This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

37687 

Vol. 86, No. 134 

Friday, July 16, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009] 

RIN 1904–AD79 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment; 

Early Assessment Review; Walk-In 

Coolers and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early 

assessment review to evaluate whether 

to amend the energy conservation 

standards for walk-in coolers and 

freezers (‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’). 

Specifically, through this request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data 

and information to evaluate whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

would result in significant savings of 

energy; be technologically feasible; and 

be economically justified. DOE 

welcomes written comments from the 

public on any subject within the scope 

of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised in this RFI), as 

well as the submission of data and other 

relevant information concerning this 

early assessment review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, 

postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0009. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Stephanie Johnson, 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) 287–1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope and Equipment Classes 

1. Display Panels 

2. High-Temperature Freezers 

3. Single-Package Refrigeration Systems 

4. Wine Cellar Refrigeration Systems 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

1. Duty-Cycles and Typical Run Hours 

2. Oversizing Factors 

3. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. Doors and Panels 

2. Refrigeration Systems 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Markups Analysis—Distribution 

Channels 

2. Lifetime Analysis 

3. Shipments Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

IV. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

I. Introduction 

DOE has established an early 

assessment review process to conduct a 

more focused analysis to evaluate, based 

on statutory criteria, whether a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

is warranted. Based on the information 

received in response to the RFI and 

DOE’s own analysis, DOE will 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking for a new or amended 

energy conservation standard. If DOE 

makes an initial determination that a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard would satisfy the applicable 

statutory criteria or DOE’s analysis is 

inconclusive, DOE would undertake the 

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to 

issue a new or amended energy 

conservation standard. If DOE makes an 

initial determination based upon 

available evidence that a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37688 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

3The requirement regarding electronically 

commutated motors was predicated on DOE 

determining that more than one manufacturer 

offered such motors for sale. See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(2)(A). DOE documented this determination 

in Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0072 

(available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2008-BT-STD-0015-0072). 

would not meet the applicable statutory 

criteria, DOE would engage in notice 

and comment rulemaking before issuing 

a final determination that new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

are not warranted. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among 

other things, authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

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

6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes walk-in coolers and 

freezers, the subject of this document. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of EPCA include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6299). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption in limited instances for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption 

waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered equipment. EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard that will not result in 

significant conservation of energy, or is 

not technologically feasible or 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

EPCA specifies standards for walkins. First, all walk-in doors narrower 

than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 

feet must have automatic door closers 

that firmly close all walk-in doors that 

have been closed to within 1 inch of full 

closure, and must also have strip doors, 

spring hinged doors, or other methods 

of minimizing infiltration when doors 

are open. Additionally, walk-ins must 

contain wall, ceiling, and door 

insulation of at least R–25 for coolers 

and R–32 for freezers, excluding glazed 

portions of doors and structural 

members, and floor insulation of at least 

R–28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator 

fan motors of under 1 horsepower 

(‘‘hp’’) and less than 460 volts must be 

electronically commutated motors 

(brushless direct current motors) or 

three-phase motors, and walk-in 

condenser fan motors of under 1 

horsepower must use permanent split 

capacitor motors, electronically 

commutated motors, or three-phase 

motors. Interior light sources must have 

an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or 

more, including any ballast losses; lessefficacious lights may only be used in 

conjunction with a timer or device that 

turns off the lights within 15 minutes of 

when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(f)(1). 

Second, walk-ins have requirements 

related to electronically commutated 

motors used in them. See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walkins that use an evaporator fan motor 

with a rating of under 1 hp and less than 

460 volts, that motor must be either a 

three-phase motor or an electronically 

commutated motor.3 (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(2)(A)) 

Third, EPCA requires that walk-in 

freezers with transparent reach-in doors 

must have triple-pane glass with either 

heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for 

doors and windows. Transparent walkin cooler doors must have either doublepane glass with heat-reflective treated 

glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass 

with heat-reflective treated glass or gas 

fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)–(B)) For 

walk-ins with transparent reach-in 

doors, EPCA also prescribes specific 

anti-sweat heater-related requirements: 

Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater 

controls must have a heater power draw 

of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per 

square foot of door opening for freezers 

and coolers, respectively. Walk-ins with 

anti-sweat heater controls must either 

have a heater power draw of no more 

than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of 

door opening for freezers and coolers, 

respectively, or the anti-sweat heater 

controls must reduce the energy use of 

the heater in a quantity corresponding 

to the relative humidity of the air 

outside the door or to the condensation 

on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(3)(C)–(D). 

Additionally, EPCA prescribed two 

cycles of WICF-specific rulemakings; 

the first to establish performance-based 

standards that achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy that the 

Secretary determines is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

the second to determine whether to 

amend those standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(4) and (5)) EPCA also requires 

that, not later than 6 years after the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 

energy conservation standards for each 

type of covered equipment, including 

those at issue here, and publish either 

a notification of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) that includes new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE is publishing 

this RFI to inform its decision consistent 

with its obligations under EPCA. 

B. Rulemaking History 

On June 3, 2014, DOE published a 

final rule (‘‘June 2014 ECS final rule’’) 

establishing performance-based 

standards for the components of a walkin: Doors, panels, and refrigeration 

systems. 79 FR 32050. The standards 

were expressed in terms of daily energy 

consumption for walk-in doors, R-value 

for walk-in panels, and annual walk-in 

energy factor (‘‘AWEF’’) for walk-in 

refrigeration systems. Id. 

After publication of the June 2014 

ECS final rule, the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating and Refrigeration Institute 

(‘‘AHRI’’) and Lennox International, Inc. 

(‘‘Lennox’’), a manufacturer of walk-in 

refrigeration systems, filed petitions for 

review of DOE’s final rule and DOE’s 

subsequent denial of a petition for 

reconsideration of the rule (79 FR 59090 

(October 1, 2014)) with the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit. Lennox Int’l v. Dep’t of Energy, 

Case No. 14–60535 (5th Cir.). As a result 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37689 

4The thirteen other standards established in the 

June 2014 ECS final rule (i.e., the four standards 

applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration 

systems operating at medium-temperatures; the 

three standards applicable to panels; and the six 

standards applicable to doors) were not vacated. 5The docket can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2015-BT-STD0016. 6A ‘‘display door’’ is a door that (1) is designed 

for product display, or (2) has 75 percent or more 

of its surface area composed of glass or another 

transparent material. 10 CFR 431.302. 

7A ‘‘freight door’’ is a door that is not a display 

door and is equal to or larger than 4 feet wide and 

8 feet tall. 10 CFR 431.302. A ‘‘passage door’’ is a 

door that is not a freight or display door. Id. 

8A ‘‘dedicated condensing system’’ is one of the 

following: (1) A dedicated condensing unit; (2) A 

single-package dedicated system; or (3) A matched 

refrigeration system. 10 CFR 431.302. 

9The term, ‘‘unit cooler’’ means ‘‘an assembly, 

including means for forced air circulation and 

elements by which heat is transferred from air to 

refrigerant, thus cooling the air, without any 

element external to the cooler imposing air 

resistance.’’ 10 CFR 431.302. 

10An ‘‘indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration 

system’’ is a ‘‘dedicated condensing refrigeration 

system designated by the manufacturer for indoor 

use or for which there is no designation regarding 

the use location.’’ 10 CFR 431.302. An ‘‘outdoor 

dedicated condensing refrigeration system’’ is a 

‘‘dedicated condensing refrigeration system 

designated by the manufacturer for outdoor use.’’ 

Id. 

of this litigation, a settlement agreement 

was reached to address, and a 

controlling order from the Fifth Circuit 

vacated, standards for six of the 

refrigeration system equipment 

classes—the two energy conservation 

standards applicable to multiplex 

condensing refrigeration systems 

(subsequently re-named as ‘‘unit 

coolers’’) operating at medium and low 

temperatures and the four energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

dedicated condensing refrigeration 

systems operating at low temperatures.4

After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, 

DOE established a Working Group to 

negotiate energy conservation standards 

to replace the six vacated standards. 80 

FR 46521 (August 5, 2015). The 

Working Group assembled their 

recommendations into a Term Sheet 

(See Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD– 

0016–0056) 5 that was presented to, and 

approved by, the Appliance Standards 

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) on December 18, 

2015. 

The Term Sheet contained 

recommended energy conservation 

standards to replace the six vacated 

standards, definitions for a number of 

WICF-related terms, and test procedure 

changes to implement the recommended 

energy conservation standards. 

Consequently, DOE initiated both an 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking and a test procedure 

rulemaking in 2016 to implement these 

recommendations. The Term Sheet also 

recommended additional specific test 

procedure changes for future 

rulemaking to help improve its ability to 

be fully representative of walk-in energy 

use. 

On July 10, 2017, DOE published a 

final rule adopting energy conservation 

standards for the six classes of walk-in 

refrigeration systems for which the prior 

standards were vacated. 82 FR 31808 

(‘‘July 2017 ECS final rule’’). The energy 

conservation standards established in 

the July 2017 ECS final rule were 

consistent with those recommended by 

the Working Group and approved by 

ASRAC. 82 FR 31808, 31878. The 

current energy conservation standards 

for walk-ins are codified at 10 CFR 

431.306. 

II. Request for Information 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information during the early 

assessment review to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. DOE has identified certain 

topics for which information and data 

are requested to assist in the evaluation 

of the potential for amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE also 

welcomes comments on other issues 

relevant to its early assessment that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

A. Scope and Equipment Classes 

This RFI covers equipment meeting 

the walk-in definition codified in 10 

CFR 431.302: An enclosed storage space 

(i.e., box) refrigerated to temperatures 

(1) above 32 °F for walk-in coolers and 

(2) at or below 32 °F for walk-in 

freezers, that can be walked into, and 

has a total chilled storage area of less 

than 3,000 square feet, but excluding 

equipment designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or 

research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. (See 

also 42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) DOE has 

codified and established energy 

conservation standards applicable to the 

principal components that make up a 

walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and 

refrigeration systems). In addition to the 

prescriptive requirements for walk-ins 

established by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6313(f)(3)(A)–(D)) and codified at 10 

CFR 431.306(a)–(b), DOE established 

performance-based energy conservation 

standards for doors and refrigeration 

systems. 10 CFR 431.306(c)–(e). 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide covered equipment into 

classes by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that would justify a different 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In making a determination 

whether capacity or another 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. 

DOE established standards for walk-in 

doors based on (1) whether they are 

used in a walk-in cooler (i.e., mediumtemperature) or walk-in freezer (i.e., 

low-temperature), (2) whether they are 

display or non-display doors,6 and (3) if 

non-display, whether they are passage 

or freight doors.7 10 CFR 431.306(c)–(d). 

Table II.1 presents the equipment 

classes for all walk-in doors. 

DOE codified standards for nondisplay panels: Based on (1) whether 

they are used in a walk-in cooler (i.e., 

medium-temperature) or walk-in freezer 

(i.e., low-temperature), and (2) whether 

they are structural (wall or ceiling) or 

floor panels. 10 CFR 431.306(a)(3)–(4). 

Table II.2 presents the equipment 

classes for walk-in panels. 

DOE established equipment classes 

for walk-in refrigeration systems based 

on (1) whether they are dedicated 

condensing systems 8 or unit coolers,9

and (2) whether they are used in a walkin cooler (i.e., medium-temperature) or 

walk-in freezer (i.e., low-temperature). 

10 CFR 431.306(e). DOE further divided 

dedicated condensing refrigeration 

systems into ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ 

equipment classes.10 Id. ‘‘Indoor, low 

temperature’’ dedicated condensing 

systems, ‘‘outdoor, low temperature’’ 

dedicated condensing systems,’’ and 

‘‘low temperature’’ unit coolers are 

further divided based on net capacity. 

See 10 CFR 431.306(e). Table II.3 lists 

the equipment classes for WICF 

refrigeration systems. 

TABLE II.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR

WALK-IN DOORS

Utility Temperature Class 

code 

Display Door ..... Medium ............ DD.M. 

Low .................. DD.L. 

Passage Door 

(Non-display).

Medium ............

Low ..................

PD.M. 

PD.L. 

Freight Door 

(Non-display).

Medium ............

Low ..................

FD.M. 

FD.L. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37690 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

11 Display panel product information from two 

manufacturers can be found at www.regulations.gov 

Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0001 and 

Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0002. 

12The ‘‘glass pack’’ in a display door or window 

of a non-display door is an assembly of glass layers 

typically filled with low thermal-conductivity inert 

gas and held together at the edges of the glass by 

low-conductivity leak-tight spacers. 

13Product literature showing capacity 

measurements of medium-temperature models used 

in high-temperature freezer applications from two 

manufacturers can be found at www.regulations.gov 

Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0003 and 

Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0004. 

TABLE II.2—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR WALK-IN PANELS

Utility Temperature Class code 

Floor Panel ................................................................................................................... Low ........................................................... FP.L. 

Structural (Wall or Ceiling) Panel ................................................................................. Medium .....................................................

Low ...........................................................

SP.M. 

SP.L. 

TABLE II.3—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR WALK-IN REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

System type Temperature Condenser location 

Refrigeration system 

net capacity 

(Btu/h) 

Class code 

Dedicated Condensing ................................... Medium ...................... Indoor ......................... All Capacities ............. DC.M.I. 

Outdoor ...................... All Capacities ............. DC.M.O. 

Low ............................ Indoor ......................... <6,500 ........................ DC.L.I, <6,500. 

≥6,500 ........................ DC.L.I, ≥6,500. 

Outdoor ...................... <6,500 ........................ DC.L.O, <6,500. 

≥6,500 ........................ DC.L.O ≥6,500. 

Unit Cooler ..................................................... Medium ...................... All Capacities ............. UC.M. 

Low ............................ <15,500 ...................... UC.L, <15,500. 

≥15,500 ...................... UC.L, ≥15,000. 

The applicability of these current 

equipment classes for certain walk-in 

products is discussed in more detail in 

sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

1. Display Panels 

A display panel is defined as a panel 

that is entirely or partially comprised of 

glass, a transparent material, or both, 

and is used for display purposes. 10 

CFR 431.302. DOE has established a test 

procedure for calculating total daily 

energy consumption, based on 

measured thermal transmittance (also 

‘‘U-factor’’), of display panels. 10 CFR 

431.304(b)(1). DOE has not, however, 

adopted standards for display panels 

based on energy consumption as at the 

time of the June 2014 ECS final rule 

such panels made up a small fraction of 

the panel market and had a limited 

energy savings potential. 79 FR 32049, 

32067. DOE has identified two 

manufacturers of display doors who also 

manufacture display panels.11 Some 

models of these display panels contain 

anti-sweat heaters to prevent 

condensation similar to display doors. 

Issue 1: DOE seeks information 

regarding the thermal transmission 

through display panels and design 

characteristics which would affect the 

thermal transmission, specifically, 

‘‘glass pack’’ 12 design and frame design. 

DOE also seeks information regarding 

the amount of direct electrical energy 

consumption of electricity-consuming 

devices sited on or within display 

panels, including the amount of antisweat heat required, if any. DOE 

additionally requests information on 

any specific design or use 

characteristics differentiating display 

panels from display doors. 

2. High-Temperature Freezers 

DOE has established a test procedure 

for determining the net capacity and 

AWEF of walk-in refrigeration systems 

at appendix C to subpart R of 10 CFR 

part 431 (‘‘Appendix C’’), which 

incorporates by reference AHRI 

Standard 1250P (I–P), ‘‘2009 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Walk-In 

Coolers and Freezers,’’ (‘‘AHRI 1250– 

2009’’). 10 CFR 431.304(b)(4). As 

defined previously, the storage space 

(i.e., box) of a walk-in cooler is 

refrigerated to temperatures above 32 °F, 

while walk-in freezers are refrigerated to 

temperatures at or below 32 °F. 42 

U.S.C. 6311(20). See also 10 CFR 

431.302. The current walk-in test 

procedure rates medium-temperature 

refrigeration systems (which are used in 

walk-in coolers) at 35 °F and lowtemperature refrigeration systems 

(which are used in walk-in freezers) at 

–10 °F. (See section 5 of AHRI 1250– 

2009 (dry bulb temperature 

specifications) (incorporated by 

reference at 10 CFR 431.303(b))) 

Consequently, refrigeration system 

energy use for walk-in coolers is 

represented by performance at a 35 °F 

box temperature and refrigeration 

system energy use for walk-in freezers is 

represented by performance at a ¥10 °F 

box temperature. 

As discussed in the July 2017 ECS 

final rule, stakeholders commented that 

so-called ‘‘high-temperature’’ freezer 

walk-ins are those with a box 

temperature range of 10 °F to 32 °F, and 

that medium-temperature refrigeration 

systems are generally used for this 

temperature range. 82 FR 31808, 31830. 

As discussed in a RFI published on June 

17, 2021 (‘‘June 2021 TP RFI’’), hightemperature freezers would be 

considered walk-in freezers because 

their room temperature is less than or 

equal to 32 °F, and would therefore be 

rated at –10 °F. 86 FR 32332, 32349. To 

the extent a medium-temperature 

refrigeration system is used for hightemperature freezer applications, such a 

system may not be able to operate at the 

–10 °F room temperature prescribed by 

the test procedure for freezers. 81 FR 

95758, 95790. Although the capacity of 

medium-temperature models measured 

at high-temperature freezer application 

temperatures is commonly reported in 

product literature, energy use levels are 

not.13

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on (1) 

whether there are medium-temperature 

refrigeration system models that are 

used exclusively in high temperature 

freezers, and (2) if a mediumtemperature refrigeration system is 

efficient for cooler applications, will it 

also be efficient for use in hightemperature freezer applications. To the 

extent available, DOE requests data on 

dedicated condensing unit energy 

efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) at both highVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Jul 15, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37691 

14Product literature for a wine cellar refrigeration 

system with a capacity of 1,130 Btu/h from one 

manufacturer can be found at www.regulations.gov 

Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0005. 

15U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database, www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_

Freezers_-_Refrigeration_Systems.html#q=Product_

Group_s%3A%22WalkIn%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20- 

%20Refrigeration%20Systems%22, Last Accessed: 

February 2, 2021. 

16 In a ‘‘hermetic’’ compressor, the compressor 

and motor are both contained in a single outer 

welded steel shell. Reciprocating compressors have 

a piston that slides back and forth in a cylinder. 

Refrigerant gas is drawn in through a suction valve 

as the piston moves away from the cylinder head, 

increasing the internal volume, and is compressed 

and discharged through a discharge valve as the 

piston returns. ‘‘Hermetic reciprocating’’ 

compressors are hermetically sealed with a 

reciprocating function. 

temperature freezer and mediumtemperature refrigeration operation. 

See section II.C.2.a for more 

discussion on high-temperature freezers. 

3. Single-Package Refrigeration Systems 

Single-package refrigeration systems 

are considered a type of dedicated 

condensing refrigeration system. 81 FR 

95758, 95763. Many single-package 

systems are constructed in such a way 

that the entire refrigeration system is 

located outside of the refrigerated space; 

the package is typically mounted either 

on top of, or directly adjacent to the 

walk-in enclosure. Due to this 

construction, single-package systems 

may experience additional thermal 

losses not observed in split systems. 

Specifically, single-package systems 

circulate air through a ‘‘cold section’’ 

(evaporator, fan(s), and internal ducting) 

that may have exterior surfaces exposed 

to the warm air outside of the walk-in 

enclosure and/or the warm condensing 

unit side of the refrigeration system. 

This configuration can lead to 

conduction and/or infiltration thermal 

losses which represent a reduction in 

net capacity and efficiency. 

As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE is considering whether test 

procedure modifications are necessary 

to more appropriately address the 

conduction and/or infiltration thermal 

losses for single-package systems. 86 FR 

32332, 32343–32344. To the extent that 

these losses are accounted for in the test 

procedure, technology options that 

mitigate such losses would reduce 

energy consumption and increase 

AWEF. Given the differences in 

construction between single-package 

and split systems and the potential for 

differentiated design options, DOE 

intends to separately evaluate singlepackage system representative units in 

its engineering and downstream 

analyses. 

Issue 3: DOE requests data and 

information on the impact of singlepackage system design limitations on 

efficiency and how single-package 

systems differ from split systems. DOE 

additionally requests information 

showing the trend of efficiency as a 

function of capacity for single-package 

refrigeration systems. 

See section II.C.2.a for more 

discussion on single-package 

refrigeration systems. 

4. Wine Cellar Refrigeration Systems 

As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE has received requests for waiver 

and interim waiver from several 

manufacturers from the test procedure 

in Appendix C for walk-in wine cellar 

refrigeration systems. 86 FR 32332, 

32344–32346. These systems are 

typically designed to provide a cold 

environment at a temperature range 

between 45–65 °F with 50–70 percent 

relative humidity (‘‘RH’’), and typically 

are kept at 55 °F and 55 percent RH. 

The wine cellar refrigeration systems 

addressed in waiver petitions are sold as 

single-package systems, matched-pair 

systems, and unit cooler-only systems. 

The minimum capacity of available 

wine cellar refrigeration systems is 

lower than that of other walk-in cooler 

units (e.g., capacity can be as low as 

1,100 Btu/h 14 as compared with 4,200 

Btu/h for the lowest-capacity mediumtemperature dedicated condensing unit 

currently listed in the DOE Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(‘‘CCMS’’) database).15 One 

manufacturer, Vinotheque, has noted 

that there are size constraints for wine 

cellar refrigeration systems. 86 FR 

11961, 11972 (March 1, 2021). 

Additionally, certain wine cellar units 

can be ducted as an option—either on 

the condensing unit side, the evaporator 

side, or both—for greater installation 

flexibility. This factor increases fan 

energy use. Compressors that are 

typically available for use in lowercapacity wine cellar refrigeration 

systems are of a ‘‘hermetic 

reciprocating’’ design,16 which 

generally has a lower efficiency than the 

larger-capacity compressors used for 

low- and medium-temperature walk-in 

refrigeration systems. Finally, as 

discussed previously, single-package 

wine cellar systems are also subject to 

additional thermal losses. DOE intends 

to conduct a separate analysis for wine 

cellar refrigeration systems in its 

engineering and downstream analyses. 

Issue 4: DOE seeks information on 

how trends in wine cellar installations 

(e.g., commercial vs. residential, square 

footage, etc.) are expected to impact the 

type of refrigeration system (i.e., singlepackage, matched-pair, dedicated 

condensing unit, or unit cooler system) 

used in wine cellars over the next 5 to 

10 years. Additionally, DOE requests 

information and data on the extent to 

which capacity may impact the 

efficiency of wine cellar refrigeration 

systems. 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

As part of the rulemaking process, 

DOE conducts an energy use analysis to 

identify how a given equipment type is 

used, and thereby determine the energy 

savings potential of energy efficiency 

improvements. 

The energy use analysis estimates the 

annual energy consumption of 

refrigeration systems (dedicated 

condensing systems and unit coolers) 

serving walk-ins, and the energy 

consumption, and losses, that can be 

directly ascribed to the selected 

components of the WICF envelopes 

(doors and panels). These estimates are 

used in the subsequent consumer, and 

National Impacts Analysis. 

The estimates for the annual energy 

consumption of each analyzed 

representative refrigeration system were 

derived assuming that (1) the 

refrigeration system is sized such that it 

follows a specific daily duty cycle for a 

given number of hours per day at fullrated capacity, and (2) the refrigeration 

system produces no additional 

refrigeration effect for the remaining 

period of the 24-hour cycle. These 

assumptions are consistent with the 

present industry practice for sizing 

refrigeration systems. This methodology 

assumes that the refrigeration system is 

correctly paired with an envelope (e.g., 

panels, door, etc.) that generates a load 

profile such that the rated hourly 

capacity of the paired refrigeration 

system, operated for the given number 

of run hours per day, produces 

sufficient refrigeration to meet the daily 

refrigeration load of the envelope with 

a safety margin to meet contingency 

situations. Thus, the annual energy 

consumption estimates for the 

refrigeration system depend on the 

methodology adopted for sizing, 

including implied assumptions and the 

extent of oversizing. 

While DOE is particularly interested 

in comment, information, and data on 

the following issues, this request for 

information is not strictly limited to 

them. 

1. Duty-Cycles and Typical Run Hours 

For both the June 2014 ECS final rule 

and July 2017 ECS final rule analyses, 

DOE used nominal daily run-times of 16 

hours for coolers, and 18 hours for 

freezers to estimate the in-field energy 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37692 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

17This methodology differs from the run-times 

established in DOE’s test procedure, which assumes 

a high-load period of 8 hours corresponding to 

frequent door openings, equipment loading events, 

and other design load factors, and a low-load period 

for the remaining 16 hours. In the June 2014 ECS 

final rule analyses, DOE concluded that these duty 

cycle assumptions should not be used for sizing 

purposes because they may not represent the 

average conditions for WICF refrigeration systems 

for all applications under all conditions. 79 FR 

32050, 32083. These assumptions were maintained 

in the July 2017 ECS final rule. 82 FR 31808, 31842. 

DOE also notes that while 16 and 18 hours were 

assumed for coolers and freezers, respectively, these 

assumptions may not be appropriate for wine 

cellars, for which test procedure waiver alternate 

test procedures were established based on an 

expectation that typical operating time is 50 

percent. (See: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

current-test-procedure-waivers#walk-ins for the list 

of all waivers to test procedures that DOE has 

granted for walk-in coolers and freezers). 

18See Chapter 6 of the Technical Support 

Document (‘‘TSD’’) for the July 2017 ECS final rule. 

Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016–0099. 

19Product data sheets from two manufacturers 

that produce walk-in cooler display doors marketed 

for high-humidity applications can be found at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0009–0006 and EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009– 

0007. 20For anti-sweat heaters, demand-based controls 

monitor humidity and temperature external to the 

walk-in and regulate anti-sweat heater wire use on 

demand. 

use of walk-in refrigeration systems.17

These run-times assume a capacity for a 

‘‘perfectly’’-sized refrigeration system at 

specified reference ambient 

temperatures of 95 °F and 90 °F for 

refrigeration systems with outdoor and 

indoor dedicated condensing units, 

respectively. 79 FR 32050, 32083 and 82 

FR 31808, 31842. Nominal run-time 

hours for coolers and freezers were 

adjusted to account for equipment oversizing safety margins and capacity 

mismatch factors (see section II.B.2. of 

this document). They were further 

adjusted to account for the change in net 

capacity from increased efficiency 

projected to occur in the standards case, 

and, in the case of outdoor equipment, 

variations in ambient temperature.18 As 

discussed in the prior section, singlepackage refrigeration systems, hightemperature freezers, and wine cellars 

may have different run-times or be 

subject to different assumptions 

regarding sizing and ambient 

temperatures. 

Issue 5: DOE seeks input and data as 

to the daily run-time hours, sizing 

practice, and ambient conditions for the 

following: Single-package refrigeration 

systems, high-temperature freezers, and 

wine cellars described in sections II.A.2 

through II.A.4 of this document. DOE 

also requests information and data 

regarding any other aspects of the 

operation of such equipment that would 

influence run-time hours. 

In its analysis supporting the June 

2014 ECS final rule, DOE used the 

percent time off (‘‘PTO’’) value defined 

in the test procedure and engineering 

analysis to adjust the nominal direct 

electrical energy usage attributed to the 

anti-sweat heater (in kilowatt-hours per 

day (‘‘kWh/day’’)). The PTO values were 

applied as set forth in section 4.4.2(2) of 

appendix A to subpart R of 10 CFR part 

431: 75 percent for anti-sweat heaters 

with timers, control systems, or other 

demand-based controls in cooler doors, 

and 50 percent for anti-sweat heaters 

with timers, control systems, or other 

demand-based controls in freezer doors. 

DOE is aware that some manufacturers 

design and market display doors for 

high-humidity cooler applications.19

Issue 6: DOE seeks input and data on 

the appropriate PTO values for display 

doors that would be exposed to higher 

levels of humidity. Specifically, DOE 

requests information on high-humidity 

walk-in cooler doors, including the 

range of typical installation conditions 

(e.g., relative humidity throughout the 

year in store). DOE also requests data on 

the average amount of time per day or 

per year that anti-sweat heaters with 

timers, control systems, or demandbased controls 20 are operating at their 

full power and partial power (if 

applicable) for walk-in cooler display 

doors marketed for high-humidity 

applications. 

2. Oversizing Factors 

In both the June 2014 ECS final rule 

and July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

assumed that WICF refrigeration 

condensing systems and unit coolers in 

the field are sized to account for a 

‘‘worst case scenario’’ need for 

refrigeration to prevent food spoilage, 

and as such are oversized by a safety 

margin. 79 FR 32050, 32083 and 82 FR 

31808, 31842. DOE found that it is 

customary in the industry to add a 10 

percent safety margin to the aggregate 

24-hour load, resulting in 10 percent 

oversizing of the refrigeration system. 

Id. Additionally, DOE recognized that 

an exact match for the calculated 

refrigeration system capacity may not be 

available for the refrigeration systems 

available in the market because most 

refrigeration systems are produced in 

discrete capacities. To account for this 

situation, DOE applied a capacity 

mismatch factor of 10 percent to capture 

the inability to perfectly match the 

calculated WICF capacity with the 

capacity available in the market. 79 FR 

32050, 32084 and 82 FR 31808, 31842. 

The combined safety margin factor and 

capacity mismatch factor result in a 

total oversizing factor of 1.2. With the 

oversize factor applied, the nominal 

run-time hours of the refrigeration 

system are reduced to 13.3 hours from 

16 hours per day for coolers, and to 15 

hours from 18 hours per day for freezers 

at their respective full design point 

capacity. 79 FR 32050, 32083 and 82 FR 

31808, 31842. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks input on whether 

the combined safety and capacity 

mismatch oversizing factors for 

adjusting daily nominal run-time hours 

relied on in the June 2014 ECS final rule 

and the July 2017 ECS final rule are 

appropriate for single-package 

refrigeration systems, high-temperature 

freezers, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this 

document. If different factors would be 

appropriate for such equipment, DOE 

requests data in support of alternate 

assumptions. 

3. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

DOE measures savings of potential 

standards relative to a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ case that reflects conditions 

without new and/or amended standards. 

The no-new-standards case reflects the 

distribution of equipment efficiency or 

energy use beginning at the baseline 

performance level. The baseline 

performance level in each equipment 

class represents the characteristics of 

common or typical equipment in that 

class. If there is an established DOE 

energy conservation standard for the 

class, the baseline performance level 

coincides with the current minimum 

energy conservation standard and 

provides basic end-user utility. 

However, not all models in an 

equipment class may be rated at the 

baseline performance level. DOE uses 

efficiency market shares to characterize 

the no-new-standards case equipment 

mix. By accounting for consumers who 

already purchase more-efficient 

equipment, DOE avoids overstating the 

potential benefits from potential 

standards. 

In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

assumed that 100 percent of WICF 

refrigeration equipment is sold at the 

baseline efficiency level in the absence 

of new and/or amended standards. 

(Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, 

Public Meeting, No. 68 at pp. 53–54) 

These assumptions did not include 

medium-temperature condensing 

systems (which were not within the 

scope of that rulemaking). Mediumtemperature condensing systems were 

included in the June 2014 ECS final rule 

where DOE assumed that 75 percent of 

shipments were baseline equipment, 

with the remaining 25 percent at the 

efficiency of the first design option 

above baseline. 79 FR 32050, 32087. 

DOE understands that these 

assumptions may not reflect the current 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37693 

21Please see footnote 15. 

22U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database, www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_

Freezers_-_Doors.html#q=Product_Group_

s%3A%22WalkIn%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20- 

%20Doors%22; and www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/CCMS-4-Walk-In_Coolers_and_

Freezers_-_Panels.html#q=Product_Group_

s%3A%22WalkIn%20Coolers%20and%20Freezers%20- 

%20Panels%22, Last Accessed: March 17, 2021. 

23For a complete list of technology options 

analyzed during the June 2014 and July 2017 ECS 

final rules, see chapter 3 of ‘‘TSD’’ for each 

rulemaking. Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015– 

0131 (June 2014) and Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD– 

0016–0099 (July 2017). 

state of the market due to adoption of 

more stringent efficiency standards. 

Next, DOE examined the ratings for 

walk-in refrigeration systems reported 

in DOE’s CCMS.21 The number of 

models at or above the current standards 

are shown in Table II.4. These data 

show the count of models distributed in 

commerce with their respective 

efficiency ratings; however, these data 

do not indicate the volume of shipments 

of each model. 

TABLE II.4—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES FOR REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

Equipment class Count of 

models 

Count of 

models at 

baseline 

Percent of 

models at 

baseline 

UC.L ............................................................................................................................................. 3,899 1,618 41 

DC.L.O ......................................................................................................................................... 1,780 1,438 81 

DC.L.I ........................................................................................................................................... 877 825 94 

UC.M ............................................................................................................................................ 5,228 3,222 62 

DC.M.O ........................................................................................................................................ 2,722 2,057 76 

DC.M.I .......................................................................................................................................... 1,145 956 83 

In the June 2014 ECS final rule DOE 

assumed that: (1) All panels and nondisplay door shipments were at the 

baseline; (2) 25 percent of display lowtemperature door shipments were at the 

baseline, with the remaining 75 percent 

at a higher efficiency (45 percent were 

assumed to have light emitting diode 

(‘‘LED’’) lighting, corresponding to the 

first design option above the baseline in 

the engineering analysis, and 30 percent 

were assumed to have LED lighting plus 

anti-sweat heater wire controls, 

corresponding to the second design 

option above the baseline); and (3) 80 

percent of medium-temperature display 

doors shipments were at baseline and 

the remaining 20 percent would have 

LED lighting, corresponding to the first 

design option above the baseline for 

low-temperature display doors. 79 FR 

32050, 32087. DOE understands that 

these assumptions may not reflect the 

current state of the market due to 

adoption of more stringent efficiency 

standards. 

Next, DOE examined the ratings for 

walk-in doors and panels reported in 

the CCMS. The number of models at or 

above the current standards are shown 

in Table II.5.22 Again, these data show 

the count of models distributed in 

commerce with their respective 

efficiency ratings; however, these data 

do not indicate the volume of shipments 

of each model. 

TABLE II.5—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES FOR PANELS AND DOORS

Equipment class Count of 

models 

Count of 

models at 

baseline 

Percent of 

models at 

baseline 

DD.M ............................................................................................................................................ 2,861 2,785 97 

DD.L ............................................................................................................................................. 1,213 1,108 91 

PD.M ............................................................................................................................................ 1,872 334 18 

PD.F ............................................................................................................................................. 1,124 604 54 

FD.M ............................................................................................................................................ 631 0 0 

FD.L ............................................................................................................................................. 274 95 35 

SP.M ............................................................................................................................................ 87 14 16 

SP.L ............................................................................................................................................. 98 50 51 

FP.L ............................................................................................................................................. 77 13 17 

Issue 8: DOE seeks data and 

information regarding the current, and 

projected future market shares of WICF 

equipment by efficiency level (e.g., 

expressed in terms of increments of 10 

percent improvement in AWEF, Rvalues, and kWh/day for refrigeration 

systems, panels, and doors, respectively, 

above or below the existing standards in 

10 CFR 431.306) to establish market 

trends in equipment efficiency over 

time. DOE also seeks information on 

how the current regulatory environment 

has affected the market share of WICF 

equipment by efficiency rating. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

During the June 2014 ECS final rule 

and July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

considered a number of technologies for 

reducing walk-in cooler and freezer 

energy consumption.23 DOE is 

interested in understanding any 

technology improvements for walk-in 

doors, panels, and refrigeration systems 

since the previous energy standards 

rulemaking. Additionally, DOE is 

interested in any changes to the 

technologies it evaluated in the 

rulemakings for the June 2014 ECS final 

rule and July 2017 ECS final rule that 

may affect whether DOE could propose 

a ‘‘no-new-standards’’ determination, 

such as an insignificant increase in the 

range of efficiencies and performance 

characteristics of these technologies. 

While DOE is particularly interested 

in comment, information, and data on 

the following issues, this request for 

information is not strictly limited to 

them. 

1. Doors and Panels 

a. Technology Options 

A complete list of options evaluated 

in preparation for the June 2014 ECS 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37694 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24See sections 3.3.3 to 3.3.6 at pp. 3–26 to 3–30 

of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0131. 

25See section 5.5.2.3 at p. 5–19 of the TSD for the 

June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015–0131. 26Please see footnote 22. 

final rule and explained in the TSD are 

listed in Table II.6 for doors and Table 

II.7 for panels.24 Table II.8 lists 

additional technology options that DOE 

may consider in a future WICF energy 

conservation standard. 

TABLE II.6—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

CONSIDERED FOR WICF DOORS

FROM THE JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL

RULE

Component Technology options 

Display doors .......... Non-electric anti-sweat systems. 

Anti-sweat heater wire controls. 

Removal of heater wire. 

High-efficiency lighting. 

Lighting sensors. 

Occupancy sensors. 

Automatic insulation deployment systems. 

Enhanced glass systems. 

Non-Display Doors .. Increased insulation thickness. 

Improved insulation material. 

Improved framing materials. 

Heater wire controls. 

Enhanced glass systems. 

TABLE II.7—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

CONSIDERED FOR WICF PANELS

FROM THE JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL

RULE

Component Technology options 

Panels ............................. Increased insulation 

thickness. 

Improved insulation material. 

TABLE II.8—POTENTIAL NEW TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR WICF 

DOORS

Component Technology options 

Display and Non-Display 

Doors.

Vacuum insulated glass. 

Walk-in doors typically use anti-sweat 

heater wires to prevent (1) condensation 

from collecting on the glass, frame, or 

any other portion of the door, which can 

puddle and be hazardous to consumers, 

(2) fogging of the glass, and (3) the 

collecting of condensation that may lead 

to doors freezing shut. DOE has 

observed that anti-sweat heater wires for 

display doors may be placed within the 

door rail surrounding the glass pack 

and/or within the surrounding frame. 

For display doors, display panels, and 

non-display doors with viewing 

windows, as the thermal performance of 

the glass pack improves, the amount of 

anti-sweat heat required for the glass 

pack decreases. With a more insulative 

glass pack, there is a smaller 

temperature difference between the 

interior and exterior faces of the glass 

and the interior walk-in and exterior air 

temperatures, resulting in less 

condensation on the glass. As 

mentioned in the TSD for the June 2014 

ECS final rule, DOE based the amount 

of anti-sweat heater wire energy 

consumption on the glass packs 

selected.25 If a frame does not contain a 

thermal break or has poor insulative 

properties, despite having a glass pack 

with better insulative performance, the 

door assembly may still require more 

anti-sweat heat on the surrounding 

frame to prevent the condensation and 

fogging issues noted earlier. 

Issue 9: DOE seeks information on 

how the physical construction of a 

display door, including the glass pack 

and the frame, impact the amount of 

anti-sweat heater wire power needed to 

prevent condensation accumulating on 

any part of the door. Specifically, DOE 

seeks quantitative data, if available, on 

the change in anti-sweat heater power 

(1) with a specific change in door frame 

design but no change in glass pack 

design, (2) with a specific change in 

glass pack design but no change in door 

frame design, and/or (3) with specific 

changes to the entire assembly. If there 

are specific design choices which are 

more costly but result in less or no antisweat heat, DOE requests cost data 

based on the capability of the door to 

prevent condensation from forming and 

the respective design options chosen. 

DOE also requests comment on any 

other considerations which may impact 

the use and power of anti-sweat heaters. 

As stated previously, DOE is aware 

that some manufacturers design and 

market display doors for high-humidity 

applications. These doors generally 

have anti-sweat heaters with higher 

rated power than those of standard 

medium-temperature display doors but 

lower than the power required for lowtemperature display doors. For example, 

data from the CCMS database show that 

doors marketed for high-humidity 

applications have a range of anti-sweat 

heater power per door opening area 

from 0.39 to 5.59 watt (‘‘W’’)/square foot 

(‘‘ft2’’), with the average being 1.66 W/ 

ft2. By comparison, the range of antisweat heater power is between 0 to 3.74 

W/ft2 for cooler doors not marketed for 

high-humidity applications made by the 

manufacturers who also produce doors 

marketed for high-humidity 

applications, with the average being 

1.01 W/ft2. 

Issue 10: DOE seeks specific data and 

information on the correlation between 

relative humidity conditions at 

installation and the anti-sweat heater 

power needed to prevent condensation 

from accumulating on a walk-in door. 

DOE is also aware that walk-in 

display door manufacturers may 

produce glass doors for other kinds of 

refrigeration equipment. DOE has 

specifically observed that some glass 

doors for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, while appearing very 

similar in design to their walk-in door 

counterparts, do not include any antisweat heaters around the door or frame. 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the differences in design, typical 

conditions, and usage of a walk-in 

display door as compared to a display 

door for commercial refrigeration 

equipment which result in commercial 

refrigeration equipment door designs 

with no anti-sweat heaters. 

Non-display doors (passage and 

freight doors) typically have better 

insulative properties than display doors 

because they have little or no glass 

needed for viewing purposes. Door 

insulation is also subject to a minimum 

R-value. 10 CFR 431.306(a)(3). DOE 

expects that less anti-sweat heat may be 

needed to prevent condensation 

accumulation for non-display doors 

because of their improved overall 

resistance to heat flow as compared to 

display doors. Certified data from DOE’s 

CCMS database,26 presented in Table 

II.9, shows that passage and freight 

doors have lower average anti-sweat 

heater power per area of door opening 

than display doors and a higher 

percentage of passage and freight doors 

certify 0 W/ft2 of anti-sweat heater 

power per area of door opening than 

display doors. However, the maximum 

anti-sweat heater power per area of door 

opening for low-temperature passage 

and freight doors is higher than the 

average for these equipment classes, and 

the maximum for these equipment 

classes is also higher than the maximum 

for low-temperature display doors. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37695 

27Product data sheets from two manufacturers 

that produce display doors with vacuum-insulated 

glass can be found at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0008 and Docket 

No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0009. 

28See section 4.3 at p. 4–5 of the TSD for the June 

2014 ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0015–0131. 

29See section 4.3.5 at p. 4–5 of the TSD for the 

June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015–0131. 

30Technical data from one manufacturer that 

produces panels ranging from 2-inches to 10-inches 

thick can be found at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0009–0010. 

TABLE II.9—CERTIFIED RANGES OF ANTI-SWEAT HEATER POWER PER AREA OF DOOR OPENING FOR EACH WALK-IN

DOOR EQUIPMENT CLASS

Display door, 

medium 

temperature 

Display door, 

low 

temperature 

Passage door, 

medium 

temperature 

Passage door, 

low 

temperature 

Freight door, 

medium 

temperature 

Freight door, 

low 

temperature 

Minimum (W/ft2) ....................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Maximum (W/ft2) ...................................... 5.59 5.39 6.80 7.08 3.40 7.00 

Average (W/ft2) ........................................ 1.37 2.99 0.42 1.15 0.11 0.16 

Percent of Models without Anti-sweat 

Heat ...................................................... 5% 3% 60% 46% 63% 77% 

Issue 12: DOE seeks specific data and 

information on how the physical 

construction of both passage and freight 

doors impact the amount of anti-sweat 

heater wire power needed to prevent 

condensation accumulation on any part 

of the door. DOE requests specific 

comment on any technologies that may 

reduce or eliminate the need for antisweat heat on passage or freight doors. 

DOE also requests door design 

information and data that explain why 

many passage and freight doors are able 

to perform without any anti-sweat 

heater power in the field but some 

doors, specifically low-temperature 

passage and freight doors, still require 

anti-sweat power that is greater than 

that required for display doors to 

prevent condensation accumulation. 

As stated previously, DOE may 

consider technology options for walk-in 

doors that were not considered in the 

June 2014 ECS final rule, specifically 

vacuum-insulated glass packs for 

display doors and windows in nondisplay doors. DOE has identified two 

manufacturers that produce display 

doors with vacuum-insulated glass 

packs.27

Issue 13: DOE requests comment on 

the prevalence of vacuum-insulated 

glass for walk-in doors and whether 

other manufacturers are considering 

adopting this technology. DOE requests 

specific feedback on any obstacles or 

concerns (e.g., patents, proprietary use, 

durability, practicability to 

manufacture, etc.) which would prevent 

manufacturers from using vacuuminsulated glass in walk-in doors. DOE 

also requests cost data for implementing 

vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in 

display doors. 

b. Screening of Technology Options 

Table II.10 lists the technology 

options that DOE screened out for walkin doors and panels in the TSD for the 

June 2014 ECS final rule and the 

applicable screening criteria.28

TABLE II.10—DOORS AND PANELS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED FROM THE JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL RULE

Screened technology option 

EPCA Criteria 

(X = Basis for Screening Out) 

Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse 

impact on 

product 

utility 

Adverse 

impacts on 

health and 

safety 

Uniquepathway 

proprietary 

technologies 

Non-electric anti-sweat systems ........................................ X .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Automatic insulation deployment systems ......................... X .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Insulation thicker than 6 inches ......................................... ........................ X X ........................ ........................

Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, DOE’s screening 

criteria (technological feasibility; 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

utility or product availability; adverse 

impacts on health or safety; and uniquepathway proprietary technologies) 

would have on each of the technology 

options listed in Table II.6, Table II.7, 

and Table II.8 of this document. DOE 

also seeks information regarding how 

these same criteria would affect any 

other technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in walk-in doors 

and panels. 

For the 2014 ECS final rule analyses, 

DOE screened out insulation thickness 

greater than six inches for panels and 

doors due to concerns about panels and 

doors becoming extremely heavy and 

unwieldy, long cure times for the 

insulation, and reduced space within 

the walk-in to store product.29 DOE has 

identified one manufacturer that 

markets panels with a thickness range 

from 2-inches to 10-inches.30

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on 

whether 6 inches is an appropriate 

upper limit for screening out insulation 

thickness for panels and doors. For 

manufacturers that produce and certify 

panels with insulation thicknesses 

exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests 

feedback on what manufacturing 

investments have been made to do so. 

For manufacturers that do not produce 

panels with insulation thicknesses 

exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests 

feedback on the obstacles preventing 

them from increasing panel thickness. 

c. Representative Units 

In the June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE 

analyzed representative walk-in cooler 

and freezer doors and panels. 79 FR 

32050, 32072–37073. The representative 

walk-in doors are presented in Table 

II.11. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37696 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

31See sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.7–3.3.10 at pp. 3–24 

through 3–25 and 3–30 through 3–33 of the TSD for 

the June 2014 ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0015–0131. See section 3.3 at pp. 3–14 

through 3–18 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final 

rule. Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016–0099. 

TABLE II.11—REPRESENTATIVE WALK-IN DOORS EVALUATED IN JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL RULE * 

Utility Temperature Representative unit size 

Dimensions 

(height x 

length, ft) 

Window area 

(ft2) 

for non-display 

doors 

Display Door ................................. Cooler ........................................... Small ............................................. 5.25 x 2.25 ..... ............................

Medium ......................................... 6.25 x 2.25 ..... ............................

Large ............................................. 7 x 3 ............... ............................

Freezer ......................................... Small ............................................. 5.25 x 2.25 ..... ............................

Medium ......................................... 6.25 x 2.25 ..... ............................

Large ............................................. 7 x 3 ............... ............................

Passage Door ............................... Cooler ........................................... Small ............................................. 6.5 x 2.5 ......... 2.25 

Medium ......................................... 7 x 3 ............... 2.25 

Large ............................................. 7.5 x 4 ............ 2.25 

Freezer ......................................... Small ............................................. 6.5 x 2.5 ......... 2.25 

Medium ......................................... 7 x 3 ............... 2.25 

Large ............................................. 7.5 x 4 ............ 2.25 

Freight Door .................................. Cooler ........................................... Small ............................................. 8 x 5 ............... 2.25 

Medium ......................................... 9 x 7 ............... 4.00 

Large ............................................. 12 x 7 ............. 4.00 

Freezer ......................................... Small ............................................. 8 x 5 ............... 2.25 

Medium ......................................... 9 x 7 ............... 4.00 

Large ............................................. 12 x 7 ............. 4.00 

* See section 5.3.1 at p. 5–3 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule, Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0131. 

For the 2014 ECS final rule, DOE only 

analyzed single-width display doors as 

representative units in the engineering 

analysis. However, many display doors 

are sold as multi-door configurations 

with 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-door openings 

encapsulated within one outer frame. 

The relationship of energy use for a 

single-width display door may not 

linearly extrapolate for multi-door 

configurations. For example, a singlewidth door may include two light 

fixtures, one on each side of the door 

opening, whereas additional doors may 

add one light fixture per door opening. 

Thus, a single-width door of equal area 

to a double-width door would use less 

lighting power than the double-width 

door, despite being equal in area. 

Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on 

the representative units for display 

doors used for the 2014 ECS final rule 

engineering analysis and whether multidoor configurations should be included 

as representative units. If so, DOE seeks 

comment on panel size and the number 

of panels that would be most 

representative for multi-door 

configurations. Additionally, DOE seeks 

specific data on the appropriate number 

of door openings and door sizes to 

consider and the additional electrical 

component power (e.g., anti-sweat 

heater power, lighting, etc.) required for 

each additional door opening. DOE is 

also interested in any other differences 

between single-door and multi-door 

configurations that would impact energy 

use. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE 

requested feedback on the current 

definitions of passage and freight doors 

and whether there were any attributes, 

including size, which distinguish them 

from each other. 86 FR 32332, 32335. 

Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on the 

appropriateness of the representative 

units chosen for the previous analysis of 

passage and freight doors. DOE requests 

specific feedback on what the minimum 

and maximum sizes of both passage and 

freight doors are and if there are other 

attributes besides size which 

differentiate passage doors from freight 

doors and vice versa. 

As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE received multiple test procedure 

waivers requesting to increase the 

percent time off (‘‘PTO’’) for motorized 

walk-in door openers. 86 FR 32332, 

32338. In the engineering analysis for 

the June 2014 ECS final rule, the 

representative units of walk-in doors 

analyzed did not include motorized 

door openers. DOE is considering 

whether motorized door openers should 

be considered in its representative 

models. 

Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on the 

prevalence of motorized door openers 

for both display and non-display doors. 

DOE requests specific feedback on the 

prevalence of motorized door openers 

by equipment class, the minimum door 

size that might have a motorized door 

opener, the percentage of doors sold 

which typically include a motorized 

door opener, and any data relating 

power of a motorized door opener to 

door size. 

2. Refrigeration Systems 

a. Technology Options 

A complete list of technology options 

evaluated for refrigeration systems in 

preparation for the June 2014 ECS final 

rule and July 2017 ECS final rule is 

presented in Table II.12.31 Table II.13 

lists additional technology options that 

DOE may consider in a future WICF 

energy conservation standard. 

TABLE II.12—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

CONSIDERED FOR WICF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS IN THE JUNE

2014 ECS FINAL RULE AND JULY

2017 ECS FINAL RULE

Component Technology options 

Refrigeration Systems .... Energy storage systems. 

Refrigeration system 

override. 

Automatic evaporator fan 

shut-off. 

Improved evaporator and 

condenser fan blades. 

Improved evaporator and 

condenser coils. 

Evaporator fan control. 

Ambient sub-cooling. 

Higher-efficiency fan motors. 

Higher-efficiency compressors. 

Variable-speed compressors. 

Liquid suction heat exchanger. 

Adaptive Defrost. 

Hot gas defrost. 

Floating head pressure. 

Condenser fan control. 

Economizer cooling. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37697 

32See sections 3.4.1 at p. 3–34 of the TSD for the 

CAC 2014 direct final rule. Docket EERE–2014–BT– 

STD–0048–0098. The docket and supporting 

materials for the CAC 2017 direct final rule can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0048. 

TABLE II.13—POTENTIAL NEW TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR WICF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

Component Technology options 

Refrigeration Systems .... Improved Thermal Insulation. 

Crankcase Heater Controls. 

Refrigerant. 

As discussed in sections II.A.2, II.A.3, 

and II.A.4 of this document, DOE is 

interested specifically in hightemperature freezers, single-package 

refrigeration systems, and wine cellar 

refrigeration systems and how their 

particular applications may influence 

the use of the technology options listed 

in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this 

document. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

whether there are technology options or 

other design features that would be 

unique to high-temperature freezer 

refrigeration systems (i.e., mediumtemperature systems operating at a 

temperature between 10 °F to 32 °F) as 

compared to technology options or 

design features for medium-temperature 

refrigeration systems operating at abovefreezing (cooler) temperatures. If hightemperature freezer refrigeration 

systems have certain unique features, 

DOE seeks information on those features 

and how they impact refrigeration 

system performance. 

As discussed in section II.A.3 and 

II.A.4 of this document, single-package 

and wine cellar refrigeration systems 

have structural designs different from 

other walk-in split systems. Due to 

differences in design, DOE expects that 

the design options for these products 

may be different from dedicated 

condensing units and unit coolers sold 

separately. 

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on 

which of the technology options listed 

in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this 

document are available and used in 

single-package refrigeration systems. 

DOE also requests comment on whether 

there are other technologies that apply 

to single-package refrigeration systems 

not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on which 

technology options are feasible for 

dedicated condensing systems and unit 

coolers but may not be feasible for 

single-packaged refrigeration systems 

due to structural design constraints. 

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 

which of the technology options listed 

in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this 

document are available and used in 

wine cellar refrigeration systems. DOE 

also seeks information on whether there 

are additional technologies that apply to 

wine cellar refrigeration systems that are 

not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on the specific 

design constraints for wine cellar 

refrigeration systems and how these 

constraints may impact the use of 

certain technology options. 

In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

considered and ultimately screened out 

improved compressor technology 

options, such as multiple-capacity or 

variable-capacity compressors. 82 FR 

31808, 31839. The current DOE test 

procedure does not allow testing of 

multiple-capacity or variable-capacity 

systems using the condenser-alone 

rating method. Although the test 

procedure does have provisions for 

testing multiple-capacity and variablecapacity matched-pair refrigeration 

systems, DOE did not analyze matchedpair systems in the engineering analysis 

and thus did not further consider this 

option. 82 FR 31808, 31839. DOE 

requested information and comment on 

testing multiple-capacity and variablecapacity compressors in the June 2021 

TP RFI. 86 FR 32332, 32348–32349. 

Issue 22: DOE seeks information on 

the availability of multiple-capacity or 

variable-capacity compressors in the 

current market. DOE is also interested in 

any end-user requirements that may 

restrict the use of, or reduce the 

potential benefits of, multi- or variablecapacity compressors in the field. 

In the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

evaluated scroll compressors for smaller 

capacity systems (capacities between 

6,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h) and 

semi-hermetic compressors for larger 

capacity systems (capacities between 

25,000 Btu/h and 72,000 Btu/h). 82 FR 

31808, 31837–31838. For most 

evaluated representative capacities, 

DOE assigned the expected compressor 

type and did not evaluate compressor 

type as a design option. (At the 25,000 

Btu/h overlap representative capacity, 

DOE applied a blended analysis, but 

also did not consider compressor type 

as a design option for efficiency 

improvement.) However, DOE is aware 

that some compressor types are more 

efficient than others. For example, a 

preliminary evaluation of DOE’s CCMS 

database indicates that for those 

reported models with an AWEF value 

higher than the minimum standard, 

low-temperature dedicated condensing 

units (less than 25,000 Btu/h) with 

semi-hermetic compressors have 

reported AWEF values six percent, on 

average, higher than similar units that 

use a scroll compressor. DOE is 

interested in understanding how 

manufacturers select compressors when 

designing their equipment and the 

utility advantages and disadvantages of 

scroll versus semi-hermetic compressors 

over a range of capacities for which both 

compressors types could be considered. 

Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 

the relative efficiency difference 

between scroll and semi-hermetic 

compressors in the range of capacities in 

which both are available. DOE also 

requests comment on other design 

parameters that would lead a 

manufacturer to select a certain 

compressor design over another and 

would represent potential utility 

differences of different compressor 

designs, specifically, (1) compressor 

weight relative to the final equipment 

weight and its impact on equipment 

shipping, installation, and end-use; (2) 

compressor durability, equipment 

warranty, and equipment lifetime; and 

(3) any other relevant differences. 

DOE is also interested in 

understanding if other higher efficiency 

single-capacity compressors have 

become available for use in walk-in 

systems since the last rulemaking. For 

instance, DOE is interested in 

information on whether some 

compressors are more efficient than 

others at certain walk-in capacity ranges 

or operating conditions.. 

Issue 24: DOE seeks information on 

the availability and efficiencies of 

single-speed compressors (e.g., scroll 

compressors, rotary compressors, semihermetic compressors) that were not 

available or were not considered in the 

analysis during the rulemaking finalized 

in 2017. Additionally, DOE is interested 

in understanding the availability of 

rotary compressors for use in singlepackage and wine cellar refrigeration 

systems. 

As shown in Table II.13 of this 

document, DOE is investigating 

crankcase heater controls to understand 

how they are used in, and the field 

requirements for, outdoor walk-in 

refrigeration systems. There are several 

types of crankcase heater control 

systems that are available on the market 

for other types of equipment, 

specifically, central air conditioners and 

heat pumps (‘‘CACs’’). The technical 

support document from the direct final 

rule amending standards for CACs 

published on January 6, 2017 (‘‘CAC 

2017 direct final rule’’) provides 

descriptions of different crankcase 

heater control systems.32


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37698 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

33Please see footnote 15. 

34See Table 5.3.5 of the TSD for the June 2014 

ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015– 

0131. 

35See Table 5.3.2 of the TSD for the July 2017 

ECS final rule. Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016– 

0099. 

36Please see footnote 15. 

Thermostatically-controlled crankcase 

heaters adjust whether the heater is on 

or off based on a temperature sensor that 

measures outdoor ambient air. When the 

outside ambient temperature is high 

enough the heater turns off, thus 

reducing energy use. (Id.). Selfregulating crankcase heaters have 

control systems that vary the resistivity 

as a function of temperature, thus 

providing ‘‘internal’’ thermostatic 

control to reduce energy use. (Id.) In its 

testing, DOE has observed that some 

walk-in refrigeration systems have the 

crankcase heater energized 100 percent 

of the time including when the 

compressor is operating, without 

demand-based controls. DOE is 

considering whether crankcase heater 

control technology might be applied to 

WICF refrigeration systems to improve 

efficiency. 

Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on the 

prevalence of the use of crankcase 

heater controls for walk-in refrigeration 

systems. Additionally, DOE requests 

information on what type of crankcase 

heater controls are considered viable, 

and what application circumstances 

would make certain control approaches 

inappropriate e.g., by unacceptably 

increasing the chance of compressor 

failure. 

As discussed in section II.A.3 of this 

document, single-package refrigeration 

systems are susceptible to thermal 

losses associated with the structural 

design. Table II.13 lists thermal 

insulation as a potential technology 

option for these systems. Improved 

thermal insulation may reduce 

conduction losses, and better sealing of 

cabinet air leaks may reduce infiltration 

of warm outdoor air. 

Issue 26: DOE seeks information on 

the potential for improved thermal 

insulation and sealing of air leaks to 

improve the efficiency of single-package 

refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE 

is interested in data on the range of 

typical insulation thickness used in 

single-package systems to insulate the 

indoor portion, in addition to the 

insulation materials that are typically 

used. Additionally, DOE requests 

information on the processes and 

materials that manufacturers utilize to 

ensure airtight enclosures. DOE is also 

interested in understanding the quality 

control processes manufacturers have in 

place to ensure that airtight units are 

released to the market. 

Evaluation of outdoor dedicated 

condensing units in DOE’s CCMS 

database 33 indicate that 86 percent of 

medium-temperature and 91 percent of 

low-temperature models are offered 

with R–404A, R–407A, R–448A/R– 

449A, or R–507A. R–448A/R–449A has 

low Global Warming Potential (‘‘GWP’’) 

compared to R–407A, which in turn has 

lower GWP than R–404A and R–507A. 

The remaining medium- and lowtemperature condensing unit models are 

offered with R–407C, R–407F, and 

R–52A. Additionally, DOE is aware that 

wine cellar walk-in refrigeration 

systems are currently offered with 

R–134A. 

In past rulemakings, DOE has 

conducted its walk-in refrigeration 

system engineering analysis using a 

single refrigerant—using R–404A for the 

June 2014 ECS final rule and using 

R–407A for the July 2017 ECS final rule. 

79 FR 32050, 32073–32074 and 82 FR 

31808, 31835–31836. However, for basic 

models certified with an AWEF value 

higher than the minimum standard in 

DOE’s CCMS database, DOE observes 

that some refrigerants provide efficiency 

advantages over others for products 

with similar rated capacities. For 

instance, between certified capacities of 

13,500 Btu/h and 16,500 Btu/h, one 

low-temperature condensing unit basic 

model was certified with a reported 

AWEF range from 3.5 to 3.87 and from 

3.49 to 4.43 with R–407A and R–448A/ 

R–449A, respectively. 

Issue 27: DOE requests comment and 

data to support whether it should 

include refrigerant as a design option in 

its engineering analysis for walk-in 

refrigeration systems. DOE also requests 

information on the availability and 

relative utility of R–452A, R–407C, and 

R–407F compared to R–407A and 

R–448A/R–449A for use in walk-in 

dedicated condensing units and singlepackage systems. Additionally, DOE is 

interested in understanding the 

availability and relative utility of 

R–450A, R–513A/R–513B, and R–515A 

compared to R–134A for wine cellar 

walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is 

also interested in understanding what 

domestic and international activities 

may be driving trends in the market 

adoption of low GWP refrigerants. 

In addition to evaluating low GWP 

refrigerants, DOE is investigating the 

potential use of non-traditional 

refrigerants, such as hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. 

Issue 28: DOE requests information on 

the availability of specific nontraditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants for use in dedicated 

condensing unit, unit cooler, singlepackage, and wine cellar walk-in 

refrigeration systems. DOE is interested 

in understanding what domestic and 

international activities may be driving 

trends in market adoption of nontraditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants. DOE also seeks comment 

on whether and how the availability of 

higher-efficiency compressors might be 

impacted by the use of non-traditional 

(e.g. hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE 

requests information on whether charge 

limits or safety standards (e.g., 

standards issued by Underwriter’s 

Laboratory) would restrict the use of 

non-traditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants in walk-in refrigeration 

systems. Finally, DOE requests 

comment on any additional design 

changes or safety measures that may be 

necessary for WICFs to incorporate nontraditional (e.g. hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants. 

In its supporting analysis to the June 

2014 ECS final rule, DOE evaluated 

evaporator coils with either 4 or 6 fins 

per inch for both low- and mediumtemperature unit coolers.34 For the July 

2017 ECS final rule, DOE’s engineering 

analysis included evaporator coils with 

4 fins per inch for low-temperature and 

6 fins per inch for medium-temperature 

unit coolers.35 An evaluation of DOE’s 

CCMS database 36 indicates a minimum 

of 4 fins per inch and a maximum of 8 

fins per inch for both low-temperature 

and medium-temperature units, with 

higher certified AWEF values for 

models with a higher number of fins per 

inch. Roughly 65 percent of lowtemperature models have more than 4 

fins per inch, while about 10 percent of 

medium-temperature models have more 

than 6 fins per inch. 

Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on if 4 

fins per inch and 6 fins per inch for lowand medium-temperature unit coolers, 

respectively, are still appropriate to use 

in its engineering analysis given the 

number of certified models at each 

operating temperature that do not meet 

these specifications—and if not, which 

fin configuration(s) should DOE use for 

its analysis? 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37699 

DOE also requests information and 

data on the potential impact on defrost 

frequency and/or daily energy use 

contributions for low-temperature unit 

coolers with more than 4 fins per inch 

and for medium-temperature unit 

coolers with more than 6 fins per inch 

used in high-temperature freezer 

applications (i.e. freezers with an 

interior temperature range from 10 °F to 

32 °F). Finally, DOE requests comment 

on whether the number of fins per inch 

would be different for mediumtemperature unit coolers used for 

medium-temperature versus hightemperature freezer applications. If the 

number of fins per inch would differ, 

DOE seeks data to support a 

representative number of fins per inch 

for medium-temperature unit coolers 

used in high-temperature freezer 

applications. 

b. Screening of Technology Options 

Table II.14 summarizes the 

refrigeration system technology options 

that DOE did not include in its analysis 

in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 

2017 ECS final rule, and the applicable 

screening criteria. 

TABLE II.14—REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED FROM THE JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL RULE AND/ 

OR JULY 2017 ECS FINAL RULE

EPCA criteria 

Screened technology option Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse 

impact on 

product utility 

Adverse 

impacts on 

health and 

safety 

Other reasons 

for not 

considering 

the 

technology 

Liquid suction heat exchangers ......................................... ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

Refrigeration system override ............................................ ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

Economizer cooling ............................................................ ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

Automatic evaporator fan shut-off ..................................... ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

Energy storage systems .................................................... X .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................

High efficiency evaporator fan motor ................................. X .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................

3-Phase motors .................................................................. ........................ .......................... X ........................ ........................

Improved evaporator coil ................................................... ........................ .......................... X ........................ ........................

Variable-capacity compressors .......................................... ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X† 

Adaptive defrost ................................................................. ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

On-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans .......................... ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

Hot gas defrost .................................................................. ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ X * 

* DOE screened out these technology options because they do not affect energy consumption as measured by the current DOE test procedure. (Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0131, Section 4.2 at pp. 4–3 through 4–4; EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016–0099, Section 4.2 at pp. 4–2 

through 4–4). 

† DOE screened out variable-capacity compressors (a subset of higher-efficiency compressors) because the current DOE test procedure does 

not include a method for assessing variable-capacity dedicated condensing units tested without a matched unit cooler (see 10 CFR 431.304). 82 

FR 31808, 31839. 

Issue 30: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, DOE’s screening 

criteria (technological feasibility; 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

utility or product availability; adverse 

impacts on health or safety; and uniquepathway proprietary technologies) 

would have on each of the technology 

options listed in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Similarly, DOE 

seeks information regarding how these 

same criteria would affect any other 

technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in walk-in 

refrigeration systems. 

The current test procedure includes a 

method to address systems with 

adaptive defrost. Section 3.3.5 of 

appendix C to subpart R of 10 CFR part 

431. As provided in the DOE test 

procedure, adaptive defrost is not 

included in the determination of AWEF 

to demonstrate compliance but a 

manufacturer may voluntarily account 

for a unit’s improved performance with 

adaptive defrost activated in its market 

representations. Id. As discussed in the 

June 2021 TP RFI, an adaptive system 

with a long period (i.e., when too much 

frost builds up on the coils) between 

defrosts may significantly affect the oncycle performance of the refrigeration 

system; however, a system that defrosts 

frequently could increase defrost energy 

use. 86 FR 32332, 32348. DOE 

recognizes the potential efficiency 

advantage offered by adaptive defrost 

and is considering how best to 

incorporate adaptive defrost into its 

analysis. 

In a future rulemaking, DOE may 

consider allowing walk-in refrigeration 

systems with adaptive defrost to 

continue to qualitatively represent 

improved efficiency performance solely 

for marketing purposes and not for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

current standards. Adaptive defrost 

could also be used to demonstrate 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards. DOE could also include 

adaptive defrost in its analysis for 

setting new energy conservation 

standards; however, DOE would need to 

determine whether adaptive defrost 

would be included in the engineering 

analysis for dedicated condensing unit 

or for unit coolers (since DOE’s analysis 

is based on a single component). 

Issue 31: DOE requests stakeholder 

feedback on how to address adaptive 

defrost in a future rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in data 

that support whether DOE should 

continue to screen adaptive defrost from 

its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE 

is interested in understanding whether 

adaptive defrost functionality and cost 

burden should be included in its 

analysis of dedicated condensing units 

or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE 

additionally requests comment on how 

the screening results summarized in 

Table II.14 may have changed for 

adaptive defrost, such that the 

approaches used in the prior rulemaking 

analyses may no longer be appropriate. 

DOE removed hot gas defrost as a 

design option in its analysis for the July 

2017 ECS final rule. 82 FR 31808, 

31834. Instead, DOE assigned to hot gas 

defrost unit coolers the same default 

values for electric defrost heat and 

energy use calculations that the test 

procedure assigns to dedicated 

condensing units that are not matched 

with a unit cooler for testing (i.e., tested 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

alone). 81 FR 95758, 95774–95777, see 

also section 3.5 of appendix C to subpart 

R of 10 CFR part 431. In a test procedure 

final rule published on March 26, 2021 

(‘‘March 2021 TP final rule’’), DOE 

updated the defrost energy use and 

thermal load equations for hot gas 

defrost unit coolers tested alone to 

provide a consistent performance 

evaluation between hot gas defrost and 

electric defrost unit coolers when tested 

alone. 86 FR 16027, 16030. However, 

this approach does not measure or 

account for actual hot gas defrost 

thermal load and energy use. 81 FR 

95758, 95774–95777. 

As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, 

defrost heat and energy values specific 

to hot gas defrost units are included in 

the most recent industry test method, 

‘‘2020 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers,’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1250–2020’’). 86 FR 32332, 

32347. Similar to the current approach 

for adaptive defrost, DOE could allow 

walk-in refrigeration systems with hot 

gas defrost to qualitatively represent 

improved efficiency performance solely 

for marketing purposes and not for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

current standards. Hot gas defrost could 

also be used to demonstrate compliance 

with energy conservation standards. 

DOE could also include hot gas defrost 

as a design option in its analysis for 

setting new energy conservation 

standards. 

Issue 32: DOE requests stakeholder 

feedback on how to address hot gas 

defrost in a future rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in data 

that support whether DOE should 

continue to screen hot gas defrost from 

its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE 

is interested in understanding whether 

hot gas defrost functionality and cost 

burden should be included in its 

analysis of dedicated condensing units 

or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE 

additionally requests comment on how 

the screening results presented in Table 

II.14 of this document have changed for 

hot gas defrost, such that the approaches 

used in the prior rulemaking analyses 

may no longer be appropriate. 

c. Representative Units 

In the June 2014 ECS final rule and 

July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE analyzed 

the representative refrigeration system 

capacities presented in Table II.15. 79 

FR 32050, 37073 and 82 FR 31808, 

31835. However, data retrieved from 

DOE’s CCMS database 15 indicates that: 

• For outdoor medium-temperature 

dedicated condensing units, 39 percent 

of certified units have a nominal 

capacity greater than 96,000 Btu/h and 

19 percent of certified units have a 

capacity greater than 200,000 Btu/h; 

• For low-temperature unit coolers, 

48 percent of certified units have a rated 

capacity of greater than 40,000 Btu/h 

and 19 percent are rated at greater than 

100,000 Btu/h; 

• For medium-temperature unit 

coolers, 55 percent of certified units 

have a nominal capacity greater than 

24,000 Btu/h, with 16 percent rated at 

greater than 100,000 Btu/h. 

These data are based on a count of 

basic models submitted to the CCMS 

database and do not indicate the volume 

of shipments of each model. 

TABLE II.15—REPRESENTATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEM UNITS EVALUATED IN THE JUNE 2014 AND JULY 2017 ECS 

FINAL RULES

Equipment class 

Representative 

unit capacity 

(Btu/h) 

Representative unit compressor type Associated rulemaking 

Dedicated Condensing, Medium, Indoor ......................... 6,000 Hermetic ............................................ June 2014 ECS final rule.* 

6,000 Semi-hermetic.

18,000 Hermetic.

18,000 Scroll.

18,000 Semi-hermetic.

54,000 Scroll.

54,000 Semi-hermetic.

96,000 Scroll.

96,000 Semi-hermetic.

Dedicated Condensing, Medium, Outdoor ....................... 6,000 Hermetic.

6,000 Semi-hermetic.

18,000 Hermetic.

18,000 Scroll.

18,000 Semi-hermetic.

54,000 Scroll.

54,000 Semi-hermetic.

96,000 Scroll.

96,000 Semi-hermetic.

Dedicated Condensing, Low, Indoor, <6,500 Btu/h ......... 6,000 Scroll ................................................. July 2017 ECS final rule.** 

Dedicated Condensing, Low, Indoor, ≥6,500 Btu/h ......... 9,000 Scroll.

25,000 Scroll.

25,000 Semi-hermetic.

54,000 Semi-hermetic.

Dedicated Condensing, Low, Outdoor, <6,500 Btu/h ...... 6,000 Scroll.

Dedicated Condensing, Low, Outdoor, ≥6,500 Btu/h ...... 9,000 Scroll.

25,000 Scroll.

25,000 Semi-hermetic.

54,000 Semi-hermetic.

72,000 Semi-hermetic.

Unit Cooler, Medium ........................................................ 4,000 N/A.

9,000 N/A.

24,000 N/A.

Unit Cooler, Low, <15,500 Btu/h ..................................... 4,000 N/A.

9,000 N/A.

Unit Cooler, Low, ≥15,500 Btu/h ...................................... 18,000 N/A.


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37701 

37The AHRI Wine Cellar AWEF Technical 

Justification document containing the performance 

data of wine cellar refrigeration systems can be found at www.regulations.gov Docket No. EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0009–0011. 

TABLE II.15—REPRESENTATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEM UNITS EVALUATED IN THE JUNE 2014 AND JULY 2017 ECS 

FINAL RULES—Continued 

Equipment class 

Representative 

unit capacity 

(Btu/h) 

Representative unit compressor type Associated rulemaking 

40,000 N/A.

* See section 5A.5 at pp. 5A–28 through 5A–45 of the TSD for the June 2014 ECS final rule, Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0131. 

** See section 5A.2 at pp. 5A–1 through 5A–18 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS final rule, Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0099. 

Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the representative minimum 

and maximum capacities listed in Table 

II.15 of this document are appropriate 

for walk-ins of 3,000 square feet or less. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in 

whether the highest capacities listed for 

each equipment class in Table II.15 of 

this document appropriately represent 

walk-ins within the scope of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards (and/or 

sufficiently representative of models up 

to the largest capacities). If the highest 

capacities listed for each equipment 

class in Table II.15 of this document are 

not representative, DOE requests data 

and supporting information as to why 

they are not representative, and what 

appropriate maximum capacities for 

each equipment class would be. 

Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on the 

appropriateness of the compressor types 

associated with each representative 

unit. Specifically, DOE seeks data on the 

respective ranges of refrigeration system 

capacities for which each compressor 

type (scroll, hermetic, and semihermetic) may realistically be used. 

Further, DOE seeks comment on if there 

are refrigeration system capacity ranges 

for which multiple types of compressors 

may be used. 

DOE’s initial research into singlepackage refrigeration systems indicates 

that capacities range between 1,900 Btu/ 

h and 29,000 Btu/h, with most units less 

than 17,000 Btu/h. In order to conduct 

an engineering analysis for singlepackage refrigeration systems, DOE 

seeks information on the capacities of 

the most representative units on the 

market. 

Issue 35: DOE requests comment on 

appropriate representative capacities for 

single-package refrigeration systems. 

Specifically, DOE requests data on the 

availability and prevalence of singlepackage units sized between 17,000 Btu/ 

h and 29,000 Btu/h, and whether DOE 

should consider including a 

representative single-packaged 

refrigeration system with capacity in 

this range. 

To conduct an engineering analysis 

for wine cellar refrigeration systems, 

DOE seeks information on the size and 

capacities of the most representative 

units on the market. DOE’s initial 

research into wine cellar refrigeration 

systems indicates that the capacity for 

most single-package and matched-pair 

units ranges from 1,000 Btu/h to 18,000 

Btu/h, with very few units between 

13,000 Btu/h and 18,000 Btu/hr. 

Additionally, DOE received information 

from AHRI in 2019 listing capacity, 

AWEF, condenser fan power, and 

compressor type for wine cellar 

refrigeration systems.37

Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if 

the capacity, AWEF, condenser fan 

power, and compressor types provided 

by AHRI are representative of the 

market for single-package and matchedpair wine cellar refrigeration systems. 

DOE also seeks information on the 

availability and prevalence of wine 

cellar refrigeration systems between 

13,000 and 18,000 Btu/h for walk-in 

wine cellars with a square footage of 

3,000 square feet or less. 

D. Significant Savings of Energy 

In determining whether a proposed 

energy conservation standard is 

economically justified, DOE analyzes, 

among other things, the potential 

economic impact on consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE 

seeks comment on whether there are 

economic barriers to the adoption of 

more stringent energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks comment and 

data on any other aspects of its 

economic justification analysis from the 

June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 

ECS final rule that may indicate 

whether a more stringent energy 

conservation standard would be 

economically justified or cost effective. 

While DOE is particularly interested 

in comment, information, and data on 

the following issues, this request for 

information is not strictly limited to 

them. 

1. Markups Analysis—Distribution 

Channels 

DOE derives customer prices based on 

manufacturer markups, retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups (where appropriate), 

and sales taxes. In deriving these 

markups, DOE determines the major 

distribution channels for product sales, 

the markup associated with each party 

in each distribution channel, and the 

existence and magnitude of differences 

between markups for baseline products 

(‘‘baseline markups’’) and higherefficiency products (‘‘incremental 

markups’’). The identified distribution 

channels (i.e., how the products are 

distributed from the manufacturer to the 

consumer) and estimated relative sales 

volumes through each channel are used 

in generating end-user price inputs for 

the life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) analysis and 

national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’). 

In the June 2014 ECS final rule and 

July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE defined 

the distribution channels for WICFs and 

estimated their respective shares of 

shipments as: (1) Direct to customer 

sales, through national accounts or 

contractors; (2) refrigeration wholesalers 

to consumers; (3) Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (‘‘OEM’’) to consumers— 

the OEM distribution channel primarily 

represents manufacturers of WICF 

refrigeration systems who may also 

install and sell entire WICF refrigeration 

units; (4) contractors who primarily 

install WICF envelope components 

(panels and doors); and (5) refrigeration 

equipment distributors of panels and 

non-display doors. WICF distribution 

channels evaluated in DOE’s previous 

rulemakings are summarized in Table 

II.16. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37702 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

38 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are not readily available for DOE to examine. In 

general, one would expect a close correspondence 

between shipments and sales in light of their direct 

relationship with each other. 

39See chapter 9, section 9.2 of the June 2014 ECS 

final rule TSD, available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0131. See 

chapter 9, section 9.3 of the July 2017 ECS final rule 

TSD, available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0099. For more 

information see: www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. 

40The assumption that shipments for each 

capacity of each equipment class would remain 

constant over time were not explicitly stated in 

either the Notice or the TSD of the June 2014 ECS 

final rule. However, the results for the shipments 

analysis, where this assumption is applied, can be 

reviewed in the final rule National Impacts 

Analyses (NIA) models for both refrigeration 

systems, panels, and doors. For refrigeration 

systems: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2008-BT-STD-0015-0135. For panels and doors: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BTSTD-0015-0134. 

TABLE II.16—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

Distribution channel 

Equipment type 

Dedicated 

condensing 

equipment 

(%) 

Unit coolers 

(%) 

Panels and 

non-display 

doors 

(%) 

Display doors 

(%) 

1 ............... Direct (National Accounts) ......................................................... 3 45 49 30 

2 ............... Refrigeration Wholesalers ......................................................... 42 45 ........................ ........................

3 ............... OEM ........................................................................................... 55 10 ........................ 70 

4 ............... General Contractor .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 8 ........................

5 ............... Equipment Distributor ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 43 ........................

Total .................................................................................... 100 100 100 100 

Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the distribution channels used 

in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 

2017 ECS final rule (as depicted in 

Table II.16) remain relevant today, and 

if not, DOE requests information on 

these channels as well as the existence 

of any additional channels that are used 

to distribute walk-in components into 

the market. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the appropriateness of 

these channels, and their respective 

fractions for the following equipment: 

display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

2. Lifetime Analysis 

The equipment lifetime is the age at 

which the equipment is retired from 

service. To reflect the uncertainty of 

equipment lifetimes the LCC analysis 

uses Weibull probability distributions 

for each equipment class. For the June 

2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS 

final rule DOE developed separate 

lifetime distributions for WICF envelope 

components and refrigeration system 

components. 79 FR 32050, 32086 and 82 

FR 31808, 31846. The average values of 

these distributions are shown in Table 

II.17. 

TABLE II.17—ESTIMATED AVERAGE

WICF EQUIPMENT LIFETIMES

[Years] 

Component 

Average 

lifetime 

(years) 

Refrigeration Systems (condensing systems and unit coolers) ............................................ 10.5 

Non-display Doors (freight and 

passage doors) ......................... 6 

Display Doors ............................... 12 

Panels ........................................... 12 

Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its 

estimated equipment lifetime for WICF 

refrigeration system and envelope 

components. Specifically, DOE requests 

data on appropriate average lifetimes 

that DOE’s analyses should use for: 

display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

3. Shipments Analysis 

DOE develops shipments forecasts of 

walk-ins to calculate the national 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on energy 

consumption, net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’), and future manufacturer cash 

flows.38 DOE’s shipments projections 

are based on available data broken out 

by equipment class, capacity, and 

efficiency. Current sales estimates allow 

for a more accurate model that captures 

recent trends in the market. 

The envelope component shipments 

model for panels and doors, and the 

refrigeration system shipments model 

for dedicated condensing systems and 

unit coolers, take an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the existing stock over time. 

Stock accounting uses equipment 

shipments as inputs to estimate the age 

distribution of in-service equipment 

stocks for all the years covered under a 

potential revised standard. The age 

distribution of in-service equipment 

stocks is a key input to calculations of 

both the National Energy Savings 

(‘‘NES’’) and NPV of a potential new 

standard because operating costs for any 

year depend on the age distribution of 

the stock. 

DOE’s shipments model of walk-in 

refrigeration systems and envelope 

components are driven by new 

purchases and stock replacements due 

to failures. Equipment failure rates are 

related to equipment lifetimes (see 

section II.D.2 of this document). In the 

analyses done for the June 2014 ECS 

final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, 

DOE modeled projections for new 

equipment using the commercial 

building floor space growth rates of 

buildings classified as ‘‘food sales,’’ 

‘‘food service,’’ and ‘‘other’’ from the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

Annual Energy Outlook.39 In both the 

June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 

ECS final rule DOE assumed that the 

share of shipments for each equipment 

class and capacity would remain 

constant over time. 40 82 FR 31808, 

31847. 

Previously, complete historical 

shipments data for walk-ins could not 

be obtained from any single source. 

Therefore, in the June 2014 ECS final 

rule DOE used data from multiple 

sources to estimate historical shipments. 

79 FR 32050, 32088. For the July 2017 

ECS final rule, DOE continued with the 

same sources of shipments described in 

the NOPR published on September 13, 

2016. 81 FR 62980, 63012. 

Issue 39: DOE requests comment on 

its assumption that the market share of 

shipments for each equipment class 

would remain constant over time. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37703 

41www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015- 

BT-STD-0016-0029, WICF Refrigeration Equipment 

Shipment Data—10212015. 

42See Chapter 9 of the TSD for the July 2017 ECS 

final rule. Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016–0099. 

43U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey 1999. Washington, DC. 

44U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey 2003. Washington, DC. 

45See Chapter 9 TSD for the June 2014 ECS final 

rule. Docket EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015–0131. 

a. Dedicated Condensing Systems and 

Unit Coolers 

For the July 2017 ECS final rule, DOE 

initialized its stock and shipments 

model for low-temperature dedicated 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

based on shipments data provided by 

stakeholders.41 82 FR 31808, 31847. 

These data did not explicitly state the 

share of medium-temperature dedicated 

condensing units and were inferred 

from both the fraction of lowtemperature dedicated condensing 

equipment for various applications, and 

from medium-temperature unit cooler 

shipments. Walk-in shipments data 

used in the July 2017 ECS final rule 

analysis are summarized in Table II.18. 

TABLE II.18—ESTIMATED CONDENSING SYSTEM AND UNIT COOLER SHIPMENTS, 2020 

[Units] 

Equipment class 

DC.L.I DC.L.O UC.L DC.M.I DC.M.O UC.M 

Dedicated Condensing Unit Only ............ 3,202 4,075 ........................ 6,459 11,481 ........................

Field Paired (Dedicated Condensing Systems and Unit Coolers) ........................ 14,943 19,019 ........................ 30,141 53,586 ........................

Unit Coolers Only (connected to Dedicated Condensing Units) ...................... ........................ ........................ 7,277 ........................ ........................ 17,941 

Unit Coolers Only (connected to Multiplexing Condensing Units) ................... ........................ ........................ 11,635 ........................ ........................ 20,459 

These data showed that: 

• 4 percent of shipments were 

manufacturer-matched dedicated 

condensing units and unit coolers 

(manufacturer matched-paired), and the 

remaining 96 percent were sold as 

individual dedicated condensing units 

or unit coolers that installers matched in 

the field (stand-alone, and field-paired); 

• 82 percent of low-temperature unit 

coolers were paired with dedicated 

condensing systems, and the remaining 

18 percent were paired with multiplex 

systems. With respect to mediumtemperature unit coolers, 85 percent of 

these were paired with dedicated 

condensing systems while the 

remaining 15 percent were paired with 

multiplex systems; and 

• 46 percent of low-temperature 

dedicated condensing systems were 

installed indoors with the remaining 54 

percent installed outdoors. Among 

medium-temperature dedicated 

condensing systems, 36 percent of these 

were installed indoors with the 

remaining 64 percent installed 

outdoors.42

These shipments estimates are 

exclusive of single-package refrigeration 

systems, high-temperature freezers, and 

wine cellar refrigeration systems 

described in sections II.A.2 through 

II.A.4 of this document. 

Issue 40: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for low-temperature dedicated 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks 

data on the annual shipments of lowtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document) and the distribution of rated 

capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this 

document. 

Issue 41: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for medium-temperature 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

reflect the state of the current market. 

Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the 

annual shipments of mediumtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document), high-temperature freezers 

(see section II.A.2 of this document) and 

wine cellar refrigeration systems (see 

section II.A.4 of this document) and the 

distribution of rated capacities of each 

(Btu/h). DOE also seeks data on the 

fraction of high-temperature freezers 

and wine cellar refrigeration systems 

that are sold as single-package, 

manufacturer matched-pair or split 

systems. Additionally, DOE requests 

data on the relative market size of 

refrigeration systems used in high 

temperature freezers compared to the 

refrigeration system market sizes for 

cooler applications (i.e., temperature 

greater than 32 °F) and low-temperature 

(e.g., less than or equal to ¥10 °F) 

freezer applications. 

b. Doors and Panels 

For the July 2014 ECS final rule, DOE 

initialized its stock and shipments 

model for panels and doors based on the 

number of complete WICF units per unit 

of floor space area, per building of a 

given type and size having any WICF 

unit. These data were derived from the 

Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’) 1999 43

and CBECS 2003.44 45

These data show that 70 percent of 

panel shipments are mediumtemperature, 23 percent are lowtemperature wall panels, and the 

remaining 7 percent are lowtemperature floor panels (in terms of ft2

shipped). DOE’s forecasted shipments 

for WICF panels in 2020 are shown in 

Table II.19 of this document. For the 

June 2014 ECS final rule, DOE did not 

include panels and non-display doors 

that were installed outdoors its analysis. 

TABLE II.19—ESTIMATED PANEL SHIPMENTS, 2020 

[Million ft2] 

Utility Temperature Shipments 

(million ft2) 

Wall Panels ................................................................................. Medium ....................................................................................... 74 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37704 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.19—ESTIMATED PANEL SHIPMENTS, 2020—Continued 

[Million ft2] 

Utility Temperature Shipments 

(million ft2) 

Wall Panels ................................................................................. Low ............................................................................................. 27 

Floor Panels ............................................................................... Low ............................................................................................. 8 

For display and non-display (freight 

and passage) doors, the CBECS data 

show that: 

• 92 percent of display doors 

shipments were medium-temperature 

with low-temperature making up the 

remaining 8 percent; 

• 67 percent of passage doors 

shipments were medium-temperature 

and 33 percent were low-temperature; 

and 

• 65 percent of freight doors 

shipments were medium-temperature 

and 35 percent were low-temperature. 

DOE’s forecasted shipments for WICF 

doors in 2020 are shown in Table II.20. 

For the June 2014 ECS final rule DOE 

assumed that all doors were installed 

indoors. 

TABLE II.20—ESTIMATED DOOR SHIPMENTS, 2020 

[Units] 

Utility Temperature Shipments 

(units) 

Display Door ............................................................................... Medium ....................................................................................... 325,869 

Display Door ............................................................................... Low ............................................................................................. 26,751 

Passage Door ............................................................................. Medium ....................................................................................... 328,103 

Passage Door ............................................................................. Low ............................................................................................. 161,848 

Freight Door ................................................................................ Medium ....................................................................................... 19,477 

Freight Door ................................................................................ Low ............................................................................................. 10,529 

These shipments estimates are 

exclusive of display panels described in 

section II.A.1 of this document. 

Issue 43: DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature panels that are 

installed outdoors versus indoors. 

Additionally, DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature freight and 

passage doors that are installed outdoors 

versus indoors. 

Issue 44: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for panels and doors reflect the 

state of the current market. Further, 

DOE seeks data on the annual 

shipments, in terms of units shipped, of 

low-temperature and mediumtemperature display panels described in 

section II.A.1 of this document. 

Issue 45: DOE also requests specific 

information on high-humidity mediumtemperature display door shipments 

(see section II.C.1.a of this document) 

and their fraction of annual display door 

shipments. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date under the 

DATES heading, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notification and on other matters 

relevant to DOE’s early assessment of 

whether more-stringent energy 

conservation standards are warranted 

for walk-in coolers and freezers. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

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 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. If 

this instruction is followed, 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 

website 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. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37705 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Faxes 

will not 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 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 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. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

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). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

IV. 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: 

Issue 1: DOE seeks information 

regarding the thermal transmission 

through display panels and design 

characteristics which would affect the 

thermal transmission, specifically, 

‘‘glass pack’’ design and frame design. 

DOE also seeks information regarding 

the amount of direct electrical energy 

consumption of electricity-consuming 

devices sited on or within display 

panels, including the amount of antisweat heat required, if any. DOE 

additionally requests information on 

any specific design or use 

characteristics differentiating display 

panels from display doors. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on (1) 

whether there are medium-temperature 

refrigeration system models that are 

used exclusively in high temperature 

freezers, and (2) if a mediumtemperature refrigeration system is 

efficient for cooler applications, will it 

also be efficient for use in hightemperature freezer applications. To the 

extent available, DOE requests data on 

dedicated condensing unit energy 

efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) at both hightemperature freezer and mediumtemperature refrigeration operation. 

Issue 3: DOE requests data and 

information on the impact of singlepackage system design limitations on 

efficiency and how single-package 

systems differ from split systems. DOE 

additionally requests information 

showing the trend of efficiency as a 

function of capacity for single-package 

refrigeration systems. 

Issue 4: DOE seeks information on 

how trends in wine cellar installations 

(e.g., commercial vs. residential, square 

footage, etc.) are expected to impact the 

type of refrigeration system (i.e., singlepackage, matched-pair, dedicated 

condensing unit, or unit cooler system) 

used in wine cellars over the next 5 to 

10 years. Additionally, DOE requests 

information and data on the extent to 

which capacity may impact the 

efficiency of wine cellar refrigeration 

systems. 

Issue 5: DOE seeks input and data as 

to the daily run-time hours, sizing 

practice, and ambient conditions for the 

following: single-package refrigeration 

systems, high-temperature freezers, and 

wine cellars described in sections II.A.2 

through II.A.4 of this document. DOE 

also requests information and data 

regarding any other aspects of the 

operation of such equipment that would 

influence run-time hours. 

Issue 6: DOE seeks input and data on 

the appropriate PTO values for display 

doors that would be exposed to higher 

levels of humidity. Specifically, DOE 

requests information on high-humidity 

walk-in cooler doors, including the 

range of typical installation conditions 

(e.g., relative humidity throughout the 

year in store). DOE also requests data on 

the average amount of time per day or 

per year that anti-sweat heaters with 

timers, control systems, or demandbased controls are operating at their full 

power and partial power (if applicable) 

for walk-in cooler display doors 

marketed for high-humidity 

applications. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks input on whether 

the combined safety and capacity 

mismatch oversizing factors for 

adjusting daily nominal run-time hours 

relied on in the June 2014 ECS final rule 

and the July 2017 ECS final rule are 

appropriate for single-package 

refrigeration systems, high-temperature 

freezers, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.2 through II.A.4 of this 

document. If different factors would be 

appropriate for such equipment, DOE 

requests data in support of alternate 

assumptions. 

Issue 8: DOE seeks data and 

information regarding the current, and 

projected future market shares of WICF 

equipment by efficiency level (e.g., 

expressed in terms of increments of 10 

percent improvement in AWEF, Rvalues, and kWh/day for refrigeration 

systems, panels, and doors, respectively, 

above or below the existing standards in 

10 CFR 431.306) to establish market 

trends in equipment efficiency over 

time. DOE also seeks information on 

how the current regulatory environment 

has affected the market share of WICF 

equipment by efficiency rating. 

Issue 9: DOE seeks information on 

how the physical construction of a 

display door, including the glass pack 

and the frame, impact the amount of 

anti-sweat heater wire power needed to 

prevent condensation accumulating on 

any part of the door. Specifically, DOE 

seeks quantitative data, if available, on 

the change in anti-sweat heater power 

(1) with a specific change in door frame 

design but no change in glass pack 

design, (2) with a specific change in 

glass pack design but no change in door 

frame design, and/or (3) with specific 

changes to the entire assembly. If there 

are specific design choices which are 

more costly but result in less or no antisweat heat, DOE requests cost data 

based on the capability of the door to 

prevent condensation from forming and 

the respective design options chosen. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37706 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DOE also requests comment on any 

other considerations which may impact 

the use and power of anti-sweat heaters. 

Issue 10: DOE seeks specific data and 

information on the correlation between 

relative humidity conditions at 

installation and the anti-sweat heater 

power needed to prevent condensation 

from accumulating on a walk-in door. 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the differences in design, typical 

conditions, and usage of a walk-in 

display door as compared to a display 

door for commercial refrigeration 

equipment which result in commercial 

refrigeration equipment door designs 

with no anti-sweat heaters. 

Issue 12: DOE seeks specific data and 

information on how the physical 

construction of both passage and freight 

doors impact the amount of anti-sweat 

heater wire power needed to prevent 

condensation accumulation on any part 

of the door. DOE requests specific 

comment on any technologies that may 

reduce or eliminate the need for antisweat heat on passage or freight doors. 

DOE also requests door design 

information and data that explain why 

many passage and freight doors are able 

to perform without any anti-sweat 

heater power in the field but some 

doors, specifically low-temperature 

passage and freight doors, still require 

anti-sweat power that is greater than 

that required for display doors to 

prevent condensation accumulation. 

Issue 13: DOE requests comment on 

the prevalence of vacuum-insulated 

glass for walk-in doors and whether 

other manufacturers are considering 

adopting this technology. DOE requests 

specific feedback on any obstacles or 

concerns (e.g., patents, proprietary use, 

durability, practicability to 

manufacture, etc.) which would prevent 

manufacturers from using vacuuminsulated glass in walk-in doors. DOE 

also requests cost data for implementing 

vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in 

display doors. 

Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, DOE’s screening 

criteria (technological feasibility; 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

utility or product availability; adverse 

impacts on health or safety; and uniquepathway proprietary technologies) 

would have on each of the technology 

options listed in Table II.6, Table II.7, 

and Table II.8 of this document. DOE 

also seeks information regarding how 

these same criteria would affect any 

other technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in walk-in doors 

and panels. 

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on 

whether 6 inches is an appropriate 

upper limit for screening out insulation 

thickness for panels and doors. For 

manufacturers that produce and certify 

panels with insulation thicknesses 

exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests 

feedback on what manufacturing 

investments have been made to do so. 

For manufacturers that do not produce 

panels with insulation thicknesses 

exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests 

feedback on the obstacles preventing 

them from increasing panel thickness. 

Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on 

the representative units for display 

doors used for the 2014 ECS final rule 

engineering analysis and whether multidoor configurations should be included 

as representative units. If so, DOE seeks 

comment on panel size and the number 

of panels that would be most 

representative for multi-door 

configurations. Additionally, DOE seeks 

specific data on the appropriate number 

of door openings and door sizes to 

consider and the additional electrical 

component power (e.g., anti-sweat 

heater power, lighting, etc.) required for 

each additional door opening. DOE is 

also interested in any other differences 

between single-door and multi-door 

configurations that would impact energy 

use. 

Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on the 

appropriateness of the representative 

units chosen for the previous analysis of 

passage and freight doors. DOE requests 

specific feedback on what the minimum 

and maximum sizes of both passage and 

freight doors are and if there are other 

attributes besides size which 

differentiate passage doors from freight 

doors and vice versa. 

Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on the 

prevalence of motorized door openers 

for both display and non-display doors. 

DOE requests specific feedback on the 

prevalence of motorized door openers 

by equipment class, the minimum door 

size that might have a motorized door 

opener, the percentage of doors sold 

which typically include a motorized 

door opener, and any data relating 

power of a motorized door opener to 

door size. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

whether there are technology options or 

other design features that would be 

unique to high-temperature freezer 

refrigeration systems (i.e., mediumtemperature systems operating at a 

temperature between 10 °F to 32 °F) as 

compared to technology options or 

design features for medium-temperature 

refrigeration systems operating at abovefreezing (cooler) temperatures. If hightemperature freezer refrigeration 

systems have certain unique features, 

DOE seeks information on those features 

and how they impact refrigeration 

system performance. 

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on 

which of the technology options listed 

in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this 

document are available and used in 

single-package refrigeration systems. 

DOE also requests comment on whether 

there are other technologies that apply 

to single-package refrigeration systems 

not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on which 

technology options are feasible for 

dedicated condensing systems and unit 

coolers but may not be feasible for 

single-packaged refrigeration systems 

due to structural design constraints. 

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 

which of the technology options listed 

in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this 

document are available and used in 

wine cellar refrigeration systems. DOE 

also seeks information on whether there 

are additional technologies that apply to 

wine cellar refrigeration systems that are 

not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Additionally, 

DOE requests comment on the specific 

design constraints for wine cellar 

refrigeration systems and how these 

constraints may impact the use of 

certain technology options. 

Issue 22: DOE seeks information on 

the availability of multiple-capacity or 

variable-capacity compressors in the 

current market. DOE is also interested in 

any end-user requirements that may 

restrict the use of, or reduce the 

potential benefits of, multi- or variablecapacity compressors in the field. 

Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 

the relative efficiency difference 

between scroll and semi-hermetic 

compressors in the range of capacities in 

which both are available. DOE also 

requests comment on other design 

parameters that would lead a 

manufacturer to select a certain 

compressor design over another and 

would represent potential utility 

differences of different compressor 

designs, specifically, (1) compressor 

weight relative to the final equipment 

weight and its impact on equipment 

shipping, installation, and end-use; (2) 

compressor durability, equipment 

warranty, and equipment lifetime; and 

(3) any other relevant differences. 

Issue 24: DOE seeks information on 

the availability and efficiencies of 

single-speed compressors (e.g., scroll 

compressors, rotary compressors, semihermetic compressors) that were not 

available or were not considered in the 

analysis during the rulemaking finalized 

in 2017. Additionally, DOE is interested 

in understanding the availability of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37707 

rotary compressors for use in singlepackage and wine cellar refrigeration 

systems. 

Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on the 

prevalence of the use of crankcase 

heater controls for walk-in refrigeration 

systems. Additionally, DOE requests 

information on what type of crankcase 

heater controls are considered viable, 

and what application circumstances 

would make certain control approaches 

inappropriate e.g., by unacceptably 

increasing the chance of compressor 

failure. 

Issue 26: DOE seeks information on 

the potential for improved thermal 

insulation and sealing of air leaks to 

improve the efficiency of single-package 

refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE 

is interested in data on the range of 

typical insulation thickness used in 

single-package systems to insulate the 

indoor portion, in addition to the 

insulation materials that are typically 

used. Additionally, DOE requests 

information on the processes and 

materials that manufacturers utilize to 

ensure airtight enclosures. DOE is also 

interested in understanding the quality 

control processes manufacturers have in 

place to ensure that airtight units are 

released to the market. 

Issue 27: DOE requests comment and 

data to support whether it should 

include refrigerant as a design option in 

its engineering analysis for walk-in 

refrigeration systems. DOE also requests 

information on the availability and 

relative utility of R–452A, R–407C, and 

R–407F compared to R–407A and 

R–448A/R–449A for use in walk-in 

dedicated condensing units and singlepackage systems. Additionally, DOE is 

interested in understanding the 

availability and relative utility of 

R–450A, R–513A/R–513B, and R–515A 

compared to R–134A for wine cellar 

walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is 

also interested in understanding what 

domestic and international activities 

may be driving trends in the market 

adoption of low GWP refrigerants. 

Issue 28: DOE requests information on 

the availability of specific nontraditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants for use in dedicated 

condensing unit, unit cooler, singlepackage, and wine cellar walk-in 

refrigeration systems. DOE is interested 

in understanding what domestic and 

international activities may be driving 

trends in market adoption of nontraditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants. DOE also seeks comment 

on whether and how the availability of 

higher-efficiency compressors might be 

impacted by the use of non-traditional 

(e.g., hydrocarbon) refrigerants. DOE 

requests information on whether charge 

limits or safety standards (e.g., 

standards issued by Underwriter’s 

Laboratory) would restrict the use of 

non-traditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants in walk-in refrigeration 

systems. Finally, DOE requests 

comment on any additional design 

changes or safety measures that may be 

necessary for WICFs to incorporate nontraditional (e.g., hydrocarbon) 

refrigerants. 

Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on if 4 

fins per inch and 6 fins per inch for lowand medium-temperature unit coolers, 

respectively, are still appropriate to use 

in its engineering analysis given the 

number of certified models at each 

operating temperature that do not meet 

these specifications—and if not, which 

fin configuration(s) should DOE use for 

its analysis? DOE also requests 

information and data on the potential 

impact on defrost frequency and/or 

daily energy use contributions for lowtemperature unit coolers with more than 

4 fins per inch and for mediumtemperature unit coolers with more than 

6 fins per inch used in high-temperature 

freezer applications (i.e., freezers with 

an interior temperature range from 10 °F 

to 32 °F). Finally, DOE requests 

comment on whether the number of fins 

per inch would be different for mediumtemperature unit coolers used for 

medium-temperature versus hightemperature freezer applications. If the 

number of fins per inch would differ, 

DOE seeks data to support a 

representative number of fins per inch 

for medium-temperature unit coolers 

used in high-temperature freezer 

applications. 

Issue 30: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, DOE’s screening 

criteria (technological feasibility; 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

utility or product availability; adverse 

impacts on health or safety; and uniquepathway proprietary technologies) 

would have on each of the technology 

options listed in Table II.12 or Table 

II.13 of this document. Similarly, DOE 

seeks information regarding how these 

same criteria would affect any other 

technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in walk-in 

refrigeration systems. 

Issue 31: DOE requests stakeholder 

feedback on how to address adaptive 

defrost in a future rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in data 

that support whether DOE should 

continue to screen adaptive defrost from 

its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE 

is interested in understanding whether 

adaptive defrost functionality and cost 

burden should be included in its 

analysis of dedicated condensing units 

or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE 

additionally requests comment on how 

the screening results summarized in 

Table II.14 may have changed for 

adaptive defrost, such that the 

approaches used in the prior rulemaking 

analyses may no longer be appropriate. 

Issue 32: DOE requests stakeholder 

feedback on how to address hot gas 

defrost in a future rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in data 

that support whether DOE should 

continue to screen hot gas defrost from 

its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE 

is interested in understanding whether 

hot gas defrost functionality and cost 

burden should be included in its 

analysis of dedicated condensing units 

or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE 

additionally requests comment on how 

the screening results presented in Table 

II.14 of this document have changed for 

hot gas defrost, such that the approaches 

used in the prior rulemaking analyses 

may no longer be appropriate. 

Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the representative minimum 

and maximum capacities listed in Table 

II.15 of this document are appropriate 

for walk-ins of 3,000 square feet or less. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in 

whether the highest capacities listed for 

each equipment class in Table II.15 of 

this document appropriately represent 

walk-ins within the scope of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards (and/or 

sufficiently representative of models up 

to the largest capacities). If the highest 

capacities listed for each equipment 

class in Table II.15 of this document are 

not representative, DOE requests data 

and supporting information as to why 

they are not representative, and what 

appropriate maximum capacities for 

each equipment class would be. 

Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on the 

appropriateness of the compressor types 

associated with each representative 

unit. Specifically, DOE seeks data on the 

respective ranges of refrigeration system 

capacities for which each compressor 

type (scroll, hermetic, and semihermetic) may realistically be used. 

Further, DOE seeks comment on if there 

are refrigeration system capacity ranges 

for which multiple types of compressors 

may be used. 

Issue 35: DOE requests comment on 

appropriate representative capacities for 

single-package refrigeration systems. 

Specifically, DOE requests data on the 

availability and prevalence of singlepackage units sized between 17,000 Btu/ 

h and 29,000 Btu/h, and whether DOE 

should consider including a 

representative single-packaged 

refrigeration system with capacity in 

this range. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37708 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if 

the capacity, AWEF, condenser fan 

power, and compressor types provided 

by AHRI are representative of the 

market for single-package and matchedpair wine cellar refrigeration systems. 

DOE also seeks information on the 

availability and prevalence of wine 

cellar refrigeration systems between 

13,000 and 18,000 Btu/h for walk-in 

wine cellars with a square footage of 

3,000 square feet or less. 

Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the distribution channels used 

in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 

2017 ECS final rule (as depicted in 

Table II.16) remain relevant today, and 

if not, DOE requests information on 

these channels as well as the existence 

of any additional channels that are used 

to distribute walk-in components into 

the market. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the appropriateness of 

these channels, and their respective 

fractions for the following equipment: 

display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its 

estimated equipment lifetime for WICF 

refrigeration system and envelope 

components. Specifically, DOE requests 

data on appropriate average lifetimes 

that DOE’s analyses should use for: 

Display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

Issue 39: DOE requests comment on 

its assumption that the market share of 

shipments for each equipment class 

would remain constant over time. 

Issue 40: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for low-temperature dedicated 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks 

data on the annual shipments of lowtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document) and the distribution of rated 

capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this 

document. 

Issue 41: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for medium-temperature 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

reflect the state of the current market. 

Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the 

annual shipments of mediumtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document), high-temperature freezers 

(see section II.A.2 of this document) and 

wine cellar refrigeration systems (see 

section II.A.4 of this document) and the 

distribution of rated capacities of each 

(Btu/h). DOE also seeks data on the 

fraction of high-temperature freezers 

and wine cellar refrigeration systems 

that are sold as single-package, 

manufacturer matched-pair or split 

systems. Additionally, DOE requests 

data on the relative market size of 

refrigeration systems used in high 

temperature freezers compared to the 

refrigeration system market sizes for 

cooler applications (i.e., temperature 

greater than 32 °F) and low-temperature 

(e.g., less than or equal to ¥10 °F) 

freezer applications. 

Issue 43: DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature panels that are 

installed outdoors versus indoors. 

Additionally, DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature freight and 

passage doors that are installed outdoors 

versus indoors. 

Issue 44: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for panels and doors reflect the 

state of the current market. Further, 

DOE seeks data on the annual 

shipments, in terms of units shipped, of 

low-temperature and mediumtemperature display panels described in 

section II.A.1 of this document. 

Issue 45: DOE also requests specific 

information on high-humidity mediumtemperature display door shipments 

(see section II.C.1.a of this document) 

and their fraction of annual display door 

shipments. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14902 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] 

RIN 1904–AD82 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment; 

Early Assessment Review; Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is 

undertaking an early assessment review 

for amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

(‘‘CRE’’) to determine whether to amend 

applicable energy conservation 

standards for this equipment. 

Specifically, through this request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data 

and information to evaluate whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

would result in significant savings of 

energy; be technologically feasible; and 

be economically justified. DOE 

welcomes written comments from the 

public on any subject within the scope 

of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised in this RFI), as 

well as the submission of data and other 

relevant information concerning this 

early assessment review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number [EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007], by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to CRE2017STD0007@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS