
September 2013 NOPR, interested parties mentioned that a 75 percent 
reduction in duty cycle or fan speed could cause temperature 
stratification in the interior of the walk-in, which would impact food 
safety. DOE proposed in the NOPR to change the fan speed control 
characteristics to be equivalent to a 50 percent reduction in duty 
cycle or fan speed. (See 78 FR 55818.) Accordingly, DOE is proposing in 
this SNOPR to amend the test procedure such that ``stir cycle'' 
controls shall be adjusted so that the greater of a 50 percent duty 
cycle or the manufacturer default is used for measuring off-cycle fan 
energy; and that variable speed controls shall be adjusted so that the 
greater of 50 percent fan speed or the manufacturer's default fan speed 
shall be used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. DOE requests comment 
on this proposal.
4. Refrigerant Oil Testing
    Most refrigeration systems use oil-lubricated compressors. A small 
amount of oil generally escapes the compressor through the discharge 
connection and circulates through the system, continually returning to 
the compressor in the suction line in a properly-designed and installed 
system. Under AHRI 1250, a measurement of the ratio of oil to 
refrigerant in the liquid refrigerant passing from the condenser to the 
unit cooler is required per ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.4. This information 
is used to adjust the capacity measurement, since a portion of the 
liquid mass flow would be oil that does not contribute to refrigeration 
capacity (see AHRI 1250, section C3.4.6). DOE recognizes that this test 
requires additional test apparatus and may prove burdensome. 
Furthermore, DOE testing has shown that in equipment with integrated 
oil-separators, the ratio of oil to refrigerant tends to be lower than 
the maximum of 1 percent mandated in AHRI 1250, section C3.4.6. 
Therefore, in light of the negligible amount of oil present in the 
refrigerant lines in these types of units and thus the very low 
likelihood of excess oil being present in the system, DOE is proposing 
that condensing units with on-board oil-filters would not be required 
to perform this test.
5. Temperature Measurement
    The AHRI 1250 procedure specifies a tolerance of 0.2[emsp14][deg]F for all refrigerant temperature measurements 
and that temperature measuring instruments must be placed in 
thermometer wells (small devices that extend into the refrigerant tube 
that contact the refrigerant and provide a more accurate temperature 
measurement). DOE notes that measurements to a 0.2 [deg]F 
accuracy cannot be obtained by thermocouples and require use of 
resistance temperature detectors (RTDs). DOE also notes that 
thermometer wells are generally large enough to require large fittings 
with diameters significantly larger than those of most refrigerant 
tubes used for unit coolers. DOE further notes that thermocouples are 
available with accuracy close to the 0.2 [deg]F requirement 
in sheathed arrangements, which can more easily achieve the goal of 
immersing the temperature sensor into the refrigerant flow. Further, 
DOE notes that (a) the impact of the uncertainty of temperature 
measurements of refrigerant entering and leaving the unit cooler on the 
potential capacity measurement is small enough to be acceptable for an 
accuracy requirement of 0.5 [deg]F, and (b) the accuracy 
requirement for all other refrigerant temperature measurements could be 
relaxed further, since these other measurements have much less effect 
on overall test accuracy. In order to address these concerns and 
provide more flexibility for testing, DOE is proposing that the 
required tolerance for test temperature measurement be maintained at 
0.5[emsp14][deg]F for measurements at the inlet and outlet 
of the unit cooler, but be altered to 1.0[emsp14][deg]F for 
all other temperature measurements, allowing for the use of smaller 
temperature measurement probes which can more easily be placed in 
contact with the refrigerant while not impeding its flow. Additionally, 
DOE is proposing to allow the test to be conducted using sheathed 
sensors immersed in the flowing refrigerant for refrigerant temperature 
measurements upstream and downstream of the unit cooler, in order to 
reduce test burden. No refrigerant temperature measurements other than 
those upstream and downstream of the unit cooler would require a 
thermometer well or sheathed sensor immersion. DOE requests comment on 
these proposed changes to the temperature measurement approach.
6. Test Condition Tolerances
    AHRI 1250 specifies the operating test condition tolerances for the 
steady-state test (AHRI 1250, Table 2), including tolerances for 
electrical voltage. DOE recognizes the importance of also establishing 
a test condition tolerance of 1 percent for electrical power frequency, 
and proposes to modify the existing test procedure to set a test 
condition tolerance for the frequency of electrical power, in keeping 
with most other industry-accepted test procedures for refrigeration 
systems and similar equipment.
    Additionally, since temperature measurements of air leaving the 
unit are not used in the calculation of AWEF and do not contribute to 
the test results, DOE is proposing to delete the requirements related 
to the condition tolerances or measurements of air leaving the unit. 
DOE also proposes to remove the tolerances for wet bulb temperature on 
the outdoor system conditions, except for units with

[[Page 9833]]

evaporative cooling, as wet bulb temperature (which is an indicator of 
humidity) is not expected to impact the performance of air-cooled 
condensing units. DOE is proposing to retain all other measurements of 
air entering the heat exchangers, including dry bulb outdoor conditions 
and dry bulb and wet bulb indoor conditions (wet bulb temperature or 
humidity levels greater than the required test conditions could cause 
excessive frosting of the coil and affect its rated capacity).
7. Insulation
    The existing test procedure specifies that in the test setup, the 
pipe lines between the unit cooler and condensing unit ``shall be well 
insulated''--a description that lacks specificity. In recognition of 
this shortcoming, DOE proposes to modify the setup by requiring a 
minimum thermal resistance (R-Value). Based on the most commonly found 
insulation materials in field conditions, DOE is proposing that the 
insulation be set up as recommended by the manufacturer in installation 
literature or, if there is no recommendation, insulation shall be 
equivalent to a half-inch thick insulation with a material having an R-
Value of at least 3.7 per inch. Adding this condition should not pose a 
significant test burden since insulation material with the specified 
resistivity is commonly used and readily available. Under the proposal, 
flow meters would not need to be insulated but must not contact the 
floor. DOE requests comment on this approach.
8. Composition Analysis
    The AHRI 1250 test procedure requires that for systems using 
zeotropic refrigerant mixtures (that is, those that have ``glide''--
i.e. refrigerant mixtures that change temperature during a phase change 
at constant pressure), a composition analysis of the refrigerant 
mixture shall be conducted in order to ensure compliance with AHRI 
Standard 520. This test requires that a sample of the superheated vapor 
refrigerant be extracted while the system is still running. DOE 
recognizes that this procedure can represent substantial test burden, 
with comparably insignificant improvements to the accuracy of the final 
AWEF measured, and is proposing to delete this requirement from DOE's 
test procedure. DOE requests comment on this amendment, given the 
limited effect on AWEF if refrigerants with glide are properly liquid-
charged and there are no test system leaks.
9. Piping Length
    While DOE's test procedure currently requires that the length of 
piping between the condenser and unit cooler be 25 feet, DOE proposes 
to clarify that this length does not include the length of any flow 
meters that the refrigerant might flow through. Furthermore, in order 
to ensure an accurate replication of field conditions, and to prevent 
erroneous efficiency measurements due to excessive refrigerant pre-
cooling, DOE proposes to specify that the length of piping allowed 
within the cooled space shall be a maximum of 15 feet. In cases where 
there are multiple unit coolers and, therefore, multiple branches of 
piping, the 15 feet limit would apply to each branch individually as 
opposed to the total length of the piping.
10. Other Clarifications and Modifications
    DOE is also proposing to clarify the language of the test procedure 
in order to address potential areas of confusion. Specifically, DOE is 
proposing changes to the list of tests for unit coolers (Table 15: 
Refrigerator Unit Cooler and Table 16: Freezer Unit Cooler), in order 
to display additional data that are currently included only by 
reference to AHRI 420. (Testing standard AHRI 420, Performance Rating 
of Forced-Circulation Free-Delivery Unit Coolers for Refrigeration, 
establishes definitions and various requirements regarding testing, 
data collection marking/name plate information, and conformance 
conditions with respect to unit coolers.) Specifically, Tables 15 and 
16 are modified to include the liquid inlet saturation temperature and 
outlet superheat conditions required in AHRI 420 for testing these 
types of unit coolers. DOE is clarifying these values because they can 
significantly affect the rated capacity. Also, while the existing test 
procedure sets a maximum allowable voltage imbalance for three-phase 
power supply, DOE proposes to add a clarification that the stated 
maximum imbalance of 2 percent refers to the maximum imbalance for 
voltages measured between phases (rather than phase-to-neutral).

C. Test Procedure for WICF Panel R-Value (ASTM C518-04)

    Currently, 10 CFR 431.304 Uniform test method for the measurement 
of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 
incorporates by reference ASTM C518-04, a standard method for 
determining the thermal transmission properties (i.e. the thermal 
conductance or conductivity) of a material using the heat flow meter 
apparatus. The heat flow meter apparatus determines the thermal 
conductivity of a material by inducing one-dimensional heat flow across 
a test specimen and measuring the heat flux and temperature difference 
across the specimen. The heat flux measurement is accomplished using a 
heat flux transducer, or thermopile. A thermopile consists of multiple 
thermocouples and produces an electrical voltage proportional to an 
applied thermal gradient. To ascertain the heat flux based on this 
electrical voltage, the thermopile must first be calibrated using a 
material having a known thermal conductivity. ASTM C518-04 recommends 
using a standard material that is traceable to a national standards 
laboratory (Section 6.4.2).See ASTM C518-04.
    Walk-in wall panels are typically made of rigid foam insulation, 
either board-stock type or ``foam-in-place'' type foam, with thin 
``facers'' made of metal or other suitable material on either side of 
the foam. In order to meet the efficiency standards set by EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6313 (f)(1)(C)), the foam core is typically 3.5 to 6 inches 
thick, with the thin facers making an insignificant contribution to the 
overall R-value of the panel.
    Currently, the DOE test procedure requires that ``foam produced 
inside of a panel (``i.e. foam-in-place'') must be tested in its final 
foamed state.'' See 10 CFR 431.304(b)(5). Additionally, panels may be 
tested using ASTM C518-04 with non-foam protective skins or facers 
still attached, but must not include structural members or other non-
foam materials. The procedure does not require manufacturers to 
consider non-foam member and/or edge regions when testing to ASTM C518-
04. (10 CFR 431.304 (b)(5)-(6) and (c)(5)-(6)). Regarding these 
provisions, DOE clarified in a final rule issued on October 21, 
2011,that non-foam members and edge regions are only to be considered 
in U-factor testing using ASTM C1363. See 76 FR at 65364.DOE further 
stated that the measurement of the R-value of the foam with facers 
should be equal to a measurement of the R-value of the foam without the 
facers. See id. Metal facers make a negligible contribution to the 
overall R-value of the panel because of the high thermal conductivity 
of metals typically used as facer material and their small thickness. 
For example, for an R-25 foam walk-in cooler panel (4 inches thick) 
with two 0.04-inch thick steel facers (each with a thermal conductivity 
of 21 Btu/h/ft/[deg]F), the steel facers represent 0.001 percent of the 
panel's overall thermal resistance.

[[Page 9834]]

    DOE now recognizes that in practice, the inclusion of facers, non-
foam internal members, or edge regions in testing using ASTM C518-04 
may produce unreliable results. ASTM C518-04 states that ``special care 
shall be taken in the measurement procedure for specimens exhibiting 
appreciable inhomogeneities, anisotropies, rigidity, or especially high 
or low resistance to heat flow. The use of a heat flow meter apparatus 
when there are thermal bridges present in the specimen may yield very 
unreliable results.'' (ASTM C518-04 (4.4)) DOE recognizes that ASTM 
C518-04's heat flow apparatus testing is intended to measure the 
thermal conductivity of a single homogenous material, and that the 
industry's standard practice is to remove facers prior to testing WICF 
panels. Additionally, DOE testing has shown a minimum of 31 percent and 
maximum of 62 percent difference in R-value per inch (R/in) in testing 
panels at freezer conditions (20[emsp14][deg]F) with and without 
facers.
    DOE is also aware that the removal of facers will accelerate the 
aging process for polyurethane foams. Over time, the thermal 
conductivity of polyurethane foams used for insulation will increase 
(resulting in a decreased R-value) due to the diffusion of air into the 
foam. The rate at which the thermal conductivity increases depends on 
the blowing agent used, thickness of the foam, the permeability of a 
facing material, if present, and the temperature at which the foam is 
aged. The thermal conductivity of a 0.4 inch-thick foam core without 
facers can increase by as much as 20% when aged at 90[emsp14][deg]F for 
8 days. However, a 1.5 inch-thick foam core without facers may show a 
negligible difference in thermal conductivity when aged at the same 
conditions.\4\ Additionally, ASTM C518-04, Section 7.3 states that 
materials must be conditioned according to their specifications where 
applicable, typically for a period of 24 hours. For the reasons cited 
above, DOE proposes a requirement that samples be tested without non-
foam facers, protective skins, non-foam internal members, or edge 
regions. DOE also proposes that tests be completed within 48 hours of 
being cut to minimize the impact of the accelerated aging process on 
the test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Aging of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in Simulated 
Refrigerator Panels--Initial Results with Third-Generation Blowing 
Agents'' by Kenneth E. Wilkes et al., published by Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory for presentation at The Earth Technologies 
Forum, October 26-28, 1998, Figures 2 and 4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE further clarifies that edge regions should make up a small 
portion of the area of a full panel assembly and their exclusion should 
not have an impact when measuring panel R-value. If DOE later 
determines that edge regions comprise a large enough area to warrant 
their inclusion when measuring a panel's R-value, DOE will revisit its 
regulations in order to ensure the test procedure still results in an 
R-value that accurately represents the panel.
    Currently, the DOE test procedure allows test samples for foam-in-
place panels to be as thick as 4 inches. If the foam-in-place panel is 
thicker than 4 inches, a sample less than or equal to 4 inches thick 
would be taken from the center of the foam-in-place panel. If a panel 
incorporates foam produced as board stock, the board stock can be 
tested as-is before assembly into a panel. (10 CFR 431.304(b)(5) and 
(c)(5)) In order to meet the minimum R-value requirements established 
in EPCA of R-25 (coolers) or R-32 (freezers) (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)), 
walk-in cooler and freezer panels found on the market are often 4 
inches in thickness although DOE does not require a specific thickness 
to meet the current standards.
    ASTM C518-04 makes several recommendations with regard to test 
specimen thickness. The measurements obtained using the heat flow meter 
apparatus (as in ASTM C518-04) are relative to a calibration standard 
with known thermal conductivity. Section 4.5.1.1 requires that this 
standard material be measured by a recognized national standards 
laboratory. Section 6.1 of ASTM C518-04 states ``the apparatus [heat 
flow meter] shall be calibrated with materials having similar thermal 
characteristics and thicknesses as the materials to be evaluated.'' 
Section 6.5.4 states ``if tests are to be conducted at thicknesses 
other than the calibrated thickness, make a thorough study of the error 
of the heat flow meter apparatus at other thicknesses.'' Furthermore, 
ASTM C518-04 states ``the combined thickness of the specimen or 
specimens, the heat flux transducer and any damping material, which in 
total equals the distance between the cold and hot plates, must be 
restricted in order to limit the effect of edge losses on the 
measurements.'' (ASTM C518-04 (7.6.1))
    DOE recognizes that the most appropriate standard reference 
material (SRM) for calibration currently offered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is 1450d (previously 
1450c, fibrous glass board material) which has a thickness of 1 inch. 
NIST SRM 1453 (polystyrene board) has similar thermal conductivity but 
a thickness of 0.5 inches. A 4-inch thick, R-32 test specimen is, 
therefore, 4 times thicker than the 1450c/d SRM and has approximately 8 
times the thermal resistance.
    In light of recommendations in ASTM C518-04 cited above, DOE 
believes the current discrepancies between a test sample thickness and 
calibration standard thickness and between a test sample thermal 
resistance and calibration standard thermal resistance could contribute 
to error in measuring the thermal resistance of the test sample. 
Therefore, DOE proposes to reduce the allowable thickness of the sample 
from no more than 4 inches to no more than 1 inch. This thickness is 
the same as the NIST SRM 1450c/d calibration standard and DOE believes 
that this modification to the test procedure will reduce the error 
associated with the discrepancies listed above. DOE is also proposing 
that this 1 inch thickness test sample be taken from the center of a 
panel (meaning centered on a plane half the distance between the 
surfaces on which facers were attached), as the foam aging process 
previously described occurs at a faster rate closer to exposed 
surfaces. Material at the center of the panel will have experienced the 
smallest effect of foam aging.
    The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.304 does not currently place 
any restriction on the uniformity of the shape of the test specimen 
surfaces that contact the hot and cold plates of the heat flow meter. 
However, accurate and reliable measurements of the heat flux and 
surface temperatures depend on uniform contact between the hot and cold 
plates and the specimen surfaces. Section 7.4.3 of ASTM C518-04 states 
that rigid or high conductance specimen surfaces ``should be made flat 
and parallel to the same degree as the heat-flow-meter.'' Furthermore, 
any cutting operation used to remove the facers and/or reduce the 
thickness of the foam test specimen may leave undesirable surface 
incongruities or voids, resulting in poor contact between the plate and 
specimen and yielding unreliable test results.
    With regard to panel testing using ASTM C518-04, and in light of 
the evidence cited above, DOE is proposing that test specimens be 1 
inch in thickness and cut from the center of a WICF panel (thus 
removing the facer material). This thickness is in keeping with 
currently available SRMs from NIST and would result in test specimens 
with the same thickness as the 1450c/d SRM and approximately 2 times 
the thermal resistance. DOE also proposes tolerances of 0.03 inches on

[[Page 9835]]

the flatness of both test specimen surfaces and a tolerance of 0.03 inches on the parallelism between the test specimen surfaces 
to ensure uniform contact between theses surfaces and the hot and cold 
plates of the heat flow meter. DOE proposes that testing be completed 
within 48 hours of sample cutting in order to mitigate the effects of 
foam aging on the test results.
    DOE also proposes the addition of a tolerance of 1 
degree Fahrenheit on the mean temperature at which panels are tested. 
This is proposed to ensure repeatability of, and comparability between, 
tests. Currently, the test procedure does not specify a tolerance for 
these temperatures (20 degrees Fahrenheit for freezers and 55 degrees 
Fahrenheit for coolers). (10 CFR 431.304(b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(3) and 
(c)(4)) DOE believes that with the reduction in test sample thickness 
and removal of facers or other non-foam elements, heat gain from the 
surrounding environment into the test apparatus and sample should be 
reduced. DOE testing showed that at freezer conditions 4 inch thick 
samples with facers maintained an average mean temperature of 
22.8[emsp14][deg]F while a 1 inch thick sample without facers 
maintained a mean temperature of 19.5[emsp14][deg]F (as compared to 
mean temperature 20[emsp14][deg]F as required by the DOE test 
procedure). (10 CRF 431.304(b)(3) and(c)(3)) Based on research and test 
data described, DOE is proposing that the mean temperatures prescribed 
in the test procedure should be more precisely maintained and 1 degree Fahrenheit tolerance can be achieved.
    DOE clarifies the phrase ``final chemical form'' in 10 CFR 
431.304(b)(5) and (c)(5). For ``foam-in-place'' or ``blown'' foams 
(typically polyurethane), ``final chemical form'' means the foam is 
cured as intended and ready for use as a finished panel. For foam 
produced as board stock (typically polystyrene), ``final chemical 
form'' means after extrusion and ready for assembly into a panel or 
after assembly into a panel. DOE recognizes that air continuously 
diffuses into the foam as part of the aging process, and so ``final 
chemical form'' is ambiguous in this regard. As proposed, testing would 
be completed within 48 hours of samples being cut for testing to 
minimize the effect of accelerated aging on the thermal conductivity 
when the foam is directly exposed to air. Furthermore, DOE is proposing 
to remove language from paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) that is believed 
to be redundant. Specifically, the requirement that ``foam produced 
inside of a panel (``foam-in-place'') must be tested in its final 
foamed state'' would be removed, as the requirement that foam be in it 
final chemical form as described above is sufficient.
    DOE recognizes that some panels contain two or more different 
layers of insulating material. To accommodate these types of panels, 
DOE is proposing that for panels that have more than one type of 
insulating material, a sample of each material shall be tested as 
specified in 10 CFR 431.304 and the R-value of the panel shall be 
calculated according to the proportion the materials occur in the 
panel. Therefore, for a panel with i types of insulating material, the 
R-Value shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.002

Where:

ki is the k factor of type i material as measured by ASTM 
C518, and ti is the thickness of type i material that 
appears in the panel.

DOE requests comment on this formula.
    In paragraphs (b), (b)(6), (c) and (c)(6) of 10 CFR 431.304, DOE is 
proposing to remove references to manufacturers. The requirements of 
these paragraphs are not limited to testing performed by manufacturers. 
Independent testing laboratories or other entities would be responsible 
for meeting these requirements for any testing that has its purpose as 
described in paragraphs (b) and (c), namely for certifying compliance 
with applicable energy conservation standards and, since October 12, 
2011, for representations of energy efficiency or energy use.

D. Performance-Based Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

    As described above, WICF panels must meet prescriptive requirements 
for foam insulation R-values based on ASTM C518-04 testing incorporated 
in 10 CFR 431.304. Additionally, the test procedure at Appendix A to 
Subpart R of Part 431 (Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of 
Energy Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers 
and Walk-In Freezers) establishes the method and metrics by which the 
energy consumption (envelope components) or efficiency (refrigeration 
components) may be measured; this includes floor and non-floor panels. 
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 establish the calculation procedures that result 
in a thermal conductivity, U-value, metric for floor and non-floor 
panels, and sections 5.1 and 5.2 establish the methods by which the 
required measurements are taken. Section 5.1 incorporates by reference 
ASTM C1363-05 Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building 
Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus; 
section 5.2 incorporates by reference Annex C Determination of the aged 
values of thermal resistance and thermal conductivity of DIN EN 13164 
and DIN EN 13165.
    While ASTM C518-04 testing is intended to establish the thermal 
resistance of the center of a WICF panel, the required testing to ASTM 
C1363-05 is intended to capture the overall thermal transmittance of a 
WICF panel, including thermal bridges and edge effects (Note: Thermal 
transmittance is the reciprocal of thermal resistance). Similar to ASTM 
C518-04, DIN EN 13164/13165 testing is intended to measure the thermal 
resistance of the center of a WICF panel; however, DIN EN 13164/13165 
also captures the effects of foam aging on the thermal resistance.
    In response the September 2013 standards NOPR, the Department 
received a number of comments regarding the WICF panel test procedure. 
Some stakeholders supported the use of the U-value metric. Nor-Lake 
commented that U-factor was an acceptable metric for panels. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Nor-Lake, No 115 at p. 2) NEEA supported 
the use of a basic model U-value for specifying the panel efficiency. 
NEEA added that the current metric set by Congress--the R-value from 
ASTM C518--does not adequately measure the broad range of panel types 
and configurations available. In NEEA's view, a panel U-value, as 
defined in the proposed standard, would be far more accurate in 
assessing panel efficiency. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; NEEA 
et al, No. 101 at p.2)
    DOE also received a number of comments expressing concern over the 
availability and capability of laboratories to conduct the DOE test 
procedure for determining panel U-value, specifically ASTM C1363-10, EN 
13164:2009-02, and EN 13165:2009-02. Thermo-Kool, Kysor, Imperial-
Brown, and Hillphoenix each stated that they have not identified any 
laboratories capable of conducting the long-term thermal aging test 
methods required under EN 13164:2009-02 and EN 13165:2009-02. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at p. 1; Kysor, No. 88 
at p. 67; Imperial-Brown, No. 98 at p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) 
Bally recommended that long-term thermal aging be dropped from the 
proposed standard until more resources, which DOE infers to mean test 
labs, are available in the United States. ([Docket

[[Page 9836]]

No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Bally, No. 102 at p. 2) Thermo-Kool, Kysor, 
Manitowoc, Imperial-Brown, and Hillphoenix commented that only two 
laboratories in the United States are capable of conducting ASTM C1363-
10. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at p. 1; 
Kysor, No. 88 at p. 67; Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 1; Imperial-Brown, No. 
98 at p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2)
    AHRI noted that American laboratories were largely unfamiliar with 
ASTM C1363-05, DIN EN 13164:2009-02, and DIN EN 13165:2009-02. Further, 
AHRI commented that the limited supply of testing capacity and the 
increased demand for testing as a result of the proposed rule could 
raise the cost of testing. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; AHRI, 
No. 114 at p.4) Manufacturers reiterated that the limited number of 
test facilities available would increase testing costs. Hillphoenix and 
Imperial-Brown commented that the insufficient number of third-party 
test facilities in the United States would significantly increase 
testing costs, which would heavily impact small manufacturers. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at pp. 2 and 6) 
Hillphoenix estimated that testing panels would result in testing costs 
higher than $500,000 per manufacturer. Hillphoenix recommended DOE 
allow AEDMs for walk-in panel certification to reduce this financial 
burden. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at 
p.6) Louisville Cooler also commented that the cost of testing panels 
was prohibitive, especially for small manufacturers, and stated that 
there was not a test facility or certification body that could perform 
the test. Louisville cooler suggested DOE determine if at least three 
test facilities are capable of performing the DOE test procedure for 
walk-in panels. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Louisville Cooler, 
No. 81 at p.1 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 83-84)
    Other manufacturers commented that the current cost of testing at a 
third-party facility is too high. American Panel commented that the 
ASTM C1363-10 test has a cost-burden of around $4000 for each test (a 
cost it considers excessive) and that ATSM C518 is more practical for 
measuring the heat gain through insulation panels. ([Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0015]; American Panel, No. 99 at p. 1) American Panel 
further remarked that small manufacturers could not absorb this testing 
cost. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; American Panel, No. 99 at p. 
2) Manitowoc, US Cooler, and Nor-Lake also commented that the testing 
requirements would cause a significant financial burden to small 
manufacturers ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Manitowoc, No. 108 
at p. 4; U.S. Cooler, No. 75 at p. 1; Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p.3) 
Imperial Brown estimated that the total cost of testing would be in the 
range of $2.5 million per manufacturer, which is prohibitive 
particularly for small businesses.([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; 
Imperial Brown, No. 98 at pp. 2 and 4) Imperial Brown did not clarify 
if the $2.5 million test cost was solely for certification of walk-in 
panels. ICS, et al. stated that the high cost of testing to ASTM C1363-
10 will create a significant burden on all manufacturers and 
recommended that DOE use ASTM C518. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-
0015]; CT/TR/ICS, No. 100 at p. 5)
    Two manufacturers noted that laboratory availability would impact 
manufacturers' ability to meet the test procedure effective date. 
Manitowoc commented that the limited number of laboratories makes it 
difficult for manufacturers to meet the test procedure effective date. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Manitowoc, No. 108 at p.1) Kysor 
also recommended that DOE extend the test procedure effective date 
until more labs are qualified to perform the walk-in panel tests. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Kysor, No. 88 at p. 67; Kyson, No. 
88 at p. 35)
    DOE also received comments opposing the long-term thermal aging 
test methods. Bally expressed confusion as to how the long-term thermal 
aging tests were incorporated into the proposed standard. ([Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Bally, No. 102 at p. 2) Imperial-Brown noted 
that EN 13165:2009-02 requires panels to be [aged] for 6 months, which 
creates additional burden for manufacturers. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015]; Imperial-Brown, No. 98 at p. 1) CT/TR/ICS commented that the 
thermal [aging] testing is unnecessary because the time frame required 
for a significant reduction in panel R-value is likely beyond the 
panel's useable lifetime. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; CT/TR/
ICS, No. 100 at p. 1)
    Interested parties also opposed using the U-value as the efficiency 
metric for walk-in panels. Bally did not support using the U-value as a 
metric for panels because of what it viewed as the lack of laboratories 
that are capable of performing ASTM C1363, the unknown cost of testing, 
and the variability in construction methods--all of which make it 
difficult to ascertain a U-value for a panel. In its view, ASTM C1363-
05 is a cumbersome test method with little added value. Bally 
recommended DOE continue to use R-value as the metric because panel 
manufacturers are already accustomed to the DOE test procedure for 
determining R-value (10 CFR 431.304(a)). ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-
0015]; Bally, No. 102 at p. 1-2)
    Thermo-Kool commented that the U-factor test alone does not 
determine the overall energy use of the envelope because there are 
other factors that play a larger role in the envelope's energy use such 
as the refrigeration system, lighting, and infiltration. Thermo-Kool 
asserted that R-value as measured by ASTM C518 was a sufficient metric 
for measuring panel performance and the R-value could be used to 
calculate U-value. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Thermo-Kool, 
No. 97 at pp.1-2)
    Imperial-Brown, Kysor, and Hillphoenix recommended using the R-
value calculated from ASTM C518 in order to reduce the burdensome test 
requirements. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Imperial-Brown, No. 
98 at p. 1-2; Kysor, No. 88 at p. 35; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) 
AHRI recommended that DOE translate the proposed standard to 
prescriptive requirements to eliminate testing requirements or increase 
the current R-value standards. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; 
AHRI, No. 114 at p. 2)
    Several manufacturers suggested alternative methods of determining 
a walk-in panel's overall thermal conductivity or resistance. 
Hillphoenix suggested DOE use a calculation methodology with thermal 
resistance values from the ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook for components 
like the perimeter frame, additional blocking, metal layers and large 
metal lock housings to determine the panel's overall U-value. ([Docket 
No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) CA IOU 
recommended reducing testing burden by using a calculation approach for 
U-factor based on measured U-factor of foam and framing components. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; CA IOU, No. 88 at p. 86) Kysor 
agreed with CA IOU's proposal because it is less costly to 
manufacturers. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Kysor, No. 88 at 
p.86) ICS commented that thermal transmission properties of all panel 
components are available and can be used to calculate overall R-value. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; CT/TR/ICS, No. 100 at pp. 5-6) 
Bally recommended that a panel's U-

[[Page 9837]]

value be calculated using a ratio of the edge area to total area. 
([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Bally, No. 88, at p. 367 and 
Bally, No. 102 at p. 5) American Panel commented that the ratio of 
frame to perimeter widely varied with panel size and its use was not 
sufficiently penalizing manufacturers of large panels using wooden 
frames or other inefficient designs. Further, American Panel suggested 
that the R-value of panels be calculated using a weighted average of 
the R-values of the frame and the core. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-
0015]; American Panel, No. 88 at p. 369)
    Architectural Testing, an independent test facility, suggested 
specific changes. It noted that 10 CFR 431.304 appendix A, section 5.1 
describes a test sequence that is not efficient or cost effective. They 
recommended performing the ASTM C1363 on two assembled panels, after 
which a core sample from one of the panels tested with ASTM C1363 could 
then be tested according to ASTM C518 at the same surface temperatures 
as the ASTM C1363 test. Architectural Testing also recommended that DOE 
align the test conditions described in 10 CFR 431.304 appendix A, 
section 5.3 for ASTM C1363 to the conditions required for testing 
display and non-display doors with NFRC 100. Architectural Testing 
further stated that the long-term thermal aging tests, EN 13164 and EN 
13165, reference other European standards, like EN 12667 or EN 12939, 
which are similar to ASTM C518. Architectural Testing recommended that 
DOE modify the test procedure so that the intent of EN 13165 and 13165 
is still followed, but that the thermal measurements would be conducted 
according to ASTM C518. Finally, Architectural Testing recommended that 
DOE remove the sample size limitations from 10 CFR 431.304 appendix A, 
section 5.2 because these sample sizes are uncommon and cause increased 
testing costs. ([Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]; Architectural 
Testing, No. 111 at pp. 1-3)
    In response to the extensive number of comments DOE received 
regarding test burden and lab availability, DOE is proposing to remove 
the test procedures in 10 CFR 431, Appendix A to Subpart R that 
reference ASTM C1363-05 and DIN EN 13164/13165 and their accompanying 
calculation procedures, leaving only ASTM C518-04 testing in 10 CFR 
431.304 for establishing the thermal resistance of WICF panels. This 
would remove in their entirety sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2 from 10 
CFR 431, Appendix A of Subpart R.
    DOE is also proposing several minor changes to section 5.3 for 
clarification purposes only. Specifically, DOE is proposing that 
section 5.3(a)(2)'s title change from ``Internal conditions'' to 
``Cold-side conditions'' and section 5.3(a)(3)'s title change from 
``External conditions'' to ``Warm-side conditions.'' The terms 
``internal'' and ``external'' are irrelevant in the context of the 
testing apparatus described in NFRC 100[E0A1] (incorporated by 
reference). DOE also proposes to specify the surface convective heat 
transfer coefficients referred to in paragraph (a)(1); these values are 
30 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/m-K) for the cold side of the hot box 
apparatus and 7.7 W/m-K for the warm side. This proposed change would 
only clarify these terms. These values are specified in ASTM C1199-09 
Standard Test Method for Measuring the Steady-State Thermal 
Transmittance of Fenestration Systems Using Hot Box Methods which is 
referred to by NFRC 100[E0A1].

E. Sampling Plan

    In order to determine a certified rating for certifying compliance 
or making energy use representations, DOE requires manufacturers to 
test each basic model in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure and apply the sampling plan. In today's notice, DOE is 
proposing a sampling plan for walk-ins consistent with other commercial 
equipment regulated under EPCA. The sampling requirements are included 
in the proposed section 429.53 of Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 429. For 
consistency with other commercial equipment regulated under EPCA, DOE 
is proposing that a minimum of two units of a WICF component basic 
model be tested to develop a representative rating, as prescribed in 10 
CFR 429.11. However, manufacturers may test more units of a basic 
model, if desired. DOE is proposing that any represented energy 
consumption values of a walk-in basic model shall be lower than or 
equal to the higher of the mean of the sample or the 95 percent lower 
confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05. Additionally, 
DOE is proposing that any represented energy efficiency values of a 
walk-in basic model shall be greater than or equal to the lower of the 
mean of the sample or the 95 percent lower confidence limit (LCL) of 
the true mean divided by 0.95.

F. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

    In amending a test procedure, EPCA generally directs DOE to 
determine to what extent, if any, the proposed amendments would alter 
the measured energy efficiency or measured energy use of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If the amended test procedure alters 
the measured energy efficiency or measured energy use, the Secretary 
must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    With regard to the AEDMs for WICF refrigeration systems, energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration systems have not been 
established. Therefore, this aspect of DOE's proposal (i.e. permitting 
the use of separate AEDMs when rating the unit cooler and condenser 
unit) would not implicate this particular provision. DOE will, of 
course, consider any impacts from the adopted approach it finalizes as 
part of its standards analysis.
    DOE tentatively concludes the amendments to the test procedure for 
walk-in cooler and freezer panels at 10 CFR 431.304 described in 
section III.B above will not have an impact on the measurement of 
energy consumption. With regards to the removal of facers as described 
above in section III.B, the thin metal facers that are adjoined to the 
foam WICF panel would ensure accurate and reliable test results and to 
better align the DOE test procedure with the requirements of ASTM C518-
04.
    With regard to the proposed requirements for the thickness of the 
WICF panel test specimen in section III.B, the thermal conductivity 
that is measured during ASTM C518-04 is an intrinsic property of the 
material itself and this requirement is proposed to ensure reliable 
measurement of this property. The nominal thickness of the original 
WICF panel assembly would still be divided by this thermal conductivity 
(1/K multiplied by panel thickness) to arrive at the panel R-value. 
Therefore, the R-value obtained is still comparable to the currently 
prescribed energy conservation standards.
    The proposed requirements of section III.B concerning the flatness 
and parallelism of the test specimen surfaces are intended to ensure 
accurate test results. While the incorporated by reference ASTM C518-04 
makes recommendations regarding the flatness and parallelism of these 
surfaces, DOE believes it is necessary to prescribe greater specificity 
for these parameters to improve consistency and repeatability during 
testing. Again, this proposed requirement would not alter the end R-
value result in such a way as to require amendment of the energy 
conservation standards.
    DOE also tentatively concludes that the addition of tolerances to 
the mean temperature of the test will have no effect on the measurement 
of panel R-value. The mean temperatures prescribed for testing (20 
degrees

[[Page 9838]]

Fahrenheit for freezer panels and 55 degrees Fahrenheit for cooler 
panels) are not being altered from their current values. Rather this 
tolerance is proposed as a means for ensuring test repeatability and 
comparability.
    Performance-based energy conservation standards that would rely on 
the test procedures described in 10 CFR part 431, Subpart R, Appendix 
A, as well as the AHRI 1250 test procedure, have not yet been 
established by DOE. Therefore, the changes proposed in today's notice--
i.e., the removal of ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13165, and DIN EN 13164; the 
amendments to NFRC 100[E0A1]; and the amendments to AHRI 1250--will not 
affect the measurement of any current energy conservation standards.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures 
considered in today's SNOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003.
    DOE reviewed the AEDM requirements and the test procedure 
modifications being proposed under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. As discussed in more detail below, DOE found that because the 
provisions of this proposed rule will not result in increased testing 
and/or reporting burden for manufacturers and would, if adopted, permit 
additional manufacturers to use an AEDM for the purposes of rating and 
certifying their equipment, which would reduce manufacturer testing 
burden. Accordingly, based on DOE's review, manufacturers are unlikely 
to experience increased financial burden if the provisions presented in 
today's proposal are adopted.
    First, DOE is proposing to allow walk-in manufacturers to use an 
AEDM to certify their products. Previously, no walk-in manufacturers 
were eligible to use an AEDM. Today's proposal would adopt voluntary 
methods for certifying compliance in lieu of conducting actual physical 
testing--which in turn, would reduce the testing and reporting burden 
of walk-in manufacturers who elect to use an AEDM to certify their 
equipment. Furthermore, the proposed validation requirements for an 
AEDM would not require more testing than that which is currently 
required under DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 429.12. While the Department 
believes that permitting greater use of AEDMs will reduce the affected 
manufacturer's test burden, their use is at the manufacturer's 
discretion. If, as a result of any of the regulations herein, a 
manufacturer believes that use of an AEDM would increase rather than 
decrease their financial burden, the manufacturer may choose not to 
employ the method. Should a manufacturer choose to abstain from using 
an AEDM, this provision, if adopted, would not apply and the 
manufacturer would continue to remain subject to the requirements of 
the applicable DOE test procedures for walk-ins, which would result in 
no change in burden from that which is required currently.
    DOE is also codifying alternate methods for certifying individual 
walk-in cooler and freezer components, which should further decrease 
the burden of existing DOE regulations. DOE is currently undertaking an 
energy conservation standards rulemaking to set performance standards 
for walk-in cooler components, including panels, doors, and 
refrigeration systems. Under the provisions of the March 2011 Final 
Rule, the ``component'' manufacturer would be required to certify 
compliance with these standards once they go into effect--however, 
there were no provisions for manufacturers of individual refrigeration 
components (i.e. unit coolers and condensing units) to separately 
certify their components to an energy conservation standard, since the 
proposed refrigeration system standard would apply to the whole 
refrigeration system. These manufacturers could potentially have 
incurred a large burden by having to test all combinations of the 
components they wished to certify. Additionally, manufacturers of only 
one type of component could have been inadvertently prevented from 
selling their equipment because there would have been no available 
certification mechanism. This SNOPR proposes an alternate certification 
methodology by which manufacturers of either component of a walk-in 
refrigeration system--the condensing unit or the unit cooler--may 
certify compliance with the applicable standard without having to test 
every combination of components that they produce. DOE believes this 
approach will significantly reduce the testing and certification burden 
for all manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Finally, DOE is proposing to adopt several clarifications and 
modifications to the existing test procedures that are intended to 
further reduce testing burden. For example, DOE is proposing not to 
require the use of long-term thermal resistance testing of foam and to 
allow manufacturers to certify their panels based on testing to ASTM 
C518, a simpler test method that is already in use in the industry. For 
a complete list of test procedure modifications, see section III.
    For the reasons enumerated above, DOE is certifying that this 
proposal, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    A walk-in manufacturer must certify to DOE that its equipment 
complies with all applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for walk-in equipment, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures, on the date that 
compliance is required. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including direct heating equipment 
and pool heaters. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-
information requirement for certification and recordkeeping is

[[Page 9839]]

subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is 
estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is proposing amendments to its test procedures and related 
provisions for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. DOE has determined 
that this proposal falls into a class of actions that are categorically 
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 
CFR part 1021. This proposed rule would amend the existing test 
procedures without affecting the amount, quality, or distribution of 
energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental 
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that 
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the 
environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. (65 FR 13735) DOE has examined this 
proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to 
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's 
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. (Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) 
For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop 
an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of 
State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. (62 FR 12820) (This policy is also available at 
www.gc.doe.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.) DOE examined today's 
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and has 
tentatively determined that the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. 
Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference

[[Page 9840]]

with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result 
in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), DOE must comply with all laws 
applicable to the former Federal Energy Administration, including 
section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 
93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization 
Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 provides 
in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use 
of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform 
the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, 
section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of 
the commercial or industry standards on competition. Today's proposed 
rule does not propose to incorporate any commercial standards. The 
commercial standards discussed in today's rulemaking were already 
adopted in the Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In 
Freezers, which was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 
2011. 76 FR 21580. DOE conducted a review under Section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 in the April 2011 test 
procedure final rule. 76 FR 21580, 21604.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket 
number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will 
be accepted.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov 
Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through 
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. 
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business 
Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or 
mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in 
which case it is not

[[Page 9841]]

necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE requests comment on its proposal to align AEDM validation 
requirements for WICF refrigeration equipment to the validation 
requirements for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment.
    2. DOE requests comment on the following tolerances for WICF AEDMs. 
For energy consumption metrics, the AEDM result for a model must be 
equal to or greater than 95 percent of the tested results for that same 
model. For energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for a model must 
be less than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that 
same model.
    3. DOE seeks comment regarding the proposed requirement imposed on 
the manufacturer to re-certify any basic model with test data, 
including test data provided by DOE, in the case of a model failing to 
meet its AEDM rating.
    4. DOE requests comment on its proposal to not require re-
validation of an AEDM upon every change in a federal conservation 
standard or test procedure, but retain discretion to evaluate each case 
individually and require re-validation on a case-by-case basis in the 
NOPR upon issuance of a final standard rule or test procedure.
    5. DOE requests comment on whether 90 days is an appropriate amount 
of time to complete the re-validation, re-rating and re-certification 
steps for cases where they are necessary for AEDMs.
    6. DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow unit coolers and 
condensing units to be rated separately, and particularly the nominal 
values described in Table III.6.
    7. DOE seeks comment on its nominal values for calculating electric 
defrost power and heat load in the absence of a full defrost test or 
for an individual condensing unit. DOE also seeks comment on its 
nominal values for calculating hot gas defrost power and heat load. The 
nominal values may be found in sections III. B. 1. and III. B. 2.
    8. DOE requests comment on its proposed amendments and 
clarifications to the test procedure; specifically (but not limited to) 
its modifications to the off-cycle evaporator fan test (section III. B. 
3.), temperature measurement (section III. B. 5.), refrigerant line 
insulation (section III. B. 7.), and composition analysis (section III. 
B. 8.).
    9. DOE asks whether the proposed requirement to remove facers or 
protective skins from panels before measuring thermal resistance is 
appropriate.
    10. DOE asks whether the proposed requirement that a test sample 
for panel thermal resistance measurement be 1 inch in thickness and 
from the center of a WICF panel is appropriate.
    11. DOE asks whether the tolerances specified for flatness (+/-
0.03) and parallelism (.030 inches) for WICF panels before measuring 
thermal resistance are appropriate and sufficient.
    12. DOE asks whether a tolerance of 1 degree Fahrenheit 
for mean temperature during thermal resistance measurement is 
appropriate and sufficient.
    13. DOE asks whether a 48-hour period after cutting the WICF panel 
for measuring thermal resistance is appropriate and sufficient,
    14. DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the test 
procedures in 10 CFR 431, Appendix A to Subpart R that reference ASTM 
C1363-05 and DIN EN 13164/13165 and their accompanying calculation 
procedures, leaving only ASTM C518-04 testing in 10 CFR 431.304 for 
establishing the thermal resistance of WICF panels.
    15. DOE asks whether the surface heat transfer coefficients 
prescribed by NFRC 100[E0A1] are appropriate.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice 
of proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D of Title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

[[Page 9842]]

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 429.53 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  429.53  Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

    (a) Determination of represented value.
    (1) Refrigeration equipment: Manufacturers shall determine the 
represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each basic 
model of walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration equipment, either by 
testing, in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by 
applying an AEDM.
    (i) Units to be tested.
    (A) If the represented value for a given basic model is determined 
through testing, the general requirements of Sec.  429.11 apply; and
    (B) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.003
    

and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.004

And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% 
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B). And,
    (2) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.005
    

And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.006

And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% 
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B).
    (ii) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of a walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration system must be 
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
    (2) WICF components other than those specified in (a)(1) of this 
subsection.
    (i) Units to be tested.
    (A) If the represented value for a given basic model is determined 
through testing, the general requirements of Sec.  429.11 apply; and
    (B) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.007
    

and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.008

And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% 
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B). And,
    (2) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.009
    

And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.010

And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% 
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
Appendix A to subpart B).
    (b) Certification reports. (1) Except that Sec.  429.12(b)(6) 
applies to the certified component, the requirements of Sec.  429.12 
are applicable to manufacturers of the components of walk-in coolers 
and freezers (WICFs) listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and;
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information:
    (i) For WICF doors: The door type, R-value of the door insulation, 
and a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable 
design requirements. In addition, for those WICFs with transparent 
reach-in doors and windows: The glass type of the doors and windows 
(e.g., double-pane with heat reflective treatment, triple-pane glass 
with gas fill), and the power draw of the antisweat heater in watts per 
square foot of door opening.
    (ii) For WICF panels: The R-value of the insulation (except for 
glazed

[[Page 9843]]

portions of the doors or structural members)
    (iii) For WICF refrigeration systems: The motor purpose (i.e., 
evaporator fan motor or condenser fan motor), the horsepower, and a 
declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable 
design requirements.
0
3. Section 429.70 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency or 
energy use.

* * * * *
    (f) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for walk-in 
refrigeration equipment.
    (1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an 
AEDM to a basic model to determine its efficiency pursuant to this 
section unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the 
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of 
performance data; and
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as follows:
    (i) The manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of 
basic models for each validation class specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies. Using 
the AEDM, calculate the energy use or energy efficiency for each of the 
selected basic models. Test a single unit of each basic model in 
accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section. Compare the 
results from the single unit test and the AEDM output according to 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. The manufacturer is responsible 
for ensuring the accuracy and repeatability of the AEDM.
    (ii) Individual Model Tolerances:
    (A) The predicted efficiency for each model calculated by applying 
the AEDM may not be more than five percent greater than the efficiency 
determined from the corresponding test of the model.
    (B) The predicted energy efficiency for each model calculated by 
applying the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable federal energy 
conservation standard.
    (iii) Additional Test Unit Requirements:
    (A) Each AEDM must be supported by test data obtained from physical 
tests of current models; and
    (B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed 
current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this 
chapter;
    (C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the 
applicable DOE test procedure with which compliance is required at the 
time the basic model is distributed in commerce; and
    (D) For a mismatched WICF refrigeration system, an AEDM may not 
simulate or model portions of the system that are not required to be 
tested by the DOE test procedure. That is, if the test results used to 
validate the AEDM are for either a unit cooler only or a condensing 
unit only, the AEDM must estimate the system rating using the nominal 
values specified in the DOE test procedure for the other part of the 
refrigeration system.
    (iv) WICF Refrigeration Validation Classes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Minimum number of distinct models
         Validation class                   that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium       2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium       2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Outdoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low          2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Indoor System.
Dedicated Condensing, Low          2 Basic Models.
 Temperature, Outdoor System.
Unit Cooler connected to a         2 Basic Models.
 Multiplex Condensing Unit,
 Medium Temperature.
Unit Cooler connected to a         2 Basic Models.
 Multiplex Condensing Unit, Low
 Temperature.
Medium Temperature, Indoor         2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
Medium Temperature, Outdoor        2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
Low Temperature, Indoor            2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
Low Temperature, Outdoor           2 Basic Models.
 Condensing Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) AEDM Records Retention Requirements. If a manufacturer has used 
an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this section, 
the manufacturer must have available upon request for inspection by the 
Department records showing:
    (i) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or 
statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is 
the basis of the AEDM;
    (ii) Equipment information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, 
and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to 
validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
    (iii) Equipment information and AEDM calculations for each basic 
model to which the AEDM has been applied.
    (4) Additional AEDM Requirements. If requested by the Department 
the manufacturer must perform at least one of the following:
    (i) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to 
predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to 
which the AEDM was applied;
    (ii) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer; or
    (iii) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the 
Department.
    (5) AEDM Verification Testing. DOE may use the test data for a 
given individual model generated pursuant to Sec.  429.104 to verify 
the certified rating determined by an AEDM as long as the following 
process is followed:
    (i) Selection of units: DOE will obtain units for test from retail, 
where available. If units cannot be obtained from retail, DOE will 
request that a unit be provided by the manufacturer.
    (ii) Lab Requirements: DOE will conduct testing at an independent, 
third-party testing facility of its choosing. In cases where no third-
party laboratory is capable of testing the equipment, it may be tested 
at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request.
    (iii) Manufacturer Participation: Testing will be performed without 
manufacturer representatives on-site.
    (iv) Testing: All verification testing will be conducted in 
accordance with

[[Page 9844]]

the applicable DOE test procedure, as well as each of the following to 
the extent that they apply:
    (A) Any active test procedure waivers that have been granted for 
the basic model;
    (B) Any test procedure guidance that has been issued by DOE;
    (C) If during test set-up or testing, the lab indicates to DOE that 
it needs additional information regarding a given basic model in order 
to test in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, DOE may 
organize a meeting between DOE, the manufacturer and the lab to provide 
such information.
    (D) At no time during the process may the lab communicate directly 
with the manufacturer without DOE present.
    (v) Failure to meet certified rating: If a model tests worse than 
its certified rating by an amount exceeding the tolerance prescribed in 
paragraph (f)(5)(vi) of this section, DOE will notify the manufacturer. 
DOE will provide the manufacturer with all documentation related to the 
test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit. Within the 
timeframe allotted by DOE, the manufacturer may then present all claims 
regarding testing validity.
    (vi) Tolerances:
    (A) For consumption metrics, the result from a DOE verification 
test must be less than or equal to the certified rating x (1 + the 
applicable tolerance).
    (B) For efficiency metrics, the result from a DOE verification test 
must be greater than or equal to the certified rating x (1 - the 
applicable tolerance).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Applicable
                  Equipment                      Metric       tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration systems (including components)         AWEF            5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vii) Invalid Rating: If, following discussions with the 
manufacturer and a retest where applicable, DOE determines that the 
testing was conducted appropriately in accordance with the DOE test 
procedure, the rating for the model will be considered invalid. 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 429.13(b), DOE may require a manufacturer to conduct 
additional testing as a remedial measure.

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

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

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

0
5. Section 431.304 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, and (b)(3) through (6);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, and (c)(3) through (6);
0
d. Re-designating paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10) as paragraphs 
(c)(8) through (c)(11), respectively;
0
e. Adding new paragraph (c)(7);
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(8) through (10);
0
g. Adding paragraph (c)(12).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) This paragraph (b) shall be used for the purposes of certifying 
compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards of the R-
value of panels until January 1, 2015.
* * * * *
    (3) For calculating the R value for freezers, the K factor of the 
foam at 20  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used.
    (4) For calculating the R value for coolers, the K factor of the 
foam at 55  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used.
    (5) Foam shall be tested after it is produced in its final chemical 
form. (For foam produced inside of a panel (``foam-in-place''), ``final 
chemical form'' means the foam is cured as intended and ready for use 
as a finished panel. For foam produced as board stock (typically 
polystyrene), ``final chemical form'' means after extrusion and ready 
for assembly into a panel or after assembly into a panel.) Foam from 
foam-in-place panels must not include any structural members or non-
foam materials. Foam produced as board stock may be tested prior to its 
incorporation into a final panel. A test sample no more than one inch 
in thickness must be taken from the center of a panel (meaning, 
centered on a plane half the distance between the surfaces on which 
facers were attached) and any protective skins or facers must be 
removed. The two surfaces of the test sample that will contact the hot 
plate assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518) must both maintain 0.03 inches flatness tolerance and also maintain parallelism with 
respect to one another within 0.03 inches. Testing must be 
completed within 48 hours of samples being cut for testing.
    (6) Internal non-foam member and/or edge regions shall not be 
considered in ASTM C518 testing.
    (7) For panels consisting of two or more layers of dissimilar 
insulating materials (excluding facers or protective skins), test each 
material as described in paragraph (4). For a panel with n layers of 
insulating material, the R-Value shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.011

Where:

ki is the k factor of type i material as measured by ASTM 
C518, and ti is the thickness of type i material that 
appears in the panel.

    (c) This paragraph (c) shall be used for any representations of 
energy efficiency or energy use starting on October 12, 2011 and to 
certify compliance to the energy conservation standards of the R-value 
of panels on or after January 1, 2015.
* * * * *
    (3) For calculating the R value for freezers, the K factor of the 
foam at 20  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used.
    (4) For calculating the R value for coolers, the K factor of the 
foam at 55  1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam temperature) 
shall be used.
    (5) Foam shall be tested after it is produced in its final chemical 
form. (For foam produced inside of a panel (``foam-in-place''), ``final 
chemical form'' means the foam is cured as intended and ready for use 
as a finished panel. For foam produced as board stock (typically 
polystyrene), ``final chemical form'' means after extrusion and ready 
for assembly into a panel or after assembly into a panel.) Foam from 
foam-in-place panels must not include any structural members or non-
foam materials. Foam produced as board stock may be tested prior to its 
incorporation into a final panel. A test sample no more than one inch 
in thickness must be taken from the center of a panel (meaning, 
centered on a plane half the distance between the surfaces on which 
facers were attached) and any protective skins or facers must be 
removed. The two surfaces of the test sample that will contact the hot 
plate assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518) must both maintain 0.03 inches flatness tolerance and also maintain parallelism with 
respect to one another within 0.03 inches. Testing must be 
completed within 48 hours of samples being cut for testing.
    (6) Internal non-foam member and/or edge regions shall not be 
considered in ASTM C518 testing.
    (7) For panels consisting of two or more layers of dissimilar 
insulating materials (excluding facers or protective skins), test each 
material as described in

[[Page 9845]]

paragraph (4). For a panel with n layers of insulating material, the R-
Value shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.012

Where:

ki is the k factor of type i material as measured by ASTM 
C518, and
ti is the thickness of type i material that appears in 
the panel.

    (8) Determine the U-factor, conduction load, and energy use of 
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer display panels by conducting the 
test procedure set forth in appendix A to this subpart section 4.1.
    (9) Determine the energy use of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
display doors and non-display doors by conducting the test procedure 
set forth in appendix A to this subpart, sections 4.4 and 4.5, 
respectively.
    (10) Determine the Annual Walk-in Energy Factor of walk-in cooler 
and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by conducting the test 
procedure set forth in AHRI 1250 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
431.303), with the following modifications:
    (i) In Table 2, Test Operating and Test Condition Tolerances for 
Steady-State Test, electrical power frequency shall have a Test 
Condition Tolerance of 1 percent. Also, refrigerant temperature 
measurements shall have a tolerance of +/-0.5F for unit cooler in/out, 
+/-1.0F for all others temperature measurements.
    (ii) In Table 2, the Test Operating Tolerances and Test Condition 
Tolerances for Air Leaving Temperatures shall be deleted.
    (iii) In Table 2, The Test Condition Tolerance for Outdoor Wet Bulb 
Temperature of 0.3 applies only to units with evaporative cooling.
    (iv) In section C3.1.6, refrigerant temperature measurements 
upstream and downstream of the unit cooler may use sheathed sensors 
immersed in the flowing refrigerant instead of thermometer wells.
    (v) In section C3.5, for a given motor winding configuration, the 
total power input shall be measured at the highest nameplate voltage. 
For three-phase power, voltage imbalances shall be no more than 2 
percent from phase to phase.
    (vi) In the test setup (section C8.3), the condenser and unit 
cooler shall be connected by pipes of the manufacturer specified size. 
The pipe lines shall be insulated with a minimum total thermal 
resistance equivalent to \1/2\'' thick insulation having a flat-surface 
R-Value of 3.7 ft\2\-[deg]F-hr/Btu per inch or greater. Flow meters 
need not be insulated but must not be in contact with the floor. The 
lengths of each of the connected liquid line and suction line shall be 
25 feet, not including the requisite flow meters. Of this length, no 
more than 15 feet shall be in the conditioned space. In the case that 
there are multiple branches of piping, the maximum length of piping 
applies to each branch individually as opposed to the total length of 
the piping.
    (vii) In section C3.4.5, for verification of sub-cooling downstream 
of mass flow meters, only the sight glass and a temperature sensor 
located on the tube surface under the insulation are required.
    (viii) Delete section C3.3.6.
    (ix) In section C11.1, to determine frost load defrost conditions, 
the Frost Load Conditions Defrost Test (C11.1.1) is optional. If the 
frost load test is not performed, the frost load defrost DFf 
shall be equal to 1.05 times the dry coil energy consumption 
DFd measured using the dry coil condition test in section 
C11.1 and the number of defrosts per day NDF shall be set to 
4.
    (x) In section C11.2, if the system has an adaptive or demand 
defrost system, the optional test may be run as specified to establish 
the number of defrosts per day under dry coil conditions and this 
number shall be averaged with the number of defrosts per day calculated 
under the frost load conditions. If the system has an adaptive or 
demand defrost system and the optional test is not run, the number of 
defrosts per day NDF shall be set to the average of 1 and 
the number of defrosts per day calculated under the frost load 
conditions (section (c)(8)(ix)).
    (xi) In section C11.3, if the frost load test is not performed, the 
daily contribution of the load attributed to defrost QDF in 
Btu shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.013

Where:

DFd = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the dry coil 
condition
DFf = the defrost energy, in W-h, at the frosted coil 
condition
NDF = the number of defrosts per day

    (xii) In section C11, if the unit utilizes hot gas defrost, 
QDF and DF shall be calculated as follows:
QDF = x NDF

Where:

Qref = Gross refrigeration capacity in Btu/h as measured 
at the high ambient condition (90[emsp14][deg]F for indoor systems 
and 95[emsp14][deg]F for outdoor systems)
NDF = Number of defrosts per day; shall be set to the 
number recommended in the installation instructions for the unit (or 
if no instructions, shall be set to 4) for units without adaptive 
defrost and 2.5 for units with adaptive defrost

For unit coolers connected to a multiplex system: The defrost energy, 
DF, in W-h = 0.
    For dedicated condensing systems or condensing units tested 
separately:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20FE14.014

    (xiii) In section C3.4.6, for units with integrated oil separators, 
the ratio of oil to refrigerants can be assumed to be less than 1% 
without the need for confirmatory testing.
    (xiv) Section C10 shall be revised to read:
    Off-cycle evaporator fan test. Upon the completion of the steady 
state test for walk-in systems, the compressors of the walk-in systems 
shall be turned off. The unit coolers fans' power consumption shall be 
measured in accordance with the requirements in Section C 3.5. Off-
cycle fan power shall be equal to on-cycle fan power unless evaporator 
fans are controlled by a qualifying control. Qualifying evaporator fan 
controls shall have a user adjustable method of destratifying air 
during the off-cycle including but not

[[Page 9846]]

limited to: adjustable fan speed control or periodic ``stir cycles.'' 
Controls shall be adjusted so that the greater of a 50% duty cycle or 
the manufacturer default is used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. 
For variable speed controls, the greater of 50% fan speed or the 
manufacturer's default fan speed shall be used for measuring off-cycle 
fan energy. When a cyclic control is used at least three full ``stir 
cycles'' are measured.
    (xv) Table 15 and Table 16 are modified as follows:

                                                           Table 15--Refrigerator Unit Cooler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Unit cooler  Unit cooler                  Liquid
                                     air          air       Saturated      inlet        Liquid                               Outlet
        Test description           entering     entering     suction     saturation     inlet      Compressor  capacity    superheat,    Test objective
                                  dry-bulb,     relative      temp,        temp,     subcooling,                             [deg]F
                                    [deg]F    humidity, %     [deg]F       [deg]F       [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Cycle Fan Power............           35          evap ([deg]F) = 25 for coolers and -20 for freezers
On-cycle evaporator fan power EFcomp,on (W) = 0.016 W-h/Btu 
x qmix,cd (Btu/h); where qmix,cd is the gross 
cooling capacity at the highest ambient rating condition (90 [deg]F for 
indoor units and 95 [deg]F for outdoor units)
Off-cycle evaporator fan power EFcomp,off (W) = 0.2 x 
EFcomp,on (W)
For medium temperature (cooler) condensing units: Daily defrost energy 
use DF (W-h) = 0 and daily defrost heat load contribution 
QDF (Btu) = 0
For low temperature (freezer) condensing units without hot gas defrost 
capability:
    Daily defrost energy use DF (W-h) = 0.12 (W-h/cycle)/(Btu/h) x 
qmix,cd (Btu/h) x NDF for freezers
    Defrost heat load contribution QDF (Btu) = 0.95 x DF (W-
h)/3.412 Btu/W-h
For low temperature (freezer) condensing units with hot gas defrost 
capability, DF and QDF shall be calculated using the method 
in paragraph (10)(xii) of this section.
The number of defrost cycles per day (NDF) shall be set to 
the number recommended in the installation instructions for the unit 
(or if no instructions, shall be set to 4) for units without adaptive 
defrost and 2.5 for units with adaptive defrost.

    (iii) Only fixed capacity condensing units may be certified in this 
manner. Multiple-capacity condensing units must be rated and certified 
as part of a matched system.
0
6. Appendix A to Subpart R of part 431 is amended by:

[[Page 9847]]

0
a. Removing and reserving sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2;
0
b. Revising paragraph 5.3(a)(1);
0
c. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(2) the word ``Internal'' and adding in 
its place the words ``Cold-side''; and
0
d. Removing in paragraph 5.3(a)(3) the word ``External'' and adding in 
its place the words ``Warm-side''.
    The revision reads as follows:

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

* * * * *
    4.2 [Removed and Reserved]
    4.3 [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
    5.1 [Removed and Reserved]
    5.2 [Removed and Reserved]
    5.3 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) The average surface heat transfer coefficient on the cold-
side of the apparatus shall be 30 Watts per square-meter-Kelvin (W/
m\2\*K)  5%. The average surface heat transfer 
coefficient on the warm-side of the apparatus shall be 7.7 Watts per 
square-meter-Kelvin (W/m\2\*K)  5%.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-03101 Filed 2-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```