55068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0014] 

RIN 1904–AB85 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) previously published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt 

test procedures for measuring the energy 

consumption of walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers, pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as 

amended. DOE is continuing to consider 

those proposals, but is now soliciting 

comments on several alternative 

proposed options. Once any final test 

procedure is effective, any 

representation as to the energy use of 

walk-in equipment must reflect the 

results of testing that equipment using 

the test procedure. Concurrently, DOE is 

undertaking an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for this 

equipment. If DOE receives data in this 

test procedure rulemaking that are 

pertinent to the development of 

standards, it will use that data in 

evaluating potential standards for this 

equipment. Once these standards are 

promulgated, the adopted test 

procedures will be used to determine 

compliance with the standards. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than 

October 12, 2010. See section V of this 

SNOPR for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the SNOPR for Test 

Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers and provide docket 

number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0014 and/ 

or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1904–AB85. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: WICF–2008–TP– 

0014@hq.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0014 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AB85 in the subject line of 

the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor, Washington, 

DC 20024. Please submit one signed 

original paper copy. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor, 

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

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

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

586–2192, Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov; 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC– 

71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

8145, Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov; or Ms. 

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC– 

71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

7796. E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

III. Discussion 

A. Overall Issues 

1. Definition of Walk-In Cooler or Freezer: 

Temperature Limit 

2. Testing and Compliance Responsibility 

3. Basic Model of Envelope 

4. Basic Model of Refrigeration Systems 

B. Envelope 

1. Heat Conduction Through Structural 

Members 

2. Use of ASTM C1303 or EN 13165:2009– 

02 

3. EN 13165:2009–02 as a Proposed 

Alternative to ASTM C1303–10 

4. Version of ASTM C1303 

5. Improvements to ASTM C1303 

Methodology 

6. Heat Transfer Through Concrete 

a. Floorless Coolers 

b. Pre-Installed Freezer Floor 

c. Insulated Floor Shipped by 

Manufacturer 

7. Walk-in Sited Within a Walk-In: A 

‘‘Hybrid’’ Walk-In 

8. U–Factor of Doors and Windows 

9. Walk-In Envelope Steady-State 

Infiltration Test 

10. Door Steady-State Infiltration Test 

11. Door Opening Infiltration Assumptions 

12. Infiltration Reduction Device 

Effectiveness 

13. Relative Humidity Assumptions 

C. Refrigeration System 

1. Definition of Refrigeration System 

2. Version of AHRI 1250 

3. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule 

2. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 

Proposed Rule 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

F. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration (FEA) Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submitting Public Comment 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Upper Limit of Walk-In Cooler 

2. Basic Model of Envelope 

3. Basic Model of Refrigeration 

4. Updates to Standards 

5. Heat Conduction Through Structural 

Members 

6. Alternatives to ASTM C1303–10 

7. Improvements to ASTM C1303 

Methodology 

8. Conduction Through Floors 

9. ‘‘Hybrid’’ Walk-Ins 

10. U–Factor of Doors and Windows 

11. Envelope Infiltration 

12. Relative Humidity Assumptions 

13. Definition of Refrigeration System 

14. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor 

15. Impacts on Small Businesses 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part B of 

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

for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55069 

Public Law 95–619, amended EPCA to 

add Part C of Title III, which established 

an energy conservation program for 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) (These parts were 

subsequently redesignated as Parts A 

and A–1, respectively, for editorial 

reasons.) Section 312 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(‘‘EISA 2007’’) further amended EPCA by 

adding certain equipment to this energy 

conservation program, including walkin coolers and walk-in freezers 

(collectively ‘‘walk-in equipment,’’ 

‘‘walk-ins,’’ or ‘‘WICF’’), the subject of 

this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C 6311(1), (20), 

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

At its most basic level, the term 

‘‘walk-in equipment’’ encompasses 

enclosed storage spaces of under 3,000 

square feet that can be walked into and 

are refrigerated to specified 

temperatures—above 32 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) for coolers and at or 

below 32 °F for freezers. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(20)(A)) The term does not include 

equipment designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific or 

research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(20)(B)) 

Walk-ins that meet this definition 

may be located indoors or outdoors. 

They may be used exclusively for 

storage, but they may also have 

transparent doors or panels for the 

purpose of displaying stored items. 

Examples of items that may be stored in 

walk-ins include, but are not limited to, 

food, beverages, and flowers. 

Under the Act, the overall program 

consists of three parts: testing, labeling, 

and Federal energy conservation 

standards. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures prescribed 

under the authority of EPCA. These test 

procedures are used in several different 

ways: (1) DOE uses them to aid in the 

development of standards for covered 

products or equipment; (2) 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use them to establish that their 

equipment complies with standards 

promulgated under EPCA and when 

making representations about 

equipment efficiency; and (3) DOE must 

use them to determine whether 

equipment complies with applicable 

standards. 

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

sets forth generally applicable criteria 

and procedures for DOE’s adoption and 

amendment of such test procedures. 

That provision requires that the test 

procedures promulgated by DOE be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs of the covered equipment during 

a representative average use cycle. It 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

for promulgating a test procedure, DOE 

must publish a proposed procedure and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments in 

response to that procedure. DOE 

solicited comments on the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) setting 

forth proposed test procedures, 

published on January 4, 2010 (‘‘the 

January NOPR’’). 75 FR 186. DOE also 

held a public meeting to discuss the 

January 2010 NOPR on March 24, 2010. 

DOE is now soliciting further comment 

through this SNOPR. 

The January NOPR and the March 

2010 meeting provided interested 

parties an opportunity to submit 

comments on the proposals. Interested 

parties raised significant issues and 

suggested changes to the proposed test 

procedures. DOE determined that some 

of these comments warrant further 

consideration. In today’s notice, DOE 

addresses those comments and proposes 

adjustments to the initial test 

procedures proposed for walk-in 

equipment in the January 2010 NOPR. 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

DOE is proposing several changes to 

the proposal presented in the January 

NOPR. These changes involve: 

(1) Definition of walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer. 

(2) Testing and compliance 

responsibility. 

(3) Versions of standards incorporated 

by reference. 

(4) Basic model for envelope. 

(5) Basic model for refrigeration 

system. 

(6) Conduction through structural 

members. 

(7) Alternatives to ASTM C1303. 

(8) Heat transfer through concrete. 

(9) U-factor of glass and non-glass 

doors. 

(10) Steady-state infiltration through 

panel interfaces and doors. 

(11) Door opening infiltration 

assumptions. 

(12) Infiltration reduction device 

effectiveness. 

(13) Relative humidity assumptions. 

(14) Definition of refrigeration system. 

(15) Annual walk-in energy factor. 

Concurrently, DOE is undertaking an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking to address the statutory 

requirement to establish performance 

standards for walk-in equipment no 

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

6313(f)(4)(A)) DOE will use the test 

procedure in the concurrent process of 

evaluating potential performance 

standards for the equipment. After 

performance standards become 

applicable, manufacturers must use the 

test procedures to determine 

compliance with the standards, and 

DOE must use the test procedure to 

ascertain compliance with the standards 

in any enforcement action. Moreover, 

once any final test procedure is 

effective, any representation as to the 

energy use of walk-in equipment must 

reflect the results of testing that 

equipment using the test procedure. 

III. Discussion 

This section addresses issues raised 

by interested parties in response to the 

January NOPR and provides detail 

regarding DOE’s proposed changes to 

the test procedure. Interested parties 

include trade associations (American 

Chemistry Council/Center for the 

Polyurethanes Industry (ACC/CPI), 

AHRI); manufacturers of the covered 

equipment (Craig Industries, Metl-Span, 

Nor-Lake, Carpenter, Master-Bilt, 

American Panel Corporation, Arctic 

Industries, Amerikooler, Kason, Hill 

Phoenix, TAFCO/TMP (TAFCO), 

International Cold Storage (ICS), 

ThermalRite, Manitowoc, Kysor Panel, 

HeatCraft, and Crown Tonka); suppliers 

of components used in the covered 

equipment (Honeywell, BASF, Dyplast, 

ITW Insulation, Owens Corning, HH 

Technologies (Hired Hand), Dow 

Chemical, and Schott Gemtron); utilities 

(Southern California Edison (SCE), San 

Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE), and the 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

(SMUD)); and energy efficiency 

advocates (American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)). 

A. Overall Issues 

1. Definition of Walk-In Cooler or 

Freezer: Temperature Limit 

EPCA defines walk-in equipment as 

follows: 

(A) In general.— 

The terms ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and ‘‘walk-in 

freezer’’ mean an enclosed storage space 

refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, 

above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit 

that can be walked into, and has a total 

chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square 

feet. 

(B) Exclusion.— 

The terms ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and ‘‘walk-in 

freezer’’ do not include products designed 

and marketed exclusively for medical, 

scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(20)) 

During the public meeting on the 

January NOPR and in written 

comments, several interested parties 

stated that DOE should clarify this 

definition with respect to temperature 

limits and exclusions. Multiple 

interested parties commented that DOE 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

should set an upper temperature limit 

for walk-ins. Three temperature limits 

were proposed: (1) 40 or 41 °F; (2) 45 

°F; and (3) between 31 °F and 55 °F. 

Kysor stated that DOE should align with 

the National Sanitation Foundation 

(NSF) definition of 41 °F as the 

maximum high temperature for food 

storage. (Kysor, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 85) ICS 

agreed with Kysor but cautioned that 

this temperature could be different from 

the temperature set by the customer. 

(ICS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 86) 

In written comments, Kysor also 

suggested 40 °F as the upper limit 

because NSF/ANSI Standard 7, 

‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers’’ 

uses such a requirement. See NSF/ANSI 

Standard 7, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerators 

and Freezers,’’ Section 6.10.1, 

‘‘Performance (‘‘Storage refrigerators and 

refrigerated food transport cabinets shall 

be capable of maintaining an air 

temperature of 40 °F (4 °C) or lower in 

the interior.’’) (Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 

1) Craig and Hired Hand both indicated 

that 45 °F or 41 °F would be an 

acceptable upper limit. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 86; 

Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 1 and Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 19; 

Hired Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 88) A comment 

submitted jointly by SCE, SDGE, and 

SMUD, hereafter referred to collectively 

as ‘‘the Joint Comment,’’ recommended 

that DOE develop a definition to clarify 

that walk-in coolers operate at 

temperatures between 55 °F and 32 °F. 

(Joint Comment, No. 1.3.019 at p. 17) 

SCE pointed out that California’s 

building energy standards consider 55 

°F and below to be refrigerated. (SCE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 85) TAFCO agreed that DOE should 

impose an upper limit of 55 °F because 

this is the highest temperature at which 

most refrigeration systems will operate. 

(TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 1) Craig 

disagreed with a 55 °F limit because this 

temperature is the typical holding 

temperature for wine coolers, but the 

walk-in wine cooler might be rated at a 

lower temperature. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 86) 

DOE infers from the comment that Craig 

was concerned that the energy 

consumption of a wine cooler at the test 

procedure rating temperature might not 

represent the energy consumption at the 

actual holding temperature. Hired Hand 

stated that air conditioning is the first 

stage of cooling for walk-ins inside airconditioned warehouses, which echoed 

the concerns of other commenters that 

the complete absence of an upper 

temperature limit might inadvertently 

include a wider variety of conditioned 

spaces than contemplated. (Hired Hand, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 87) 

EPCA defines walk-in equipment, in 

part, as meaning a space that is 

‘‘refrigerated,’’ and as having a ‘‘chilled 

storage area.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) DOE 

proposes clarifying the term 

‘‘refrigerated’’ within the statutory 

definition to distinguish walk-in 

equipment from air-conditioned storage 

spaces. DOE could not find a consensus 

among the industry for the definition of 

‘‘refrigerated’’ or ‘‘chilled storage.’’ 

However, the Joint Comment, SCE, and 

TAFCO suggested that 55 °F represented 

a boundary between ‘‘refrigerated space’’ 

and ‘‘conditioned space’’ as refrigeration 

systems typically do not operate above 

55 °F, and air-conditioning systems 

typically do not operate below this 

limit. DOE found that preparation 

rooms, wine coolers, and storage coolers 

for most fruits and vegetables are 

considered refrigerated spaces and are 

typically cooled to temperatures 

between 45 °F and 55 °F. DOE proposes 

adopting a clarifying definition that 

would set an upper limit of 55 °F for 

walk-in equipment. DOE believes that 

using the upper limit of food storage 

temperatures (i.e., 40 °F or 45 °F) to 

define walk-in equipment, as suggested 

by some commenters, would exclude 

some equipment that is ‘‘refrigerated’’ 

and has a ‘‘chilled storage area.’’ Such an 

approach would, in DOE’s view, 

exclude from coverage equipment that 

falls within the statutorily-prescribed 

scope of EPCA’s walk-in definition. The 

space in which a walk-in is located (e.g., 

a grocery store, warehouse, or other 

conditioned space) would not itself be 

considered a walk-in unless it meets the 

statutory definition of a walk-in and 

DOE’s proposed clarifying definition 

that would set an upper limit on the 

temperature range. DOE requests 

comment on its proposal of clarifying 

‘‘refrigerated’’ to mean at or below 55 °F. 

2. Testing and Compliance 

Responsibility 

In responding to comments received 

on the framework document, the 

January NOPR detailed DOE’s proposal 

to create separate test procedures for the 

envelope and the refrigeration system, 

the two discrete systems that comprise 

a walk-in. 75 FR 191. These two systems 

may or may not each be manufactured 

by a separate manufacturing entity. 

Additionally, other manufacturers may 

be involved in producing secondary 

components—such as fan assemblies or 

lighting—that are then incorporated as 

parts of the refrigeration system or 

envelope. 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

that the envelope manufacturer would 

be responsible for testing the envelope 

according to the envelope test 

procedure, and the refrigeration system 

manufacturer would be responsible for 

testing the refrigeration system 

according to the refrigeration system test 

procedure. 75 FR 191. DOE believed 

that the manufacturers of the envelope 

and refrigeration systems—as parties 

most likely to be intimately familiar 

with the design and operation of their 

own equipment—would be more likely 

than installers to have the resources, 

equipment, and trained personnel 

needed to conduct the tests necessary to 

certify WICF equipment as compliant 

with any energy conservation standards 

that DOE develops. 75 FR 191. 

However, interested parties 

commented that DOE’s concept of a 

single envelope manufacturer may not 

align with the actual market. 

Commenters suggested that the panel 

manufacturers, whom DOE assumed 

would serve as the envelope 

manufacturers for purposes of testing 

compliance, did not necessarily control 

the design of the walk-in envelopes for 

which their panels were used. Many of 

the comments from interested parties 

suggested that DOE should assign 

compliance testing responsibility to 

parties involved in the physical 

assembly (e.g., installers) and/or designlevel specification (e.g., general 

contractors) of the walk-in envelope 

because actions taken by these parties 

could have a significant effect on walkin performance over its lifetime. Some 

commenters suggested various forms of 

joint responsibility between the 

manufacturer(s) of the envelope 

components and the parties responsible 

for the physical assembly and/or designlevel specification of the envelope. 

Other interested parties commented that 

these options would not constitute a 

viable approach and that DOE should 

focus on the panel manufacturers for 

compliance testing because they would 

be more likely to have the proper 

equipment and expertise to test the 

panels. 

Likewise, interested parties 

commented that DOE’s concept of a 

single refrigeration system manufacturer 

may be inaccurate because the 

condensing unit and unit cooler of a 

single refrigeration system may be 

manufactured by separate entities and 

the whole system may be manufactured 

from these separate parts by a third 

manufacturer. Commenters generally 

suggested assigning joint responsibility 

between the manufacturer(s) of the unit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55071 

cooler and condensing unit and the 

manufacturer of the system as a whole. 

Others suggested that DOE break a 

refrigeration system down into its 

individual components (e.g., 

compressor, coils) and regulate each 

component separately. 

DOE believes that many of the 

comments concerning compliance 

testing responsibility stem from the 

definition of the term ‘‘manufacture,’’ 

which EPCA defines as ‘‘to manufacture, 

produce, assemble or import.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(10)) Several interested parties 

requested clarification of the definition 

of ‘‘manufacture’’ and the implications 

of that role. DOE generally requires a 

single party, whose role falls under the 

term ‘‘manufacture,’’ to assume 

compliance responsibility for a given 

appliance or equipment; typically, the 

party responsible for demonstrating 

compliance would conduct the 

necessary testing or arrange for testing 

to be conducted by a third party (e.g., 

a testing lab). DOE recognizes that the 

walk-in envelope and refrigeration 

system markets rely on multiple supply 

chain scenarios in which several 

distinct parties could serve different 

roles that may fall under the term 

‘‘manufacture.’’ In the case of both walkin envelopes and refrigeration systems, 

DOE recognizes that assigning 

compliance responsibility to a single 

entity that may not be involved in all 

aspects of the design and construction 

of these systems may present certain 

logistical issues. Accordingly, DOE 

plans to further address these issues 

during the standards rulemaking when 

developing the required efficiency 

levels and when developing 

certification and compliance 

responsibilities. 

3. Basic Model of Envelope 

Although often manufactured 

according to the same basic design, 

many walk-in envelopes can be highly 

customized. To address this possibility, 

DOE proposed the following approach 

in the January NOPR: (1) Grouping 

walk-in envelopes with essentially 

identical construction methods, 

materials, and components into a single 

basic model; and (2) adopting a 

calculation methodology for 

determining the energy consumption of 

units within the basic model. For walkin envelopes, DOE proposed to define a 

‘‘basic model’’ as ‘‘all units of a given 

type of walk-in equipment 

manufactured by a single manufacturer, 

and—(1) With respect to envelopes, 

which do not have any differing 

construction methods, materials, 

components, or other characteristics 

that significantly affect the energy 

consumption characteristics.’’ 75 FR 

189. 

Master-Bilt, BASF, ACC/CPI, Craig, 

Kason, and ThermalRite supported the 

concept of the basic model for WICF 

envelopes. (Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 

1; BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3; ACC/CPI, 

No. 1.3.006 at p. 2 and No. 1.3.028 at 

p. 1; Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 102; Kason, No. 1.3.037 

at p. 1 and Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 124; and ThermalRite, 

No. 1.3.031 at p. 1) Craig supported an 

approach consisting of a single basic 

model test on a baseline model and 

adding component loads. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

123) Kason stated that the basic model 

test should include provisions at the 

component level, where manufacturers 

could pick new components as long as 

the components were certified to exceed 

the performance of the old components. 

(Kason, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 124) Kysor and Nor-Lake 

both believed that the concept of the 

basic model may not be realistic if 

envelope components such as doors and 

lights were not purchased or installed 

by the panel manufacturers; in that case, 

Kysor and Nor-Lake stated that 

component manufacturers should be 

responsible for rating individual 

components. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at 

p. 2; Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 2) Arctic 

proposed expanding the basic model 

concept to eliminate testing for units 

using the same materials and 

construction methods as a previously 

certified model, adding that it would be 

impractical and infeasible for them to 

test every kind of equipment they 

manufacture because of the great variety 

of box dimensions. (Arctic, No. 1.3.012 

at p. 1) BASF and Kason also stated that 

manufacturers must be able to reduce 

the number of models to test to ensure 

minimal manufacturer burden. (BASF, 

No. 1.3.003 at p. 3 and Kason, No. 

1.3.037 at p. 1) 

Other interested parties disagreed 

with the proposed basic model 

approach. Bally stated that the company 

produces tens of thousands of basic 

models, making basic model testing 

infeasible. (Bally, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 132) Hill 

Phoenix believed that use of a basic 

model for testing would not accurately 

represent the energy usage of most walkins because of equipment variability, 

that an energy usage calculation 

program would have to be created and 

maintained and be consistent across the 

industry, and that basic model testing 

would require costly government 

oversight. Instead, Hill Phoenix 

recommended component-level 

modeling. (Hill Phoenix, No. 1.3.023 at 

p. 2) 

Several interested parties requested 

clarification of the proposed definition 

of basic model. ACC/CPI and Honeywell 

recommended that different types of 

foam and/or different blowing agents 

should trigger different basic models 

(ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 2 and Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 43; 

Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 1) 

Honeywell also recommended that a 

different facer material should trigger a 

new basic model. (Honeywell, No. 

1.3.020 at p. 1) Owens Corning stated 

that the insulation material should not 

trigger a new basic model because the Rvalue of the insulation is addressed in 

EISA and that panel construction 

(framed or frameless) should be used to 

differentiate between basic models. 

(Owens Corning, No. 1.3.030 at p. 2) ICS 

stated that different applications should 

constitute different basic models: 

holding storage, quick chilling or 

freezing, or blast freezing. (ICS, No. 

1.3.027 at p. 1) TAFCO commented that 

the use of strip curtains or air curtains 

should not constitute a new basic 

model. (TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 2) 

Other interested parties requested that 

DOE specify standard characteristics for 

a certain basic unit that every 

manufacturer would test. American 

Panel, ThermalRite, and Craig 

recommended that DOE specify a 

standardized basic model size. 

(American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at p. 2; 

ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 1; Craig, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at pp. 102, 106, and 119) Craig 

suggested a basic size applicable to the 

food industry—an 8 foot × 10 foot cooler 

and a 6 foot × 8 foot freezer, both with 

a height of 7 feet 6 inches tall—and 

added that size would only be 

applicable to the infiltration test 

because other characteristics could be 

calculated. (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 105 and No. 

1.2.010 at pp. 102, 106, and 119) Kysor 

suggested that only height could be 

specified, arguing that walk-ins cannot 

be characterized by size. (Kysor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

106) 

Finally, interested parties commented 

on the proposed scaling methodology 

associated with the basic model 

concept. Manitowoc stated that a scaling 

methodology based on surface area 

would not give an accurate 

representation of energy use because 

energy scales not only with surface area 

but with other factors as well such as 

the number of installed doors and door 

size. In other words, individual 

component loads scale with individual 

component characteristics. (Manitowoc, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 108) ThermalRite also questioned 

whether there is a linear relationship 

between energy consumption and WICF 

size that would allow for scaling. 

(ThermalRite, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 110) 

Upon consideration of these 

comments, DOE believes that the basic 

model concept would provide 

manufacturers with a standardized 

method of categorizing their products. 

However, the definition of basic model 

proposed in the January NOPR could 

make the concept difficult to use as 

originally intended to reduce testing 

burden. Specifically, the phrase ‘‘* * * 

characteristics that significantly affect 

the energy consumption * * *’’ could 

be interpreted inconsistently by 

manufacturers. The paragraphs below 

describe DOE’s proposed alternative 

approach to defining the term ‘‘basic 

model’’. Additionally, feedback from 

interested parties indicated a desire for 

DOE to specify prescriptive design 

characteristics for a basic model. 

Because EPCA requires DOE to 

promulgate performance-based 

standards for this equipment, DOE does 

not intend to specify design 

characteristics that do not affect 

normalized energy consumption, as 

suggested by ACC/CPI, Honeywell, 

Owens Corning, ICS and TAFCO. See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(f) (instructing DOE to set 

performance-based standards for walkins). 

DOE is considering adopting a revised 

definition of the term ‘‘basic model’’ that 

would be consistent with the definition 

of basic model used elsewhere in the 

appliance standards program, improve 

the clarity of the definition, and narrow 

the scope of the basic model concept. 

Most notably, this revision would not 

allow walk-in models to differ in terms 

of their normalized energy 

consumption. Models grouped within a 

basic model could still differ in terms of 

their non-energy characteristics (e.g., 

color, shelving, metal skin material 

type, exterior finish, door kick-plate) but 

any change to a characteristic that 

affects normalized energy consumption 

(e.g., panel systems, door systems, 

electrical components, and infiltration 

reduction devices) would constitute a 

new basic model. 

DOE’s proposed revision, while 

reducing the possibility of inconsistent 

interpretation of the term ‘‘basic model’’, 

could increase the testing burden 

relative to the burden under the 

definition of ‘‘basic model’’ as proposed 

in the January NOPR. Some of the 

burden may be offset, however, by 

burden-reducing measures proposed 

elsewhere in the test procedure. These 

measures include incorporating scaling 

factors for the infiltration test (section 

III.B.9), the panel U-factor test (section 

III.B.1), and representative doorway 

sizes for infiltration reduction device 

testing. With these measures, DOE 

attempts to minimize the number of 

physical tests that would need to be 

performed for the test procedure and 

instead provide a calculation 

methodology that would allow for rating 

equipment based on physical tests 

conducted on other equipment. DOE 

believes that this approach would 

sufficiently address the concerns of 

BASF, Kason, Arctic, Bally, and Hill 

Phoenix regarding the number of basic 

models to be tested and the cost of 

testing. A DOE-specified calculation 

methodology would also address Hill 

Phoenix’s recommendation that the 

energy use calculation program be 

consistent across the industry. 

Regarding Arctic’s view that the basic 

model concept should be expanded to 

include similar units with the same 

materials and construction methods that 

have been previously certified, DOE 

notes that models with the same 

characteristics as previously certified 

models would be considered the same 

basic model only if they met the 

conditions in the basic model 

definition. In other words, the models 

would need to have the same 

manufacturer and not have any differing 

characteristics that affect normalized 

energy consumption. 

The proposed test procedure revisions 

considered in this SNOPR also rely 

more heavily on component testing, 

consistent with the suggestions made by 

Craig, Kason, Kysor, Nor-Lake, and Hill 

Phoenix. This approach removes the 

burden of testing an entire walk-in for 

which only one component is different 

from a previously rated walk-in: the test 

procedure revisions in this SNOPR 

would allow for testing the new 

component and then using the proposed 

calculation methodology to obtain the 

new rating of the walk-in. Additionally, 

the proposed component tests allow for 

testing one component and then 

applying those results to other 

components that meet certain similar 

criteria. DOE believes this method is 

more accurate than allowing for scaling 

of the entire walk-in, because each 

walk-in could contain many customized 

parts. Adopting this method would 

address the concerns raised by 

Manitowoc and ThermalRite that energy 

may not scale directly with walk-in 

external surface area or other size 

characteristics. For some proposed 

component tests, DOE specifies 

characteristics of the part that must be 

physically tested (i.e., the geometry of a 

panel test sample), instead of specifying 

characteristics of the tested walk-in unit 

as a whole as suggested by American 

Panel, ThermalRite, Craig, and Kysor, 

because (1) complete walk-in units may 

be very different from one another even 

if they use similar components, and (2) 

the scaling calculations are more 

accurate on the component level than 

on the level of the entire walk-in, which 

supports testing certain components as 

part of the compliance procedure. For 

additional details on these proposed 

component tests, see section III.B. 

With respect to certification, in 

general, DOE requires that 

manufacturers of a covered basic model 

submit a certification report providing 

details, which demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards or design standards 

prescribed by DOE or established by 

Congress. DOE estimates that 

approximately 50 percent of the market 

consists of standardized walk-ins that 

are produced in large quantities. For the 

other half of the market, walk-ins may 

have custom features and components 

that could qualify each as a different 

basic model. In this situation, 

manufacturers could produce many 

basic models in a year. 

DOE is unsure, however, how 

burdensome this would be in terms of 

the actual number of hours or personnel 

required to certify additional basic 

models under this approach. If requiring 

a certification report for each basic 

model under the approach outlined in 

today’s SNOPR would impose an 

unreasonable burden, DOE may 

consider a compliance certification 

approach similar to that taken for 

distribution transformers (another case 

in which some equipment is highly 

customized). 10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii). 

Distribution transformer manufacturers 

are required to maintain records on all 

basic models sold (or built), but must 

submit a compliance report to DOE that 

certifies only the least efficient basic 

model within larger groupings that may 

encompass many basic models. 10 CFR 

431.371(a)(6)(ii). The manufacturer 

would certify that every other 

transformer in the larger grouping is no 

less efficient than the certified basic 

model certified to DOE. Given the 

nature of the market, DOE is willing to 

consider variations on this approach for 

walk-ins, such as requiring certification 

for the least and most efficient basic 

models within a larger group. Such an 

approach could help address the 

concern of Hill Phoenix about the cost 

of an oversight strategy. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55073 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition and approach 

regarding basic models for envelopes. 

4. Basic Model of Refrigeration Systems 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

that the definition of the term ‘‘basic 

model’’ in the context of a refrigeration 

system would refer to all units with the 

same energy source and without any 

different electrical, physical, and 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. DOE then stated 

during the NOPR public meeting that it 

was considering a new definition that 

would not allow units within a basic 

model to differ in energy consumption. 

DOE also stated during the public 

meeting that it would consider the 

default of including no provision for a 

basic model, under which 

manufacturers would be required to test 

every model they manufacture. 

AHRI and ACEEE agreed with DOE’s 

proposed approach and definition of 

basic model. (AHRI, No. 1.3.032 at p. 2 

and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 169; ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at 

p. 2) Craig also agreed with the 

proposed approach given that 

improvements could be applied to 

existing systems. (Craig, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 172) ICS, 

Manitowoc, and HeatCraft 

recommended that the basic model of 

refrigeration be allowed to vary 

minimally (a 5 percent tolerance) in 

energy consumption, while HeatCraft 

also stated that in Europe, the tolerance 

is typically 8 percent. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 

at p. 1; Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 159; and 

HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 162) On the other 

hand, Master-Bilt expressed concern 

that too many refrigeration system 

combinations may exist for the basic 

model concept to be applied effectively. 

(Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 1) 

HeatCraft stated that it was concerned 

about testing highly variable 

refrigeration systems and combinations, 

and whether they would be able to 

incorporate new technologies. 

(HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 42) Nor-Lake was also 

concerned about the potential testing 

burden because it has distinct energy 

efficiency ratio values on over 250 

models. It recommended either defining 

basic model to account for how many 

basic models a manufacturer would 

have or to replace the basic model 

approach with a component-based one. 

(Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at pp. 2 and 5 

and No. 1.3.029 at p. 2) Manitowoc 

suggested considering a unit cooler its 

own basic model (not the combination 

of unit cooler and condensing unit), 

making it unnecessary to test all 

combinations but only individual parts 

of the system. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

158) 

TAFCO identified refrigeration system 

components that, if changed, would 

significantly affect energy consumption. 

These components include the 

compressor, condensing coil, fan 

motors, head pressure control, and 

evaporator coil. (TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at 

p. 2) American Panel added that 

headmasters (which control pressure) 

must be included on outdoor 

condensing units if the unit will be 

exposed to low temperatures. (American 

Panel, No. 24 at p. 3) Some interested 

parties discussed whether DOE should 

specify certain characteristics of the 

basic model. Specifically, HeatCraft 

stated that the basic model should 

include some common parts such as a 

filter dryer to permit a valid comparison 

between manufacturers, but 

manufacturers should be allowed to add 

unique features. (HeatCraft, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

162) ACEEE agreed that the basic model 

should include parts that have a 

reasonable probability of affecting 

energy consumption to encourage 

manufacturers to include all necessary 

components in their WICF equipment. 

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 168) AHRI disagreed, 

stating that DOE should not specify 

design requirements in defining basic 

model groups, but rather agreed with 

DOE’s proposed definition. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 169) (Although ACEEE did not 

elaborate further on what it considers 

‘‘all necessary components,’’ DOE is 

interpreting this phrase as referring to 

any components that would be needed 

to have the unit work in a manner as 

designed without the addition of 

aftermarket components that would 

impact the equipment’s energy usage.) 

As with envelopes, DOE must ensure 

that all refrigeration systems are 

accurately rated and comply with the 

standard. To avoid differing 

interpretations of what a ‘‘significant 

difference’’ in energy consumption 

might be, DOE believes that it is 

appropriate to clarify certain aspects of 

that definition to eliminate differences 

in the measured energy consumption of 

models belonging to the same basic 

model group. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes a revised definition of basic 

model of refrigeration where units 

cannot differ in electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. DOE recognizes 

that the components identified by 

TAFCO affect the energy consumption 

of the refrigeration system. 

Nevertheless, DOE believes that listing 

only certain components where changes 

would constitute a new basic model 

could overlook changes to other 

components that affect energy 

consumption. In addition, the question 

of significance would remain under 

such an approach. DOE believes that the 

definition proposed here is sufficient to 

define basic model—a basic model 

would necessarily have to include all 

components that affect energy 

consumption. 

DOE also acknowledges the concerns 

of interested parties, specifically MasterBilt, HeatCraft, and Nor-Lake, that a 

manufacturer could produce many 

condensing unit and unit cooler 

combinations—i.e., many basic models 

—and that testing could be burdensome. 

DOE notes that the proposed 

refrigeration system test procedure, 

AHRI 1250–2009, allows for testing the 

condensing unit and unit cooler 

separately and then, using the 

calculation methodology in AHRI 1250– 

2009, determining the performance of 

the combined system, similar to the 

approach suggested by Manitowoc. 

Under this approach, each combination 

would not have to be tested, which 

would decrease the number of physical 

equipment tests, even though each 

different combination would be 

considered a different basic model and 

would receive a different rating. 

At this time, DOE does not intend to 

incorporate a tolerance into the 

definition of basic model, as suggested 

by ICS, Manitowoc, and HeatCraft, in 

order to ensure that the rating applying 

to each basic model is as accurate as 

possible. DOE notes that one potential 

issue with introducing a tolerance 

approach may be that neither DOE nor 

the eventual purchaser of the equipment 

could expect that the rating of a 

particular model would be equal to that 

model’s actual energy consumption. It is 

unclear to DOE how significant this 

issue may be if such an approach were 

adopted. 

DOE acknowledges, however, that 

units within a basic model are expected 

to differ slightly as a result of 

manufacturing and materials variations. 

As a result, DOE may consider 

accounting for these variations in 

sampling plans used for compliance 

testing and developed as part of any 

future certification and enforcement 

rulemaking. DOE’s existing compliance 

and certification regulations, developed 

for certain other commercial equipment, 

provide that when a random sample of 

equipment is taken for determining 

compliance with the standard for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

represented values of estimated energy 

consumption of a basic model shall be 

no less than the higher of the mean of 

the test sample or the upper 95 percent 

confidence limit of the true mean 

divided by 1.10. 75 FR 652, 666–71 (Jan. 

5, 2010), codified at 10 CFR 431.372. 

This rule also provides that, in 

enforcement proceedings, DOE’s 

determination that a basic model 

complies with the standard is based on 

a confidence limit which accounts for 

statistical variation within a basic 

model. 75 FR 674, codified at 10 CFR 

part 431, Appendix D to Subpart T. 

These sampling provisions are only 

intended to reduce the burden on 

manufacturers associated with 

certification and enforcement. 

Manufacturers would still be required to 

use the test procedure to rate their 

equipment and, once energy 

conservation standards take effect, to 

determine whether each basic model of 

the equipment they manufacture 

complies with the standard. 

As discussed above for envelopes, 

DOE could consider a compliance 

certification approach similar to that 

taken for distribution transformers 

(another case in which some equipment 

is highly customized) to reduce the 

burden while ensuring that the energy 

conservation standards are being met. 

10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii). DOE describes 

this approach in detail in section III.A.3. 

DOE requests comment on the 

definition of and approach to basic 

model of refrigeration systems. 

B. Envelope 

The envelope consists of the insulated 

box in which items are stored and 

refrigerated. To meet one element of the 

statutory requirement that the DOE test 

procedure ‘‘measure the energy use’’ of 

walk-ins (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)), 

DOE had proposed to incorporate a 

metric for the energy use associated 

with the envelope of a walk-in cooler or 

walk-in freezer. Under the applicable 

EPCA definition of ‘‘energy use’’—the 

amount of energy directly consumed by 

a piece of equipment at the point of use 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(4))—DOE has 

tentatively determined that the energy 

use of a walk-in envelope is the sum of 

(1) the electrical energy consumption of 

envelope components and (2) other 

energy consumption of the walk-in 

equipment resulting from the heat 

transfer performance of the envelope. 

The proposed envelope test procedure 

contains methods for evaluating the 

performance characteristics of 

insulation, testing thermal energy gains 

related to air infiltration and 

determining direct electricity use and 

heat gain due to internal electrical 

components. The proposed procedure 

uses data obtained from these methods 

to calculate a measure of energy use 

associated with the envelope by 

calculating the effect of the envelope’s 

characteristics and components on the 

energy consumption of the walk-in as a 

whole. These characteristics and 

components would include the energy 

consumption of electrical components 

present in the envelope (such as lights) 

and variation in the energy 

consumption of the refrigeration system 

due to heat loads introduced as a 

function of envelope performance, such 

as conduction of heat through the walls 

of the envelope. The effect on the 

refrigeration system would be 

determined by calculating the energy 

consumption of a theoretical or 

‘‘nominal’’ refrigeration system if it were 

paired with the tested envelope. The 

test procedure uses the same nominal 

refrigeration system efficiency for all 

tested envelopes to allow for direct 

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

product classes, and levels of feature 

implementation. 

1. Heat Conduction Through Structural 

Members 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

that the long-term thermal resistance 

(LTTR) value of the insulating foam 

after 5 years of equivalent aging be 

determined using ASTM C1303–08, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Predicting 

Long-Term Thermal Resistance of 

Closed-Cell Foam Insulation.’’ This 

value would be used as the R-value for 

all non-glass envelope sections 

constructed with foam insulation, for 

purposes of calculating the energy 

consumption of the walk-in. Other 

components of the panel, such as 

structural members, were not included 

in the conduction calculations of the 

test procedure. 

Craig, Owens Corning, and American 

Panel pointed out that conduction 

through structural members must be 

considered when determining the Rvalue of a composite walk-in insulation 

panel. (Craig, No. 1.3.036 at p. 3 and 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at pp. 20 and 61; Owens Corning, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 56; 

and American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at p. 

3) The Joint Comment recommended 

that the current R-value requirement for 

the foam be converted to an overall Ufactor requirement for the assembled 

panel. (Joint Comment, No. 1.3.019 at p. 

11) (U-factor is a measure of heat 

transmission, including conduction and 

radiation. A lower U-factor indicates a 

lower rate of heat transmission.) MetlSpan, BASF, Kysor, and ACC/CPI 

agreed with the approach of 

determining the performance of the 

panel as a whole and recommended that 

DOE use ASTM C1363–05, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Thermal Performance 

of Building Materials and Envelope 

Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 

Apparatus,’’ for evaluating the fully 

assembled panel. (Metl-Span, No. 

1.3.004 at p. 1; BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 

2; Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 2; ACC/CPI, 

No. 1.3.006 at p. 2) 

In view of these comments, DOE 

proposes to account for conduction 

through structural members, as urged by 

Craig and American Panel, by 

measuring the overall U-factor of fully 

assembled panels as recommended by 

the Joint Comment. All panels (walls, 

ceiling, and floor) would be tested using 

ASTM C1363–05 for measuring the 

overall U-factor of fully assembled 

panels, as stated by Metl-Span, BASF, 

Kysor, and ACC/CPI. The resulting 

composite panel U-factor from ASTM 

C1363–05 would then be corrected 

using the LTTR results from ASTM 

C1303–10, if foam is used as the 

primary insulating material. See section 

3.1.6 of Appendix A for details. DOE 

believes using the results from ASTM 

C1363–05 modified by ASTM C1303–10 

best captures the effect of structural 

members and long-term R-value of foam 

products. 

DOE recognizes the burden involved 

when testing an entire representative 

walk-in using ASTM C1363–05; i.e., 

requiring a representative walk-in 

composed of 18 panels to be tested 18 

times. DOE also notes that testing a 

single representative panel would be 

less burdensome but very inaccurate. 

Panels are often manufactured in 

dimensions close to 8 feet long by 4 feet 

wide, but panel geometry frequently 

deviates from this size as walk-ins are 

made larger. In addition, structural 

members are normally placed in the 

perimeter of panels (if used at all). 

Therefore, the heat transfer of a given 

panel is most closely related to the ratio 

of perimeter structural materials to nonperimeter core panel materials. 

If DOE were to require an ASTM 

C1363–05 test using only one panel size, 

the test would be representative of only 

this single perimeter-to-core ratio. If a 

walk-in were constructed of panels that 

deviated from this representative size in 

either extreme (i.e., much smaller or 

larger), the resulting energy calculations 

could be inaccurate. To balance the 

competing interests of minimizing 

burden while ensuring measurement 

accuracy, DOE is proposing to specify 

two test regions of a pair of 

representative panels. At one test 

region, the tester would measure the UVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:18 Sep 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55075 

factor of the perimeter and panel-topanel interface area (‘‘Panel Edge’’), 

while at the other region the tester 

would measure the U-factor of the core 

area of the panel (‘‘Panel Core’’). The 

details of this procedure are described 

in section 4.1.1 of Appendix A. 

DOE seeks comment on the use of 

ASTM C1363–05 for this portion of the 

test procedure. 

2. Use of ASTM C1303 or EN 

13165:2009–02 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

using ASTM C1303–08, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method of Predicting Long Term 

Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation,’’ to determine the long-term 

R-value of foam insulations used in 

walk-ins. 75 FR 194. (That test method 

has since been updated to ASTM 

C1303–10, which, as discussed in 

section III.B.4, DOE is now proposing to 

adopt as part of this test procedure. All 

references to ASTM C1303 in today’s 

notice refer to the ASTM C1303–10 

version of the protocol.) As discussed 

later in section III.B.3, DOE also 

proposes, in the alternative, the use of 

EN 13165:2009–02 (a Europeandeveloped material standard), and seeks 

comment on the use of these 

procedures. 

DOE recognizes that R-value decline 

occurs over time in unfaced and 

permeably faced foams. In the published 

January NOPR, DOE cited a body of 

research indicating that R-value decline 

also occurs in foams with impermeable 

facers because the metal skins delay, but 

do not prevent, R-value decline because 

the panel edges are unprotected. DOE 

recognized that using ASTM C1303–10 

would require testing foams without 

their metal facers because the test 

procedure was designed for unfaced or 

permeably faced foams. In the published 

NOPR and at the NOPR public meeting, 

DOE requested that interested parties 

submit data related to using ASTM 

C1303–10 for walk-ins. 

DOE received many comments related 

to ASTM C1303–10. Supporting 

documents submitted during the 

comment period are listed in the table 

below and identified with reference 

numbers. DOE conducted further 

research and identified additional 

documents that provide information on 

the use of ASTM C1303–10. These are 

also listed in the table below with 

reference numbers preceded by ‘‘DOE.’’ 

TABLE III.1—RESEARCH CITED BY INTERESTED PARTIES AND BY DOE 

Commenter Paper Citation Ref. No. 

ACC/CPI .......................................... SPI Polyurethane Division k Factor Task Force, ‘‘Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate Foams: An Assessment of Their Insulating Properties,’’ Proceedings 

of the SPI 31st Annual Technical/Marketing Conference, Oct. 18–21, 1988 Philadelphia, PA. pp. 323–327.

1 

ACC/CPI, Carpenter, Honeywell ...... Wilkes, K. E., Yarbrough, D.W., Nelson, G. E., Booth, J. R., ‘‘Aging of Polyurethane 

Foam Insulation in Simulated Refrigerator Panels—Four-Year Results with Third-Generation Blowing Agents’’, The Earth Technologies Forum, Washington, DC, April 22– 

24, 2003.

2 

ACC/CPI, Honeywell ........................ Norton, F.J., ‘‘Thermal Conductivity and Life of Polymer Foams’’, Journal of Cellular Plastics, 1967, pp. 23–37.3 

ACC/CPI, Honeywell ........................ Shankland, I. R. ‘‘Blowing Agent Emissions from Insulation Foam’’, Polyurethanes World 

Congress 1991 pp. 91–98.

4 

Dow .................................................. Oertel, Dr. Gunter, Polyurethane Handbook, p. 256 ............................................................ 5 

Dow .................................................. Ottens et al., ‘‘Industrial Experiences with CO2 Blown .........................................................

Polyurethane Foams in the Manufacture of Metal Faced Sandwich Panels,’’ Polyurethane 

World.

Congress ’97’ ........................................................................................................................

6 

Dow .................................................. Bertucelli et al., ‘‘Phase-Out of Ozone Depleting Substances in the Manufacture of Metal 

Faced Sandwich Panels with Polyurethane Foam Core,’’ Utech Asia ’99’.

7 

Owens Corning ................................ The Role of Barriers in Reducing the Aging of Foam Panels by Leon R. Glicksman ......... 8 

Dow .................................................. European standard EN 13165 .............................................................................................. 9 

DOE ................................................. Wilkes, K. E., Yarbrough, D. W., Nelson, G. E., Booth, J. R., ‘‘Aging of Polyurethane 

Foam Insulation in Simulated Refrigerator Panels—Four-Year Results with Third-Generation Blowing Agents,’’ The Earth Technologies Forum Conference Proceedings, 

2003.

DOE 1 

DOE ................................................. Paquet, A., Vo C., ‘‘An Evaluation of the Thermal Conductivity of Extruded Polystyrene 

Foam Blown with HFC–134a and HCFC–142b,’’ Journal of Cellular Plastics, Volume 

40, May 2004.

DOE 2 

DOE ................................................. Federal Trade Commission, ‘‘Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule; Final Rule,16 CFR Part 460,’’ Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 103/Tuesday, 

May 31, 2005.

DOE 3 

DOE ................................................. Roe, Richard, ‘‘Long-Term Thermal Resistance (LTTR): 5 Years Later’’ RCI–057–Interface, March 2007.DOE 4 

DOE ................................................. Stovall, Therese, ‘‘Measuring the Impact of Experimental Parameters upon the Estimated 

Thermal Conductivity of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation Subjected to an Accelerated 

Aging Protocol: Two-Year Results, Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 6, No. 5 Paper 

ID JAI102025, April 2009.

DOE 5 

DOE ................................................. Kalinger, P., and Drouin, M. (Johns Manville), ‘‘Closed Cell Foam Insulation: Resolving 

the issue of thermal performance,’’ October/November 2001.

DOE 6 

DOE ................................................. Mukhopadhyaya, P., Bomberg, M. T., Kumaran, M. K., Drouin, M., Lackey, J., van 

Reenen, D., and Normandin, N., ‘‘Long-Term Thermal Resistance of Polyisocyanurate 

Foam Insulation with Impermeable Facers ,’’ Insulation Materials: Testing and Applications: 4th Volume, ASTM STP 1426, A. O. Desjarlais, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

DOE 7 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.1—RESEARCH CITED BY INTERESTED PARTIES AND BY DOE—Continued 

Commenter Paper Citation Ref. No. 

DOE ................................................. Mukhopadhyaya, P., Bomberg, M. T., Kumaran, M. K., Drouin, M., Lackey, J., van 

Reenen, D., and Normandin, N., ‘‘Long-term Thermal Resistance of Polyisocyanurate 

Foam Insulation with Gas Barrier,’’ IX International Conference on Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings, Clearwater Beach, Florida, Dec. 5–10, 2004, pp. 

1–10.

DOE 8 

DOE ................................................. Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Kumaran, M.K., ‘‘Long-Term Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell 

Foam Insulation: Research Update From Canada,’’ 3rd Global Insulation Conference 

and Exhibition, Oct. 16–17, 2008, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 1–12, NRCC–50839.

DOE 9 

DOE ................................................. Bomberg, M., Branreth, D., ‘‘Evaluation of Long-Term Thermal Resistance of Gas-Filled 

Foams: State of the Art,’’ Insulation Materials, Testing and Applications, ASTM STP 

1030, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1990, p. 156–173.

DOE 10 

DOE ................................................. H. Macchi-Tejeda, H. Opatova, D. Leducq, Contribution to the gas chromatographic analysis for both refrigerants composition and cell gas in insulating foams—Part I: Method, 

International Journal of Refrigeration, Volume 30, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 329– 

337.

DOE 11 

DOE ................................................. H. Macchi-Tejeda, H. Opatova, J. Guilpart, Contribution to the gas chromatographic analysis for both refrigerants composition and cell gas in insulating foams—Part II: Aging 

of insulating foams, International Journal of Refrigeration, Volume 30, Issue 2, March 

2007, Pages 338–344.

DOE 12 

ACC/CPI, in reference to paper [1], 

stated that the Task Force found that 

polyurethane foam encased in and 

adhered to impermeable facers does not 

age significantly. (ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 

at p. 3) In reference to [2], Honeywell 

stated that Wilkes et al. concluded that 

‘‘the increment of thermal conductivity 

of foams with facers is less than those 

of enclosed foams’’, and regarding that, 

ASTM C1303–08 is likely to 

underestimate the aged thermal 

insulation value of panel foams with 

facers. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 3) 

Honeywell suggested that ‘‘DOE 

consider adapting the aging prediction 

methodology presented’’ in either [3] or 

[4]. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 2) 

Dow stated that [5], [6], and [7] 

indicated that change in thermal 

conductivity due to aging is limited in 

blown polyurethane foams. (Dow, No. 

1.3.026 at p. 2) In reference to [8], 

Owens Corning stated that the study 

showed that blowing agent can diffuse 

under metal skins, that it migrates to the 

surface and that it can permeate out 

even underneath an air-impermeable 

surface. (Owens Corning, No. 1.2.010 at 

p. 256) Dow noted that [9] ‘‘provides 

methods for evaluating the aged lambda 

(λ) or R-values for both exposed foam 

and faced foam using an accelerated 

procedure. The standard uses safety 

factors depending on thickness and 

blowing agent used in the foam and also 

uses incremental factors for exposed 

foams versus foams with facings.’’ 

However, Dow also noted that ‘‘even 

though the standard and the procedure 

apply to foams with and without 

impermeable facings,’’ the aging factor is 

four times higher for exposed foam than 

it is for impermeably faced foam. (Dow, 

No. 1.3.026 at p. 1) 

With regard to papers cited by 

interested parties, DOE makes the 

following observations (the numbering 

refers to the paper reference number in 

Table III.1). 

1. On p. 325 of paper [1], the SPI 

Polyurethane Division k Factor Task 

Force states ‘‘* * * thermal 

performance changes little with time if 

the foam is protected against gas 

diffusion by a non-permeable facer that 

adheres well to the foam.’’ However, 

immediately following this statement 

SPI says, ‘‘The literature emphasizes that 

not only the foam but the entire package 

or composite must resist gas diffusion.’’ 

This statement supports DOE’s position 

that it is critical to ensure that all of the 

foam is encapsulated by an 

impermeable barrier to prevent 

diffusion of gases, not just the face of 

the material. However, the study also 

provides a number of studies that 

suggest that aging is delayed on the 

order of three to nine years rather than 

two to three years as DOE previously 

suggested. 

2. In paper [2], Wilkes et al. measured 

the LTTR of 2-inch-thick foam samples 

faced with either Acrylonitrile 

Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or High Impact 

Polystyrene (HIPS) plastic. The edges of 

the samples were covered with 

aluminum foil tape to reduce lateral 

diffusion through the panel edges. The 

samples were aged for 4 years in 90 °F, 

40 °F, and ¥10 °F environments. In 

conclusion, Wilkes et al. found that for 

‘‘both ABS and HIPS plastics, the 

conductivity increases after four years 

were less than those predicted for 

unenclosed full-thickness core-foam, 

showing that the plastic liners reduce 

the rate of aging. The panels with HIPS 

sheets showed average increases of 

[thermal conductivity] of 19 percent to 

28 percent with aging at 90 °F, 12 

percent to 23 percent at 40 °F, and 3 

percent to 8 percent at ¥10 °F. The 

panels with ABS sheets showed smaller 

increases of 14 percent to 21 percent at 

90 °F, 10 percent to 17 percent at 40 °F, 

and 2 percent to 5 percent at ¥10 °F.’’ 

(p. 10). The results demonstrate that 

facers reduce the rate of aging. However, 

the plastic facers used, with the 

exception of the foil around the edges, 

are gas permeable. In addition, Wilkes et 

al. specifically attempted to eliminate 

lateral diffusion with the foil tape on the 

edges of the samples, which is not 

representative of actual walk-in panels. 

3. Honeywell suggested that DOE 

adopt aging methodology presented by 

the Norton article [3], which was one of 

the key citations for the development of 

ASTM C1303–10. Norton completed 

much of the original research in the 

field of foam insulation aging. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt a 

test procedure, ASTM C1303–10, which 

already incorporates Honeywell’s 

suggested methodology. 

4. The Shankland paper [4] proposes 

an analytical approach to calculating 

lateral gas diffusion through foam 

panels with open edges. A similar 

methodology is proposed in [DOE 8] 

and [DOE 9], but researchers have had 

difficulty modeling and predicting 

blowing agent diffusion coefficients. 

[DOE 8] has found that direct analytical 

approach is not possible, but numerical 

computer simulation to predict lateral 

gas diffusion rates may be viable in a 

few years. 

5. The Oertel paper [5] describes 

research conducted to predict the 

amount of blowing agent that permeates 

through building walls after being 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55077 

released from the underlying foam 

insulation. The researcher notes, ‘‘if the 

rigid foam is faced with a diffusion 

barrier, the equilibration process cannot 

occur. The original composition of the 

cell gas remains unchanged and the low 

initial thermal conductivity is 

maintained. This was proven when 

impermeable facing materials were 

used. Only metallic surfaces are 

impermeable.’’ This section does not cite 

research confirming this claim, but as 

previously mentioned, DOE agrees that 

metal facers, particularly ones used in 

WICF panels, are gas impermeable. 

However, because the metal skins used 

in WICF panels do not fully encapsulate 

the foam in a contiguous manner (i.e., 

metal skin on the panel face and all 

edges), gas diffusion may still occur 

laterally through the panel edges. 

6. DOE notes that the Ottens study [6] 

is one of two of which DOE is aware that 

has been completed on polyurethane 

foam-in-place panels, with open edges 

intended to simulate metal skinned 

walk-in panels. This paper summarizes 

studies completed by IMA 

(Materialforschungs- und 

Anwendungstechnik Dresden GmbH, 

translation: Materials and Applications 

Research) as requested by 

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrieller 

Forschung (translation: Association of 

Industrial Research) to assess the longterm insulating behavior of sandwich 

elements. In particular, this paper cites 

data on carbon dioxide (CO2) blown 

foams as an alternative to other blowing 

agents. On page 30 of the study, Figures 

4 and 5 show aging results for both core 

and edge regions of test panels. The 

areas greater than approximately 12 

inches from the edge exhibit 2 to 3 

percent aging after 6 months at a 

temperature of approximately 160 °F. 

Regions within 12 inches of the edge 

show 5 to 17 percent aging, with the 

highest rate of aging occurring at the 

panel corners. Dow noted in its 

reference to this paper that CO2 ‘‘has 

higher diffusion speeds, [therefore] the 

aged thermal conductivity would be 

even better for the HFC blown foams 

used in many walk-in applications.’’ 

DOE agrees with Dow that CO2 exhibits 

a faster rate of diffusion than 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blowing 

agents typically used in foams, which 

indicates that the study is likely more 

representative of a worst case aging 

scenario. This study clearly 

demonstrates that lateral gas diffusion 

occurs in metal faced panels with open 

edges. DOE also notes that the majority 

of aging has occurred at the panel 

perimeter, which is an expected result 

because the rate of diffusion should 

decay exponentially with increased 

distance (or thickness of foam) from the 

exposed edge as described in ASTM 

C1303–10. The authors did not note the 

aging period that their test, which was 

conducted over 6 months at an elevated 

temperature, was intended to simulate, 

but because elevated temperature 

dramatically increases gas diffusion 

rates, the tests are likely representative 

of panels aged for at least 5 years. 

7. The Bertucelli paper [7], other than 

[5], is the only one that DOE has 

reviewed that directly tests aging of 

actual walk-in panels. Bertucelli et al. 

state that, ‘‘in practice, for metal faced 

sandwich panels the diffusion 

phenomena can only take place through 

the open sides of the panels. The initial 

thermal conductivity value remains for 

a long time practically unchanged for 

the largest part of the panel due to the 

long path for diffusion.’’ (p. 2) Again, 

this research supports DOE’s claim that 

significant lateral diffusion occurs 

through open edges of panels. This 

statement appears to be based on data 

shown on page 17 that are very similar 

to data shown in [6] for CO2 blown 

foams. However, this test was on a 4 

foot by 8 foot panel aged at room 

temperature for a year. Close to the 

geometric center of the panel, the 

thermal performance has aged by 2 to 5 

percent from its initial value. 

Measurements approximately 20 inches 

from the edges range from 2 to 6 

percent. These data are similar to data 

submitted by Carpenter (see Table III.2) 

which were also from a panel aged at 

room temperature but with an HFC 

blowing agent. The Bertucelli paper also 

notes that EN 13165, a European 

material standard that was developed in 

Germany but certified by the European 

Committee for Standardization (CEN), 

provides certified aging values for 

various blowing agents used in metal 

faced sandwiched foam-in-place panels. 

The researchers also note that the 

certified aging value for water-blown 

foams, HCFC–141b and pentane is 10 

percent. 

8. The Glicksman paper [8] found that 

the effectiveness of impermeable facers 

is highly dependent on adhesion of the 

foam to the facer. Slight separation 

allows gas diffusion to occur 

perpendicularly to the barrier and 

laterally between the barrier and the 

foam, which permits more rapid aging 

than if the diffusion is forced through 

the foam material only in the lateral 

direction. This research supports DOE’s 

assertion that delamination is a major 

contributing factor to aging of panels. 

9. EN 13165 is a material standard for 

‘‘factory made rigid polyurethane foam 

(PUR) products.’’ Dow noted that this 

standard has provisions for accelerated 

aging of panels. This is one of the 

material standards that uses the aging 

factor described in [7]. DOE was 

previously unaware that the CEN had 

established aging factors for insulated 

panels and believes that this standard 

may serve as an alternative to ASTM 

C1303–10 (see section III.B.3 for more 

details). 

In addition to comments on specific 

papers submitted by stakeholders, DOE 

received many general comments on the 

use of ASTM C1303. DOE addresses 

these additional comments below. 

BASF stated that there was 

insufficient evidence to support DOE’s 

assertion that the diffusion as a result of 

delamination, holes drilled for shelves, 

and gaps at windows and doors causes 

a dramatic decrease in insulation 

performance of the panel, and that DOE 

should publish and make available any 

supporting data. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at 

p. 3–4) Honeywell stated that ASTM 

C1303 was inappropriate because the 

data used to select it were based on foilfaced board stock rather than metalfaced panels. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.002 at 

p. 1) BASF proposes to delay a decision 

on modifying ASTM C1303 to apply to 

impermeably skinned panels due to a 

lack of data, and instead proposes that 

DOE first test and compare (1) panels 

from the field that are at a known age 

that is greater than 5 years, (2) newly 

manufactured panels measuring the Rvalue at different points in the panels, 

and (3) newly manufactured panels that 

are sliced and aged according to the 

methods in ASTM C1303–10. (BASF, 

No. 1.3.003 at p. 4) 

Carpenter submitted data, shown in 

Table III.2, of panels that had been in 

the field for one year. These data suggest 

that R-value decreases approximately 

3.1 to 4.3 percent within 1 year. 

(Carpenter, No. 1.3.007a at p. 3) Dow 

stated that ASTM C1303–10 states that 

it is not to be used with impermeably 

faced foams, and that industry literature 

states that metallic, impermeable 

surfaces will prevent blowing agent 

diffusion. (Dow, No. 1.3.026 at p. 1) 

Owens Corning submits that research 

has shown that an effective barrier can 

substantially reduce the rate of foam 

aging. In its view, to be effective, the 

barrier must have a low permeability 

and the foam/barrier interface must not 

allow lateral gas flow. However, all 

cellular foams have some amount of 

lateral gas flow. (Owens Corning, No. 

1.3.030 at p. 1) In addition, Owens 

Corning referenced a Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology study on 

insulation with metal skins using dye to 

observe the diffusion of blowing agent. 

The study showed that blowing agent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

can diffuse under metal skins, that it 

migrates to the surface, and that it can 

permeate out even underneath an airimpermeable surface. (Owens Corning, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 256) 

TABLE III.2—TESTED DATA SUBMITTED BY CARPENTER

Sample ID 

R-value 

ft2 hr° F/Btu in 

20° F 55° F 

11/2008 

(initial) 

01/2010 

(aged) 

11/2008 

(initial) 

01/2010 

(aged) 

Panel middle .................................................................................... 7.89 7.63 7.00 6.78 

Panel edge ....................................................................................... 7.89 7.54 7.00 6.70 

In response to BASF’s comment that 

DOE should publish and make available 

any supporting data for the use of 

ASTM C1303–10, DOE lists all papers in 

Table III.1. Most of these papers were 

already described in detail in January 

NOPR, but DOE welcomes further 

comment on these studies. 

In response to Honeywell’s comment 

regarding foil facers, DOE recognizes 

that foil faced foams may not have 

identical characteristics to metal skins, 

but believes that foils would serve as a 

reasonable proxy for general aging 

behavior. 

With regard to BASF’s comment that 

DOE should collect field data on panels 

older than 5 years of age, DOE believes 

that the data submitted by Carpenter 

support DOE’s assertion that significant 

aging occurs over the 15 to 20 year life 

of a panel and that the diffusion is 

occurring laterally because aging of 3– 

4 percent occurred within about 1 year, 

with the edge samples aging more than 

the core. DOE welcomes additional data 

on this issue from panel manufacturers 

and other interested parties. 

As to Dow’s comments regarding the 

scope of ASTM C1303–10, although 

DOE agrees with Dow that ASTM 

C1303–10 states that the test does not 

apply to impermeably faced foams, DOE 

has not proposed the use of ASTM 

C1303–10 on panels themselves. 

Instead, DOE has proposed that the 

procedure be followed when testing the 

underlying unfaced foam as a proxy for 

the actual aging provisions outlined in 

the NOPR that describe how the unfaced 

foam samples are prepared for testing by 

ASTM C1303–10. See section 4.1.2 of 

Appendix A for details. 

With regard to Owens Corning’s 

comments that an effective barrier can 

substantially reduce the rate of foam 

aging, DOE agrees that impermeable 

facers affect the diffusion pathway of 

gases through foam. However, DOE 

believes that impermeable facers delay 

aging, rather than eliminate it as Dow 

and ACC/CPI suggest. In addition, the 

International Institute of Refrigeration 

(IIR), which serves as an international 

body with 61 member countries to 

‘‘promote knowledge of refrigeration 

technology and all its applications in 

order to address today’s major issues, 

including food safety and protection of 

the environment,’’ states that the 

thermal properties of insulation can 

change over time: ‘‘It is well known that 

thermal conductivity can increase in 

plastic foams in which gaseous blowing 

agent has been used * * * with such 

materials, there will inevitably be a 

deterioration of insulation properties 

over time due to the diffusion of the 

blowing agent.’’ (Insulation and 

Airtightness of Cold Rooms, 2002 

Edition, IIR, p.154) Because walk-in 

panel perimeters are not protected by 

gas impermeable materials such as the 

metal skins, gas diffusion can still occur 

laterally through the panel. DOE notes 

that Owens Corning’s second comment 

regarding the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology study on diffusion of 

blowing agents points to data that 

suggest the lateral flow of gas occurs at 

the foam surface to metal skin interface 

due to poor adhesion of the foam to 

metal. 

In addition to the data presented 

above, DOE presents aged R-values of a 

number of foam types in Table III.3. 

These results are based on CAN/ULC S– 

770, the Canadian thin slicing method 

that is based on various versions of 

ASTM C1303. Each data point is an 

average of dozens of tests at the 

thicknesses shown. 

TABLE III.3—FOAM THIN-SLICING TEST RESULTS, SOURCE: CANADIAN LABORATORY

Product 

5-Year Long Term Thermal Resistance, CAN/ULC S–770, @ 75° F mean temperature 

Permeably Faced Polyisocyanurate 

Board Thermal Resistivity 

°F-ft 2-h/Btu-in. 

Extruded Polystyrene Board 

Thermal Resistivity 

°F-ft 2-h/Btu-in. 

Spray-in-Place 

Polyurethane Foam 

Thermal Resistivity 

°F-ft 2-h/Btu-in. 

Thickness Thermal Resistivity Thermal Resistivity Thermal Resistivity 

(mm) (°F.ft2.h/Btu.in ) (°F.ft2.h/Btu.in ) (°F.ft2.h/Btu.in ) 

100 6.178 5.607 6.197 

75 6.127 5.490 5.958 

50 6.028 5.339 5.703 

25 5.880 5.019 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55079 

These data address concerns raised by 

various interested parties that the thin 

slicing method would unfairly predict 

that polyurethane would perform at a 

lower level than extruded polystyrene 

and, in some cases, would perform at a 

level as low as expanded polystyrene. 

Instead, these data appear to predict that 

polyurethane products would continue 

to outperform extruded polystyrene on 

a per inch basis. It is also important to 

note that if DOE were not to propose the 

use ASTM C1303–10, DOE would still 

be indirectly accounting for aging in one 

of two classes of foams: Board stock 

foams such as extruded polystyrene. 

Because board-stock insulation is 

manufactured at one location, stored for 

a period of time, and then shipped to 

WICF panel manufacturers, the foam is 

exposed to ambient temperatures and 

unprotected by metal skins for a 

significant period of time prior to its 

installation in a WICF envelope. 

Therefore, before board stock based 

foams are even laminated into WICF 

panels, significant aging has already 

occurred. DOE believes that all of the 

above factors tend to support the use of 

a test procedure that, as accurately as 

possible, will uniformly represent aging 

of all foam classes. 

In light of the research and data 

submitted by interested parties, and the 

German data regarding the use of aging 

factors specifically for foam-in-place 

metal faced panels, DOE continues to 

maintain that (1) foam aging occurs in 

WICF panels, (2) the aging is possible, 

even with metal facers, due to the gas 

permeable edges of panels, and (3) Rvalue degradation is significant enough, 

over the life of a walk-in cooler or 

freezer, to warrant a long-term foam 

aging test. DOE continues to urge 

manufacturers and interested parties to 

submit R-value data for panels aged 5 or 

more years to support their particular 

claims. While DOE believes there are 

enough indirect and direct data to 

incorporate aging into the WICF test 

procedure, DOE is interested in 

ensuring, to the extent possible, that it 

incorporates manufacturer-submitted 

data as part of its analysis. 

DOE requests comments from 

interested parties regarding the proposal 

to use ASTM C1303–10 to measure the 

long-term R-value decline in WICF foam 

insulation. DOE requests that interested 

parties consider in their comments the 

research and papers provided by DOE 

and other commenters. 

3. EN 13165:2009–02 as a Proposed 

Alternative to ASTM C1303–10 

As noted in the previous section, 

Germany has developed a test procedure 

(that was certified as a European 

standard by the CEN) and calculation 

methodology to determine the aged Rvalue of metal skin panels. EN 

13165:2009–02, Thermal insulation 

products for buildings—Factory made 

rigid polyurethane foam (PUR) 

products—Specification describes two 

alternatives in Annex C, the fixed 

increment procedure and the 

accelerated aging procedure for 

determining aged R-value. An overview 

of the two alternatives is shown in 

Figure 1 below: 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

The alternative procedures—the fixed 

increment procedure and the 

accelerated aging procedure—are 

selected based on certain criteria and 

availability of historical data as defined 

in EN 13165:2009–02. In summary, the 

fixed increment procedure determines if 

a facing or panel construction is ‘‘gas 

diffusion tight’’ by subjecting it to an 

elevated temperature for 60 days and 

determining whether there is any 

decrease in the R-value. If the panel is 

found to be gas tight and the test 

material is also made with blowing 

agents of known characteristics, then 

the LTTR of the foam is determined 

using assumed increments of R-value 

loss. The assumed aging values have 

been certified by Germany through 

testing. Otherwise, the accelerated aging 

procedure must be used to determine 

the LTTR. The accelerated aging 

procedure subjects the panel to an 

elevated temperature for 180 days and 

determines the decrease in the R-value. 

Like EN 13165:2009–02, which is a 

standard for polyurethane products, a 

similar standard exists for extruded 

polystyrene: EN 13164:2009–02 

Thermal insulation products for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55081 

buildings—Factory made products of 

extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)— 

Specification. Annex C of EN 

13164:2009–02 also provides a 

methodology for determining the LTTR 

of impermeably faced or ‘‘gas tight’’ 

products. DOE proposes, as an 

alternative to ASTM C1303–10, the use 

of the test procedures of these respective 

standards for determining the LTTR of 

walk-in polyurethane and extruded 

polystyrene products. DOE proposes to 

directly rely on the methods described 

in EN 13164:2009–02 and EN 

13165:2009–02 with two exceptions: (1) 

The initial R-value must be measured at 

the EPCA defined mean test 

temperatures (instead of the specified 

~75 °F) of 55 °F for coolers and 20 °F 

for freezers and (2) the final R-value 

must also be measured using the EPCA 

defined mean test temperatures. Using 

the initial and final R-values, a 

calculated foam ‘‘derating’’ factor would 

be used in place of the similar 

calculation using results from ASTM 

C1303–10. DOE seeks comment on the 

use of EN 13164:2009–02 and EN 

13165:2009–02 for determining the 

LTTR of walk-in panels made from 

extruded polystyrene or polyurethane, 

respectively. 

DOE also seeks comment on the 

proposed use of CEN’s certified aged 

values as an alternative to requiring 

testing using ASTM C1303–10. 

4. Version of ASTM C1303 

As indicated earlier, DOE initially 

proposed that the test procedure 

incorporate ASTM C1303–08. 75 FR 

194. Nor-Lake pointed out that a more 

recent version of this testing method 

was published in 2009, ASTM C1303– 

09a. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 3) DOE 

then determined that an even more 

recent version has recently been 

published, ASTM C1303–10. To address 

these comments, DOE compared ASTM 

C1303–08, ASTM C1303–09a and 

ASTM C1303–10 and found no 

substantive differences between them 

that would appreciably affect the 

accuracy or manner in which to 

measure a given foam’s R-value. In light 

of this finding, DOE is revising its 

proposal to adopt the most recent 

version, ASTM C1303–10. 

DOE invites comment on this 

proposed approach. 

5. Improvements to ASTM C1303 

Methodology 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

several exceptions to ASTM C1303–08 

related to sample preparation of foamin-place products. 75 FR 194. 

Specifically, DOE proposed that, rather 

than requiring that foam be sprayed 

onto a single sheet of wood in 

accordance with section A2.3 of ASTM 

C1303–08, the sample ‘‘shall be foamed 

into a fully closed box of internal 

dimension 60 cm × 60 cm by desired 

product thickness (2 ft × 2 ft × desired 

thickness). The box shall be made of 3⁄4

inch plywood and internal surfaces are 

wrapped in 4 to 6 mil polyethylene film 

to prevent the foam from adhering to the 

box material.’’ DOE had intended for 

this proposed approach to minimize 

manufacturer burden while ensuring 

uniform sample preparation. 

In reference to this proposal, 

Honeywell stated that the sample 

preparation method is too prescriptive 

for foam-in-place products and argued 

that DOE should not dictate materials 

for building the sample mold or 

dimensions of the mold. Rather, it 

recommended that foam-in-place 

samples be prepared in a fashion that 

represents the average foam properties 

(or bulk foam properties) of the 

commercial panel. (Honeywell, No. 

1.3.020 at p. 3) ACC/CPI stated that the 

sample preparation methods of 

polyurethane foam are too prescriptive 

when describing mold materials that 

must be used, and instead 

recommended adopting a modified 

version of section 3.1 of ASTM C1303– 

10 to account for a product 

manufacturer’s typical method of panel 

cavity preparation, foam injection and 

cure time. (ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 

5) 

DOE agrees that spatial variation 

during foam injection is a relevant 

concern. To represent foam properties 

more closely for various manufacturers, 

DOE proposes the following changes: 

1. Mold/Sample Panel Geometry 

a. A panel must be prepared following 

the manufacturer’s injection, curing and 

assembly methods. The width and 

length of the panel must be 48 inches 

±1 inch and 96 inches ±1 inch, 

respectively. 

b. As proposed in the January NOPR, 

the panel thickness shall be equal to the 

desired test thickness. 75 FR 194. 

2. Materials 

The panel should be identical to 

panels sold by the manufacturer, with 

one key exception: The inner surfaces 

must be lined with a material, such as 

4 to 6 mil polyethylene film, to prevent 

the foam from adhering to the panel 

internal surfaces. (This ensures that 

when the panel metal skin is removed 

for testing, the underlying foam is not 

damaged.) 

3. Sample Preparation 

a. After the foam has cured and the 

panel is ready to be tested, the facing 

and framing materials must be carefully 

removed to ensure that the underlying 

foam is not damaged or altered. 

b. A 12-inch × 12-inch square (× 

desired thickness) cut from the exact 

geometric center of the panel must be 

used as the sample for completing 

ASTM C1303–08. 

These additions will allow for more 

representative samples while 

maintaining consistency across 

manufacturers. DOE also believes, based 

on its analysis of the likely impacts from 

the adoption of this procedure, that 

these proposed modifications will not 

lead to any appreciable deviations from 

the measured energy use of the 

envelope. DOE invites comments from 

interested parties on the reasonableness 

of this prediction. 

Certain interested parties raised 

specific concerns as to the applicability 

of ASTM C1303 to ‘‘bun stock’’ foam. 

‘‘Bun stock’’ foam is foam formed in 

large cylindrical tubes or ‘‘buns.’’ 

Dyplast, ACC/CPI, Honeywell, and ITW 

all stated that DOE should not consider 

ASTM C1303 because ASTM C1303 

specifically states that the test method 

does not apply to rigid closed-cell bun 

stock foams. (Dyplast, No. 1.3.008 at p. 

1; ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 3; 

Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 2; and 

ITW, No. 1.3.013 at p. 1) Dyplast 

mentioned that this was due to the nonhomogenous nature of the bun stock 

foams. (Dyplast, No. 1.3.008 at p. 1) ITW 

further stated that ASTM C1303 would 

not be applicable because it is not 

possible to determine a consistent initial 

time for the test and because sheets may 

be cut from bun stock in different 

orientations, resulting in different form 

morphology. (ITW, No. 1.3.013 at p. 1) 

DOE recognizes that bun stock foam is 

different from other types of foam used 

in WICF equipment. The foam 

resembles the wood grain found in trees 

and has cells that vary in size and 

density by location. When the buns are 

cut into board stock of various 

dimensions, the foam morphology 

varies from one board to another as the 

boards may be cut from the bun stock 

in different orientations. 

DOE specified in the January NOPR 

that manufacturers must use the 

prescriptive method defined in ASTM 

C1303 (Part A: The Prescriptive 

Method), but as noted by interested 

parties, the prescriptive method is not 

applicable to bun stock foam. 75 FR 193. 

However, in addition to Part A of ASTM 

C1303, Part B: Research Method allows 

for testing of bun-stock or other nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:14 Sep 08, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09SEP2.SGM 09SEP2

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

homogenous foams. DOE believes that 

the research method in Part B is 

appropriate and applicable for testing of 

bun-stock foams. Therefore, to address 

the comments from Dyplast, ACC/CPI, 

Honeywell, and ITW, DOE proposes that 

the research method of ASTM C1303– 

10, Part B be used for testing the LTTR 

for bun stock foam only. 

6. Heat Transfer Through Concrete 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

the use of the following equation to 

calculate the heat transfer through the 

floor of both insulated and uninsulated 

WICF. 75 FR 213. That equation, along 

with its defined variables, is as follows: 

Q

A

R

walls i

l

cond-door-glass i

non glass wall,i

i

= × T ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ∑ Δ + , Δ Δ T T j

non glass floor,j

j

k

ceiling,k ×

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ∑ + ×

A

R

A

R

floor j

l

,

non glass ceiling,k

k

l

non glass doors,l

non

T ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ∑ + ×

l

A

R

Δ

 glass doors,l

l

 1 ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ∑ ⎟ l

Eq.

Where: 

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

panels, of type i, h-ft2 ¥ °F/Btu, 

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

floor panels, of type j, h-ft2 ¥ °F/Btu, 

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

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

Rnon-glass,door, l = R-value of foam used in 

non-glass doors, of type l, h-ft2 ¥ °F/Btu, 

Awalls,I = area of wall, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type i, 

Afloor,j = area of floor, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type j, 

Aceiling,k = area of ceiling, of thickness and 

underlying materials of type k, 

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

and underlying materials of type l, 

ΔTi = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type i, 

°F, 

ΔTj = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

j, °F, 

ΔTk = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

k, °F, and 

ΔTl = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

l, °F. 

To complete the calculation, DOE 

proposed temperature assumptions for 

the internal cooled air and the surface 

temperature of the floor. The cooled air 

temperature was selected based on 

WICF type: 35 °F and ¥10 °F for coolers 

and freezers, respectively. DOE also 

assumed that the finished subfloor 

surface material was made of concrete. 

Additionally, DOE proposed a 55 °F 

subfloor surface temperature for all 

walk-ins. The temperature difference 

across the floor (ΔT) could be calculated 

using the 55 °F subfloor surface 

temperature and the internal cooled air 

assumption. With a known floor area 

(Afloor), DT, and floor R-value, the heat 

transfer through the floor could be 

readily calculated. However, the 

specific floor R-value was incorporated 

into the calculation based on certain 

conditions. These conditions are 

described in greater detail below. 

Floorless Coolers: For the scenario of 

uninsulated (‘‘floorless’’) coolers, DOE 

proposed a concrete R-value of 0.6 ft2 ¥ 

°F ¥ h/Btu, based on typical concrete 

density and thickness as reported in the 

2009 ASHRAE Fundamentals 

Handbook. 

Pre-Installed Freezer Floor: For the 

scenario where (1) a manufacturer does 

not provide a freezer floor; and (2) an 

insulated floor has been installed on-site 

by the end-user, DOE proposed that 

manufacturers use R = 28 ft2 ¥ °F ¥ h/ 

Btu for completing the heat transfer 

calculations. This R-value is the same as 

the EPCA-prescribed minimum 

requirement for freezer floors. BASF, 

ThermalRite, and American Panel 

supported using an assumption of R–28, 

while Nor-Lake stated that a value of R– 

20 would be more appropriate but did 

not specify why. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at 

p. 4; ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 2; 

American Panel, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 263; NorLake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 4) DOE, however, 

continues to hold the view that its 

proposed approach best reflects the 

statutory framework set out by Congress 

because R–28 is the minimum freezer 

floor R-value required by EISA 2007. 

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

Insulated Floor Shipped by 

Manufacturer: For both coolers and 

freezers, if a manufacturer provided the 

floor, DOE proposed in the January 

NOPR that the floor R-value (as 

measured by the test procedure) be used 

for the heat transfer calculations. 75 FR 

198. 

Between the publication of the 

January NOPR and the public meeting, 

DOE completed additional finite 

element model (FEM) computer 

simulations of floorless coolers. Based 

on FEM simulation results, DOE 

described a new equation during the 

public meeting for calculating heat 

transfer through floorless coolers: 

Q

A

R q

walls i

l

cond non-glass i

non glass wall,i

i

= × T ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ∑ Δ + ,

floor floor

l

A

A

R

×+ ×

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ΔTk

ceiling,k

non glass ceiling,k

k

∑ ∑+ ×

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ ΔT l

non glass doors,l

non glass doors,l

l A

R Eq

l

. 2

Where: 

If Afloor ≤ 750 ft2, qfloor = 33.153 × Afloor¥0.364, 

If Afloor > 750 ft2, qfloor = 0.0002 × Afloor + 

2.84, 

qfloor = heat flow correction factor, 

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

panels of type i, h ¥ ft2 ¥ °F/Btu, 

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

panels of type j, h ¥ ft2 ¥°F/Btu, 

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

ceiling panels of type k, h ¥ ft2 ¥ °F/ 

Btu, 

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

Aceiling,k = area of ceiling of thickness and 

underlying materials of type k, 

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

underlying materials of type l, 

Afloor = area of floor, ft2, 

DTi = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

i, °F, 

DTj = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

j, °F, 

DTk = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

k, °F, and 

DTl = dry bulb temperature differential 

between internal and external air, of type 

l, °F. 

The FEM simulations demonstrated 

that using 60 °F and 65 °F would result 

in more accurate energy calculations. 

DOE indicated at the NOPR public 

meeting that it was considering 

modifying the surface temperature 

assumptions for freezers and coolers to 

60 °F and 65 °F, respectively, and 

sought comment from interested parties 

on these revised temperatures. 

Several manufacturers recommended 

that DOE maintain the original 

assumption of 55 °F for sub-floor surface 

temperature. ThermalRite requested that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.034</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.035</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55083 

55 °F be retained because it believed 

that the equations were based on solid 

engineering principles and data. 

(ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 2) NorLake agreed that 55 °F would be more 

appropriate. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 

4) Kysor and TAFCO preferred 55 °F 

because it would be consistent with 

industry assumptions. (Kysor, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

270 and TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 3) ICS 

recommended that 55 °F be maintained 

as the assumption for both coolers and 

freezers because a walk-in with an 

insulated floor would not have an effect 

on sub-floor temperature regardless of 

WICF temperature. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 at 

p. 2) In light of this general support and 

the absence of any comments explaining 

why use of a 55 °F temperature 

assumption would be inappropriate, 

DOE proposes continuing to apply its 55 

°F assumption for all WICF for three 

reasons: (1) 55 °F is the general industry 

accepted value; (2) using a single 

assumption simplifies calculations; and 

(3) using a single temperature avoids the 

complexity of accounting for various 

field installation variations (such as 

concrete thickness and proximity to 

building walls). 

Regarding the heat transfer 

calculations for floorless coolers, NorLake supported using Eq. 1 as proposed 

in the January NOPR. (Nor-Lake, No. 

1.3.029 at p. 4) Master-Bilt and Nor-Lake 

recommended that DOE consider using 

the minimum thickness of 3.5 inches 

rather the 6 inches as proposed in the 

January NOPR for calculating the 

concrete R-value, because the building 

industry uses 3.5 inches. (Master-Bilt, 

No. 1.3.009 at p. 2 and Nor-Lake, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 4) 

In this SNOPR, DOE proposes 

different equations for calculating heat 

transfer through floor panels, non-floor 

panels (i.e., wall and ceiling panels), 

and non-glass doors. Although Nor-Lake 

supported using Eq. 1 as proposed in 

the January NOPR, the equations 

proposed in this SNOPR allow greater 

flexibility in calculating heat transfer 

through the envelope because they are 

able to account for unique temperature 

differences across each component. See 

section III.B.7 for a more detailed 

description of the equations in the 

SNOPR. The equation for floor heat 

transfer incorporates the results of FEM 

simulation by using the values for the 

heat flow correction factor (qfloor) that 

appear in Eq. 2 above. In performing the 

FEM simulation, DOE assumed 6-inchthick concrete despite Master Bilt and 

Nor-Lake’s comments, because that is 

the recommended floor thickness in the 

ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals 

(ASHRAE Fundamentals 2005). 

However, DOE will continue to consider 

other values if they are more 

appropriate for the application and asks 

for comment on a more appropriate 

value. 

7. Walk-In Sited Within a Walk-In: A 

‘‘Hybrid’’ Walk-In 

In the January NOPR, the calculation 

procedure provided a means of rating all 

walk-ins, including the scenario where 

a freezer is sited inside a cooler or 

where a cooler and freezer share a 

common wall. 

Modifications described in this 

SNOPR ensure that the rating of these 

walk-in cooler/freezer hybrids is 

properly captured. For example, every 

panel or door may have a unique 

temperature differential across the 

material to reflect either a panel that 

divides a cooler and freezer or a door 

that may open from freezer temperatures 

to cooler temperatures. See section 3.1 

of Appendix A for details. In the event 

an individual non-floor panel, floor 

panel or door spans two temperature 

regimes, the lower temperature must be 

used for the purpose of calculating the 

heat transfer across that component. For 

example, if a floor panel spans a section 

of the floor, where 80 percent of the 

panel is exposed to cooler temperatures 

and the other 20 percent is exposed to 

freezer temperatures, the heat transfer 

calculation through the floor panel must 

use only the freezer temperature. 

DOE believes the equations shown in 

section 3.1 of Appendix A provide an 

accurate means of testing a given walkin cooler, freezer or hybrid walk-in. 

DOE seeks comment on the equations 

and their accuracy, particularly for 

hybrid walk-ins. 

8. U-Factor of Doors and Windows 

Conduction heat gain through doors 

and windows contributes to the energy 

load of the envelope. To account for this 

fact, DOE proposes to measure heat gain 

through doors (with and without glass) 

and any other glass surfaces such as 

windows, as well as through the framing 

materials used for doors and windows. 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

measuring heat gain through doors and 

windows using one of the following 

options: (1) For doors with a National 

Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) 

rating, thermal performance would have 

been determined from the NFRC label; 

or (2) for doors without an NFRC rating, 

thermal performance parameters would 

have been determined using Window 

5.2, a computer program developed by 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

75 FR 198. (The NRFC is a non-profit, 

public-private partnership of the 

window, door, and skylight industry.) In 

either case, DOE proposed using the 

thermal performance parameters as 

inputs for calculations specified in the 

Test Procedure NOPR. 

DOE’s proposed method was 

supported by BASF, Master-Bilt, and 

Nor-Lake. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4; 

Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 2; NorLake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4) Kason agreed 

that using third-party software (such as 

Window 5.2) to evaluate window 

performance is reasonable. (Kason, No. 

1.3.037 at p. 4) However, NFRC 

recommended using a standard size 

door for all calculations to ensure a full 

rating that includes frame effects and 

allow for accurate reporting. (NFRC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 280) Furthermore, Schott Gemtron 

pointed out that the standard glass door 

in Window 5.2 is not the same as a 

typical glass door used in walk-ins. 

(Schott Gemtron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 284) ACEEE 

stated that the manufacturers of doors 

with glass surfaces should use NFRC 

rating methods to certify performance. 

(ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at p. 2) 

In response to the comment from 

Schott Gemtron, the Window 5.2 

program does not incorporate WICFspecific doors at this time because 

NFRC, the primary user of Window 5.2, 

has never rated WICF doors. To remedy 

this situation, the typical WICF door 

geometries would simply need to be 

added to the Window 5.2 database. 

Because use of the NFRC ratings would 

avoid the need for DOE to prescribe 

specific geometries or testing scenarios, 

however, DOE proposes in this SNOPR 

that instead of using Window 5.2, 

manufacturers shall rate the total 

thermal transmittance (known as Ufactor) of doors and windows, including 

their framing materials, using the test 

procedure NFRC 100–2010–E0A1, 

‘‘Procedure for Determining Fenestration 

Product U-Factors.’’ NFRC 100–2010– 

E0A1 specifies a test procedure but does 

not specify test conditions, which 

depend on the product. Details of 

proposed test conditions may be found 

in section 4.1.3 of Appendix A. DOE 

welcomes comments on improvements 

that could be made to Window 5.2, 

however, and would consider allowing 

use of Window 5.2 provided that such 

improvements led to results as 

consistent as those achieved with the 

NFRC rating. 

In addition, DOE proposes applying 

the provisions in section 5.2 of NFRC 

100–2010–E0A1, which would provide 

a uniform and reasonably accurate 

method of measuring the thermal 

transmittance of the door and window 

components installed in a walk-in. The 

section contains reference methods for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

determining heat transfer properties for 

specific side-hinged exterior door 

systems, to all doors (i.e. doors without 

any glass, doors with glass windows, 

glass display doors, etc.) and glass 

walls. Doors, as defined in Appendix A 

2.1(b) of these proposed regulations, 

includes the user movable components 

and the framing components that 

support the door hinges such as the 

center mullions in display doors or door 

plugs found commonly in passage 

doors. The complete assembly must be 

tested to find the door U-factor. 

NFRC 100–2010–E0A1 provides a 

means of testing representative door 

geometry that can then be extrapolated 

to other doors of similar materials and 

geometry. This approach is less costly 

but generally results in more 

conservative test results. However, if a 

door manufacturer or other party 

responsible for testing would prefer to 

perform the complete physical test 

described in NFRC 100–2010–E0A1 for 

all doors (i.e. not rely on NFRC’s 

extrapolation methodology), the testing 

entity may do so. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

requiring windows and doors, including 

their framing materials, to be rated using 

NFRC 100–2010–E0A1. As stated above, 

DOE also seeks comment on 

improvements to the Window 5.2 

program that would make its use in the 

test procedure appropriate. 

9. Walk-In Envelope Steady-State 

Infiltration Test 

In the January NOPR, DOE noted two 

air exchange pathways for walk-in 

envelopes: (1) Air exchange 

(‘‘infiltration’’) occurring during door 

opening events, the extent of which 

depended on door opening area and the 

frequency of door opening, and (2) 

infiltration during ‘‘steady-state’’ 

conditions. DOE defined steady-state as 

the period of time when all access 

methods, such as doors, were in the 

closed position. During steady-state 

conditions, infiltration could occur via 

cracks in door sweeps, bi-directional 

pressure relief valves, and panel-topanel interfaces. Infiltration during door 

opening events accounts for the majority 

of infiltration into the envelope, but 

steady-state infiltration could be 

significant as well. Because air 

infiltration plays a role in determining 

the overall efficiency of a given WICF 

and the likely energy consumption in 

keeping its refrigerated areas cool, DOE 

proposed using ASTM E741–06, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Air Change in a Single Zone by Means 

of a Tracer Gas Dilution,’’ for testing the 

steady-state air infiltration of walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers. DOE 

detailed a number of requirements, such 

as internal and external temperatures 

during testing, sampling methods, and 

gas tracer calculation type. 

In comments on the January NOPR, 

interested parties noted the role that 

pressure relief valves play with respect 

to infiltration testing. These valves are 

standard equipment with walk-in 

envelopes and are designed to ensure 

the proper operation of a WICF unit by 

relieving pressure changes that 

accompany rapid cooling of warm air 

after door opening events. Craig stated 

that the standard pressure relief valve 

on walk-ins could interfere with 

infiltration testing, and Kason added 

that WICF manufacturers use pressure 

relief ports that allow gas to move 

through the envelope and further 

suggested that these ports would need to 

be blocked to test infiltration. (Craig, 

No. 1.3.017 at p. 2 and Kason, No. at p. 

3) 

Because bi-directional pressure relief 

valves are considered standard 

equipment for all walk-in freezers, 

today’s notice clarifies that they should 

be included in the general steady-state 

infiltration test if they are part of the 

walk-in being tested. In addition, 

because valves contribute to steady-state 

infiltration, it is necessary to measure 

their contribution. The duration of the 

steady-state test is long enough to 

ensure that the average valve operation 

time is accurately represented. In 

addition, properly sited and designed 

valves should not be opening and 

closing frequently, if at all, during 

steady-state conditions. Because these 

valves are intended to relieve large 

pressure swings caused by rapid cooling 

of warm air that has entered during door 

opening events, the pressure differential 

across the valve should be low enough 

that it remains closed during steady 

state operation. 

In the January NOPR, DOE also 

proposed to reduce testing burden by 

allowing manufacturers to test the 

infiltration of a limited number of 

envelopes and then scale those results 

to all other envelopes manufactured. 

Interested parties agreed with DOE’s 

approach to reduce the testing burden 

but suggested that it was necessary for 

DOE to provide detailed requirements of 

how the test units should be 

constructed. Craig, American Panel, and 

ThermalRite stated that DOE must 

specify the basic unit to be tested in 

terms of size and certain components, 

which would be standardized across all 

manufacturers. (Craig, No. 1.2.010 at pp. 

102–103; American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at 

p. 2; ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with this approach and 

proposes that with respect to the steadystate infiltration test, the techniques, 

materials, and final assembly must be 

identical to units that are shipped to 

customers. The unit must be assembled 

following the instruction manual 

supplied by the manufacturer. Details 

may be found in section 4.2 of 

Appendix A. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

modifications to the steady-state 

infiltration testing. 

10. Door Steady-State Infiltration Test 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

testing steady-state infiltration on fully 

assembled envelopes using the gas 

tracer method described in ASTM 

E741–06, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determining Air Change in a Single 

Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas 

Dilution.’’ The NOPR proposed an 

additional series of tests, using ASTM 

E741–06, under certain conditions, and 

would have required testing of all 

possible combinations of panels and 

doors. 

Interested parties recommended 

several alternatives for DOE to consider. 

The Joint Utilities recommended the 

NFRC rating method for determining 

infiltration related to doors, in part 

because this method, in their collective 

view, provides a means to test and 

sample products that would assure that 

the sold product matches the quality of 

the tested sample. (Joint Utilities, No. 

1.3.019 at p. 12–13) Hired Hand 

recommended ASTM E330–97, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Structural 

Performance of Exterior Windows, 

Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by 

Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference,’’ 

or ASTM E283–92, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining Rate of Air 

Leakage Through Exterior Windows, 

Curtain Walls, and Doors Under 

Specified Pressure Differences Across 

the Specimen.’’ (Hired Hand, No. 

1.3.033 at p. 5) 

In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing 

measuring steady-state infiltration 

through panels and doors using separate 

tests for each rather than using a single 

test for both as proposed in the January 

NOPR. DOE is considering this 

modification to reduce testing burden; 

the January NOPR proposed to require 

a new test for each unique panel and 

door configuration, which could be 

overly burdensome to test because of the 

many possible configurations. For all 

doors, DOE is considering NFRC 400– 

2010–E0A1, ‘‘Procedure Determining 

Fenestration Product Air Leakage.’’ 

NFRC 400–2010–E0A1 is based on 

ASTM E283–04, the most recent version 

of ASTM E283–92, one of the test 

methods recommended by Hired Hand. 

This test method is appropriate for this 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55085 

application because it was specifically 

designed to measure the air leakage 

through doors and fenestration 

products. DOE adapted NFRC 400– 

2010–E0A1 for use with doors on walkin envelopes by establishing standard 

assumptions for the pressure 

differences, in Pascals (Pa), across 

cooler and freezer doors and requiring 

the infiltration at these pressures to be 

determined using a pressure-infiltration 

relationship determined through testing. 

Section 4.4.2 of proposed Appendix A 

contains the assumptions and the 

method for finding the pressureinfiltration relationship. DOE does not 

intend to incorporate ASTM E330–97, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Structural 

Performance of Exterior Windows, 

Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by 

Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference,’’ 

as suggested by Hired Hand because this 

procedure measures structural 

performance, which does not impact 

efficiency; but DOE invites Hired Hand 

to submit further justification in support 

of this standard. DOE seeks comment on 

the proposal to test steady-state 

infiltration through doors separately 

from steady-state infiltration through 

panels and using NFRC 400–2010–E0A1 

for both tests. DOE seeks comment on 

the proposed assumptions for the 

pressure differential across cooler doors 

(1.5 Pa) and freezer doors (3.5 Pa). DOE 

seeks comment on the proposal to 

determine infiltration across cooler and 

freezer doors using tests of infiltration 

and exfiltration at 10 Pa to 60 Pa to 

establish a pressure-infiltration 

relationship with which to extrapolate 

the infiltration occurring across cooler 

and freezer doors. 

11. Door Opening Infiltration 

Assumptions 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

to incorporate several assumptions from 

the ASHRAE Handbook of 

Fundamentals 2009 related to door 

opening infiltration that would be used 

to calculate the portion of time each 

doorway is open, Dt: 

D

P

Eq. 3 t

d

= ( ) × + × ( ) ⎡

⎣ ⎤⎦

[ ] ×

θ θ

3600 θ

p ο 60

Where: 

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

number of doors opening events), 

qp = door open-close time (seconds/P), 

qo = time door stands open (minutes), and 

qd = daily time period (h). 75 FR 197. 

For glass display doors and all other 

doors, DOE specified P = 72 and 60, 

respectively. Required values for qp: (1) 

reach-in glass doors, qp = 8 seconds; (2) 

all other doors, qp = 15 seconds; and (3) 

if an automatic door opener/closer is 

used, qp = 10 seconds. DOE required 

glass display doors qo = 0 minutes and 

all other doors, qo= 15 minutes. 

Hired Hand proposed revised 

parameters for the number of door 

openings (P), steady-state time, and all 

other parameters in the equation for 

infiltration due to door openings both 

for doors with automatic door closures 

and manually closed larger doors, 

because, in its view, the proposed 

parameters are adequate for display 

cases and small walk-ins but 

insufficient for evaluating large retail 

supermarket applications (storage 

warehouse coolers and freezers where 

door entry width is greater than 4 feet 

and serviced by employees only). (Hired 

Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 3) Schott 

Gemtron stated that DOE needs to 

distinguish between glass display doors 

and service doors because service doors 

are not opened as often. (Schott 

Gemtron, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 314) Hired Hand also 

stated that DOE should clarify the 

coverage of doors because they believe 

the intent of EISA 2007 was targeted 

mainly at retail applications with doors 

smaller than 45 inches in width. (Hired 

Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with Hired Hand and 

Schott Gemtron that additional 

refinement to assumptions can be made 

to differentiate between glass display, 

passage (or service), and freight doors. 

In addition, to reflect the benefit from 

the use of automated doors, DOE 

proposes to modify the value of qo when 

a sensor and automated open/close 

system is included. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to define ‘‘glass display door’’ 

as a door designed for the movement 

and/or display of product rather than 

the passage of persons, ‘‘passage door’’ 

(or ‘‘service door’’) as an opaque door 

that is less than or equal to a 45-inch 

width and designed for the passage of 

persons, and ‘‘freight door’’ as an opaque 

door that is greater than 45-inch width. 

DOE cannot specifically exclude doors 

wider than 45 inches if they are used on 

a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that 

is not excluded from coverage by EISA 

2007, as suggested by Hired Hand. 

The new assumptions regarding doors 

are reflected in Table III.4. 

TABLE III.4—ASSUMPTIONS TO DIFFERENTIATE DOOR TYPES

Door type P qp

sec 

qp,w sensor 

sec 

qo

min 

qo,w/sensor 

min 

qd

hrs Note 

Glass Display .......................... 72 8 — 0 — 24 Proposed in 

NOPR. 

Passage ........................... 60 15 10 15 — 24 

Freight .............................. 60 15 10 15 — 24 

Glass Display .......................... 72 8 — 0 — 24 SNOPR. 

Passage ........................... 60 15 10 30 10 24 

Freight .............................. 120 60 30 60 20 24 

DOE seeks comment on this 

alternative approach and modified 

assumptions. 

12. Infiltration Reduction Device 

Effectiveness 

DOE discovered an error in Eq. 3–25 

after the January NOPR was published. 

DOE notified stakeholders of the error 

and correction at the public meeting. 

DOE proposes to use the corrected Eq. 

3–25 in the final rule. 

ThermalRite supported the infiltration 

reduction device (IRD) effectiveness test 

methodology, but stated that 

manufacturers of IRDs should perform 

the testing. (ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at 

p. 2) DOE acknowledges that it may be 

more appropriate for a third party to test 

an IRD by itself, whether that third party 

is the IRD manufacturer or a different 

entity, because IRD effectiveness is 

largely independent of other envelope 

characteristics. Therefore, DOE proposes 

several modifications to the IRD 

effectiveness test that it initially 

proposed. These modifications would 

permit testing to be done by the IRD 

manufacturer, the envelope 

manufacturer, or another entity. The 

modifications that DOE is considering 

as alternatives to its initially proposed 

approach may be found in section 4.3 of 

Appendix A. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.036</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
55086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Hired Hand stated that DOE should 

include an assumed performance value 

for IRDs that are subject to degradation 

and do not perform consistently over 

time. (Hired Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 5 

and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 310) DOE believes it is 

reasonable to incorporate assumed 

performance values because an 

established body of research supports 

these values. While the assumptions do 

not reflect all real-world WICF door use 

scenarios or applications, it is necessary 

for DOE to assume values to ensure a 

uniform testing method to rate walk-ins. 

These assumptions are stated in section 

4.3 of proposed Appendix A to this 

SNOPR. 

DOE seeks comment on this 

alternative approach. 

13. Relative Humidity Assumptions 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

the assumption of an internal walk-in 

relative humidity of 45 percent. This 

value was selected to match AHRI–1250 

test dry-coil conditions. However, these 

conditions do not necessarily reflect 

general walk-in humidity conditions; 

rather, the conditions were chosen to 

test refrigeration systems when there is 

little or no frost load on the evaporator 

coil. DOE recognizes that, in practice, 

the relative humidity (RH) varies 

significantly depending on the product 

stored within a walk-in. 

In order to reflect higher RH values 

experienced in practice, DOE proposes 

a new assumption of 75 percent RH for 

both freezer and cooler internal 

conditions. This RH level is within the 

65–85 percent range of humidity levels 

used in practice for products from 

canned beverages such as beer to 

packaged fruits and vegetables. DOE 

seeks comment on this assumption in 

addition to assumptions found in 

proposed Appendix A, section 2.1(e). 

C. Refrigeration System 

As previously discussed, DOE is 

proposing for the purposes of this test 

procedure to draw a distinction between 

the envelope or structure of the walk-in 

cooler or walk-in freezer and the 

mechanical refrigeration system 

performing the physical work necessary 

to cool the interior space. The 

refrigeration system itself could be one 

of three types: (1) Single-package 

systems containing the condensing and 

evaporator units; (2) split systems with 

the condensing unit and unit cooler 

physically separated and connected via 

refrigerant piping; or (3) rack systems 

utilizing unit coolers, which receive 

refrigerant from a shared loop. The 

following section addresses issues 

raised by interested parties that 

prompted DOE to consider other options 

in addition to those proposed in the 

January NOPR. 

1. Definition of Refrigeration System 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

DOE stated that it was considering the 

following changes to the definition of 

refrigeration system: substituting 

‘‘integrated single package refrigeration 

unit’’ with ‘‘a packaged system where the 

unit cooler and condensing unit are 

integrated into a single piece of 

equipment’’ in order to clarify the term 

and substituting ‘‘central rack system’’ 

with ‘‘multiplex condensing system’’ 

because the latter is a more inclusive 

term and may be more technically 

accurate. 

Thermal-Rite and Nor-Lake expressed 

support for the revised definition of 

refrigeration system. (Thermal-Rite, No. 

1.3.031 at p. 1; Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at 

p. 2) ACEEE stated that the definition 

proposed in the January NOPR seemed 

appropriate and seems to recognize the 

varieties serving the marketplace. 

(ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at p. 2) Master-Bilt, 

BASF, and Kason all stated that they 

agreed with the definition but did not 

specify which version they supported. 

(Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 2; BASF, 

No. 1.3.003 at p. 5; Kason, No. 1.3.037 

at p. 4) On the other hand, Craig stated 

that the definition of refrigeration 

system should include a temperature 

limit and suggested 45 °F as the upper 

limit. (Craig, No. 1.3.036 at p. 84) A 

person affiliated with Gonzaga Law also 

viewed the proposed definition of 

refrigeration equipment as too inclusive 

but did not specify how DOE could 

improve it. (William Gray, Gonzaga 

Law, No. FDMS 0003 at p. 1) HeatCraft 

stated that DOE should have an 

exemption for refrigeration equipment 

that serves loads other than walk-ins. 

(HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 92) 

Regarding the above comments, DOE 

believes that adding a temperature limit 

to the definition of refrigeration system, 

as suggested by Craig, is unnecessary 

because DOE is already proposing to 

add a temperature limit to the definition 

of walk-ins that will cover both 

envelopes and refrigeration systems. To 

address HeatCraft’s concern, DOE has 

included the term ‘‘multiplex 

equipment’’ in the definition to refer to 

refrigeration equipment serving loads 

other than walk-ins. DOE’s revised 

definition includes unit coolers 

connected to multiplex systems, 

meaning that only the unit cooler is 

covered in any refrigeration system that 

incorporates a multiplex system. The 

multiplex systems themselves would 

not be covered. 

Consistent with its discussions at the 

public meeting, DOE is also proposing 

to revise its proposed definition of the 

term ‘‘refrigeration system’’ with respect 

to WICF equipment. DOE requests 

comment on the proposed alternative 

definition. 

2. Version of AHRI 1250 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

to incorporate the industry standard 

AHRI 1250P–2009, ‘‘Standard for 

Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers 

and Freezers,’’ into the test procedure. 

The January NOPR inadvertently 

referred to the preliminary version of 

this standard, while the final published 

version is AHRI 1250–2009, which was 

published in September 2009. DOE 

found no significant differences 

between the preliminary version and the 

final version; nevertheless, DOE 

proposes to incorporate the most recent 

version, AHRI 1250–2009, into the final 

test procedure. 

3. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor 

DOE is required by EPCA to establish 

a test procedure to measure the energy 

use of walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) 

AHRI 1250–2009 determines the annual 

walk-in energy factor (AWEF) as its final 

metric, the ratio of the annual net heat 

removed from the box, which includes 

the internal heat gains from nonrefrigeration components but excludes 

the heat gains from the refrigeration 

components in the box to the annual 

energy consumption. Because AWEF is 

essentially a measure of efficiency, DOE 

proposed in the January NOPR to 

develop equations to derive energy 

consumption from AWEF. 75 FR 202– 

203. DOE also proposed to require 

manufacturers to report both AWEF and 

energy consumption and asked for 

comment on this approach. 75 FR 202– 

203. 

Nor-Lake agreed with the proposed 

method of measuring and calculating 

the energy use of refrigeration systems 

(Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4) but also 

cautioned that both the methodology for 

deriving annual energy consumption 

from AWEF and the reporting 

requirements should be consistent 

across all manufacturers. (Nor-Lake, No. 

1.3.029 at p. 5) Manitowoc, on the other 

hand, stated that AWEF is a more useful 

metric than energy consumption 

because the calculated energy 

consumption may not be an accurate 

representation of actual energy 

consumption in the field as the load 

profile in the test procedure is arbitrary. 

Rather, AWEF can be used to easily 

estimate actual energy consumption if 

the actual load is known, and AWEF 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55087 

also allows for comparisons between 

higher and lower efficiency systems. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 375) Arctic suggested 

that DOE could develop software to 

assist businesses with calculating 

energy consumption. (Arctic, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

392) 

Because EISA requires that the test 

procedure measure energy use, as 

explained above, DOE continues to 

propose that manufacturers measure 

and report both AWEF and the measure 

of energy use derived from AWEF as 

determined by the test procedure. The 

calculation methodology and reporting 

requirements will be consistent across 

manufacturers as suggested by NorLake. 

DOE notes that in the course of 

performing the test procedure and 

determining AWEF, the annual energy 

use of a walk-in refrigeration system 

may be found as an intermediate result 

or easily derived from AWEF or other 

intermediate results. Thus, DOE 

proposes to simplify the method by 

which energy use is determined by 

introducing revised calculations in the 

rule language. DOE requests comment 

on the simplified calculations. 

DOE does not intend to develop 

software for calculating energy use, as 

suggested by Arctic, because this is 

outside the scope of the rulemaking. 

The proposed test procedure contains 

all the necessary calculations for 

determining AWEF and energy use, and 

manufacturers may develop or use their 

own software that assists them in 

performing these calculations if they 

choose. 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under that Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) of the OMB. 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

to adopt test procedures and related 

provisions for walk-in equipment. The 

test procedures would be used initially 

for considering the adoption of energy 

conservation standards for walk-ins, and 

DOE would require their use only if 

standards were subsequently adopted. 

The proposed test procedures will not 

affect the quality or distribution of 

energy and therefore will not result in 

environmental impacts. Therefore, DOE 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. More specifically, today’s 

proposed rule is covered by the 

categorical exclusion in paragraph A5 to 

subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’, 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site, http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. 

As discussed in more detail below, 

DOE found that because the proposed 

test procedures have not previously 

been required of manufacturers, all 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers, could experience a 

financial burden associated with new 

testing requirements. While examining 

this issue, DOE determined that it could 

not certify that the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant effect on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

DOE prepared an IRFA for this 

rulemaking. The IRFA describes 

potential impacts on small businesses 

associated with walk-in cooler and 

freezer testing requirements. DOE has 

transmitted a copy of this IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) for 

review. This SNOPR includes changes 

made to the IRFA in light of comments 

from interested parties on the January 

NOPR, specifically regarding the 

number of small entities regulated and 

the potential testing burden. The revised 

IRFA also considers the burden of new 

tests that DOE is proposing in this 

SNOPR. 

1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule 

The reasons for this proposed rule are 

discussed elsewhere in the preamble 

and not repeated here. 

2. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 

Proposed Rule 

The objectives of and legal basis for 

the proposed rule are discussed 

elsewhere in the preamble and not 

repeated here. 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

DOE uses the SBA small business size 

standards published on January 31, 

1996, as amended, to determine whether 

any small entities would be required to 

comply with the rule. 61 FR 3286; see 

also 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), 

as amended. 65 FR 53533, 53545 

(September 5, 2000). The size standards 

are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

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

groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

In the January NOPR, DOE classified 

walk-in cooler and freezer equipment 

manufacturing under NAICS 333415, 

‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which has a size 

standard of 750 employees. 75 FR 204. 

After reviewing industry sources and 

publicly available data, DOE identified 

at least 37 small manufacturers of walkin cooler and freezer envelopes and at 

least 5 small manufacturers of walk-in 

cooler and freezer refrigeration systems 

that met this criterion. 

In comments on the January NOPR, 

both American Panel and Kysor said 

that virtually all panel and walk-in 

manufacturers are small businesses 

under this standard. (American Panel, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 379; Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 3) 

Craig said that it was a small business 

under this standard. (Craig, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 17) 

Schott Gemtron stated that over 90 

percent of the membership of the trade 

association of North American Food 

Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1http://www.nfrc.org/documents/ 

ProgramCostsFactsheet.pdf. 

was under $12 million in sales. (Schott 

Gemtron, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 1.2.010 at p. 389) Several 

commenters listed sources DOE could 

use to identify small businesses: NorLake recommended the NSF Standard 7 

listings, Arctic recommended the 

NAFEM database, and ICS 

recommended the central contractor 

registry. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 5; 

Arctic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

1.2.010 at p. 388; and ICS, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 

390) 

In light of these comments and 

additional research conducted by DOE, 

the industry can be characterized by a 

few manufacturers that are subsidiaries 

of much larger companies (who would 

not be considered small businesses) and 

a large number of small companies as 

categorized by NAICS code 333415. 

Furthermore, more than half of small 

walk-in manufacturers have 100 or 

fewer employees. DOE acknowledges 

the sources provided by Nor-Lake, 

Arctic, and ICS and will consider these 

sources in its characterization of the 

industry in the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA). 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In the NOPR, DOE described potential 

impacts of the proposed test procedures. 

DOE received comments from 

manufacturers regarding the estimated 

impacts. Arctic stated that potential 

impacts of the proposed test procedures 

on manufacturers, including small 

businesses, come from impacts 

associated with the cost of testing. 

(Arctic, No. 1.3.012 at p. 1) ICS 

commented that burden would come 

both from testing cost and length of time 

required to perform the tests. (ICS, No. 

1.3.027 at p. 2) BASF commented on 

specific tests, stating that ASTM C1303– 

08 is more expensive than ASTM C518– 

04 and that ASTM E741–06 and AHRI 

1250–2009 were even more expensive. 

(BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 5) Master-Bilt, 

American Panel, and Hill Phoenix all 

commented that the test procedure 

would be particularly burdensome to 

small businesses. (Master-Bilt, No. 

1.3.009 at p. 3; American Panel, No. 

1.3.024 at p. 4; Hill Phoenix, No. 1.2.023 

at p. 3) Craig asserted that the cost of 

testing could be up to $1 million and 

would be likely to put small companies 

out of business or force them to sell 

noncompliant products. (Craig, No. 

1.3.017 at p. 1; No. 1.3.036 at p. 4; and 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 

at p. 18) 

Envelope Manufacturer Testing Impacts 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

to require envelope manufacturers to 

test their equipment in accordance with 

two industry test standards: ASTM 

C1303–08, ‘‘Standard Test Method of 

Predicting Long Term Thermal 

Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation,’’ and ASTM E741–06, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Air Change in a Single Zone by Means 

of a Tracer Gas Dilution’’ (ASTM C1303– 

08 has since been updated to ASTM 

C1303–10, but the updated version 

contains no substantive changes that 

would affect the testing cost). DOE 

spoke with industry experts to 

determine the approximate cost of each 

test and determined that a test using 

ASTM C1303–08 costs between 

approximately $5,000 and $10,000, and 

a test using ASTM E741–06 costs 

between $1,000 and $5,000. Therefore, 

in the January NOPR, DOE estimated 

that the cost of testing for one walk-in 

would range from $6,000 to $15,000. 

Also, DOE estimated that a typical 

manufacturer would have 

approximately 8 basic envelope 

configurations that would need to be 

tested, so the total cost of compliance 

due to testing would be approximately 

$84,000 (ranging from $48,000 to 

$120,000). This estimated total cost only 

includes the cost of one test on each 

basic configuration, and does not 

include additional testing on the same 

basic model that may be required as part 

of a sampling plan. DOE may consider 

development of a sampling plan in a 

future rulemaking. 

The revisions to the proposed test 

procedure that are proposed in this 

SNOPR for envelope manufacturers 

would require testing in accordance 

with the two tests mentioned above as 

well as an additional test: ASTM 

C1363–05, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Thermal Performance of Building 

Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.’’ The 

SNOPR would also require the 

measurement of heat gain through doors 

(with and without IRD and including 

glass doors) to be tested using NFRC 

procedures, rather than allowing for use 

of either the NFRC procedures or the 

Window 5.2 program. DOE determined 

that a test using ASTM C1363–05 costs 

between $1,000 and $3,000, and NFRC 

testing cost varies between $1,000 and 

$10,000 for all doors and IRDs 

depending on product lines. However, 

NFRC has reduced fees for small 

businesses, which it defines as 

companies with less than $1 million in 

sales.1 These reduced fees are 50 

percent of members’ annual fees and 

product line fees (33 percent of nonmembers’ annual fees and product line 

fees), and a waiver of label fees. DOE 

realizes that this definition differs from 

the SBA size threshold set out for walkin envelope manufacturers but believes 

that some entities that are small 

businesses pursuant to SBA’s size 

threshold could also qualify for these 

reduced fees. 

To address the comments from Arctic, 

ICS, BASF, Master-Bilt, American Panel, 

Hill Phoenix, and Craig regarding 

testing costs, DOE notes that provisions 

in the January NOPR and revisions to 

the proposed test procedure that are 

considered in this SNOPR allow 

manufacturers to test a limited number 

of models and model components and 

then calculate the performance of other 

models from the test results. 

Measurements incorporating these 

revisions include heat transfer through 

panels (see section III.B.1), steady state 

infiltration through the envelope (see 

section III.B.9), and door and IRD 

performance (see section III.B.12). DOE 

estimates that a typical envelope 

manufacturer could be required to 

perform ASTM C1303–10 on between 1 

and 2 types of foam; ASTM C1363–05 

on 1 to 2 types of panel pairs; ASTM 

E741–06 on 1 to 2 envelopes; and NFRC 

testing on 1 to 3 types of doors and 1 

to 3 types of IRD. The total cost of one 

test on each type of walk-in or 

component listed could range from 

$8,000 to $46,000. This estimated cost 

could vary significantly depending on 

the number of unique components 

incorporated into a particular 

manufacturer’s walk-ins. Furthermore, 

the estimated total cost only includes 

the cost of one test on each item listed. 

DOE may consider developing a 

sampling plan in a future rulemaking to 

determine how many tests need to be 

performed on the same type of envelope 

or component, to ensure the test results 

are repeatable and statistically valid. 

Therefore, DOE welcomes comment on 

this estimate. 

Refrigeration System Manufacturer 

Testing Impacts 

The proposed test procedure for 

refrigeration systems would require 

manufacturers to perform testing in 

accordance with a single industry test 

standard: AHRI Standard 1250–2009, 

‘‘2009 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.’’ 

Because this test was recently 

developed by the industry and has not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55089 

yet been widely used to test 

refrigeration systems, DOE could not 

determine how much the test currently 

costs. However, DOE researched the cost 

of other, similar standards and 

estimated in the January NOPR that a 

test using AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

would likely cost approximately $5,000. 

DOE has not received evidence to the 

contrary and thus maintains this 

estimate for the SNOPR for a single test. 

In the January NOPR, DOE estimated 

that the total testing cost for a typical 

refrigeration manufacturer could be 

approximately $250,000, based on an 

estimate of 50 basic models, but it could 

be higher for manufacturers of more 

customized equipment. For instance, a 

manufacturer with 200 basic models 

would incur a testing cost of 

approximately $1 million. Master-Bilt 

stated that they sell over 160 models of 

condensing units and 130 models of 

evaporators, with over 1500 

combinations. (Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 

at p. 3) (DOE notes that Master-Bilt is 

not considered a small business because 

it has more than 750 employees 

including its parent company.) In 

comments on the January NOPR, Craig 

stated that under DOE’s estimated cost 

of $250,000, small manufacturers would 

be forced to discontinue assembling 

their own refrigeration systems and 

instead purchase units from large 

manufacturers, making them less 

competitive. (Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 2) 

DOE further notes that the estimated 

testing cost does not include cost of the 

tested equipment and asks whether 

manufacturers could sell equipment that 

had been tested, thus reducing this cost. 

To address these concerns, DOE is 

proposing burden-reducing measures for 

refrigeration system manufacturers 

similar to those for envelope 

manufacturers. The test procedure 

proposed in the January NOPR, AHRI 

1250–2009, which DOE continues to 

propose in this SNOPR, allows for rating 

the condensing unit and the unit cooler 

separately and then calculating their 

combined efficiency; this would reduce 

testing burden by not requiring every 

combination to be tested. Allowing for 

the use of such a calculation would 

significantly decrease the number of 

tests. 

DOE recognizes the particular burden 

of the envelope and refrigeration tests 

on small manufacturers. Because the 

cost of running each test is the same for 

all manufacturers, both small and large, 

and because DOE has proposed 

measures to reduce burden on all such 

manufacturers, manufacturers would 

likely incur comparable absolute costs 

as a result of the proposed test 

procedures. However, Kason stated that 

the burden of testing will be greater on 

small manufacturers because they will 

sell fewer units per type of basic model. 

(Kason, No. 1.3.037 at p. 4) Indeed, DOE 

does not expect that small 

manufacturers would have fewer basic 

models than large manufacturers, 

because the equipment is highly 

customized throughout the industry. A 

small manufacturer could have the same 

total cost of testing as a large 

manufacturer, but this cost would be a 

higher percentage of a small 

manufacturer’s annual revenues. Thus, 

the differential impact associated with 

walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer test 

procedures on small businesses may be 

significant even if the overall testing 

burden is reduced as described above. 

DOE requests comment on quantitative 

differential impacts and will consider 

presenting such impacts in the FRFA. 

To further address concerns about 

costs, DOE notes that for both envelopes 

and refrigeration systems, DOE may 

consider development of a sampling 

plan to determine how many units must 

be tested to establish compliance and 

enforcement requirements. In such a 

rulemaking, however, DOE could also 

consider additional methods to reduce 

the testing burden on manufacturers. 

For example, DOE could consider 

allowing manufacturers to rely on 

component suppliers for test results, 

and manufacturers could then use these 

values in their calculations of energy 

consumption of the walk-in. DOE could 

also allow manufacturers to group basic 

models into a ‘‘family’’ of models and 

only require the lowest-efficiency basic 

model in the family to be certified. DOE 

could also consider allowing 

manufacturers to use validated 

alternative efficiency determination 

methods, or AEDMs, which could 

consist of a calculation or computer 

program, to rate their equipment. DOE 

will consider the impacts to small 

businesses of future certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

provisions for walk-in coolers and 

freezers in a later rulemaking. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

with Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE considered a number of 

alternatives to the proposed test 

procedure, including test procedures 

that incorporate industry test standards 

other than the three proposed standards, 

ASTM C1303–08, ASTM E741–06, and 

AHRI Standard 1250P–2009, described 

above. Instead of requiring ASTM 

C1303–08 for testing the long-term 

thermal properties of insulation, DOE 

could require only ASTM C518–04, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Steady-State 

Thermal Transmission Properties by 

Means of the Heat Flow Meter 

Apparatus,’’ which tests the thermal 

properties of insulation at a certain 

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

manufacture). (Because ASTM C1303– 

08 incorporates ASTM C518–04, 

requiring ASTM C1303–08 is consistent 

with the statutory requirement for 

basing measurement of the thermal 

conductivity of the insulation on ASTM 

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

test of ASTM C518–04 alone costs 

approximately $500 to $1,000. However, 

DOE is considering ASTM C1303 for 

other reasons; namely, the concern that 

ASTM C518–04 alone does not capture 

the performance characteristics of a 

walk-in over the period of its use, 

because it does not account for 

significant changes in the thermal 

properties of insulation over time. 

DOE also considered ASTM E1827– 

96(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Determining Airtightness of Buildings 

Using an Orifice Blower Door,’’ instead 

of ASTM E741–06, for testing 

infiltration. ASTM E1827–96(2007) 

costs about $300–$ to 500 for a single 

test. However, DOE believes that ASTM 

E1827–96(2007) is not appropriate for 

walk-ins because it is conducted by 

placing test equipment in the door and 

thus does not account for infiltration 

through the door, which is a major 

component of infiltration in walk-ins. In 

addition, it is not intended for testing 

envelope systems, such as a walk-in, 

that have a large temperature difference 

between the internal and external air. 

Therefore, to complete a blower-door 

test, the walk-in could not be tested at 

or close to operational temperatures, 

resulting in a test that does not 

accurately reflect its performance. 

In the framework document, DOE 

considered adapting an existing test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, such as ARI Standard 1200– 

2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ as 

an alternative to AHRI Standard 1250– 

2009. The two tests are based on a 

similar methodology for rating 

refrigeration equipment in general, but 

ARI Standard 1200–2006 requires 

testing at only one set of ambient 

conditions, whereas AHRI Standard 

1250–2009 requires testing at three sets 

of ambient conditions for refrigeration 

systems with the condensing units 

located outdoors. The additional time 

required to test the system at three sets 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of conditions would incur additional 

cost and could make AHRI Standard 

1250–2009 more burdensome than ARI 

Standard 1200–2006. However, DOE 

believes that AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

is more appropriate for testing walk-ins 

than ARI Standard 1200–2006. A test 

procedure based on ARI Standard 1200– 

2006 would require the entire walk-in to 

be tested as a whole, but manufacturers 

might not have a large enough test 

facility to make the measurements 

necessary for the ARI 1200–2006 test 

procedure in a controlled environment. 

Also, the refrigeration system is often 

manufactured separately from the 

insulated envelope. In this case, 

whoever assembled the two components 

would bear the burden of conducting 

ARI 1200–2006; this party might not be 

the manufacturer of the refrigeration 

system. In contrast, AHRI 1250–2009 

tests only the refrigeration system. It 

does not require a larger test chamber 

than other, similar tests and can be 

conducted by the manufacturer of the 

refrigeration system. Because AHRI 

1250–2009 requires the system to be 

tested at three ambient temperatures, it 

captures energy savings from features 

(e.g., floating head pressure) that allow 

the system to use less energy at lower 

ambient temperatures. 

DOE requests comment on the 

impacts to small business manufacturers 

for these and any other possible 

alternatives to the proposed rule. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

DOE recognizes that if it adopts 

standards for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers, once the standards become 

operative, manufacturers would become 

subject to record-keeping requirements 

associated with compliance with the 

standards. Such record-keeping 

requirements would require OMB 

approval pursuant to the Paperwork 

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

DOE will comply with the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act if and 

when energy conservation standards are 

adopted. 

E. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

With respect to a proposed regulatory 

action that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish estimates of the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input before establishing any 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely potentially affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR12820. 

(also available at http:// 

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

published today does not provide for 

any Federal mandate likely to result in 

an aggregate expenditure of $100 

million or more. Therefore, the UMRA 

does not require a cost benefit analysis 

of today’s proposal. 

F. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined today’s 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it does not preempt State law and does 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States on the relationship between 

the national government and the States 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297) No further action is required by 

E.O. 13132. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, 61 FR 

4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation; and (3) provide a 

clear legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of E.O. 12988. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

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

agencies to review most disseminations 

of information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. Both OMB’s and DOE’s guidelines 

were published. 67 FR 8452 (February 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55091 

22, 2002) and 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 

2002), respectively. DOE has reviewed 

today’s notice under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgated or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that is (1) a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The 

Administrator of OIRA also did not 

designate today’s action as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it is not a 

significant energy action, and DOE has 

not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined pursuant to E.O. 

12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’, 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings 

which might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration (FEA) 

Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with section 32 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 

Energy Administration Authorization 

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

provides in part that where a proposed 

rule contains or involves use of 

commercial standards, the rulemaking 

must inform the public of the use and 

background of such standards. The rule 

proposed in this notice incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: ASTM 

C1303–08, ‘‘Standard Test Method of 

Predicting Long Term Thermal 

Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

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

Test Method for Determining Air 

Change in a Single Zone by Means of a 

Tracer Gas Dilution;’’ and AHRI 

Standard 1250P, ‘‘2009 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Walk in Coolers 

and Freezers.’’ DOE has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e., 

whether they were developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review. As 

required by section 32(c) of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974, as 

amended, DOE will consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission before 

prescribing a final rule concerning the 

impact on competition of requiring 

manufacturers to use the methods 

contained in these standards to test 

walk-in equipment. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submitting Public Comment 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the supplement to 

the proposed rule no later than the date 

provided at the beginning of this notice. 

Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE’s e-mail address for 

this rulemaking should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text (ASCII) file format. Interested 

parties should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and wherever possible, comments 

should include the electronic signature 

of the author. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to DOE via mail 

or hand delivery/courier should include 

one signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: One copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the following 

issues: 

1. Upper Limit of Walk-In Cooler 

EPCA defines walk-in cooler or walkin freezer as ‘‘an enclosed storage space 

refrigerated to temperatures, 

respectively, above, and at or below 32 

degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked 

into, and has a total chilled storage area 

of less than 3,000 square feet.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) DOE proposes 

clarifying the term ‘‘refrigerated’’ within 

the definition of walk-in cooler or walkin freezer to distinguish walk-ins from 

conditioned storage spaces. DOE 

proposes an upper limit of 55 °F 

because this is a generally accepted 

boundary between ‘‘refrigerated space’’ 

and ‘‘conditioned space.’’ DOE requests 

comment on this proposal. For details, 

see section III.A.1. 

2. Basic Model of Envelope 

Although often manufactured 

according to the same basic design, 

walk-in envelopes are so highly 

customized that each walk-in a 

manufacturer builds may be unique. To 

address this possibility, DOE proposed 

the following in the January NOPR: (1) 

Grouping walk-in envelopes with 

essentially identical construction 

methods, materials, and components 

into a single basic model; and (2) 

adopting a calculation methodology for 

determining the energy consumption of 

units within the basic model. 75 FR 189. 

Upon further consideration, DOE 

proposes in this SNOPR that a basic 

model of walk-in envelope should 

include equipment with the same 

design features, components, 

manufacturing method, etc., such that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55092 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

units within the basic model are the 

same with respect to the normalized 

energy consumption as determined by 

the test procedure (i.e., the energy 

consumption divided by square feet of 

surface area.) DOE believes that this 

definition of basic model will ensure 

that all equipment is accurately rated 

and complies with the standard. 

DOE recognizes this revised definition 

of ‘‘basic model’’ is narrower than the 

definition proposed in the January 

NOPR. However, the increase in test 

burden resulting from the narrower 

definition could be offset by the burdenreducing measures proposed elsewhere 

in the test procedure. Additionally, this 

definition would be consistent with the 

definition of basic model elsewhere in 

the appliance standards program. The 

proposed definition would provide a 

way of distinguishing walk-ins that 

differ in energy consumption from walkins that differ only in cosmetic or nonenergy-related features. DOE requests 

comment on the proposed definition. 

For details, see section III.A.3. 

3. Basic Model of Refrigeration 

Interested parties commented that the 

definition proposed in the January 

NOPR was ambiguous; thus, DOE 

proposes to clarify the definition. 

As with envelopes, DOE must ensure 

that all refrigeration systems are 

accurately rated and comply with the 

standard. Therefore, DOE proposes a 

definition for basic model of walk-in 

refrigeration such that units within the 

basic model must be the same with 

respect to energy consumption as 

determined by the test procedure. To 

relieve potential testing burden of many 

combinations of equipment, the 

proposed test procedure provides for 

rating a refrigeration system’s condenser 

and evaporator separately and then 

calculating the system energy 

consumption. DOE requests comment 

on the revised approach and definition 

of basic model of refrigeration. For 

details, see section III.A.4. 

4. Updates to Standards 

After the NOPR was published, DOE 

learned that two of the standards 

incorporated by reference had been 

updated. DOE proposes to incorporate 

the updated versions in the final rule. 

For details, see sections III.B.4 and 

III.C.2. 

5. Heat Conduction Through Structural 

Members 

Interested parties commented that 

DOE’s proposed test procedure did not 

account for heat conduction through 

structural members of the envelope such 

as a wood frame. Therefore, in this 

SNOPR, DOE proposes that panels 

(walls, ceilings, and floors) made with 

foam insulation are tested using ASTM 

C1363–05, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Thermal Performance of Building 

Materials and Envelope Assemblies by 

Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,’’ for 

measuring the overall U-factor of fullyassembled panels. The resulting 

composite panel U-factor found by 

ASTM C1363–05 will then be corrected 

using the LTTR results from ASTM 

C1303–10. DOE believes that using the 

results from ASTM C1363–05 modified 

by ASTM C1303–10 best captures the 

impact of structural members and longterm R-value of foam products. DOE 

requests comment on this approach. For 

details, see section III.B.1. 

6. Alternatives to ASTM C1303–10 

DOE proposes the use of alternative 

test methods found in Annex C of EN 

13165:2009–02 and EN 13164:2009–02 

for determining the long term thermal 

resistance (LTTR) of walk-in panels 

made using foam insulation. For details, 

see section III.B.3. 

7. Improvements to ASTM C1303 

Methodology 

DOE proposes several modifications 

to the ASTM C1303 methodology to 

address sample preparation and 

applicability to certain types of foam 

used in walk-ins and requests comment 

on these modifications. For details, see 

section III.B.5. 

8. Conduction Through Floors 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

an equation to calculate the heat transfer 

through the floor of both insulated and 

uninsulated WICF, and proposed 

assumptions for subfloor temperature 

and floor R-value (where the floor is 

provided separately from the panels). 

Between the publication of the January 

NOPR and the public meeting, DOE 

completed additional finite element 

model (FEM) computer simulations of 

floorless coolers. Based on FEM 

simulation results, DOE described a new 

equation during the public meeting for 

calculating heat transfer through 

floorless coolers. In light of this 

modeling and additional comments 

from interested parties, DOE is 

proposing a new method for calculating 

the heat transfer through certain floors. 

See section III.B.6 for more details. 

9. ‘‘Hybrid’’ Walk-ins 

In the January NOPR, the calculation 

procedure provided a means of rating all 

walk-ins including the scenario when a 

freezer is sited inside a cooler or a 

cooler and freezer share a wall. 

Modifications described in this SNOPR 

ensure that the rating of these walk-in 

cooler/freezer hybrids is properly 

captured. DOE seeks comment on these 

modifications and the accuracy of the 

new equations. See section III.B.7 for 

details. 

10. U–Factor of Doors and Windows 

DOE proposes to base the calculation 

of U-factor of doors and glass windows 

on NFRC 100–2010–E0A1, ‘‘Procedure 

for Determining Fenestration Product 

U–Factors’’ and requests comment on 

this proposal. For details, see section 

III.B.7. 

11. Envelope Infiltration 

DOE proposes modifications to its 

calculations and methodology for 

determining steady state infiltration rate 

through panel-to-panel and door-topanel interfaces. DOE also modified its 

proposed assumptions for door opening 

infiltration and effectiveness of 

infiltration reduction devices. DOE 

requests comment on its approach and 

assumptions related to infiltration. For 

details, see sections III.B.9, III.B.10, 

III.B.11, and III.B.12. 

12. Relative Humidity Assumptions 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

the assumption of an internal walk-in 

relative humidity of 45 percent to be 

consistent with dry-coil conditions in 

the proposed refrigeration system test. 

DOE recognizes that in practice the 

relative humidity (RH) varies 

significantly depending on the product 

stored within a walk-in. Therefore, in 

order to reflect higher RH values 

experienced in practice, DOE proposes 

a new assumption of 75 percent RH for 

both freezer and cooler internal 

conditions. DOE seeks comment on this 

assumption. See section III.B.7 for 

details. 

13. Definition of Refrigeration System 

In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 

a definition of refrigeration system and 

then presented a revised definition at 

the NOPR public meeting. In light of 

comments from interested parties, DOE 

is proposing to incorporate its revised 

definition with some modification. DOE 

requests comment on the revised 

definition and whether any previously 

proposed versions of the definition are 

preferable. See section III.C.1 for details. 

14. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor 

DOE is required by EPCA to establish 

a test procedure to measure the energy 

use of walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) 

AHRI 1250–2009 determines the annual 

walk-in energy factor (AWEF) as its final 

metric, which is the ratio of the annual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55093 

net heat removed from the box, which 

includes the internal heat gains from 

non-refrigeration components but 

excludes the heat gains from the 

refrigeration components in the box, to 

the annual energy consumption. In the 

course of performing the test procedure 

and determining AWEF, the annual 

energy use of a walk-in refrigeration 

system may be found as an intermediate 

result or easily derived from AWEF or 

other intermediate results. Thus, DOE 

proposes to simplify the method by 

which energy use is determined and 

require manufacturers to determine both 

energy use and AWEF. DOE requests 

comment on the simplified calculations 

in the rule language. For details, see 

section III.C.3. 

15. Impacts on Small Businesses 

In the January NOPR, DOE prepared 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) as required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

because it could not certify that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE received comment from interested 

parties on the number of small entities 

and the expected economic impact of 

the proposed test procedure on small 

entities and has revised the IRFA 

accordingly. DOE continues to request 

comment on impacts to small business 

manufacturers, particularly differential 

impacts to small and large businesses. 

More information, along with revisions 

to the IRFA, can be found in section 

IV.C. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this supplement to the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to revise part 

431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, to read as set 

forth below. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 431.302 is amended by 

adding the definitions for ‘‘Basic 

Model,’’ ‘‘Envelope,’’ ‘‘Refrigerated,’’ 

‘‘Refrigeration system,’’ and ‘‘Walk-in 

equipment’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.302 Definitions concerning walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers. 

Basic model means— 

(1) With respect to envelopes, all 

units manufactured by a single entity, 

which do not have any differing features 

or characteristics that affect normalized 

energy consumption. 

(2) With respect to refrigeration 

systems, all units manufactured by a 

single entity, which do not have any 

differing electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Envelope means— 

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

walk-in freezer that isolates the interior, 

refrigerated environment from the 

ambient, external environment; and 

(2) All energy-consuming components 

of the walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer 

that are not part of its refrigeration 

system. 

Refrigerated means held at a 

temperature at or below 55 degrees 

Fahrenheit using a refrigeration system. 

Refrigeration system means the 

mechanism (including all controls and 

other components integral to the 

system’s operation) used to create the 

refrigerated environment in the interior 

of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting 

of: 

(1) A packaged system where the unit 

cooler and condensing unit are 

integrated into a single piece of 

equipment, 

(2) A split system with separate unit 

cooler and condensing unit sections, or 

(3) A unit cooler that is connected to 

a multiplex condensing system. 

* * * * * 

Walk-in equipment means either the 

envelope or the refrigeration system of 

a walk-in cooler or freezer. 

3. In § 431.303, add new paragraphs 

(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (c), (d), and 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 431.303 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) ASTM C1303–10, Standard Test 

Method of Predicting Long Term 

Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 

Insulation, approved 2010, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

(3) ASTM C1363–05, Standard Test 

Method for Thermal Performance of 

Building Materials and Envelope 

Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 

Apparatus, approved 2005, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

(4) ASTM E283–04, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Rate of Air 

Leakage Through Exterior Windows, 

Curtain Walls, and Doors Under 

Specified Pressure Differences Across 

the Specimen, approved 2004, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

(5) ASTM E741–06 Standard Test 

Method for Determining Air Change in 

a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas 

Dilution, approved October 1, 2006, IBR 

approved for Sec. 431.304. 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 

22201, (703) 600–0366, or http:// 

www.ahrinet.org. 

(1) AHRI Standard 1250–2009, 2009 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, approved 

September 2009, IBR approved for 

§ 431.304. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(d) CEN. European Committee for 

Standardization (French: Norme or 

German: Norm), Avenue Marnix 17, B– 

1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: + 32 2 550 

08 11, Fax: + 32 2 550 08 19 or 

http://www.cen.eu/. 

(1) EN 13164:2009–02, Thermal 

insulation products for buildings— 

Factory made products of extruded 

polystyrene foam (XPS)—Specification, 

approved February 2009, IBR approved 

for § 431.304. 

(2) EN 13165:2009–02, Thermal 

insulation products for buildings— 

Factory made rigid polyurehane foam 

(PUR) products—Specification, 

approved February 2009, IBR approved 

for § 431.304. 

(e) NFRC. National Fenestration 

Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, 

Greenbelt, MD 20770, (301) 589–1776, 

or http://www.nfrc.org. 

(1) NFRC 100–2010–E0A1, Procedure 

for Determining Fenestration Product Ufactors, approved June 2010, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

(2) NFRC 400–2010–E0A1, Procedure 

for Determining Fenestration Product 

Air Leakage, approved June 2010, IBR 

approved for § 431.304. 

4. Section 431.304 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.304 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides test 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55094 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

(b) Testing and Calculations 

(1) Determine the energy consumption 

of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

envelopes by conducting the test 

procedure specified in Appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(i) Determine the Annual Walk-in 

Energy Factor of walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by 

conducting the test procedure set forth 

in AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(ii) Determine the annual energy 

consumption of walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer refrigeration systems: 

(A) For systems consisting of an 

integrated single-package refrigeration 

unit or a split system with separate unit 

cooler and condensing unit sections, 

where the condensing unit is located 

outdoors, by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in AHRI Standard 

1250–2009 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.303) and recording the annual 

energy consumption term in the 

equation for annual walk-in energy 

factor in section 7: 

Annual Energy Consumption = ( ) =

∑E tj

j

n

1

where tj and n represent the outdoor 

temperature at each bin j and the number 

of hours in each bin j, respectively, for 

the temperature bins listed in Table D1 

of AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(B) For systems consisting of an 

integrated single-package refrigeration 

unit or a split system with separate unit 

cooler and condensing unit sections, 

where the condensing unit is located in 

a conditioned space, by performing the 

following calculation: 

Annual Energy Consumption Annual Walk-i = 0 33 0 67 . . × +× BLH BLL 

n Energy Factor

where BL ̇H and BL ̇L for refrigerator and 

freezer systems are defined in section 

6.2.1 and 6.2.2, respectively, of AHRI 

Standard 1250–2009 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.303) and the annual 

walk-in energy factor is calculated from 

the results of the test procedures set forth 

in AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(C) For systems consisting of a unit 

cooler connected to a rack system, by 

performing the following calculation: 

Annual Energy Consumption Annual Walk-i = 0 33 0 67 . . × +× BLH BLL 

n Energy Factor

where BL ̇H and BL ̇L refrigerator and freezer 

systems are defined in section 7.9.2.2 

and 7.9.2.3, respectively, of AHRI 

Standard 1250–2009 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.303) and the annual 

walk-in energy factor is calculated from 

the results of the test procedures set forth 

in AHRI Standard 1250–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

5. Appendix A is added to subpart R 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

the Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers 

1.0 SCOPE 

This appendix covers the test requirements 

used to measure the energy consumption of 

the envelopes of walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. 

2.0 DEFINITIONS 

The definitions contained in § 431.302 are 

applicable to this appendix. 

2.1 Additional Definitions 

(a) Steady-state: The condition where the 

average internal temperature changes less 

than 1°C (2 °F) from one hour period to the 

next. 

(b) Door: An assembly installed in or on an 

interior or exterior wall; that is movable in 

a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving 

manner of movement; and that is used to 

produce or close off an opening in the walkin. For walk-ins, a door includes the door 

panel, glass, framing materials, door plug, 

mullion, and any other elements that form 

the door or part of its connection to the wall. 

(1) Passage door: A door designed for 

human passage or movement of product 

through the walk-in. A passage door may 

accommodate a hand cart or equivalent. 

(2) Freight door: A door designed for 

human passage or movement of product 

through the walk-in. A freight door may 

accommodate a forklift or equivalent. 

(3) Display door: A door designed for the 

movement and/or display of product rather 

than the passage of persons 

(4) Glass door: A door comprised of 50 

percent or more glass, irrespective of 

intended use. 

(c) Surface area: Unless explicitly stated 

otherwise, the surface area for all 

measurements is the area as measured on the 

external surface of the walk-in. 

(d) Automatic door opener/closer: A device 

or control system that ‘‘automatically’’ opens 

and closes doors without direct user contact 

(e.g., a motion sensor that senses when a 

forklift is approaching the entrance to a door, 

opens, and then closes after the forklift has 

passed). 

(e) Rating conditions: Unless explicitly 

stated otherwise, all calculations and test 

procedure measurements shall use the 

temperature and relative humidity data 

shown in Table A.VI.1. For installations 

where two or more walk-in envelopes share 

any surface(s), the ‘‘external conditions’’ of 

the shared surface(s) should reflect the 

internal conditions of the neighboring walkin. 

TABLE A.VI.1—TEMPERATURE AND

RELATIVE HUMIDITY CONDITIONS

Value Units 

Internal Conditions (cooled space within 

envelope) 

Cooler: 

Dry Bulb Temperature .. 35 °F 

Relative Humidity .......... 75 % 

Freezer: 

Dry Bulb Temperature .. ¥10 °F 

Relative Humidity .......... 75 % 

External Conditions (space external to the 

envelope) 

Freezer and Cooler: 

Dry Bulb Temperature .. 75 °F 

Relative Humidity .......... 52 % 

Subfloor Temperature 

Freezers & Coolers: 

Temperature .................. 55 °F 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.037</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.038</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.039</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55095 

3.0 TEST APPARATUS AND GENERAL 

INSTRUCTIONS 

3.1 Conduction Heat Gain 

3.1.1 Glass Area 

(a) All dimensional measurements for glass 

doors include the door frame and glass. 

(b) Calculate the individual and total glass 

door surface area, Aglass door, as follows, ft2: 

A W H n(3-1) glass door,i glass door,i glass door,i i = × ( )×

A W H n (3-2) glass door,tot glass door,i glass door,i i

l

= × ⎡( )× ⎣ ⎤

⎦

i

∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique glass door 

used in cooler or freezer being tested; 

ni = number of identical glass doors of type 

i; 

Wglass door,i = width of glass door (including 

door frame), ft; and 

Hglass door,i= height of glass door (including 

door frame), ft. 

(c) Calculate the glass wall individual and 

total glass surface area, Aglass,wall, as follows, 

ft2: 

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

A W H n (3-4) glass wall,tot glass wall,i glass wall,i i

l

= × ⎡( )× ⎣ ⎤

⎦

i

∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique glass wall 

used in cooler or freezer being tested; 

ni = number of identical glass walls of type 

i; 

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

glass framing), ft; and 

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

glass framing), ft. 

(d) Calculate the total combined glass door 

and glass wall area, Aglass,tot, as follows, ft2: 

A A A (3-5) glass,tot glass door,tot glass wall,tot = +

Where: 

Aglass door, tot= total glass door area, ft2; and 

Aglass wall, tot= total glass wall area, ft2. 

3.1.2 Temperature Difference Across Glass 

Areas 

(a) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 

DTglass door,j for each unique glass door as 

follows, °F: 

ΔTT T glass door j DB glass door j DB ext glass door j (3 , ,int, , , , , = − -6)

Where: 

j= index for each type of unique glass door 

temperature differential used—for 

example if a freezer glass door opens into 

a cooler internal conditioned 

temperature and a freezer glass door 

opens into external temperature, j=2; 

TDB,int,glass door,j = dry-bulb air temperature 

inside the cooler or freezer where the 

door is located, °F; 

TDB,ext,glass door,j = dry-bulb air temperature 

external to the door of type j, °F. 

(b) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 

DTglass,wall,j for each unique glass wall, as 

follows (°F): 

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

Where: 

j = index for each type of unique glass wall 

temperature differential used; 

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

inside the cooler or freezer, °F; and 

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

external to cooler or freezer, °F. 

3.1.3 Non-Glass Area 

Calculate the individual and total surface 

area of the walk-in non-glass envelope 

components Anon-floor panel edge,i, Anon-floor panel

edge,tot, Anon-floor panel core,i, Anon-floor panel core,tot, 

Afloor panel edge,i, Afloor panel edge,tot, Afloor panel

core,i, Afloor panel core,tot, Anon-glass door,i, and 

Anon-glass door,tot, as follows (ft2): 


EP09SE10.040</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.041</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.042</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.043</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.044</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.045</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.046</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55096 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Anon-floor panel edge,i, ft2

, (see Figure 2 to 

help visualize the area calculations) 

A XW non-floor panel edge,i = × edge test region non-floor panel,i non-floor panel,i edge test region ⎡ + − (3-8) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ ⎡ × ⎣ ⎤

⎦ LX ni

i

1

∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-floor 

panel—for example, if a walk-in is 

constructed of non-floor panels that are 

of two different thicknesses or 

manufactured using two different foam 

insulation products but panel 

dimensions are all identical, i=2 or, if a 

walk-in is constructed of non-floor 

panels that are all of identical 

thicknesses and identical materials but 

of non-floor panels of 15 different 

dimensions, i=15; 

ni = number of identical panels of type i; 

Xedge test region = Panel Edge Test Region width, 

as shown in Figure 3, ft; 

Wnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel width, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; and 

Lnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel length, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; 

(b) Anon-floor panel edge,tot, ft2

A Anon floor

i

non-floor panel edge,tot - panel edge,i = ∑ (3-9)

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-floor 

panel; and 

Anon-floor panel edge, i= non-floor panel edge area, 

of thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2. 

(c) Anon-floor panel core,i, ft2

A WL non-floor panel core,i non-floor panel,i non-floor pane = × l,i non-floor panel edge,i ⎡ × (3-10) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ ∑ n A i −

i

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-floor 

panel; 

ni = number of identical panels, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type i; 

Anon-floor panel edge,i= panel non-floor edge area, 

of thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2; 

Wnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel width, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; and 

Lnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel length, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; 

(d) Anon-floor panel core,tot, ft2


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.031</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.047</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.048</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.049</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55097 

A A

i

non-floor panel core,tot non-floor panel core,i = − ∑

1

( ) 3 11

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-floor 

panel; and 

Anon-floor panel core, i= non-floor panel core area, 

of thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2; 

(e) Afloor panel edge,i, ft2

A X WL floor panel edge,i edge test region floor panel,i floo = ×+ r panel,i edge test region ⎡ − (3-12) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ ⎡ × ⎣ ⎤ ∑ ⎦ X n

i

1

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique floor panel; 

ni = number of identical panels, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type i; 

Xedge test region = Panel Edge Test Region width, 

as shown in Figure 3, ft; 

Wfloor panel,i = floor panel width, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type i, ft; 

and 

Lfloor panel,i = floor panel length, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type i, ft; 

(f) Afloor panel edge,tot, ft2; 

A A

i

floor panel edge,tot floor panel edge,i = ∑ (3-13)

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique floor panel; 

and 

Afloor panel edge, i= floor panel edge area, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2. 

(g) Afloor panel core,i, ft2

A WLn floor panel core,i floor panel,i floor panel,i = ×× ⎡ i A ⎣ ⎤

⎦ − floor panel edge,i (3-14)

1

i

∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique floor panel; 

ni = number of identical panels, of thickness 

and underlying materials of type i; 

Afloor panel edge,i= floor panel edge area, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2; 

Wnon-floor panel,i = floor panel width, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; and 

Lnon-floor panel,i = floor panel length, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; 

(h) Afloor panel core,tot, ft2

A A

i

floor panel core,tot floor panel core,i = ∑ (3-15)

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique floor 

panel; and 

Afloor panel core, i= floor panel core area, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2. 

(i) Anon-glass door,i, ft2

A WH non-glass door,i non-glass door,i non-glass door,i = × ⎡

⎣ ⎤⎦ × ni

i

(3-16)

1

∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-glass 

door; 

ni = number of identical glass doors, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i; 

Wnon-glass door,i = non-glass door width, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft; and 

Hnon-glass door,i = non-glass door height, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft. 

(j) Anon-glass door,tot, ft2


EP09SE10.050</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.051</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.052</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.053</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.054</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.055</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55098 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

A A

i

non-glass door,tot non-glass door,i = ∑ (3-17)

1

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique non-glass 

door; and 

Anon-glass door,i= non-glass door area, of 

thickness and underlying materials of 

type i, ft2. 

(k) Anon-glass tot, ft2

AA A non-glass tot non-floor panel edge,tot non-floor panel = + core,tot floor panel edge,tot floor panel core,tot non +++ AAA -glass door,tot (3-18)

Where: 

Anon-floor panel edge, tot= non-floor panel edge 

total area, ft2; 

Anon-floor panel core, tot= non-floor panel core 

total area, ft2; 

Afloor panel edge, tot= floor panel edge total area, 

ft2; 

Afloor panel core, tot= floor panel core total area, 

ft2; and 

Anon-glass door,tot= non-glass door total area, ft2. 

3.1.4 Temperature Difference Across NonGlass Areas 

Calculate the temperature differential(s) 

DTnon-floor panel,j, DTfloor panel,j, and DTnon-glass

door,j, °F, as follows: 

(a) >Tnon-floor panel, j, °F 

ΔTT T non-floor panel, j DB,int,non-floor panel, j non- = − DB ext ,, floor panel, j (3-19)

Where: 

j = index for each type of non-floor panel 

temperature differential; 

TDB,int, non-floor panel,j = dry-bulb air internal 

temperature, °F. If the panel spans both 

cooler and freezer temperatures, the 

freezer temperature must be used; and 

TDB, ext, non-floor panel, j = dry-bulb air external 

temperature, °F. 

(b) >Tfloor, j, °F 

ΔTT T floor panel, j DB,int,floor panel, j floor panel, = − DB ext ,, j (3-20)

Where: 

j = index for each type of floor panel 

temperature differential; 

TDB, int, floor panel, j = dry-bulb air internal 

temperature, °F. If the panel spans both 

cooler and freezer temperatures, the 

freezer temperature must be used; and 

TDB, ext, floor panel, j = 55° F, as defined in Table 

A.VI.1. 

(c) >Tnon-glass door, j, °F 

ΔTT T non-glass door, j DB,int,non-glass door, j - = − DB ext non gl ,, ass door, j (3-21)

Where: 

j = index for each type of non-glass door 

temperature differential; 

TDB, int, non-glass door, j = dry-bulb air internal 

temperature, °F. If the panel spans both 

cooler and freezer temperatures, the 

freezer temperature must be used; and 

TDB, ext, non-glass door, j = dry-bulb air external 

temperature, °F. 

3.1.5 Conduction Heat Load Across Glass 

Areas 

(a) Calculate the conduction load through the 

glass doors, Qcond-glass, door, as follows btu/ 

h: 

Q A TU cond,glass door = ×× glass door,i door, j glass door, Δ glass i ⎡ × (3-22) ⎣ ⎤ ∑∑ ⎦ ni j

i j

,

11

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique glass door; 

j = index for each type of glass door 

temperature differential; 

ni, j = number of identical glass doors of type 

i with temperature differential j; 

Uglass door, i = thermal transmittance, U-factor 

of the door, of type i, as rated by NFRC 

see section 4.4.1, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Aglass door, i = total surface area of all walkin glass doors of type i, ft2; and 

>Tglass door, j = temperature differential 

between refrigerated and adjacent zones 

of type j, °F. 

(b) Calculate the conduction load through the 

glass walls, (Qcond-glass, wall), btu/h, as 

follows: 

Q A TU cond,glass wall = ×× glass wall,i wall,j glass wall, Δ glass i ⎡ × (3-23) ⎣ ⎤ ∑∑ ⎦ ni j

i j

,

11

Where: i = index for each type of unique glass wall; j = index for each type of glass wall 

temperature differential; 


EP09SE10.056</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.057</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.058</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.059</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.060</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.061</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.062</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55099 

ni, j = number of identical glass walls of type 

i with temperature differential j; 

Uglass, wall, i = thermal transmittance, U-factor 

of the glass wall, of type i, as rated by 

NFRC see section 4.4.1 Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Aglass, wall, i = total surface area of all walkin glass walls of type i, ft2; and 

>Tglass, wall, j= temperature differential 

between refrigerated and adjacent zones 

of type j, °F. 

3.1.6 Panel Long Term Thermal 

Transmittance 

(a) Calculate the foam degradation factor, 

(DFi), unitless, as follows: 

DF

R

R i

LTTR i

i

= ,

,0

(3-24)

Where: 

i= index each type of unique foam used in 

the walk-in envelope—for example if a 

walk-in uses one foam type for non-floor 

panels and another foam type for floor 

panels, i=2; 

RLTTR, i = the R-value, from ASTM C1303–10, 

per 4.1.2 of foam type i, h-ft2-°F/Btu; and 

R0, i = the R-value of foam used for 

determining EPCA compliance of foam 

type i, h-ft2-°F/Btu. 

(b) Calculate the long term thermal 

transmittance, (ULT, non-floor panel core, i), Btu/hft2-°F, as follows: 

U

DF

3-25 LT,non-floor panel core,i

non-floor panel core,i

i

= U( )

Where: 

i= index each type of unique foam used in 

the walk-in envelope; 

Unon-floor panel core, i = the U-factor, per 4.1.1 of 

foam type i, Btu/h-ft2-°F; and 

DFi = the degradation of foam type i, unitless. 

(c) Calculate the long term thermal 

transmittance, (ULT, floor panel core, i), Btu/h-ft2- 

°F, as follows: 

U

DF (3-26) LT,floor panel core,i

floor panel core,i

i

= U

Where: 

i= index each type of unique foam used in 

the walk-in envelope; 

Ufloor panel core, i = the U-factor, per 4.1.1 of 

foam type i, Btu/h-ft2-°F; and 

DFi = the degradation of foam type i, unitless. 

3.1.7 Conduction Heat Load Across NonGlass Areas 

Calculate the conduction heat load through 

all non-glass components: Qcond-non-floor panel, 

Qcond-floor panel, Qcond-non-glass door and 

Qcond-non-glass, as follows btu/h: 

(a) Qcond-non-floor panel, btu/h, 

Q TA cond-non-floor panel = × Δ non-floor panel, j non-floor panel ( ) edge,i non-floor panel edge,i × U nA × + i j, c non-floor panel core,i LT,non-floor panel, core,i ( ) × × (3-2 ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥ ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥ U ni j, 7)

11

i j

∑∑

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique component 

of type i; 

j = index for each unique temperature 

differential of type j; 

ni,j = number of identical non-floor panels of 

type i with temperature differential; 

DTnon-floor panel,j = temperature differential 

across the non-floor panels of type i, °F; 

Unon-floor panel edge,i = U-factor for panel edge 

area type i, per 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

ULT,non-floor panel core,i = Long term thermal 

transmittance of foam type i, per section 

4.1.1, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Anon-floor panel edge,i = area of non-floor panel 

edge of type i, ft2; and 

Anon-floor panel core,i = area of non-floor panel 

core of type i, ft2. 

(b) Qcond-floor panel, btu/h, 

Q TA cond-floor panel i, j = ×× Δ floor panel, j floor panel edge,i U nA U floor panel edge,i floor panel core,i i j LT,floor ( ) ×+ × , panel core,i ( ) × (3-28) ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥ ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤ ∑∑ ⎦⎥ ni j

i j

,

11

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique component 

of type i; 

j = index for each unique temperature 

differential of type j; 

ni,j = number of identical floor panels of type 

i with temperature differential j; 

DTnon-floor panel,j = temperature differential 

across the floor panels of type i, °F; 

Ufloor panel edge,i = U-factor for panel edge area 

type i, per 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

ULT,floor panel core,i = Long term thermal 

transmittance of foam type i, per 4.1.1, 

Btu/h-ft2-°F; 

Afloor panel edge,i = area of floor panel edge of 

type i, ft2; and 

Afloor panel core,i = area of floor panel core of 

type i, ft2. 

(1) Exception to Qcond-floor panel: If the walkin is at cooler temperature and has an 

uninsulated floor, then Qcond-floor panel, btu/h, 

is as follows: 

(i) If Afloor ≤ 750 ft2, then 

Q A cond-floor panel = ×× floor floor A (3-28) − 33 153 0 364 . .

(ii) If Afloor > 750 ft2, then 


EP09SE10.063</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.064</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.065</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.066</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.067</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.068</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55100 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Q AA cond-floor panel floor floor = ×+ [ ] 0 0002 2 84 . . × (3-29)

Where: Afloor = total area of the floor, as measured 

from the walk-in architectural drawing, 

ft2. 

(2) Exception to Qcond-floor panel: If the walkin is at freezer temperature and an insulated 

floor has not being shipped with the walkin, then Qcond-floor panel, is as follows btu/h: 

Q TA R cond-floor panel floor floor

Freezer floor

= ×× Δ (3-30) 1

Where: 

Afloor = total area of the floor, as measured 

from the walk-in architectural drawing, 

ft2. 

DTfloor = temperature differential across the 

freezer floor as defined in 3.1.4(b), °F 

Rfreezer floor = 28 ft2-°F-h/Btu, as required by 

EPCA. 

(c) Qcond-non-glass door, btu/h, 

Q TA cond-non-glass door = ×× Δ non glass - door, j - door,i non glass U ni j

i j

non-glass door,i ⎡ (3-31) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ ⎡ × ⎣ ⎤ ∑∑ ⎦,

11

Where: 

i = index for each type of unique component 

of type i; 

j = index for each unique temperature 

differential of type j; 

ni,j = number of identical non-glass doors of 

type i with temperature differential j; 

DTnon-non glass door,j = temperature differential 

across the floor panels of type i, °F; 

Unon-glass door,i = U-factor for panel edge area 

type i, per 4.4.1, Btu/h-ft2-°F; and 

Anon-glass door,i = area of floor panel edge of 

type i, ft2. 

(d) Total conduction load for non-glass 

areas, Qcond-non-glass, as follows btu/h: 

QQ Q Q cond-non-glass cond-non-floor panel cond-floor panel c = ++ ond-non-glass door (3-32)

Where: 

Qcond-non-floor panel = conduction through nonfloor panels, btu/h; 

Qcond-floor panel = conduction through floor 

panels, btu/h; and 

Qcond-non-glass door = conduction through nonglass doors, btu/h. 

(1) Exception: If calculating Qcond-non-glass

for an uninsulated cooler or for a freezer 

where an insulated floor is not part of walkin, calculate as follows: 

QQ Q Q cond-non-glass cond-floor panel - - panel =+ + cond non floor cond non glass- - door (3-33)

Where: 

Qcond-non-floor panel = conduction through nonfloor panels, btu/h; 

Qcond-floor panel = conduction through floor, as 

found in 3.1.7(b)(1) or (2) btu/h; and 

Qcond-non-glass door = conduction through nonglass doors, btu/h. 

3.1.8 Total Conduction Load 

(a) Calculate total conduction load, Qcond, 

as follows btu/h: 

QQ Q Q cond cond-non-glass wall , door cond glass cond glass =++ (3- , 34)

Where: 

Qcond-non-glass = total conduction load through 

non-glass components of walk-in, Btu/h; 

Qcond-glass,wall = total conduction load through 

walk-in glass walls, Btu/h; and 

Qcond-glass,door = total conduction load through 

walk-in glass doors, Btu/h. 

3.2 Infiltration Heat Gain 

3.2.1 Steady State Infiltration Calculations 

(a) Convert dry-bulb internal and external 

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

follows: 

TDB-int,R DB-int = + T 459 67. (3-35)

TDB-ext,R DB-ext = + T 459 67. (3-36)

Where: 

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

internal walk-in air, °R; and 

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

of air surrounding the walk-in, °R. 

(b) Calculate the water vapor saturation 

pressure for the external air and the internal 

refrigerated air, as follows: 

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

following equation to calculate water vapor 

saturation pressure (Pws in psia): 


EP09SE10.069</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.070</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.071</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.072</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.073</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.074</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.075</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.076</MATH><!--Mjlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55101 

P

T ws T CT CT

DB R

= DB R DB R DB R

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ exp ++ × ( ) + × ( ) + ×

,

,, ,

C C C 1

23 4

2

5

3 ( ) + × ( ) + × ( ) ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

C T C nT 6 DB R DB R

4

7 1 , , (3-37)

Where: 

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

the internal or external air), 

C1 = ¥1.0214165 E+04, 

C2 = ¥4.8932428 E+00, 

C3 = ¥5.3765794 E–03, 

C4 = 1.9202377 E–07, 

C5 = 3.5575832 E–10, 

C6 = ¥9.0344688 E–14, and 

C7 = 4.1635019 E+00. 

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

following equation to calculate water vapor 

saturation pressure, Pws, psia: 

p T ws T CT CT

DB R

= DB R DB R DB

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ exp ++ × ( ) + × ( ) + ×

,

, ,

C C C 8

9 10 11

2

12 , , R DB R C nT 3

13 ( ) + × ( ) 1 ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥ (3-38)

Where: 

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

and external air), °R; 

C8 = ¥1.0440397 E+04; 

C9 = ¥1.1294650 E+01; 

C10 = ¥2.7022355 E–02; 

C11 = 1.2890360 E–05; 

C12 = ¥2.4780681 E–09; and 

C13 = 6.5459673 E+00. 

(c) Calculate the absolute humidity ratio, 

w, as follows: 

ω =

× × ( )

− × ( )

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

0 621945

14 696

.

.

RH P

RH P

ws

ws

(3-39)

Where: 

RH = relative humidity in (for the internal or 

external air), and 

Pws = water vapor saturation pressure, psia. 

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

as follows: 

v = × ×+ × ⎢

⎣ ⎥⎦ ( . ) ( ( . )) 0 025209989 1 1 6078 TDB,R ω (3-40)

Where: 

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

or external air), °R; and 

v = specific volume of air, ft3/lb. 

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

as follows: 

ρ = 1

ν

(3-41)

Where: 

v = specific volume of air, ft3/lb. 

(f) Calculate the enthalpy for the internal 

and external air, h, as follows btu/lb: 

h T = × ( ) 0 240 . . DB,F +× + × ( ) 1061 0 444 ( ) TDB,F ω (3-42)

Where: 

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

or external air), °F; and 

w = absolute humidity ratio, unitless. 

(g) Calculate the total crack length, CL,(ft), 

using the architectural drawing of the walkin, 

(h) Calculate the steady state infiltration 

rate of the walk-in,V ̇ j, ft3/h: 

VVC 

j LL = × (3-43)

Where: 

j = index of type cooler or freezer; 

V ̇ L = the normalized infiltration rate per 

section 4.2 of this document using the 

architectural drawing of the walk-in, 

ft3/h-ft; and 

CL = total crack length, ft. 

(i) Calculate the total infiltration load due 

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

as follows: 

Q h infilt panel ext j ext, j j j 1 = ×−× ( ) ρ ρ h × (3-44) , int, int, V

Where: 

j = index of cooler or freezer temperature; 

V ̇ j = the infiltration rate measured at test 

temperature j, per section 4.2, ft3/h; 

rint,j = internal air density, lb/ft3; 

rext,j = external air density, lb/ft3; 

hint,j = internal air enthalpy, Btu/lb; and 

hext,j = external air enthalpy, Btu/lb. 

3.2.2 Door Steady-State Infiltration 

Calculations 

(a) Calculate the steady-state infiltration 

associated with doors as follows, V ̇ door

steady,i3/h: 

V Vn 

door door i

i

i steady,i = × ∑ (3-45)

1

Where: 

i = index of each unique door geometry and 

temperature differential combination; 

ni = number of identical doors of type i, 

unitless; and 

V ̇ door1Q = door steady state infiltration as 

found following section 4.4.2, ft3/h. 

(b) Calculate the total infiltration load due 

to steady-state infiltration through doors, 

Qdoor steady, btu/h, as follows: 


EP09SE10.077</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.078</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.079</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.080</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.081</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.082</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.083</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.084</MATH><!--Mjlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Q hh door steady steady,i = × −× ( ) ρ ρ ext i ext i i i door , , int, int, × V(3-46)

1

i

∑

Where: 

i = index of type cooler or freezer 

temperature; 

V ̇ door steady,i = total door steady-state 

infiltration, ft3/h; 

rint,i = internal air density, as found in 3.2.1 

above, lb/ft3; 

rext,i = external air density, as found in 3.2.1 

above, lb/ft3; 

hint,i = internal air enthalpy, as found in 3.2.1 

above, Btu/lb; and 

hext,i = external air enthalpy, as found in 3.2.1 

above, Btu/lb. 

3.2.3 Door Opening Infiltration Calculations 

(a) Calculate the portion of time each 

doorway is open, Dt, unitless, as follows: 

D

P

(3-47) t,i

d

= ( ) × + × ( ) ⎡

⎣ ⎤⎦

[ ] ×

θ θ

3600 θ

p 60 θ

Where: 

i = index for each unique door—for example 

a unique door must be of the same 

geometry, underlying materials, 

function, and have the same temperature 

difference across the door; 

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

number of door opening events); 

qp = door open-close time, seconds per 

opening P; 

qθ = time door stands open, minutes; and 

qd = daily time period, h. 

(1) Number of doorway passages: For 

display glass doors, P = 72, for passage doors, 

P = 60 and for freight doors, P = 120. 

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

doors, qp = 8 seconds, for passage doors, qp

= 15 and for freight doors, qp = 60. 

(3) Door open-close time if an automatic 

door opener/closer is used: For passage 

doors, qp = 10 and for freight doors, qp = 30. 

(4) Time door stands open: Display glass 

doors, qo = 0 minutes, for passage doors qo

= 30 minutes and for freight doors qo = 60 

minutes. 

(5) Time door stands open if an automatic 

door opener/closer is used: For passage doors 

qo = 10 minutes and for freight doors qo = 20 

minutes. 

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

hours 

(b) Calculate the density factor, Fm, for 

each door, as follows: 

Fm i

i

ext i

,

int,

,

/

/

=

+

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

2

1

13

3 2

ρ

ρ

(3-48)

Where: 

i = index for each unique door 

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

lb/ft3; and 

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

lb/ft3. 

(c) Calculate the infiltration load for fully 

established flow through each door, 

qi (Btu/h), as follows: 

q A i iext ii i

ext i

i

= ×× − ( )× ×−

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ 795 6 1

1

. , int, int,

,

int,

h h ρ

ρ

ρ

/

/

,

2

1 2

× × ( ) gH F i mi × (3-49)

Where: 

i = index for each unique door; 

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

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

Btu/lb; 

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

Btu/lb; 

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

ft3; 

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

ft3; 

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

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

g = acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/sec.2. 

(d) Calculate the doorway infiltration 

reduction device effectiveness, E (%), at the 

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

(1) Calculate the infiltration reduction 

effectiveness: 

E

V

V (3-50) i, j

rate,with-device i, j

rate,without-device i, j

= −1

Where: 

i = index for each unique doorway size of 

type small, medium or large; 

j = index for each unique infiltration 

reduction device (IRD) of type i; 

Vrate,with-device i,j = air infiltration rate, with 

door open and reduction device active, 

4.3, 1/h, if a device j is not used with the 

doorway i, Vrate,with-device i,j = 

Vrate,without-device i,j ; and 

Vrate,without-device i,j = air infiltration rate, with 

door open and reduction device disabled 

or removed, using 4.3, 1/h. 

(e) Calculate the total door opening 

infiltration load for all door-IRD 

combinations, Qdoor open, (Btu/h), as 

follows: 

Q (3-51) door open = × × ×− ∑∑ qD D E n i ti f i j i ( )×

i j

, , 1

11

Where: 

i = index for each unique combination of 

doorway size, temperature difference and Dt, 

of type i—for example, if the walk-in has a 

small, medium and large door, i = 3, or if the 

walk-in has ten identical dimensioned 

display doors and one passage door all with 

the same temperature differential, i = 2; 

j = index for the effectiveness of IRD type j; 

ni = number of doorways of type i being 

considered in the calculation; 

qi = infiltration load for fully established 

flow, Btu/h; 

Dt,i = doorway open-time factor as calculated 

for each unique door way, unitless; 

Df = doorway flow factor, 0.8 for freezers and 

coolers (from ASHRAE Fundamentals), 

unitless; 

Ei,j = effectiveness of doorway type i with IRD 

type j, as measured by gas tracer test, %. 

3.3 Energy Consumption Due to Total Heat 

Gain 

(a) Calculate the total thermal load, Qtot, 

(Btu/h), as follows: 

Q Q Q Q +Q tot infilt panel door steady door open cond =++ (3-52)


EP09SE10.086</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.087</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.088</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.089</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.090</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.091</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.092</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55103 

Where: 

Qinfilt panel = total load due to steady-state 

infiltration, Btu/h; 

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

Qdoor steady = total load due to door steadystate infiltration, Btu/h; and 

Qdoor open = total load due to door opening 

infiltration, Btu/h. 

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

follows: 

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

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

(c) Calculate the total daily energy 

consumption due to thermal load, Qtot,EER, 

(kWh/day), as follows: 

Q Q

EER tot EER tot , = ×

×

×

24 1 h kW

1 day 1000 W (3-53)

Where: 

Qtot = total thermal load, Btu/h; and 

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

Btu/Wh. 

3.4 Energy Consumption Related to 

Electrical Components 

Electrical components contained within a 

walk-in could include, but are not limited to: 

Heater wire (for anti-sweat or anti-freeze 

application); lights (including display door 

lighting systems); control system units; and 

sensors. 

3.4.1 Direct Energy Consumption of 

Electrical Components 

(a) Select the required value for percent 

time off for each type of electricity 

consuming device, PTOt (%): 

(1) For lights without timers, control 

system or other demand-based control, 

PTO=25 percent. For lighting with timers, 

control system or other demand-based 

control, PTO=50 percent. 

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

required): Without timers, control system or 

other demand-based control, PTO=0 percent. 

With timers, control system or other demandbased control, PTO=75 percent. For antisweat heaters on freezers (if required): 

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

timers, control system or other demand-based 

control, PTO=50 percent. 

(3) For active infiltration reduction 

devices: Without control by door open or 

closed position, PTO=25 percent. With 

control by door open or closed position for 

display doors, PTO=99.33 percent. With 

control by door open or closed position for 

other doors, PTO=99.17 percent. 

(4) For all other electricity consuming 

devices: Without timers, control system, or 

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

If it can be demonstrated that the device is 

controlled by preinstalled timers, control 

system or other auto-shut-off systems, 

PTO=25 percent. 

(b) Calculate the power usage for each type 

of electricity consuming device, Pcomp,t, 

(kWh/day), as follows: 

P PTO n

h

day comp u t ated u t ,, r ,, = ×− P ( ) 1 ut ut , , × ×

24 (3-54)

Where: 

u = index for each type of electricity 

consuming device sited inside the walkin envelope and/or sited external the 

walk-in envelope, inside, u=int, external, 

u=ext; 

t = index for each type of electricity 

consuming device with identical rated 

power; 

Prated,u,t = rated power of each component, of 

type t, kW; 

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

t, %; and 

nu,t = number of devices at the rated power 

of type t, unitless. 

(c) Calculate the total electrical energy 

consumption, Ptot, (kWh/day), as follows: 

P P tot comp t

t

,int = ∑ ,int,

1

(3-55)

P P tot ext comp ext t

t

, ,, = ∑

1

(3-56)

Where: 

t = index for each type of electricity 

consuming device with identical rated 

power; 

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

consuming device sited inside the walkin envelope, of type t, kWh/day; and 

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

consuming device sited outside the 

walk-in envelope, of type t, kWh/day. 

3.4.2 Total Indirect Electricity Consumption 

Due to Electrical Devices 

(a) Calculate the additional compressor 

load due to thermal output from electrical 

components sited inside the envelope, Cload, 

(kWh/day), as follows: 

C P

EER (3-57) load tot,int = ×3 412

. Btu

Wh

Where: 

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

freezer=6.3), Btu/Wh; and 

Ptot,int = The total electrical load due to 

components sited inside the walk-in 

envelope, kWh/day 

3.5 Total Energy Consumption and 

Normalized Energy Consumption 

3.5.1 Total Energy Consumption 

Calculate the total energy load of the walkin envelope per unit of surface area and nonnormalized total energy consumption, 

Etot,non-glass,norm, Etot,glass,norm, Etot,electrical,norm, 

and Etot,(kWh/ft2/day), as follows: 

(a) Etot,non-glass,norm, kWh/ft2/day, 

Etot,non-glass

non-glass,tot

non-glass,tot glass,tot

A

A A = +

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

×

+

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

Q

A A (3-58) tot,EER

non-glass,tot glass,tot

(b) Etot,glass,norm, kWh/ft2/day,


EP09SE10.093</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.094</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.095</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.096</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.097</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.098</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
55104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Etot,glass

glass,tot

non-glass,tot glass,tot

A to

A A

Q = +

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

× t,EER

A A non-glass,tot glass,tot

(3-59)

+

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

(c) Etot,electrical,norm, kWh/ft2/day,

E P C

A A (3 tot,electric device

tot load

non-glass,tot glass,tot

= +

+

-60)

(d) Etot, kWh/day,

E Q PC tot tot EER tot load = ++ , (3-61)

Where: 

Qtot,EER = the total thermal load, kWh/day; 

Ptot = the total electrical load, kWh/day; 

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

Aglass,tot = total surface area glass envelope, 

ft2; and 

Cload = additional compressor load due to 

thermal output from electrical components 

contained within the envelope, kWh/day. 

4.0 TEST METHODS AND 

MEASUREMENTS 

4.1 Conduction Performance Testing and 

Measurements 

4.1.1 Measuring Panel and Floor U-factors 

using ASTM C1363–05 

(a) Test Sample Geometry Requirements 

(1) Two (2) panels, 8’ ± 1’’ long and 4’ wide 

± 1’’ must be prepared. 

(2) The panel edges must be joined using 

a given manufacturer’s panel interface 

joining system (i.e. camlocks). 

(3) Panel Edge Test Region must be cut 

from the joined panels such that X = 2’ ± 

0.25’’ and Z = 7’ ± 0.5’’. (See Figure 3) 

(i) Exception: Walk-in panels that utilize 

vacuum insulated panels (VIP) for 

insulation, X = 2’± 2’’. The wider tolerance 

is meant to allow the cutting line, when 

preparing the Panel Edge Test Region, to 

match the VIP junctions such that VIP will 

not lose vacuum by being pierced by the 

cutting device. 

(4) Panel Core Test Region must also be cut 

from one of the two panels such that Y = 2’ 

± 0.25’’ and Z = 7’ ± 0.5’’. (See Figure 3) 

(i) Exception: As above, walk-in panels that 

use VIP for insulation, Y = 2’± 2’’. 

(b) Testing Conditions 

(1) The air temperature on the ‘‘hot side’’ 

of the box should be maintained at 75 °F ± 

1 °F. 

(i) Exception: When testing floors, the air 

temperature should be maintained at 55 °F 

± 1 °F. 

(2) The temperature in the ‘‘cold side’’ of 

the envelope should be maintained at 35 °F 

± 1 °F for the panels used for walk-in coolers 

and ¥10 °F ± 1 °F for panels used for walkin freezers. 

(3) The air velocity should be maintained 

as natural convection conditions as described 

in ASTM C1363–05 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.303). The test must be 

completed using the masked method and 

with surround panel in place as described in 

ASTM C1363–05. 

(c) Required Test Samples 

(1) Wall and Ceiling Panels 

(i) Cooler conditions, Panel Edge Region 

U-factor: Unon-floor panel edge,cooler

(ii) Cooler conditions, Panel Core Region 

U-factor: Unon-floor panel core,cooler

(iii) Freezer conditions, Panel Edge Region 

U-factor: Unon-floor panel edge,freezer

(iv) Freezer conditions, Panel Core Region 

U-factor: Unon-floor panel core,freezer


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.099</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.100</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.101</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.206</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55105 

(2) Floor Panels 

(i) Cooler conditions, Floor Panel Edge 

Region U-factor: Ufloor panel edge,cooler

(ii) Cooler conditions, Floor Panel Core 

Region U-factor: Unon-floor panel core,cooler

(iii) Freezer conditions, Floor Panel Edge 

Region U-factor: Ufloor panel edge,freezer

(iv) Freezer conditions, Floor Panel Core 

Region U-factor: Ufloor panel core,freezer

4.1.2 Measuring R–Value of Insulating 

Foam 

(a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM 

C1303–10 exactly, with these exceptions 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303): 

(1) Mold/Sample Panel Geometry 

(i) A panel must be prepared following 

typical manufacturer injection, curing and 

assembly methods. The width and length 

of the panel must be 48 inches ± 1 inch and 

96 inches ± 1 inch, respectively. 

(ii) The panel thickness shall be equal to the 

desired test thickness. 

(2) Materials 

(i) The panel materials should exactly mimic 

a commercially viable panel; that is, the 

panel should be exactly identical to panels 

sold by the manufacturer, with one key 

exception: The inner surfaces must be 

lined with a material, such as 4 to 6 mil 

polyethylene film, to prevent the foam 

from adhering to the panel internal 

surfaces. (This ensures that when the panel 

metal skin is removed for testing, the 

underlying foam is not damaged). 

(3) Sample Preparation 

(i) After the foam has cured and the panel is 

ready to be tested, the facing and framing 

materials must be carefully removed to 

ensure that the underlying foam is not 

damaged or altered. 

(ii) A 12-inch × 12-inch square (× desired 

thickness) cut from the exact geometric 

center of the panel must be used as the 

sample for completing ASTM C1303–10. 

(4) Section 6.6.2, where several types of hot 

plate methods are recommended, use ASTM 

C518–04 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303), for measuring the R-value. In 

section 6.6.2.1 of ASTM C1303–10, in 

reference to ASTM C518–04, the mean test 

temperature of the foam during R-value 

measurement must be 20 +/¥ 4 °F (¥6.7 

+/¥ 2 °C) with a temperature difference of 40 

+/¥ 4 °F (22 +/¥ 2 °C) for freezers and 55 

+/¥ 4 °F (12.8 +/¥ 2 °C) with a temperature 

difference of 40 +/¥ 4 °F (22 +/¥ 2 °C) for 

coolers. 

(5) Section 6.6.2.1, in reference to ASTM 

C518–04, the mean test temperature of the 

foam during R-value measurement must be: 

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

with a temperature difference of 22 

+/¥ 2 °C (40 +/¥ 4 °F) 

(ii) For coolers: 12.8 +/¥ 2 °C (55 +/¥ 4 °F) 

with a temperature difference of 22 

+/¥ 2 °C (40 +/¥ 4 °F) 

(b) At least one sample set must be 

prepared, comprised of three stacks, while 

adhering to all preparation methods and 

uniformity specifications described in ASTM 

C1303–10 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.303). 

(c) The value resulting LTTR for the foam 

shall be reported as Rfoam, but for the 

purposes of calculations in this test 

procedure calculations it will be converted to 

RLTTR, as follows: 

R R LTTR foam = (4-1)

Where: 

Rfoam = R-value of foam as measured by 

ASTM C1303–10, h-ft2¥°F/Btu. 

4.1.3 U-Factor of Doors 

(a) All doors must be tested using NFRC 

100–2010–E0A1. 

(b) Internal conditions: 

(1) Air temperature of 35 °F (1.7 °C) for 

cooler doors and ¥10 °F (¥23.3 °C) for 

freezer doors. 

(2) Mean inside radiant temperature same 

as shown in (b)(1) above. 

(c) External conditions 

(1) Air temperature of 75 °F (23.9 °C). 

(2) Mean outside radiant temperature same 

as shown in (c)(1) above. 

(d) Direct solar irradiance = 0 W/m2 

(0 Btu/h-ft2). 

(e) The average convective heat transfer 

coefficient on both interior and exterior 

surfaces of the door should be based on 

‘‘natural convection’’ as described in section 

4.3 of NFRC 100–2010–E0A1 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303). 

4.2 Steady State Infiltration Testing 

(a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM 

E741–06 exactly, except for these changes 

and exceptions to the procedure. 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303): 

(1) Concentration decay method: The 

‘‘concentration decay method’’ must be used 

instead of other available options described 

in ASTM E741–06. 

(2) Gas Tracer: CO2 or SF6 must be used 

as the gas tracer for all testing. 

(3) Air change rate: Measure the air change 

rate in 1/h, rather than the air change flow 

described in ASTM E741–06 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.303). 

(4) Spatial measurements: Spatial 

measurements must be taken in a minimum 

of six locations or one location/20 ft2 of floor 

area (whichever results in a greater number 

of measurements) at a height of 3 ft +/¥ 0.5 

ft, at a minimum distance of 2 ft +/¥ 0.5 ft 

from the walk-in walls or doors. 

(b) The internal air temperature for freezers 

and for coolers shall be +/¥ 4 °F (2 °C) of the 

values shown in Table A.VI.1. 

(c) The external air temperature must be 

75 °F (24 °C) +/¥ 5 °F (2.5 °C) surrounding 

the walk-in. 

(d) The test must be completed with the 

walk-in door closed. 

(e) Number of tests: 

(1) One unit must be tested at freezer 

conditions with an insulated floor in place. 

(2) One unit must be tested at cooler 

conditions. 

(f) Geometry of standard walk-in test unit: 

(1) External dimensions: 

(i) Width = 12 ft ± 6’’ 

(ii) Length = 18 ft ± 6’’ 

(iii) Height = 8 ft ± 6’’ 

(2) Rectangular Shape (see Figure 4) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.102</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
55106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(g) Equipment Specifications 

(1) One Passage Door (see Figure 4) 

(i) Width = 36 inches ± 2 inches 

(ii) Height = 78 inches ± 4 inches 

(2) At freezer temperature, a pressure relief 

valve must be in-place and operational 

during testing. 

(i) Valve flow rate > 8 cubic ft per minute @ 

1 inch of H2O (250 Pa)) 

(3) Prescribed wall and ceiling panel 

geometry 

(i) Wall panels 

1. Width < 4 ft ± 1 inch 

2. Height < 8 ft ± 1 inch 

(ii) Ceiling panels 

1. Width < 4 ft ± 1 inch 

(h) Test Procedure Requirements 

(1) The unit must be assemble following 

instructions provided in the standard panel 

manufacturer installation instructions that 

are normally provided with a shipped walkin. 

(2) The unit may be tested only after it has 

reached a steady-state condition, normally 

greater than 24 hours after the refrigeration 

system has been activated. 

(3) The infiltration measurement period 

must be over a duration greater than one hour 

(4) The standard unit internal volume must 

be empty and unoccupied except for items 

necessary for testing or for cooling the test 

unit (such as test equipment or evaporator 

fans). 

(i) Test Results 

(1) At cooler conditions, the result 

following ASTM E741–06, is: 

(i) First, correct the result to standard test 

conditions per ASTM E 283. 

(ii) The final and corrected infiltration rate, 

Vrate,cooler, (1/h) 

(2) At freezer conditions, 

(i) First, correct the result to standard test 

conditions per ASTM E 283. 

(ii) The final and corrected infiltration rate, 

Vrate,freezer, (1/h) 

(j) Calculations 

(1) Convert Vrate,freezer and Vrate,cooler to 

V ̇ freezer and, V ̇ cooler, (ft3/h), as follows: 

VV V 

freezer rate freezer = × , ref-space (4-2)

and 

VV V 

cooler rate cooler = × , ref-space (4-3)

Where: 

Vref-space = the total enclosed volume of the 

walk-in, of the test unit shown in Figure 

4, ft3; and 

Vrate,cooler= the infiltration rate from the 

cooler test, 1/h 

Vrate,freezer= the infiltration rate from the 

cooler test, 1/h 

(2) Using the architectural drawing of the 

test unit, calculate total effective crack 

length, CL,wall, CL,door-wall, CL,ceiling-floor and 

CL,(ft), as follows: 

(i) CL,wall, ft: 

C HN L wall panels i

i

, , = × ⎤ ( )⎦ ⎡ ∑⎣ 1

(4-4)

Where: 

i = index for walls from 1 to 3, i = 1: wall 

of length 18′ and height 8′, i = 2: other 

wall of length 18′ and height 8′ and i = 

3: wall opposite of the door of width 12′ 

and height 8′; 

H = height of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, 

ft; and 

Npanels,i = number of panels used to build wall 

of type i. 

(ii) CL,door-wall, ft: 

C HN L,door-wall panels,door-wall =× − ⎡ (4-5) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ 2

Where: 

H = height of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, 

ft; and 

Npanels,door-wall = number of panels used to 

build the door wall 

(iii) CL,ceiling-floor, ft: 

C WN P L L,ceiling-floor panels ceiling floor =× − ⎡ (4-6) ⎣ ⎤

⎦ , 1 2 + +×


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.207</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.103</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.104</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.105</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.106</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.107</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55107 

Where: 

W = width of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, 

ft; 

Npanels,ceiling = number of panels used to build 

the door wall, ft; 

Pfloor = external perimeter of the floor, ft; and 

L = length of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, 

ft. 

(iv) CL, ft: 

CC C C L =+ + L,wall L,door-wall L,ceiling-floor (4-7)

Where: 

CL,wall = the total crack length of the non-door 

walls, ft; 

CL,door-wall = the total crack length of the door 

wall, ft; and 

CL,ceiling-floor = the total crack length of the 

ceiling and floor, ft; 

(3) Calculate the infiltration per unit crack 

length for the freezer, V ̇ freezer-ft and cooler, 

V ̇ cooler-ft, tests, (ft3/h-ft), respectively as 

follows: 

(i) V ̇ freezer-ft, ft3/h-ft: 

V V

freezer-ft

freezer

CL

= (4-8)

Where: 

CL = the total crack length of the test unit as 

shown in Figure 4, ft; and 

V ̇ freezer-ft = infiltration rate from the freezer 

test, ft3/h. 

(ii) V ̇ cooler-ft, ft3/h-ft: 

V V

cooler-ft

cooler

CL

= (4-9)

Where: 

CL = the total crack length of the test unit as 

shown in Figure 4, ft; and 

V ̇ cooler = infiltration rate from the cooler test, 

ft3/h. 

4.3 IRD Effectiveness Testing 

4.3.1 IRD Test Alternatives 

(a) The following IRD effectiveness 

assumptions may be used: 

(1) Strip Curtains Effectiveness: E = 0.5 

(2) Air Curtains Effectiveness: E = 0.3 

(b) If an IRD is tested and found to have 

a higher performing effectiveness than the 

default values proposed above, that value 

may be used in the energy calculations. 

(c) All non-strip curtain and non-air 

curtain IRD’s must be tested following the 

test procedure below. 

4.3.2 Doorway Testing Geometry 

(a) IRD effectiveness tests must use the 

following door sizes: 

(1) The testing must be completed for each 

device at the correct representative size for 

small, medium and/or large doorways. 

(2) For doors with width ≤ 48 inches and 

height ≤ 84 inches, the small door test 

opening size may be used (‘‘small test’’): 

width = 48 inches ± 0.5 inch and height = 

84 inches ± 0.5 inch 

(3) For doors with width ≤ 96 inches and 

height ≤ 144 inches, the medium door test 

opening size may be used (‘‘medium test’’): 

width = 96 inches ± 0.5 inch and height = 

144 inches ± 0.5 inch 

(4) For doors of any width or height, the 

large door test opening size may be used 

(‘‘large test’’): Width = 144 inches ± 0.5 inch 

and height = 180 inches ± 0.5 inch. 

(5) For the small door test, a test volume 

of dimension and construction and door 

location shown in Figure 4 must be used. 

(6) For all medium and large door tests, the 

width and height of the test unit must be 

increased in size, directly proportional to the 

increased door size over the small door test. 

For example since the medium doorway 

width is twice the size of the small door, the 

test unit must be twice as wide as shown in 

Figure 4. 

4.3.3 IRD Test Procedure Requirements 

(a) Use ASTM E741–06 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.303), with the following 

exceptions to the procedure: 

(1) Within 3 minutes +/¥ 30 seconds of 

achieving gas concentration uniformity, with 

the infiltration reduction device in place, a 

hinged door should be opened at an angle 

greater than or equal to 90 degrees. 

(2) The elapsed time, from zero degrees 

position (closed) to greater than or equal to 

90 degrees (open) must be no longer than 5 

seconds. 

(3) The door must then be held at an angle 

greater than or equal to 90 degrees for 5 min 

+/¥ 5 seconds and then closed over a period 

no longer than 5 seconds. For non-hinged 

doors, the door must reach its maximum 

opened position, be held open, and reach a 

fully closed position in the same elapsed 

time as described above for hinge-type doors. 

(4) The gas concentration must be sampled 

again after the door has been closed. Samples 

should continue being taken until the gas 

concentration is once again uniform spatially 

within the walk-in. 

(5) A gas concentration sample set must be 

taken once the tracer gas has uniformly 

dispersed in the internal space using the 

methodology described in 4.2. 

(i) Following ASTM E741–06, the calculated 

result is Vrate,with-device i,j

(6) The test should be repeated exactly as 

described with the infiltration reduction 

device (IRD) removed or deactivated. 

(i) Following ASTM E741–06, the calculated 

result is Vrate,without-device i,j

4.4 NFRC Door Testing 

4.4.1 Door Conduction Testing 

(a) All doors, as defined in section 2.1(b), 

must be tested using NFRC 100–2010–E0A1 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303). 

(1) Internal conditions: 

(i) Air temperature of 35 °F (1.7 °C) for cooler 

doors and ¥10 °F (¥23.3 °C) for freezer 

doors. 

(ii) Mean inside radiant temperature same as 

shown in (1)(i) above. 

(2) External conditions. 

(i) Air temperature of 75 °F (23.9 °C). 

(ii) Mean outside radiant temperature same 

as shown in (2)(i) above. 

(iii) Direct solar irradiance = 0 Btu/h-ft2

(0 W/m2). 

(iv) The average convective heat transfer 

coefficient on both interior and exterior 

surfaces of the door should be based on 

‘‘natural convection’’ as described in 

section 4.3 of NFRC 100–2010–E0A1. 

4.4.2 Door Infiltration Testing 

(a) All doors must be tested using NFRC 

400–2010–E0A1 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.303). 

(b) Number of tests: 

(1) One door system of representative sizes 

of ‘‘small,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘large’’ as defined 

in 4.3.2(a), that have identical construction 

(i.e. only differ in dimensional size) may be 

used for extrapolating the infiltration of other 

doors that only differ in size as described in 

4.3.2(a). 

(c) Testing must be completed at six 

pressure differentials for both positive and 

negative pressure (exfiltration and 

infiltration): 

(1) 0.0401 in-H2O (10 Pa). 

(2) 0.0803 in-H2O (20 Pa). 

(3) 0.1204 in-H2O (30 Pa). 

(4) 0.1606 in-H2O (40 Pa). 

(5) 0.2007 in-H2O (50 Pa). 

(6) 0.2409 in-H2O (60 Pa). 

(d) At each of the six pressure differentials 

described above, the airflow rate must be 

measured. 

(e) Using the six pressure differentials and 

measured flow rates (in both directions) the 

values for Ci and ni, must be found using loglinear regression equation below: 

V CP 

door i n = i ( ) Δ (4-10)

Where: 

i = index corresponding to the exfiltration or 

infiltration test; 

V ̇ doorQ = the airflow rate, ft3/h (m3/s); 

DP = the differential pressure, in-H2O (Pa); 

Ci = coefficient determined based on 

goodness of fit to test data of type i; and 

ni = exponent determined based on goodness 

of fit to test data of type i. 

(f) Find the average C and n: 

C C Cexfiltration = infiltration + (4-11) 2

n

n n = infiltration exfiltration + (4-12) 2

Where: 

Cinfiltration = coefficient determined using loglinear regression of infiltration test; 

Cexfiltration = coefficient determined using loglinear regression of exfiltration test; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.108</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.109</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.110</GPH><!--GPH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.111</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.112</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.113</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->
55108 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ninfiltration = exponent determined using loglinear regression of infiltration test; and 

nexfiltration = exponent determined using loglinear regression of exfiltration test. 

(g) If n is found to be less than 0.5 or 

greater than 1.0 the test is considered invalid 

and the infiltration and exfiltration tests must 

be repeated until valid value for n is 

determined. 

(h) Using the valid n, corresponding C and 

the equation below, determine,V ̇ doorQ, the 

infiltration for the corresponding pressure 

differentials (m3/s) for both cooler and 

freezer application: 

(1) Coolers: 0.006 in-H2O (1.5 Pa). 

(2) Freezers: 0.014 in-H2O (3.5 Pa). 

V CP 

door n = ( ) Δ (4-13)

Where: 

V ̇ doorQ = the airflow rate, ft3/h (m3/s); 

DP = the differential pressure, in-H2O (Pa); 

C = coefficient determined based on 

goodness of fit; and 

n = exponent determined based on goodness 

of fit. 

(i) Using the resulting V ̇ doorQ for coolers 

and freezers, calculate the normalized 

infiltration rate per length of ‘‘operable crack 

perimeter,’’ V ̇ door normQ, as defined in ASTM 

E–283–04 (ASTM E–283–04 section 12.3.1) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303) 

must be calculated. 

V V

door norm

door

Pdoor crack

= (4-14)

Where: 

V ̇ doorQ = the airflow rate, ft3/h (m3/s); and 

Pdoor crack = door operable crack perimeter, ft. 

(j) V ̇ door normQ, for the corresponding 

representative door test size, may be used for 

calculating the infiltration rate of doors with 

differing operable crack perimeter. 

(k) If a testing entity desires such, V ̇ doorQ 

may be found for all doors instead of 

calculating an infiltration rate based on 

V ̇ door normQ. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21364 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09SE10.114</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’--> EP09SE10.115</MATH><!--MATH SPAN=’’ DEEP=’’-->