Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, 55781-55888 [2013-21530]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55781-55888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21530]



[[Page 55781]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 176

September 11, 2013

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 
/ Proposed Rules

[[Page 55782]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015]
RIN 1904-AB86


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE 
proposes amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and 
walk-in freezers. The notice also announces a public meeting to receive 
comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and 
results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, October 9, 2013, 
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be 
broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than November 12, 2013. See section VII, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. For more information, refer to section VII, Public 
Participation.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, and provide 
docket number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 and/or regulatory information 
number (RIN) number 1904-AB86. Comments may be submitted using any of 
the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: WICF-2008-STD-0015@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice 
on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit 
comments through www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-2192. Email: walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@EE.Doe.Gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and 
Freezers
III. General Discussion
    A. Component Level Standards
    B. Test Procedures and Metrics
    1. Panels
    2. Doors
    3. Refrigeration
    C. Prescriptive Versus Performance Standards
    D. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement
    E. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    F. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    G. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Definitions Related to Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
    a. Display Doors
    b. Freight Doors
    c. Passage Doors
    2. Equipment Included in this Rulemaking
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration System
    3. Equipment Classes
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration Systems

[[Page 55783]]

    4. Technology Assessment
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Technologies That Do Not Affect Rated Performance
    2. Screened-Out Technologies
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration
    3. Screened-In Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Representative Equipment
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration
    2. Energy Modeling Methodology
    a. Refrigeration
    3. Cost Assessment Methodology
    a. Teardown Analysis
    b. Cost Model
    c. Manufacturing Production Cost
    d. Manufacturing Markup
    e. Shipping Costs
    4. Baseline Specifications
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration
    5. Design Options
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration
    6. Cost-Efficiency Results
    a. Panels and Doors
    b. Refrigeration
    c. Numerical Results
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Sizing Methodology for the Refrigeration System
    2. Oversize Factors
    3. Product Load
    4. Other Issues
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Equipment Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Energy Price Projections
    6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    7. Product Lifetime
    8. Discount Rates
    9. Compliance Date of Standards
    10. Base-Case and Standards-Case Efficiency Distributions
    11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
    12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
    G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value
    1. Shipments
    a. Share of Shipments and Stock Across Equipment Classes
    b. Lifetimes and Replacement Rates
    c. Growth Rates
    d. Other Issues
    2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
    3. National Energy Savings
    4. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
    5. Benefits from Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
    H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model Analysis
    a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs
    b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios
    3. Discussion of Comments
    a. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    b. Inventory Levels
    c. Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis
    4. Manufacturer Interviews
    a. Cost of testing
    b. Enforcement and Compliance
    c. Profitability Impacts
    d. Excessive Conversion Cost
    e. Disproportionate Impact on Small Businesses
    f. Refrigerant Phase-Out
    J. Employment Impact Analysis
    K. Utility Impact Analysis
    L. Emissions Analysis
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
V. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    1. Trial Standard Level Selection Process
    2. Trial Standard Level Equations
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Direct Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Small Manufacturer Sub-Group
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Employment Impacts
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    C. Proposed Standard
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    DOE proposes creating new performance-based energy conservation 
standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, 
``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''). The proposed standards, which are expressed 
as an annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF) for refrigeration systems, 
the maximum allowable U-factor expressed as a function of the ratio of 
edge area to core area for panels, and the maximum allowable daily 
energy use expressed as a function of the surface area for non-display 
and display doors, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if 
adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and 
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after 3 
years after the publication date of any final rule establishing energy 
conservation standards for walk-ins. Appendix 10D of the TSD lists the 
technologies that DOE assumes manufacturers will use to meet the 
proposed standards.

[[Page 55784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE13.000


[[Page 55785]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE13.001

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of walk-in coolers and freezers, as 
measured by the shipment-weighted average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings 
\1\ and the median payback period.\2\ The average LCC savings are 
positive for all equipment classes. At TSL 4, the percentage of 
customers who experience net benefits or no impacts ranges from 55 to 
100 percent, and the percentage of customers experiencing a net cost 
ranges from 0 to 45 percent. Chapter 11 presents the LCC subgroup 
analysis on groups of customers that may be disproportionately affected 
by the proposed standard. The installed cost increase over the 9-year 
analysis period (2017-2025) for the proposed TSL is 1.98 billion 
discounted at 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Life-cycle cost (LCC) of commercial refrigeration equipment 
is the cost to customers of owning and operating the equipment over 
the entire life of the equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the 
reductions in the life-cycle costs due to amended energy 
conservation standards when compared to the life-cycle costs of the 
equipment in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. 
Further discussion of the LCC analysis can be found in Chapter 8 of 
the TSD.
    \2\ Payback period (PBP) refers to the amount of time (in years) 
it takes customers to recover the increased installed cost of 
equipment associated with new or amended standards through savings 
in operating costs. Further discussion of the PBP can be found in 
Chapter 8 of the TSD.

 Table I-2--Shipment-Weighted Average Impacts of Proposed Standards (TSL 4) on Consumers of Walk-In Coolers and
                                                Walk-In Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average LCC  savings    Median payback period
                        Equipment class                                 (2012$)                  (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration System Class:*
    DC.M.I....................................................                     $611                      4.4
    DC.M.O....................................................                    3,195                      2.2
    DC.L.I....................................................                    1,117                      2.7
    DC.L.O....................................................                    2,664                      2.3
    MC.M......................................................                    1,724                      0.5
    MC.L......................................................                    2,061                      0.4
Panel Class:
    SP.M**....................................................                        8                      4.5
    SP.L**....................................................                       72                      3.6
    FP.L**....................................................                       30                      4.5
Non-Display Door Class:
    PD.M......................................................                      0.3                      5.5
    PD.L......................................................                       52                      4.7
    FD.M......................................................                        1                      5.4
    FD.L......................................................                      136                      2.9
Display Door Class:
    DD.M......................................................                      228                      2.2
    DD.L......................................................                      200                      N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For dedicated condensing (DC) refrigeration systems, results include both capacity ranges.
** Results are per 100 square feet.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2013 to 2046). Using real discount rates of 10.5 
percent for panels, 9.4 percent for doors, and 10.4 percent for 
refrigeration \3\, DOE estimates that the industry net present value 
(INPV) for manufacturers of walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration 
systems, panels, and doors in the base case (without new standards) is 
$851 million in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects the 
impact on INPV to range from no change to a 9 percent decrease.

[[Page 55786]]

Total industry conversion costs estimated to be $51 million are assumed 
to be incurred in the years prior to the start of compliance with the 
standards. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of walk-in 
coolers and walk-in freezers, DOE does not expect significant loss of 
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These rates were used to discount future cash flows in the 
Manufacturer Impact Analysis. The discount rates were calculated 
from SEC filings and then adjusted based on cost of capital feedback 
collected from walk-in door, panel, and refrigeration manufacturers 
in MIA interviews. For a detailed explanation of how DOE arrived at 
these discount rates, refer to Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. National Benefits \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2012 
dollars and are discounted to 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a 
significant amount of energy. The lifetime full-fuel-cycle energy 
savings for walk-in coolers and freezers purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the year of compliance with new standards (2017-
2046) amount to 5.39 quadrillion British thermal units (quads). The 
average annual energy savings over the life of walk-in coolers and 
freezers purchased in 2017 through 2046 is 0.18 quads, which is 
equivalent to 14.8 percent of the annual U.S commercial refrigeration 
sector energy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Total U.S. commercial sector energy (source energy) used for 
refrigeration in 2010 was 1.21 quads. Source: U.S. Department of 
Energy--Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Buildings 
Energy Data Book, Table 3.1.4, 2010 Commercial Energy End-Use 
Splits, by Fuel Type (Quadrillion Btu). 2012. (Last accessed April 
23, 2013.) https://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableView.aspx?table=3.1.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 
savings of the proposed standards ranges from $8.6 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $24.3 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate) 
for walk-in coolers and freezers. This NPV expresses the estimated 
total value to customers of future operating cost savings minus the 
estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2017-2046.
    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative 
emission reductions of 298 million metric tons (Mt) \6\ of carbon 
dioxide (CO2), 1,428 thousand tons of methane, 379.5 
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 443.8 thousand tons 
of nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.6 tons of mercury 
(Hg).7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
NOX and Hg are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the Annual 
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, which generally represents 
current legislation and environmental regulations for which 
implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.
    \8\ DOE also estimated CO2 and CO2 
equivalent (CO2eq) emissions that occur through 2030 
(CO2eq includes greenhouse gases such as CH4 
and N2O). The estimated emissions reductions through 2030 
are 79 million metric tons CO2, 7,897 thousand tons 
CO2eq for CH4, and 338 thousand tons 
CO2eq for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a 
range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 
the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by an interagency process. 
The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. DOE 
estimates the net present monetary value of the CO2 
emissions reduction is between $1.9 billion and $27.5 billion, 
depending on the SCC value used, over a 30-year analysis period. DOE 
also estimates the net present monetary value of the NOX 
emissions reduction is $243 million at a 7-percent discount rate and 
$553 million at a 3-percent discount rate over a 30-year analysis 
period. Over a 9-year analysis period, DOE estimates the net present 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between 
$0.33 billion and $4.07 billion, depending on the SCC value used, while 
the net present monetary value of the NOX emissions 
reduction is $70.5 million at a 7-percent discount rate and $99.8 
million at a 3-percent discount rate.\9\ DOE notes that the estimated 
total social benefits of the rule outweigh the costs whether a 30-year 
or a 9-year analysis period is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding 
consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it 
monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I-3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits 
expected to result from the proposed standards for walk-in coolers and 
walk-in freezers.

     Table I-3--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Energy
                                             Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Present value Billion
                           Category                                     2012$            Discount rate (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.......................................                    12.4                        7
                                                                                 31.6                        3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $12.9/t case)*.............                     1.9                        5
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $40.8/t case)*.............                     9.0                        3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $62.2/t case)*.............                    14.4                        2.5
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $117.0/t case)*............                    27.5                        3
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/Ton)**..............                     0.24                       7
                                                                                  0.55                       3
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits[dagger]...................................                    21.6                        7
                                                                                 41.1                        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs..................................                     3.8                        7
                                                                                  7.2                        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value..............                    17.8                        7
                                                                                 33.9                        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values
  are based on the average SCC from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5
  percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-
  percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further
  out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time
  series incorporate an escalation factor.

[[Page 55787]]

 
** The value represents the average of the low and high NOX values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are derived using the CO2 reduction monetized
  value series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate.

    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for equipment 
sold in 2017-2046, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. 
The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 
national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of 
equipment that meets the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
equipment purchase and installation costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including 
CO2 emission reductions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the 
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2014 through 2043) that 
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 
does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 
the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two 
issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating 
cost savings is measured for the lifetime of walk-ins shipped from 
2017-2046. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value 
of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well 
beyond 2100.
    Table I-4 shows the estimates of annualized benefits and costs of 
the proposed standards. (All monetary values below are expressed in 
2012$.) The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 
7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than 
CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate 
along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, 
the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $367 million per 
year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are 
$1.225 billion per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $499 
million in CO2 reductions, and $24 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$1.382 billion per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the 
standards proposed in today's rule is $399 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1.606 billion per 
year in reduced operating costs, $499 million in CO2 
reductions, and $31 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.737 billion per year.

                         Table I-4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Primary  estimate*
                                                       Discount rate          -------------------------    Low net  benefits        High net  benefits
                                                                                 (million 2012$/year)          estimate*                estimate*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings......................  7%.............................                    1,225                    1,188                    1,279
                                              3%.............................                    1,606                    1,544                    1,687
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $12.9t      5%.............................                      142                      142                      142
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $40.8/t     3%.............................                      499                      499                      499
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $62.2/t     2.50%..........................                      739                      739                      739
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $117.0/t    3%.............................                    1,534                    1,534                    1,534
 case)**.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/     7%.............................                       24                       24                       24
 Ton)**.
                                              3%.............................                       31                       31                       31
    Total Benefits[dagger]..................  7% plus CO2 range..............                    1,748                    1,712                    1,803
                                              7%.............................                    1,249                    1,212                    1,303
                                              3%.............................                    1,637                    1,574                    1,718
                                              3% plus CO2 range..............                    2,136                    2,074                    2,217
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Incremental Installed Costs...........  7%.............................                      367                      377                      357
                                              3%.............................                      399                      414                      385
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total[dagger]...............................  7% plus CO2 range..............                    1,382                    1,335                    1,446
                                              7%.............................                      883                      835                      946
                                              3%.............................                    1,238                    1,160                    1,333

[[Page 55788]]

 
                                              3% plus CO2 range..............                    1,737                    1,660                    1,832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and freezers shipped in 2017-2046. These results include
  benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the walk-in coolers and freezers purchased in 2017-2046. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of
  which may be incurred in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The
  Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High
  Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary
  Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends using a Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price
  trends using a High Benefits Estimate.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the
  three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate
  across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the
  tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value
  for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount
  rate. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled
  discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. DOE further notes that 
manufacturers already produce commercially available equipment that 
achieve these levels for most, if not all, equipment classes covered by 
today's proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to 
the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer 
LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss 
of INPV for manufacturers).
    DOE also considered more-stringent and less-stringent efficiency 
levels as trial standard levels (TSLs), and is still considering them 
in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the 
potential burdens of the more-stringent efficiency levels would 
outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public 
comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related 
information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking 
effort, DOE may adopt efficiency levels presented in this notice that 
are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some 
combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in 
part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to walk-ins.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, 
as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which 
includes the walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that are the focus of 
this notice.11 12 (42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f) and 
6314(a)(9)) Walk-ins consist of two major pieces--the structural 
``envelope'' within which items are stored and a refrigeration system 
that cools the air in the envelope's interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the 
statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing 
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 
2012).
    \12\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment generally 
consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 
establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. For walk-ins, DOE is 
responsible for the entirety of this program. The DOE test procedures 
for walk-ins, including those prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007 and 
those established by DOE in the test procedure final rule, currently 
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, 
section 304.
    Any new or amended performance standards that DOE prescribes for 
walk-ins must achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(4)(A)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE also plans to adopt 
those standards that are likely to result in a significant conservation 
of energy that satisfies both of these requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B).
    Technological feasibility is determined by examining technologies 
or designs that could be used to improve the efficiency of the covered 
equipment. DOE considers a design to be technologically feasible if it 
is in use by the relevant industry or if research has progressed to the 
development of a working prototype.
    In ascertaining whether a particular standard is economically 
justified, DOE considers, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy or, as applicable, water 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

[[Page 55789]]

    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) (I)-(VII))
    DOE does not plan to prescribe an amended or new standard if 
interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the 
United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance 
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 
and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally 
available in the United States. Further, under EPCA's provisions for 
consumer products, there is a rebuttable presumption that a standard is 
economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost 
to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For purposes of its walk-in 
analysis, DOE plans to account for these factors.
    Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as 
walk-ins has two or more subcategories, in promulgating standards for 
such equipment, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE 
generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies 
generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered 
products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines 
that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy 
than that consumed by other covered products within such type (or 
class) or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that 
other products within such type (or class) do not have, and which 
justifies a higher or lower standard. Generally, in determining whether 
a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a 
group of products, DOE considers such factors as the utility to the 
consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a 
rule prescribing such a standard, DOE typically includes an explanation 
of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. DOE 
plans to follow a similar process in the context of today's rulemaking.
    DOE notes that since the inception of the statutory requirements 
setting standards for walk-ins, Congress has since made one additional 
amendment to those provisions. That amendment provides that the wall, 
ceiling, and door insulation requirements detailed in 42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(C) do not apply to the given component if the component's 
manufacturer has demonstrated to the Secretary's satisfaction that 
``the component reduces energy consumption at least as much'' if those 
specified requirements were to apply to that manufacturer's component. 
American Energy Manufacturing Technology Corrections Act, Public Law 
112-210, Section 2 (Dec. 18, 2012) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6)) 
(AEMTCA). Manufacturers seeking to avail themselves of this provision 
must ``provide to the Secretary all data and technical information 
necessary to fully evaluate its application.'' Id. DOE is proposing to 
codify this amendment into its regulations.
    Since its codification, one company, HH Technologies, submitted 
data on May 24, 2013, demonstrating that its RollSeal doors satisfied 
this new AEMTCA provision. DOE reviewed these data and all other 
submitted information and concluded that the RollSeal doors at issue 
satisfied 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6). Accordingly, DOE issued a determination 
letter on June 14, 2013, indicating that these doors met Section 
6313(f)(6) and that the applicable insulation requirements did not 
apply to the RollSeal doors HH Technologies identified. Nothing in this 
proposed rule affects the previous determination regarding HH 
Technologies.
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally pre-empt state 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) However, EPCA 
provides that for walk-ins in particular, any state standard issued 
before publication of the final rule shall not be pre-empted until the 
standards established in the final rule take effect. (42 U.S.C 
6316(h)(2)(B))
    Where applicable, DOE generally considers standby and off mode 
energy use for certain covered products or equipment when developing 
energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). Because the 
vast majority of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers operate 
continuously to keep their contents cold at all times, DOE is not 
proposing standards for standby and off mode energy use.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    EPCA defines a walk-in cooler and a walk-in freezer as an enclosed 
storage space refrigerated to temperatures above, and at or below, 
respectively, 32[emsp14][deg]F that can be walked into. The statute 
also defines walk-in coolers and freezers as having a total chilled 
storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, excluding products 
designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research 
purposes. (42 U.S.C 6311(20)) EPCA also provides prescriptive standards 
for walk-in coolers and freezers manufactured on or after January 1, 
2009, which are described below.
    First, EPCA sets forth general prescriptive standards for walk-ins. 
Walk-ins must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in 
doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, for all 
doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet; walk-ins 
must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of 
minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Walk-ins must also contain 
wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-
32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural 
members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in 
evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts 
must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current 
motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of 
under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, 
electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light 
sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including 
any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in 
conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 
minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).
    Second, EPCA sets forth new requirements related to electronically 
commutated motors for use in walk-ins. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). 
Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a 
rating of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts, that motor must 
be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor 
unless DOE determined prior to January 1, 2009 that electronically 
commutated motors are available from only one manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(2)(A)) DOE determined by January 1, 2009 that these motors were 
available from more than one manufacturer; thus, according to EPCA, 
walk-in evaporator fan motors with a rating of under 1 horsepower and 
less than 460 volts must be either three-phase motors or electronically 
commutated motors. DOE documented this determination in the rulemaking 
docket as docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072. This document can be

[[Page 55790]]

found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015-0072. Additionally, EISA provided DOE with the authority to 
permit the use of other types of motors as evaporative fan motors--if 
DOE determines that, on average, those other motor types use no more 
energy in evaporative fan applications than electronically commutated 
motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(B)) DOE is unaware of any other motors 
that would offer performance levels comparable to the electronically 
commutated motors required by Congress. Accordingly, all evaporator 
motors rated at under 1 horsepower and under 460 volts must be 
electronically commutated motors or three-phase motors.
    Third, EPCA sets forth additional requirements for walk-ins with 
transparent reach-in doors. Freezer doors must have triple-pane glass 
with either heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for doors and 
windows for freezers. Cooler doors must have either double-pane glass 
with treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with treated glass 
or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with 
transparent reach-in doors, EISA also prescribed specific anti-sweat 
heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater 
controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts 
per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively. 
Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater 
power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door 
opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat 
heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity 
corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or 
to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
    EPCA directs the Secretary to issue performance-based standards for 
walk-ins that would apply to equipment manufactured 3 years after the 
final rule is published, or 5 years if the Secretary determines by rule 
that a 3-year period is inadequate. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4))
    DOE initiated the current rulemaking by publishing a notice 
announcing the availability of its ``Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In 
Freezers Energy Conservation Standard Framework Document'' and a 
meeting to discuss the document. The notice also solicited comment on 
the matters raised in the document. 74 FR 411 (Jan 6, 2009). More 
information on the framework document is available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30. The framework document described the procedural and 
analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy 
conservation standards for walk-ins and identified various issues to be 
resolved in conducting this rulemaking.
    DOE held the framework public meeting on February 4, 2009, in which 
it: (1) Presented the contents of the framework document; (2) described 
the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking; (3) sought 
comments from interested parties on these subjects; and (4) in general, 
sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their 
involvement in, the rulemaking. Major issues discussed at the public 
meeting included: (1) The scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) 
development of a test procedure and appropriate test metrics; (3) 
manufacturer and market information, including distribution channels; 
(4) equipment classes, baseline units, and design options to improve 
efficiency; and (5) life-cycle costs to consumers, including 
installation, maintenance, and repair costs, and any consumer subgroups 
DOE should consider. At the meeting and during the comment period on 
the framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it 
identify and resolve issues pertaining to walk-ins relevant to this 
rulemaking.
    DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary 
analyses to help develop potential energy conservation standards for 
this equipment. This process culminated in DOE's announcement of 
another public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the following 
matters: (1) The equipment classes DOE planned to analyze; (2) the 
analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate 
standards; (3) the results of the preliminary analyses performed by 
DOE; and (4) potential standard levels that DOE could consider. 75 FR 
17080 (April 5, 2010) (the April 2010 Notice). DOE also invited written 
comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web 
site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it 
had prepared to inform interested parties and enable them to provide 
comments. Id. (More information about the preliminary TSD is available 
at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30.)Finally, DOE sought views on other relevant 
issues that participants believed either would impact walk-in standards 
or that the proposal should address. Id. at 17083.
    The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE 
undertook to develop standards for walk-ins and discussed the comments 
DOE received in response to the framework document. The preliminary TSD 
also addressed separate standards for the walk-in envelope and the 
refrigeration system, as well as compliance and enforcement 
responsibilities and food safety regulatory concerns. The document also 
described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) 
in considering standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, including a 
description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the 
relationships between the various analyses that are part of this 
rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary TSD presented in detail each 
analysis that DOE had performed for these products up to that point, 
including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. 
These analyses were as follows:
     A market and technology assessment addressed the scope of 
this rulemaking, identified the potential classes for walk-in coolers 
and freezers, characterized the markets for these products, and 
reviewed techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency;
     A screening analysis reviewed technology options to 
improve the efficiency of walk-in coolers and freezers, and weighed 
these options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria;
     An engineering analysis estimated the manufacturer selling 
prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient walk-in coolers and 
freezers;
     An energy use analysis estimated the annual energy use of 
walk-in coolers and freezers;
     A markups analysis converted estimated MSPs derived from 
the engineering analysis to consumer prices;
     A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, for individual 
consumers, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the 
estimated average life of walk-in coolers and freezers, compared to any 
increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the 
imposition of a given standard;
     A payback period analysis estimated the amount of time it 
takes individual consumers to recover the higher purchase price expense 
of more energy-efficient products through lower operating costs;
     A shipments analysis estimated shipments of walk-in 
coolers and freezers over the time period examined in the analysis, and 
was used in performing the national impact analysis;

[[Page 55791]]

     A national impact analysis assessed the national energy 
savings and the national net present value of total consumer costs and 
savings that are expected to result from specific potential energy 
conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers; and
     A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) took the 
initial steps in evaluating the effects on manufacturers of new 
efficiency standards.
    The public meeting announced in the April 2010 Notice took place on 
May 19, 2010. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and 
results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Interested 
parties that participated in the public meeting discussed a variety of 
topics, but the comments centered on the following issues: (1) Separate 
standards for the refrigeration system and the walk-in envelope; (2) 
responsibility for compliance; (3) equipment classes; (4) technology 
options; (5) energy modeling; (6) installation, maintenance, and repair 
costs; (7) markups and distributions chains; (8) walk-in cooler and 
freezer shipments; and (9) test procedures. The comments received since 
publication of the April 2010 Notice, including those received at the 
May 2010 public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution 
of the issues in this rulemaking as they pertain to walk-ins. This NOPR 
responds to the issues raised by the commenters. (A parenthetical 
reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location 
of the item in the public record.)

III. General Discussion

    In preparing today's notice, DOE considered input from the various 
interested parties who commented on the framework document and 
preliminary analysis, information obtained from manufacturer 
interviews, and additional research that DOE conducted. The interested 
parties who provided comments to DOE during the framework document and 
preliminary analysis phases included the following:

                           Table III-1--Framework and Preliminary Analysis Commenters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Comment number(s) in
             Commenter(s)              Abbreviated designation        Affiliation                 docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM Corporation......................  AFM....................  Manufacturer...........                   0012.1
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and         AHRI...................  Trade Association......           0036.1, 0055.1
 Refrigeration Institute.
American Chemistry Council...........  ACC....................  Material Supplier......                   0062.1
American Chemistry Council Center for  CPI....................  Material Supplier......                   0052.1
 the Polyurethanes Industry.
American Council for an Energy         Joint Advocates........  Energy Efficiency                         0070.1
 Efficient Economy, Appliance                                    Advocates.
 Standards Awareness Project,
 Alliance to Save Energy, Natural
 Resources Defense Council, Northwest
 Energy Efficiency Alliance.
American Panel Corporation...........  American Panel.........  Manufacturer...........           0039.1, 0048.1
AmeriKooler, Inc.....................  AmeriKooler............  Manufacturer...........                   0065.1
Appliance Standards Awareness Project  ASAP...................  Energy Efficiency                         0024.1
                                                                 Advocate.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc........  Bally..................  Manufacturer...........                   0023.1
Carpenter Co. Chemical Systems         Carpenter..............  Material Supplier......                   0068.1
 Division.
Craig Industries, Inc. and U.S.        Craig Industries.......  Manufacturer...........                   0064.1
 Cooler Company.
Craig Industries, Inc. and US Cooler   Craig Industries.......  Manufacturer...........  0011.1, 0025.1, 0038.1,
 Company.                                                                                         0064.1, 0071.1
CrownTonka Walk-Ins..................  CrownTonka.............  Manufacturer...........           0026.1, 0057.1
Earthjustice.........................  Earthjustice...........  Energy Efficiency                 0027.1, 0047.1
                                                                 Advocate.
Edison Electric Institute............  EEI....................  Energy Efficiency                         0028.1
                                                                 Advocate.
Eliason Corporation..................  Eliason................  Manufacturer...........           0013.1, 0022.1
Foam Supplies, Inc...................  FSI....................  Material Supplier......                   0029.1
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products LLC.  Heatcraft..............  Manufacturer...........           0058.1, 0069.1
Heating, Air-conditioning &            HARDI..................  Trade Association......                   0031.1
 Refrigeration Distributors
 International.
Hill Phoenix Walk-Ins................  Hill Phoenix...........  Manufacturer...........                   0066.1
Hired Hand Technologies..............  Hired Hand.............  Manufacturer...........           0030.1, 0050.1
Hussmann and Ingersoll Rand..........  Ingersoll Rand.........  Manufacturer...........                   0053.1
Kason Industries, Inc................  Kason..................  Component Supplier.....           0009.1, 0019.1
Kysor Panel Systems..................  Kysor..................  Manufacturer...........           0032.1, 0054.1
Manitowoc Ice........................  Manitowoc..............  Manufacturer...........                   0056.1
Master-Bilt Products, Inc............  Master-Bilt............  Manufacturer...........           0033.1, 0046.1
NanoPore Insulation, LLC.............  NanoPore...............  Material Supplier......                   0067.1
Nor-Lake, Incorporated...............  Nor-Lake...............  Manufacturer...........                   0049.1
Owens Corning Foam Insulation, LLC...  Owens Corning..........  Material Supplier......                   0034.1
Southern California Edison and         SCE....................  Utility................                   0035.1
 Technology Test Centers.
Southern California Edison, San Diego  Joint Utilities........  Utility Group..........                   0061.1
 Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas &
 Electric Company, Sacramento
 Municipal Utility District.
The Northwest Energy Efficiency        NEEA and NPCC..........  Utility Representative.           0021.1, 0059.1
 Alliance and the Northeast Power
 Coordinating Council.
Zero-Zone, Inc.......................  Zero-Zone..............  Manufacturer...........                   0051.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Component Level Standards

    In the framework document, DOE considered setting standards that 
would apply to the entire walk-in. See the framework document at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/wicf_framework_doc.pdf. Several interested parties expressed concern 
about this approach because of the variety among assembled walk-ins, 
which would make compliance with

[[Page 55792]]

such a walk-in standard difficult and burdensome. Stakeholders also 
stated that different components of each walk-in would likely be 
manufactured by different entities, which would make it difficult to 
enforce any standard that applied to an entire walk-in.
    After considering the comments submitted on the framework document, 
DOE modified its approach in the preliminary analysis. During that 
phase, it had tentatively identified two primary components of a walk-
in: the envelope (the insulated box that separates the exterior from 
the interior) and the refrigeration system (the mechanical equipment 
that cools the envelope's interior). DOE also indicated that it was 
tentatively considering developing separate standards for refrigeration 
systems and envelopes.
    Several interested parties agreed with this general approach. 
Manitowoc supported separate standards for the envelope and 
refrigeration system, stating that the envelope is typically supplied 
by one manufacturer and the refrigeration system is typically supplied 
by one or more manufacturers. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 38 and No. 0056.1 at p. 1) Manitowoc further stated that 
it would not be practical to regulate the energy used by the entire 
walk-in assembly because walk-ins are highly customized. Manitowoc 
estimated that fewer than 20 percent of its walk-ins use a standard 
envelope and refrigeration system combination. (Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 
at p. 1) Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, 
Sempra Energy Utility, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District 
(hereafter referred to as the ``Joint Utilities'') also agreed with 
DOE's proposal to separate the refrigeration system standards from the 
envelope standards because the components are separately produced and 
often separately sold. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at pp. 2-3) 
American Panel stated that the envelope and refrigeration systems must 
be considered separately because the majority of WICFs are custom-made. 
(American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 4) Kysor, Master-Bilt, AHRI, and 
CrownTonka all supported separate standards for the envelope and 
refrigeration systems. (Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at 
p. 39; Master-Bilt, No. 0046.1 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 2; 
CrownTonka, No. 0057.1 at p. 1) One interested party did not agree with 
this approach. Craig Industries, also doing business as U.S. Cooler, 
commented that DOE should establish a combination standard for the 
envelope and refrigeration system to permit manufacturers greater 
flexibility when designing walk-ins. Under this combination approach, a 
more efficient envelope could be paired with a less efficient 
refrigeration system, or vice versa, to achieve the same overall 
efficiency at a lower cost. (Craig Industries, No. 0064.1 at p. 1)
    Additionally, interested parties suggested that DOE extend the idea 
of separate standards to subcomponents of envelopes and refrigeration 
systems. The Joint Utilities stated that a component performance 
approach would accurately capture efficiency measurements associated 
with the components, and that energy savings associated with targeted 
components would apply to different configurations of whole walk-ins 
and possibly even to repairs and retrofits. (Joint Utilities, No. 
0061.1 at p. 4) The Joint Utilities further added that DOE should 
consider component performance standards for major walk-in components 
that could be enforced at the level of the manufacturer's catalog and 
could be labeled for easy inspection. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at 
p. 12) Hill Phoenix also recommended that large construction-based 
envelopes (i.e., those constructed in a manner similar to a building) 
be regulated at the component level, asserting that these envelopes may 
need many different options and design flexibility, without which a 
whole-envelope calculation would likely limit the accuracy of any 
estimate of a walk-in's total energy use. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at 
p. 1) As stated previously, Manitowoc agreed that it would not be 
practical to regulate the energy used by the entire walk-in assembly 
because walk-ins are highly customized. (Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 1) 
Manitowoc also remarked that performance metrics could be developed for 
sub-classes of the components of an envelope, and the component 
manufacturers should be responsible for their own components. 
(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 46)
    Other stakeholders discussed specific sub-components of the 
envelope or the refrigeration system that could be regulated. Kysor 
mentioned panels and doors as envelope components that should be 
considered separately and stated that because these components are 
often manufactured by separate parties, the manufacturer of each 
component should be responsible for the performance of that component. 
(Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 41) The Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power Conservation 
Council (NPCC) recommended that DOE develop efficiency performance 
standards for display and solid doors separately so that an envelope 
manufacturer could certify that the envelope meets specified standards. 
(NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 2)
    Likewise, with regard to the refrigeration system, NEAA and NPCC 
recommended that DOE regulate the efficiency of the cooling system 
components separately, an example of which would be setting a 
performance requirement for the specific efficiency of unit coolers 
based on control algorithms. (NEAA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at pp. 2 and 7) 
The Joint Utilities also stated that a refrigeration system requirement 
should not be based on a single metric and added that the indoor unit 
(i.e., unit cooler) could have a minimum efficiency requirement 
regardless of other components of the refrigeration system. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 4 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 
at p. 64) Manitowoc, on the other hand, recommended that manufacturers 
have the option of rating the entire refrigeration system and that 
considering the condensing unit separately would not allow 
manufacturers to implement options that would improve the efficiency of 
a matched system. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 
38) Manitowoc further remarked that testing the refrigeration system as 
an integrated, single component and calculating the overall annual 
efficiency has the greatest potential for optimizing energy efficiency, 
but added that DOE should permit the individual components to be tested 
and the performance stated for the individual parts. (Manitowoc, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 59)
    After carefully considering the comments described above, DOE 
proposes an approach for the envelope that would set separate standards 
for panels, display doors, and non-display doors for the reasons set 
forth below.
    Different manufacturers typically produce panels and doors (both 
display and non-display types) for use in walk-in applications. In 
particular, display doors are commonly manufactured separately because 
their unique construction and materials require specialized 
manufacturing methods. Additionally, the modular nature of a walk-in 
envelope means that it is constructed of relatively standardized 
components that can be assembled in a virtually infinite number of 
configurations that may affect the overall consumption of a given walk-
in unit. By regulating the performance of those standardized 
components, manufacturers will be able to choose

[[Page 55793]]

compliant components that should help ensure that whatever walk-in 
configuration is built satisfies the minimal level of energy 
consumption and efficiency that DOE may prescribe. Because of the large 
number of possible combinations of panels and doors that could make up 
an envelope, the burdens presented by a system-based approach for the 
entire walk-in unit would also likely be significantly greater than the 
burdens of the proposed approach because each walk-in envelope 
configuration would need to be separately certified as compliant. 
Alternatively, if DOE were to establish a set envelope of specified 
dimensions for a manufacturer to build and then to certify as 
compliant, the efficiency or energy usage measurement from that 
envelope would not only be more costly to obtain, but it would also not 
necessarily reflect the actual energy usage or efficiency of a given 
walk-in that is installed in the field.
    DOE also notes that requiring an overall envelope performance 
standard would be likely to present significant enforcement burdens, as 
it would likely require DOE to test several fully constructed envelopes 
in order to ascertain the energy efficiency performance of a given 
envelope. DOE tentatively believes that such an approach, at this time, 
would be unduly burdensome.
    DOE is not, however, proposing to set standards for the constituent 
components of refrigeration systems separately. To ensure that 
manufacturers have sufficient flexibility to improve the energy 
efficiency performance of their systems, DOE proposes to set a 
performance standard for the overall refrigeration system and to 
regulate that system as a single component. This approach would help 
ensure that the final refrigeration system assembled by the 
manufacturer would meet a given level of efficiency and would account 
for the interactive effects of the numerous components comprising the 
overall system. For example, some refrigeration systems implement 
complex control strategies, the benefits of which could not be 
adequately demonstrated if the condensing unit and unit cooler were 
considered separately for purposes of setting standards.
    In summary, DOE proposes to set specific component standards for 
the panels, display doors, and non-display doors of a walk-in, and a 
single standard to assess the overall performance of the refrigeration 
system. DOE acknowledges that, by not establishing a standard for the 
energy use of the entire walk-in, manufacturers cannot meet the 
standard by pairing a more-efficient envelope with a less-efficient 
refrigeration system, and vice versa. Also, DOE would not account for 
the energy use of some components, such as the electricity use of 
overhead lighting or heat load due to the infiltration of warm air into 
the walk-in, and would not consider design options whose efficacy 
depends on the interaction between the different covered components. 
Including these factors as part of the current rulemaking would likely 
introduce significant complications with respect to compliance and 
enforcement while yielding a comparatively small benefit in energy 
savings. DOE believes, however, that the proposed approach would help 
ensure that the walk-in components used by manufacturers satisfy some 
minimal level of energy efficiency and reduce the overall certification 
and enforcement burden on manufacturers. DOE may reconsider this issue 
in the future, particularly if accurate computer modeling, such as 
through an alternative efficiency determination method, becomes 
possible with respect to predicting the energy usage and efficiency of 
fully constructed walk-in units. DOE continues to invite comments on 
the approach presented in this NOPR.

B. Test Procedures and Metrics

    While Congress had initially prescribed certain performance 
standards and test procedures concerning walk-ins as part of the EISA 
2007 amendments, Congress also instructed DOE to develop specific test 
procedures to cover walk-in equipment. DOE subsequently established a 
test procedure for walk-ins. See 76 FR 21580 (April 15, 2011). See also 
76 FR 33631 (June 9, 2011) (final technical corrections). The test 
procedure lays out an approach that bases compliance on the ability of 
component manufacturers to produce components that meet the required 
standards. This approach is also consistent with the framework 
established by Congress, which set specific energy efficiency 
performance requirements on a component-level basis. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)) The approach is discussed more fully below.
1. Panels
    In the final test procedure rule for walk-ins, DOE defines 
``panel'' as a construction component, excluding doors, used to 
construct the envelope of the walk-in (i.e., elements that separate the 
interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior). 76 
FR 33631 (June 9, 2011). The rule explains that panel manufacturers 
would test their panels to obtain a thermal transmittance metric--known 
as U-factor, measured in Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F--and identifies three types 
of panels: display panels, floor panels, and non-floor panels. A 
display panel is defined as a panel that is entirely or partially 
comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both, and is used for 
display purposes. Id. It is considered equivalent to a window and the 
U-factor is determined by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, ``Procedure for 
Determining Fenestration Product U-factors.'' 76 FR at 33639. Floor 
panels are used for walk-in floors, whereas non-floor panels are used 
for walls and ceilings.
    The U-factor for floor and non-floor panels accounts for any 
structural members internal to the panel and the long-term thermal 
aging of foam. This value is determined by a three-step process. First, 
both floor and non-floor panels must be tested using ASTM C1363-10, 
``Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials 
and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.'' The panel's 
core and edge regions must be used during testing. Second, the panel's 
core U-factor must be adjusted with a degradation factor to account for 
foam aging. The degradation factor is determined by EN 13165:2009-02, 
``Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings--Factory Made Rigid 
Polyurethane Foam (PUR) Products--Specification,'' or EN 13164:2009-02, 
``Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings--Factory Made Products of 
Extruded Polystyrene Foam (XPS)--Specification,'' as applicable. Third, 
the edge and modified core U-factors are then combined to produce the 
panel's overall U-factor. All industry protocols were incorporated by 
reference most recently in the test procedure final rule correction. 76 
FR 33631.
2. Doors
    The walk-in test procedure final rule addressed two door types: 
display and non-display doors. Within the general context of walk-ins, 
a door consists of 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. DOE defines display doors as doors designed for 
product movement, display, or both, rather than the passage of persons; 
a non-display door is interpreted to mean any type of door that is not 
captured by the definition of a display door. 76 FR at 33631.
    The test metric for doors is in terms of energy use, measured in 
kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day). The energy use accounts for thermal 
transmittance through the door and the electricity use

[[Page 55794]]

of any electrical components associated with the door. The thermal 
transmittance is measured by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, and is converted to 
energy consumption via conduction losses using an assumed efficiency of 
the refrigeration system in accordance with the test procedure. See 76 
FR at 33636-33637. The electrical energy consumption of the door is 
calculated by summing each electrical device's individual consumption 
and accounts for all device controls by applying a ``percent time off'' 
value to the appropriate device's energy consumption. For any device 
that is located on the internal face of the door or inside the door, 75 
percent of its power is assumed to contribute to an additional heat 
load on the compressor. Finally, the total energy consumption of the 
door is found by combining the conduction load, electrical load, and 
additional compressor load.
3. Refrigeration
    The test procedure incorporates an industry test procedure applied 
to walk-in refrigeration systems: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, ``2009 Standard 
for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers'' (``AHRI 1250-
2009''). 76 FR at 33631. This procedure applies to unit coolers and 
condensing units sold together as a matched system, unit coolers and 
condensing units sold separately, and unit coolers connected to 
compressor racks or multiplex condensing systems. It also describes 
methods for measuring the refrigeration capacity, on-cycle electrical 
energy consumption, off-cycle fan energy, and defrost energy. Standard 
test conditions, which are different for indoor and outdoor locations 
and for coolers and freezers, are also specified.
    The test procedure includes a calculation methodology to compute an 
annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF), which is the ratio of heat removed 
from the envelope to the total energy input of the refrigeration system 
over a year. AWEF is measured in Btu/W-h and measures the efficiency of 
a refrigeration system. DOE established a metric based on efficiency, 
rather than energy use, for describing refrigeration system 
performance, because a refrigeration system's energy use would be 
expected to increase based on the size of the walk-in and on the heat 
load that the walk-in produces. An efficiency-based metric would 
account for this relationship and would simplify the comparison of 
refrigeration systems to each other. Therefore, DOE proposes to use an 
energy conservation standard for refrigeration systems that would be 
presented in terms of AWEF.

C. Prescriptive Versus Performance Standards

    EPCA established standards for certain WICF components, while also 
directing the Secretary to establish ``performance-based standards,'' 
which are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) 
Some interested parties suggested that DOE establish prescriptive 
standards for certain components in addition to the performance-based 
standards that DOE is proposing. NEEA and NPCC stated that DOE should 
establish a prescriptive (i.e., design) standard for electronically 
commutated motors. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 7) The Joint 
Utilities recommended that DOE consider the precedent set by EPCA, as 
the EPCA provisions include both prescriptive and performance 
standards, and further recommended that DOE include additional 
prescriptive requirements for various components of a walk-in as 
necessary to maximize energy savings, and performance standards for the 
unit cooler. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 11) The Joint Utilities 
also recommended that DOE base new standards using those design 
requirements already prescribed by Title 20 of California's Code as the 
baseline when developing a performance standard. (Joint Utilities, No. 
0061.1 at p. 13) SCE also referred to the prescriptive standards in 
Title 20, and suggested that because EPCA already established 
prescriptive measures, there will be limited additional benefit from 
performance measures. SCE further recommended that a standard for 
infiltration should be implemented through ASHRAE 90.1 (SCE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 63) The Joint Utilities recommended 
other specific prescriptive requirements that DOE should implement, 
including a minimum solar reflective index for the roof of a walk-in 
located outdoors, adjustable variable speed fan control for unit 
coolers, and floating head pressure control (a control that allows the 
pressure of the refrigerant at the compressor exit point to reach an 
optimal level). (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at pp. 5 and 12; Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 29) The Joint Utilities also asked 
DOE to examine how controls could be specified in a performance 
standard. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 13)
    DOE notes that EPCA requires the promulgation of ``performance-
based standards'' for walk-ins. That phrase indicates that DOE must set 
standards based on energy-related performance. See 42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(4). Accordingly, the design requirements suggested by 
commenters would be inconsistent with this requirement.

D. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement

    Walk-ins consist primarily of panels, display and non-display 
doors, and a refrigeration system, as described in section III.A. A 
number of arrangements exist for manufacturing walk-ins. One company 
may manufacture the panels, purchase the display and/or non-display 
doors and refrigeration system, assemble the walk-in at the factory, 
and ship the walk-in to a consumer. Alternatively, the same company may 
ship the walk-in without a refrigeration system, which is then 
purchased separately by the consumer and installed on the walk-in. A 
contractor may purchase all the components from the component 
manufacturers and assemble the walk-in on-site. Other scenarios may 
also exist. Given the wide variety of scenarios under which a walk-in 
is manufactured, it is important to identify an entity or entities 
responsible for complying with standards and certifying compliance to 
DOE, and against whom a possible enforcement action could be taken.
    During the preliminary analysis public meeting, many interested 
parties expressed concern about compliance responsibilities and whether 
those burdens would fall on the envelope and refrigeration 
manufacturers individually, the installer, or another party. 
Additionally, the Joint Advocates submitted a comment urging DOE to 
ensure that the separate system components would be compliant with the 
energy conservation standards, and stating that each manufacturer 
should be held accountable for their products (e.g., door manufacturers 
are responsible for compliance with door standards). (Joint Advocates, 
No. 0070.1 at pp. 2-3) Craig Industries recommended that the definition 
of a manufacturer be expanded to include the installer of the unit, 
because the installer has the ability to ensure that the installed unit 
meets the energy conservation standards. (Craig Industries, No. 0071.1 
at p. 1). Comments on this issue were summarized in the 2011 
Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and 
Commercial and Industrial Equipment (referred to hereafter as the CCE 
final rule), and are not repeated here. 76 FR 12422, 12442-12446 (March 
7, 2011).
    DOE notes that within the context of today's proposal, the agency 
is contemplating an approach that would place the primary certification 
and compliance burden on those entities that manufacture particular key 
components of a walk-in--that is, the

[[Page 55795]]

panels, doors, and refrigeration system. This approach dovetails with 
that outlined in the recent test procedure final rule. The various 
requirements that manufacturers would need to follow are detailed in 
the 2011 final rule noted above regarding manufacturer certification, 
compliance, and enforcement-related responsibilities. 76 FR 12422. For 
further details, see 76 FR at 12491.

E. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, 
which it bases on information gathered on all current technology 
options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the 
products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the 
first step in such analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for 
consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and 
other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these means for 
improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers 
technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430, subpart C, 
appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although DOE considers technologies that 
are proprietary, it will not consider efficiency levels that can only 
be reached through the use of proprietary technologies (i.e., a unique 
pathway), as it could allow a single manufacturer to monopolize the 
market.
    Once DOE has determined that particular design options are 
technologically feasible, it generally evaluates each of these design 
options in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts 
on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health 
or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-
(iv) Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening 
analyses for walk-in coolers and freezers. Specifically, it presents 
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are 
the basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the 
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended or new energy 
conservation standard for a type or class of covered equipment such as 
walk-ins, it determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 
that is technologically feasible for such equipment. Accordingly, DOE 
determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements 
in energy efficiency for walk-ins by applying those design parameters 
that passed the screening analysis to the engineering analysis that DOE 
prepared as part of the preliminary analysis.
    In a comment on the max-tech levels in the preliminary analysis, 
AHRI commented that max-tech efficiency levels would be achieved only 
by a few units, and it requested that DOE demonstrate that max-tech 
levels can be achieved by commonly used products. (AHRI, No. 0055.1 at 
p. 3)
    As indicated previously, whether efficiency levels exist or can be 
achieved in commonly used products does not determine whether they are 
max-tech levels. DOE considers technologies to be technologically 
feasible if they are incorporated in any commercially available 
equipment or working prototypes. A maximum technologically feasible 
level results from the combination of design options that result in the 
highest efficiency level for an equipment class, with such design 
options consisting of technologies already incorporated in commercial 
products or working prototypes. DOE notes that it re-evaluated the 
efficiency levels, including the max-tech levels, when it updated its 
results for this NOPR. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for the results of 
the analysis.
    For panels, non-display doors, display doors, and refrigeration 
systems, the max-tech efficiency levels DOE has identified represent 
products with the most efficient design options available on the 
market, or previously offered for sale, in the given equipment class. 
No products at higher efficiencies are available or have been in the 
past, and DOE is not aware of any working prototype designs that would 
allow manufacturers to achieve higher efficiencies. Table III-2, Table 
III-3, Table III-4, and Table III-5 list the max-tech levels for 
panels, display doors, non-display doors, and refrigeration systems, 
respectively. (See section IV.A.3 for a description of the equipment 
classes.)
    For structural cooler and freezer panels, the max-tech level is 
represented by a single value for U-factor. For all other TSLs (and for 
all floor panel levels including the max-tech level), the level is 
represented by a polynomial equation expressing the U-factor in terms 
of certain panel dimensions, but the max tech level does not result in 
a polynomial equation because the U-factor does not vary with the size 
of the panel. (See section V.A.2 for a list of equations for all TSLs.) 
At max-tech, panels are designed without structural members, making the 
panel uniformly comprised of hybrid insulation. See section IV.C.5 and 
chapter 5 of the TSD for the list of technologies included in max-tech 
equipment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE13.002


[[Page 55796]]



             Table III-3--Max-Tech Levels for Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Equations for maximum energy
          Equipment class                  consumption (kWh/day) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Door, Medium Temperature...  0.0080 x Add + 0.29
Display Door, Low Temperature......  0.11 x Add + 0.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Add represents the surface area of the display door.


           Table III-4--Max-Tech Levels for Non-Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Equations for maximum energy
          Equipment class                  consumption (kWh/day) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passage Door, Medium Temperature...  0.00093 x And + 0.0083
Passage Door, Low Temperature......  0.13 x And + 3.9
Freight Door, Medium Temperature...  0.00092 x And + 0.13
Freight Door, Low Temperature......  0.094 x And + 5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And represents the surface area of the non-display door.


         Table III-5--Max-Tech Levels for Refrigeration Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Equations for minimum AWEF (Btu/W-
          Equipment class                            h) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing, Medium         2.63 x 10-4 x Q + 4.53
 Temperature, Indoor System, <
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium         6.90
 Temperature, Indoor System, >=
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium         9.23 x 10-4 x Q + 3.90
 Temperature, Outdoor System, <
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Medium         12.21
 Temperature, Outdoor System, >=
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Low            1.93 x 10-4 x Q + 1.93
 Temperature, Indoor System, <
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Low            3.67
 Temperature, Indoor System, >=
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Low            4.53 x 10-4 x Q + 2.17
 Temperature, Outdoor System, <
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Dedicated Condensing, Low            6.25
 Temperature, Outdoor System, >=
 9,000 Btu/h Capacity.
Multiplex Condensing, Medium         10.82
 Temperature.
Multiplex Condensing, Low            5.91
 Temperature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Q represents the system gross capacity as calculated in AHRI 1250.

F. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with new standards (2017-2046). The 
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in 
the 30-year period.\13\ DOE quantified the energy savings attributable 
to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each 
standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection 
of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency 
standards and considers market forces and policies that affect demand 
for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the 
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating 
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased 
in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of 
national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for 
its national economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to 
estimate energy savings from amended standards for the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model 
(described in section IV.G of this notice and chapter 10 of the TSD) 
calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly 
consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For 
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the 
savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site 
electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion 
factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information 
Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
    DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy 
savings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 
17, 2012). The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, 
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the 
impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on 
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by 
covered products. For more information on FFC energy savings, see 
sections IV.G.3 and IV.L and appendix 10G of the TSD.
2. Significance of Savings
    DOE may not adopt a standard that would not result in significant 
additional energy savings. While the term ``significant'' is not 
defined in the Act, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 
F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended 
significant energy savings to be savings that were not ``genuinely 
trivial.'' The estimated energy savings in the analysis period for the 
trial standard levels considered in this rulemaking range from 4.28 to 
6.37 quadrillion Btu (quads), an amount DOE considers significant.

[[Page 55797]]

G. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As discussed in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be 
evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation 
standard is economically justified. The following sections generally 
discuss how DOE addresses each of those seven factors in this 
rulemaking. For further details and the results of DOE's analyses 
pertaining to economic justification, see sections IV and V of today's 
notice.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, 
DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the 
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--
based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between 
when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the 
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 
industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value 
(INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash 
flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. 
The LCC, which is also separately specified as one of the seven factors 
to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or 
amended standard, is discussed in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the net present value from a 
national perspective of the economic impacts on consumers over the 
forecast period used in a particular rulemaking. For the results of 
DOE's analyses related to the economic impact on consumers, see section 
V.B.1 of this notice and chapters 8 and 11 of the TSD. For the results 
of DOE's analyses related to the economic impact on manufacturers, see 
section V.B.2 of this notice and chapter 12 of the TSD.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including 
the cost of its installation) and the operating expense (including 
energy and maintenance and repair expenditures) discounted over the 
lifetime of the equipment. The LCC savings for the considered 
efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects 
likely trends in the absence of new standards. The LCC analysis 
requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment 
energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, 
equipment lifetime, and consumer discount rates. DOE assumes in its 
analysis that consumers purchase the equipment in the year in which 
compliance with the new standard is required.
    To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such 
as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 
values with probabilities attached to each value. A distinct advantage 
of this approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of consumers 
estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase. In 
addition to identifying ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC 
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers 
that may be disproportionately affected by a new national standard. For 
the results of DOE's analyses related to the life-cycle costs of 
equipment, see section V.B.1.a of this notice and chapter 8 of the TSD.
c. Energy Savings
    While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in its 
consideration of total projected savings. For the results of DOE's 
analyses related to the potential energy savings, see section V.B.3.a 
of this notice and chapter 10 of the TSD.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE seeks to 
develop standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of 
the equipment under consideration. None of the TSLs presented in 
today's NOPR would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment 
considered in the rulemaking. During the screening analysis, DOE 
eliminated from consideration any technology that would adversely 
impact consumer utility. For the results of DOE's analyses related to 
the potential impact of new standards on equipment utility and 
performance, see section IV.B of this notice and chapter 4 of the TSD.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from the imposition of a standard. It also directs the 
Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of 
competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit 
such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication 
of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent 
of the impact. DOE will transmit a copy of today's proposed rule to the 
Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney 
General's determination in the final rule.
f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to 
provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's 
energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result 
in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's 
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 
how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity. 
The utility impact analysis is contained in chapter 14 of the TSD.
    The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the 
emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it 
considered, in section V.B.6 of this notice and chapter 15 of the TSD. 
DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, to consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. For the results of DOE's

[[Page 55798]]

analyses related to other factors, see section V.B.7 of this notice.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA provides for a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of 
equipment that meets the standard level is less than three times the 
value of the first-year energy (and, as applicable, water) savings 
resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE 
test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values which can be 
used to calculate the payback period for consumers of products or 
equipment that meet the proposed standards. These analyses include, but 
are not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated under 
the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full 
economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the 
consumer, manufacturer, nation, and environment, as required under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the 
basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential 
standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any 
preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable 
presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.12 of this 
NOPR and chapter 8 of the TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 
publicly-available information (e.g., manufacturer specification sheets 
and industry publications) and data submitted by manufacturers, trade 
associations, and other stakeholders. The subjects addressed in the 
market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) 
Quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; (2) retail 
market trends; (3) products covered by the rulemaking; (4) equipment 
classes; (5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory requirements and non-
regulatory programs (such as rebate programs and tax credits); and (7) 
technologies that could improve the energy efficiency of the products 
under examination. DOE researched manufacturers of panels, display 
doors, non-display doors, and refrigeration equipment. DOE also 
identified and characterized small business manufacturers of these 
components. See chapter 3 of the TSD for further discussion of the 
market and technology assessment.
    In the preliminary TSD, DOE presented market performance data. 
Typically, DOE's analysis of market data uses catalog and performance 
data to determine the number of products on the market at varying 
efficiency levels. However, WICF systems and equipment have not 
previously been rated for efficiency by manufacturers, nor has an 
efficiency metric been established for this equipment. Based on the 
available data, DOE presented a sample of equipment at various sizes in 
the preliminary TSD and estimated the energy consumption of the 
equipment using the preliminary engineering spreadsheet. For 
refrigeration equipment in particular, DOE found that, as expected, the 
relationship between capacity and energy consumption was roughly 
linear.
    In a comment on the market performance data DOE presented, 
Manitowoc expressed concern that DOE's use of linear trends to 
establish the relationship between energy consumption and net capacity 
will lead to an overestimation of the potential benefits of 
refrigeration system standards. (Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 2)
    DOE presented the market performance data to illustrate its 
understanding of the market. In response to Manitowoc's concern, DOE 
notes that the benefits of the rule are not derived from the estimates 
of market performance data but are determined from the LCC analysis and 
NIA. DOE seeks market performance data to help inform DOE's analysis.
1. Definitions Related to Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
    DOE proposes to amend the definition of display door and to adopt 
definitions for passage and freight door in order to clarify the 
boundaries separating these equipment classes. The display door 
definition was modified to permit transparent doors used for the 
passage of people to be categorized as display doors rather than as 
non-display passage doors. DOE is proposing to define transparent 
passage doors as a type of display door because transparent passage 
doors are generally constructed in the same manner and with the same 
materials as transparent reach-in doors. DOE proposes to include 
definitions for non-display passage and freight doors in order to 
clarify the distinction between the two types of doors. Non-display 
passage doors are typically smaller than freight doors and are designed 
for passage of people and small machines, whereas non-display freight 
doors are larger than passage doors and designed for the passage of 
large machines like forklifts.
a. Display Doors
    As described in section III.B of this notice, DOE established a 
definition for display door in the test procedure. 76 FR 33631 (June 9, 
2011). DOE is now proposing to amend this definition to include all 
doors that are comprised of 75 percent or more glass or other 
transparent material. This amendment is intended to classify passage 
doors that are mostly comprised of glass as display doors because the 
utility and construction of glass passage doors more closely resembles 
that of a display door. DOE proposes to define a display door as one 
that ``(1) is designed for product display; or (2) has 75 percent or 
more of its surface area comprised of glass or another transparent 
material.'' DOE requests comment on this proposed definition.
b. Freight Doors
    DOE is proposing to separate non-display doors into two equipment 
classes, passage doors and freight doors. DOE proposes to define 
freight doors in order to clarify the distinction between these two 
equipment classes and remove any ambiguity about which energy standards 
apply to a given door. The two types of doors are constructed 
differently--for example, freight doors tend to have more structural 
support because they are bulkier--and warrant different standards for 
each type. DOE is proposing a definition of freight doors that would 
account for the fact that these doors are typically larger than passage 
doors and are used to allow large machines, like forklifts, into walk-
ins. Specifically, DOE proposes to define a freight door to mean ``a 
door that is not a display door and is equal to or larger than 4 feet 
wide and 8 feet tall.'' DOE based these proposed dimensions on the 
standard size of a walk-in panel, which is 4 feet wide by 8 feet tall. 
In DOE's estimation doors used for the passage of people small machines 
would be less than the standard size of a walk-in panel and therefore 
all other doors would be freight doors. DOE requests comment on its 
proposed definition.
c. Passage Doors
    DOE proposes a definition of passage doors to differentiate passage 
doors from

[[Page 55799]]

freight doors and display doors. Passage doors are mostly intended for 
the passage of people and small machines like hand carts and not for 
product display. DOE proposes to define this term to mean ``a door that 
is not a freight or display door.'' DOE requests comment on this 
proposed definition.
2. Equipment Included in This Rulemaking
a. Panels and Doors
    As mentioned in section III.B.1, DOE identified three types of 
panels used in the walk-in industry: Display panels, floor panels, and 
non-floor panels. Based on its research, DOE determined that display 
panels, typically found in beer caves (walk-ins used for the display 
and storage of beer or other alcoholic beverages often found in a 
supermarket) make up a small percentage of all panels currently present 
in the market. Therefore, because of the extremely limited energy 
savings potential currently projected to result from amending the 
requirements that these panels must meet, DOE is not proposing 
standards for walk-in display panels in this NOPR. Display panels, 
however, must still follow all applicable design standards already 
prescribed by EPCA, as discussed in section II.B.1 of this notice.
    DOE is also not proposing to require the installation of walk-in 
cooler floor panels. DOE did not consider including walk-in cooler 
floor panels in its analysis because of their complex nature. Through 
manufacturer interviews and market research, DOE determined that, 
unlike walk-in freezers, the majority of walk-in coolers are made with 
concrete floors and do not use insulated floor panels. The entity that 
installs the cooler floor is considered the floor's manufacturer and is 
responsible for testing and complying with a walk-in cooler floor 
standard. If DOE were to require that all walk-in coolers to be 
equipped with floor panels, the onus of complying with this requirement 
would likely fall on entities that do not specialize in constructing 
walk-in coolers, and the accompanying burden in using these components 
and certifying compliance with the appropriate standards would likely 
be costly and difficult for that entity to fulfill. Therefore, at this 
time, it is DOE's view that requiring the use of floor panels--along 
with the accompanying compliance costs--would present an undue burden 
to those entities that would be responsible for meeting these 
requirements. For these reasons, DOE is not proposing to require walk-
in coolers to have floor panels, nor is DOE proposing energy efficiency 
standards for cooler floor panels. (DOE is, however, proposing energy 
efficiency standards for walk-in freezer floor panels and notes that 
EPCA requires floor insulation of at least R-28 for walk-in freezers. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(D)).)
    DOE also identified two types of doors in the walk-in market, 
display doors and non-display doors, which are discussed in section 
III.B.2 of this NOPR. All types of doors will be subject to the 
performance standards proposed in this rulemaking.
b. Refrigeration System
    DOE defines the refrigeration system of a walk-in as the mechanism 
(including all controls and other components integral to the system's 
operations) used to create the refrigerated environment in the interior 
of the walk-in cooler and freezer, consisting of either (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. 76 FR at 33631.
    DOE based its preliminary results used in today's proposal on an 
analysis of storage coolers and freezers. DOE did not analyze blast 
freezer walk-ins, which are designed to quickly freeze food and then 
store it at a specified holding temperature. American Panel commented 
that blast freezer performance differs from storage freezer performance 
due to the large product loads experienced with this specialized 
equipment. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 4) Heatcraft added that 
blast freezer refrigeration systems' energy consumption would be higher 
than that of storage freezers and that they require wider fin spacing 
because of a higher rate of frost accumulation. (Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 
at p. 1)
    DOE agrees with American Panel and Heatcraft that blast freezer 
refrigeration systems have different energy characteristics from 
storage freezers, but questions whether they would necessarily have a 
lower rated efficiency. DOE is not proposing to include blast freezers 
in this rulemaking analysis because they make up a small percentage of 
walk-ins currently present in the market. DOE requests comment on 
whether blast freezer refrigeration systems would have difficulty 
complying with DOE's refrigeration efficiency standards and, if so, to 
direct DOE to (and supply it with) any test procedure data supporting 
this conclusion. DOE proposes to apply the same standards to blast 
freezer refrigeration systems as to storage freezer refrigeration 
systems, unless DOE finds that blast freezer refrigeration systems 
would have difficulty complying with DOE's standards. Otherwise, DOE 
will consider excluding blast freezers from coverage under this 
rulemaking, although they would still have to comply with the already 
statutorily-prescribed standards in EPCA.
    Regarding the particular refrigerant to be used in the analysis, 
DOE analyzed refrigeration equipment using R404A, a hydrofluorocarbon 
(HFC) refrigerant blend, in the preliminary analysis. Heatcraft 
supported DOE's approach to use only HFC refrigerants in the analysis, 
but also suggested that DOE consider lower global warming potential 
(GWP) refrigerants--such as R134a, R407A, or R407C--in the analyses as 
well because of shifts in the marketplace towards these products, even 
though these refrigerants may have lower efficiencies. (Heatcraft, No. 
0069.1 at p. 3)
    DOE used R404A in its analysis for this NOPR because it is widely 
used currently in the walk-in industry. DOE appreciates Heatcraft's 
suggestion to analyze alternative refrigerants, especially those with a 
lower GWPs given the interest by many manufacturers to use these 
alternatives, and requests comment on the extent of the use or likely 
phase-in of lower GWP refrigerants and asks manufacturers to submit 
data related to the ability of the equipment (either existing or 
redesigned) using these refrigerants to meet the proposed standard, as 
well as the cost of such equipment.
3. Equipment Classes
a. Panels and Doors
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE proposed to divide the envelope 
into two separate equipment classes: display and non-display walk-ins 
(that is, walk-ins with and without glass). Display walk-ins are walk-
ins that have doors for display purposes, are typically made with 
glass, and are inherently less efficient than walk-ins without glass 
because glass is not as insulative as the insulation material used in 
non-display walk-ins (typically polyurethane or polystyrene).
    Interested parties commented on the need to separate display and 
non-display walk-ins into two different equipment classes. Nor-Lake and 
AHRI agreed with the equipment classes proposed by DOE, and AHRI 
commented that the equipment classes represent the most common walk-in

[[Page 55800]]

configurations. (Nor-Lake, No. 0049.1 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 
2) Manitowoc stated that classification of envelopes into storage and 
display types is appropriate as it may allow for different performance 
levels for certain components. (Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 2) However, 
CrownTonka contended that it was unnecessary to have two equipment 
classes for display and non-display walk-ins and that separate classes 
for coolers and freezers are adequate. (CrownTonka, No. 0057.1 at p. 1) 
ASAP and SCE opined that one equipment class is sufficient and that the 
difference between non-display and display doors could be accounted for 
through a weighted average of the opaque and glass surface areas. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 70; SCE, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 79) However, NEAA, NPCC and 
Manitowoc countered that there should not be a single metric for both 
display and non-display doors because it would not account for the 
unique utility offered by display walk-ins (i.e., permitting the 
display of stored items). (NEAA and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 76; Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 
78) NEAA and NPCC stated that, if DOE were to separate display and non-
display walk-ins into two different classes, DOE should carefully 
define the boundary between the two classes. (NEAA and NPCC, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 77) NEAA and NPCC also suggested 
that, as an alternative to having one equipment class for display and 
non-display walk-ins with a single performance metric, DOE should move 
to component level-based classes with separate performance metrics. 
(NEAA and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 76)
    Interested parties also submitted comments about the names of the 
equipment classes. NEAA and NPCC stated that if DOE has two separate 
equipment classes for display and non-display walk-ins, DOE should 
carefully define the boundary between the two classes. (NEAA and NPCC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 77) Kysor stated that the 
class names DOE suggested were confusing and offered an alternative--
``coolers with glass doors'' instead of ``display coolers''--to help 
clarify the difference between the two separate equipment classes. 
(Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 78)
    In light of the component level standards described in section 
III.A, DOE proposes to create separate equipment classes for panels, 
display doors, and non-display doors. These different items comprise 
the main components of a walk-in envelope. DOE proposes separate 
classes for panels, display doors, and non-display doors because each 
component type has a different utility to the consumer and possesses 
different energy use characteristics.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE also considered the possibility of 
creating separate classes for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 
because EPCA specifically divides walk-in equipment into coolers (above 
32[emsp14][deg]F) and freezers (at or below 32[emsp14][deg]F), (42 
U.S.C. 6311(20)), and prescribes unique design requirements for each. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C)-(D)(3)) DOE has continued to apply this 
approach in its analysis.
Panels
    DOE has placed panels into two equipment classes: Freezer floor 
panels and non-floor panels (also called structural panels). DOE 
understands that freezer floor panels and structural panels serve two 
different utilities. Freezer floor panels, which are panels used to 
construct the floor of a walk-in, must often support the load of small 
machines like hand carts and pallet jacks on their horizontal faces. 
Non-floor panels or structural panels, which include panels used to 
construct the ceiling or wall of a walk-in, provide structure for the 
walk-in. Because of their different utilities, the two classes of 
panels are constructed differently from each other and use different 
amounts of framing material, which affects the panels' energy 
consumption.
    Structural panels are further divided into two more classes based 
on temperature--i.e., cooler versus freezer panels. Cooler structural 
panels are rated with their internal faces exposed to a temperature of 
35 [deg]F, as called for in the test procedure final rule. Freezer 
structural panels are used in walk-in freezers and rated with its 
internal face exposed to a temperature of -10 [deg]F, as required by 
the test procedure final rule. 76 FR at 21606; 10 CFR 431.303. EPCA 
also requires walk-in freezer panels to have a higher R-value than 
walk-in cooler panels. These differences result in different amounts of 
insulating foam between these panel types and affect the panel's U-
value.
Doors
    DOE has distinguished between two different door types used in 
walk-in coolers and freezers: Display doors and non-display doors. DOE 
proposed separate classes for display doors and non-display doors to 
retain consistency with the dual approach laid out by EPCA for these 
walk-in components. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C) and (3)) Non-display doors 
and display doors also serve separate purposes in a walk-in. Display 
doors contain mainly glass in order to display products or objects 
located inside the walk-in. Non-display doors function as passage and 
freight doors and are mainly used to allow people and products to be 
moved into and out of the walk-in. Because of their different 
utilities, display and non-display doors are made up of different 
material. Display doors are made of glass or other transparent 
material, while non-display doors are made of highly insulative 
materials like polyurethane. The different materials found in display 
and non-display doors significantly affect their energy consumption.
    DOE divided display doors into two equipment classes based on 
temperature differences: cooler and freezer display doors. Cooler 
display doors and freezer display doors are exposed to different 
internal temperature conditions, which affect the total energy 
consumption of the doors. In the test procedure final rule, DOE 
established an internal rating temperature of 35 [deg]F for walk-in 
cooler display doors and -10 [deg]F for walk-in freezer display doors. 
76 FR at 21606; 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, Section 5.3.
    DOE also separated non-display doors into two equipment classes, 
passage and freight doors. Passage doors are typically smaller doors 
and mostly used as a means of access for people and small machines, 
like hand carts. Freight doors typically are larger doors used to allow 
access for larger machines, like forklifts, into walk-ins. The 
different shape and size of passage and freight doors affects the 
energy consumption of the doors. Both passage and freight doors are 
also separated into cooler and freezer classes because, as explained 
for display doors, cooler and freezer doors are rated at different 
temperature conditions. A different rating temperature impacts the 
door's energy consumption.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not consider outdoor envelopes 
as a separate equipment class. Walk-ins located outdoors have very 
similar features to walk-ins located indoors, and DOE could not 
identify any additional design options that improved the energy 
consumption only of outdoor walk-ins. The Joint Utilities, NEEA and 
NPCC, CrownTonka, Nor-Lake, and Hill Phoenix stated that DOE should 
differentiate equipment classes by their external environment. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 5; NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 6; 
CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 81;

[[Page 55801]]

Nor-Lake, No. 0049.1 at p. 2; Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 2) The 
Joint Utilities requested that DOE evaluate cost-effective insulation 
levels for outdoor walk-ins, and stated that there would be a loss in 
energy savings if DOE did not consider region-specific insulation 
levels. (Joint Utilities, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at pp. 80 
and 82) Nor-Lake contested DOE's claim that walk-ins designed as 
outdoor units include no additional features that impact energy 
consumption, stating that the ambient temperature and product load will 
change the energy consumption for both the indoor and outdoor units. 
(Nor-Lake, No. 0049.1 at p.2) Hill Phoenix recommended a separate 
equipment class for outdoor walk-ins because outdoor walk-ins must have 
thicker panels to withstand environmental conditions. (Hill Phoenix, 
No. 0066.1 at p. 2) American Panel observed that a walk-in located 
outdoors has an added benefit in that no building space was constructed 
to house the walk-in, which is a significant energy savings not 
considered in the preliminary analysis. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at 
p. 3)
    Some commenters described how DOE could include equipment classes 
that capture the external conditions. SCE suggested that DOE set a 
series of different conditions by the location of the wall such as an 
outdoor, indoor, or demising wall (i.e., a dividing wall to separate 
spaces) between a cooler and a freezer space. (SCE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at pp. 80 and 82-83) NEEA and NPCC recommended 
changing the equipment classes to indoor cooler, indoor freezer, 
outdoor cooler, and outdoor freezer. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 
6)
    Other interested parties agreed with DOE's assertion that it was 
unnecessary to consider outdoor walk-ins as a separate equipment class. 
Kysor explained that the envelope would be designed for whatever 
ambient conditions it may be subjected to, and that adding additional 
performance requirements would be unnecessary. (Kysor, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 80) Manitowoc stated that there should not 
be any classification based on external environments as there are times 
when the envelope is exposed to both internal and external conditions. 
(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 82)
    DOE is not proposing to include any panel or door equipment class 
that accounts for the different external environmental conditions that 
a walk-in could experience in real world applications. DOE does not 
find outdoor and indoor walk-in envelope components to have distinct 
utilities. Components for outdoor walk-ins and indoor walk-ins are 
generally constructed with the same design and materials and serve the 
same purpose. In response to Nor-Lake's comment about DOE's assumption 
about additional features, DOE clarifies that while the difference in 
outdoor temperatures affects the real world energy consumption of the 
walk-in envelope, DOE was referring to design features, such as 
different types of insulation, which differ from the design options 
found on indoor walk-ins and improve the energy efficiency of the 
outdoor walk-in. As to Hill Phoenix's comment that a panel facing 
external conditions requires more insulation, DOE notes that panels 
with thicker insulation already surpass the baseline panel 
specifications, which would make it easier for these types of panels to 
meet the standards in today's proposal.
    Hill Phoenix also recommended that DOE divide envelopes into 
factory assembled step-in style walk-ins and larger construction-based 
walk-ins. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 1) Because it is not 
proposing standards for walk-in envelopes, but rather for the panels 
and doors that are components of the envelopes, DOE has not adopted 
Hill Phoenix's recommendation in today's proposal. DOE has, however, 
separated into different equipment classes the components typically 
found in factory-assembled walk-ins, such as passage doors and floor 
panels, and those components found in large construction-based walk-
ins, such as freight doors. DOE believes this approach will achieve the 
objective of the Hill Phoenix recommendation, namely that the proposed 
standards reflect the different energy use characteristics of factory-
assembled and construction-based walk-ins.
    Table IV-1 lists the equipment classes DOE proposes to create in 
this NOPR. In the table below, medium temperature refers to cooler 
equipment and low temperature refers to freezer equipment. The column 
entitled ``Class'' lists the codes that will be used to abbreviate each 
equipment class, and will be used throughout the NOPR.

           Table IV-1--Equipment Classes for Panels and Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Product                  Temperature            Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural Panel................  Medium............  SP.M
                                  Low...............  SP.L
Floor Panel.....................  Low...............  FP.L
Display Door....................  Medium............  DD.M
                                  Low...............  DD.L
Passage Door....................  Medium............  PD.M
                                  Low...............  PD.L
Freight Door....................  Medium............  FD.M
                                  Low...............  FD.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Refrigeration Systems
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered dividing walk-in 
refrigeration systems into six equipment classes based on key physical 
characteristics that affect equipment efficiency: (1) The type of 
condensing unit (i.e., whether the system has a dedicated condensing 
unit or is connected to a multiplex system), (2) the operating 
temperature, and (3) the location of the walk-in (i.e., indoors or 
outdoors). In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to differentiate 
refrigeration system classes based on capacity. DOE discusses the four 
proposed class differentiations below.
Type of Condensing Unit
    Due to the significant impact of the condensing unit on the overall 
energy consumption of the walk-in (as much as 90 percent), the 
preliminary analysis differentiated between two different condensing 
unit types: dedicated condensing systems and multiplex condensing 
systems. In a dedicated condensing system, only one condensing unit 
(consisting of one or more compressors and condensers) serves a single 
walk-in. A multiplex condensing system consists of a rack of 
compressors usually located in a mechanical room, a large condenser or 
condensers usually located on the roof, and several unit coolers or 
evaporators belonging to various types of refrigeration equipment, 
including walk-ins. The only part of a multiplex condensing system that 
would be covered under the proposed standard would be a unit cooler in 
a walk-in--a ``unit cooler connected to a multiplex condensing 
system.'' The compressor and condenser of a multiplex system would not 
be covered under the walk-in standard because they serve equipment 
other than walk-ins. Furthermore, DOE would be unable to attribute the 
portion of energy use related to only the walk-in, at the point of 
manufacture of the compressor and condenser of the multiplex system.
    DOE received several comments about the classification of 
condensing types. AHRI, Nor-Lake and Manitowoc agreed with DOE's 
equipment classes proposed in the preliminary analysis, while the Joint 
Utilities suggested redesignating

[[Page 55802]]

the multiplex and dedicated equipment classes as remote and self-
contained, respectively. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at 
p. 74, Nor-Lake, No. 0049.1 at p. 1, Manitowoc, No. 0056 at p. 2, 
Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 73, Joint 
Utilities, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 71) The Joint 
Utilities suggested regulating condensing units in a manner similar to 
that used by DOE for commercial refrigeration equipment, which, in 
their view, would result in coverage of most of the condensing units 
serving the walk-in industry. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 11, 
12) The Joint Advocates suggested that DOE conduct a separate 
rulemaking for condensing units. (Joint Advocates, No. 0070.1 at p. 3) 
They added that DOE should reduce the number of refrigeration types to 
self-contained and unit coolers only, while the Joint Utilities 
recommended against including remote condensing units as part of this 
rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 0070.1 at p. 3, Joint Utilities, No. 
0045 at p. 22)
    DOE believes the refrigeration systems covered by the two classes 
of equipment, dedicated condensing and multiplex condensing, accurately 
represent the range of refrigeration equipment used in walk-in coolers 
and freezers. Although the proposed classes differ from the classes 
designated in the commercial refrigeration equipment rulemaking, there 
are key differences between commercial refrigeration equipment 
refrigeration systems and walk-in refrigeration systems. The Joint 
Advocates and Joint Utilities refer to two types of refrigeration 
systems commonly used with commercial refrigeration equipment: ``self-
contained'' (meaning the entire refrigeration system is built into the 
case) and ``remote condensing'' (meaning the unit cooler is built into 
the case, but the whole case is connected to a central system of 
compressors and condensers, called a ``rack'' or ``multiplex condensing 
system'', connected to most or all of the refrigeration units in a 
building). ``Remote condensing'', however, can also refer to a 
configuration in which the unit cooler is connected to a dedicated 
(i.e., only serving that one unit) compressor and condenser that are 
located somewhere away from the unit cooler. This configuration is rare 
for commercial refrigeration equipment, but comprises a large 
proportion of walk-in refrigeration system applications.
    To avoid confusion over the different configurations for walk-ins 
and commercial refrigeration equipment that can be classified as 
``remote condensing'', DOE is not proposing to classify walk-in 
refrigeration systems as ``remote condensing'' and ``self-contained''. 
Also, DOE does not agree that the compressor and condenser parts should 
not be covered under the walk-in coolers and freezers rulemaking. 
Instead, DOE is proposing to include dedicated condensing units in the 
rule, even if remotely located, because these units could be viewed as 
part of the walk-in as long as they are connected only to that 
particular walk-in and not to other refrigeration equipment. For 
systems where the walk-in is connected to a multiplex condensing system 
that runs multiple pieces of equipment, the compressor and condenser 
would not be covered because they are not exclusively part of the walk-
in.
    In consideration of the above, DOE proposes to create two classes 
of refrigeration systems: dedicated condensing and multiplex 
condensing. DOE believes that dedicated remote condensing units 
represent a substantial opportunity for energy savings in a regulation 
for walk-in components because the configuration of a dedicated remote 
condensing unit is widespread in several market segments, such as 
restaurants. Manufacturers can optimize the dedicated remote condensing 
unit with the unit cooler to take advantage of certain conditions, such 
as low ambient outdoor temperatures.
    DOE does not propose to create separate classes for dedicated 
packaged systems (where the unit cooler and condensing unit are 
integrated into a single piece of equipment) and dedicated split 
systems (with separate unit cooler and condensing unit sections). 
Packaged systems are potentially more efficient than split systems 
because they do not experience as much energy loss in the refrigerant 
lines. However, because packaged systems comprise a small share of the 
refrigeration market, DOE currently believes that little additional 
energy savings could be achieved by considering them as a separate 
class. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to consider the creation of a 
separate packaged systems class.
    DOE also notes that its proposed standards for dedicated condensing 
systems are based on an analysis of split systems. DOE requests comment 
on its proposal not to consider dedicated packaged systems and 
dedicated split systems as separate classes and whether this proposal 
would unfairly disadvantage any manufacturers.
Operating Temperature
    The second physical characteristic that DOE proposes as a basis for 
dividing refrigeration systems into equipment classes is the operating 
temperature. EPCA divides walk-in equipment into coolers (above 
32[emsp14][deg]F) and freezers (at or below 32[emsp14][deg]F) (42 
U.S.C. 6311(20)) Using this distinction, DOE is proposing to categorize 
refrigeration systems as low or medium temperature systems based on the 
temperature profiles of their unit coolers. The medium (M) and low (L) 
temperature units are differentiated by their operating temperatures, 
which are greater than 32[emsp14][deg]F (for coolers) and less than or 
equal to 32[emsp14][deg]F (for freezers). In response to DOE's 
discussion of these classes in the preliminary analysis, Ingersoll Rand 
suggested that any walk-in with defrost be rated as a freezer 
regardless of the operating temperature. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0053.1 at 
p. 1) DOE has not adopted these suggestions because doing so would 
conflict with the statutory distinction created by Congress that relies 
on operating temperature to distinguish between walk-in coolers and 
freezers. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2) (treating walk-ins as separate 
equipment based on whether they are coolers or freezers).
    Furthermore, applying the rating conditions for low temperature 
refrigeration systems is unlikely to enable a tester to accurately 
measure the efficiency of a medium temperature refrigeration system. 
Requiring a refrigeration system with defrost to be rated at the low 
temperature rating conditions even if it is designed to operate closer 
to the medium temperature rating conditions could lead to inaccurate 
equipment ratings for such equipment. In certain cases, applying 
temperature ratings in this manner may not permit this type of 
equipment to be rated at low temperature rating conditions if it is not 
designed to operate at those conditions.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, most medium temperature unit coolers are 
designed to operate between 15[emsp14][deg]F and 45[emsp14][deg]F, 
and would not be able to operate at the low temperature rating 
condition of -10[emsp14][deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location of the Walk-In
    The third physical characteristic DOE considered is the location of 
the condensing unit (i.e., indoor or outdoor), which also affects the 
energy consumption of dedicated condensing systems. Indoor 
refrigeration systems generally operate at fixed ambient temperatures, 
while outdoor refrigeration systems experience varying temperatures 
through the year. This change in temperature affects the performance of 
the refrigeration system by requiring it to operate more during

[[Page 55803]]

warmer conditions and less during colder ones. Accordingly, the test 
procedure has one ambient rating condition for indoor systems and three 
ambient rating temperatures for outdoor systems.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered creating separate 
classes for refrigeration systems with indoor (I) and outdoor (O) 
condensing units because of their different energy consumption 
characteristics. Outdoor condensing units can also implement a wide 
variety of design options to run more efficiently at low ambient 
temperatures. (In contrast, DOE did not consider indoor and outdoor 
envelope components as belonging to separate classes partly because of 
the absence of available options for improving efficiency based on the 
ambient temperature. See section IV.A.3.a for details.) Following the 
preliminary analysis, DOE did not receive any comments regarding the 
indoor and outdoor condensing unit classes, and therefore proposes the 
same differentiation in this NOPR.
Refrigeration Equipment Size
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not consider different 
equipment classes based on refrigeration equipment size. Heatcraft 
suggested adding sub-categories to the proposed equipment classes, 
stating that the size of refrigeration systems varies with envelope 
size. (Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 1) Manitowoc commented that small 
sized equipment would struggle to meet minimum standards if DOE based 
the metric on a larger size, largely due to the efficiency difference 
of each system size. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at 
p. 118)
    DOE is not proposing to base refrigeration system classes on 
envelope size because it is taking a component-level approach that sets 
standards for the refrigeration system independent of the envelope. In 
reaching this tentative decision, DOE examined the ability of various 
sized equipment to meet a proposed standard. For the NOPR analysis, DOE 
analyzed a wider range of equipment sizes than it did for the 
preliminary analysis, as described later in section IV.C.1.b. As a 
result of this expanded analysis, DOE observed that small sized 
equipment may have difficulty meeting an efficiency standard that is 
based on an analysis of large equipment, as Manitowoc noted. DOE found 
that this result was primarily due to a lack of availability of the 
more efficient compressor types (e.g., scroll compressors) at lower 
capacities. Additionally, certain design options, mainly controls, 
generally have a fixed cost, but their benefit decreases with lower 
capacities, so they are less cost-effective for lower-capacity 
equipment. Therefore, DOE proposes one equipment class for high-
capacity equipment and another for low-capacity equipment within the 
dedicated condensing category (because the compressor is covered only 
for DC systems). DOE has tentatively chosen 9,000 Btu/h as the capacity 
threshold for small- and large-capacity equipment based on the 
efficiency characteristics of available compressors, among other 
factors. See chapter 3 for details. DOE requests comment on the 
capacity threshold between the two capacity classes for dedicated 
condensing systems.
Proposed Classes
    Using the proposed combinations of condensing unit types, operating 
temperatures, location, and size, ten equipment classes are possible 
for walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration systems. DOE believes that 
these ten classes accurately represent the refrigeration units used in 
the walk-in market today.
    Table IV-2 lists the equipment classes for refrigeration equipment 
that DOE is proposing in this NOPR. The column entitled ``Class'' lists 
the codes that will be used to abbreviate each equipment class, and 
will be used throughout the NOPR.

                            Table IV-2--Equipment Classes for Refrigeration Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Operating          Condenser        Refrigeration
        Condensing type            temperature          location       capacity (Btu/h)           Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated.....................  Medium...........  Indoor...........            < 9,000  DC.M.I, < 9,000
                                                                               >= 9,000  DC.M.I, >= 9,000
                                                   Outdoor..........            < 9,000  DC.M.O, < 9,000
                                                                               >= 9,000  DC.M.O, >= 9,000
                                Low..............  Indoor...........            < 9,000  DC.L.I, < 9,000
                                                                               >= 9,000  DC.L.I, >= 9,000
                                                   Outdoor..........            < 9,000  DC.L.O, < 9,000
                                                                               >= 9,000  DC.L.O, >= 9,000
Multiplex.....................  Medium...........  .................  .................  MC.M
                                Low..............  .................  .................  MC.L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Technology Assessment
    In a technology assessment, DOE identifies technologies and designs 
that could be used to improve the energy efficiency or performance of 
covered equipment. For the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted a 
technology assessment to identify all technologies and designs that 
could be used to improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins or walk-in 
components. DOE described these technologies in chapter 3 of the 
preliminary TSD.
    DOE received several comments in response to its preliminary list 
of technology options. NEEA and NPCC recommended that DOE include 
modulating condenser fan controls in its analysis because there are 
significant potential energy savings from this technology. (NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 8) Emerson agreed and noted that higher-
efficiency compressors often require modulating fan controls to realize 
the full benefit of the higher-efficiency compressors. (Emerson, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 90) The Joint Utilities pointed out 
that DOE did not include variable speed controls for condenser fans. 
(Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p.10) In addition, NEEA and NPCC 
recommended that DOE include liquid suction heat exchangers in its 
analysis because there are significant potential energy savings from 
this technology. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 8)
    In response to the recommendation that DOE consider condenser fan 
controls, DOE has added condenser fan controls as a design option 
because it determined through further analysis that they could be an 
effective means of saving energy. As to NEEA and NPCC's recommendation 
that DOE include liquid suction heat exchangers, DOE also considered 
liquid suction heat exchangers in the technology

[[Page 55804]]

assessment because this technology could potentially be used to save 
energy. However, DOE screened this option from further consideration 
because further examination indicated that it would be unlikely to 
yield significant energy savings under the rating conditions used in 
setting standards for walk-in equipment. See chapters 3, 4, and 5 of 
the TSD for more details on the technologies considered in the 
analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses four screening criteria to determine which design options 
are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. 
Namely, design options will be removed from consideration if they (1) 
are not technologically feasible; (2) are not practicable to 
manufacture, install, or service; (3) have adverse impacts on product 
utility or product availability; or (4) have adverse impacts on health 
or safety. 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections (4)(a)(4) and 
(5)(b).)
1. Technologies That Do Not Affect Rated Performance
    In the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE proposed to screen out the 
following technologies because they do not improve energy efficiency: 
non-penetrative internal racks and shelving, air and water infiltration 
sensors, humidity sensors, and heat flux sensors.
    For the reasons stated in the test procedure final rule, DOE's test 
procedure establishes metrics to test the energy consumption or energy 
use of walk-in components and does not include heat load caused by 
infiltration. See 76 FR at 21594-21595. As a result, DOE included 
additional infiltration-related technologies in the following list of 
technologies that do not improve rated performance:
     Internal racks and shelving that are non-penetrative;
     Air and water infiltration sensors;
     Extruded polystyrene insulation;
     Humidity sensors;
     Heat flux sensors;
     Door gasketing improvements and panel interface systems;
     Automatic door opening and closing systems;
     Air curtains;
     Strip curtains;
     Vestibule entryways; and
     Insulation with improved moisture resistance.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE listed hot gas defrost as a 
technology that does not improve rated performance of refrigeration 
equipment. In response, the Joint Utilities stated that DOE should 
include hot gas defrost. (Joint Utilities, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 25; Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at pp. 3, 7, and 10). 
DOE has included hot gas defrost as a design option for multiplex 
condensing systems, but not for dedicated condensing systems due to its 
lack of effectiveness in improving efficiency. Specifically, for 
multiplex condensing systems, the hot gas defrost system utilizes hot 
gas generated by the compressor rack. Because at least one of the 
compressors in the rack is likely to be running (because the rack also 
has to operate with other refrigeration units) no new energy is 
consumed to generate the hot gas. In contrast, for dedicated systems, 
the condensing unit typically turns off during an electric defrost 
cycle. Running the compressor to generate hot gas at a time when it 
would normally be off results in energy use that outweighs the energy 
saved by using hot gas defrost instead of electric defrost. See 
chapters 3 and 5 of the TSD for details.
    Also as part of the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed the envelope 
and the refrigeration system separately and did not consider design 
options that depend on the interaction between the envelope and the 
refrigeration system. SCE suggested that DOE consider control options 
that depend on the interaction between envelope components and the 
refrigeration system, such as a control that turns off the evaporator 
fan when the door is opened. SCE suggested that DOE evaluate such 
technologies by establishing a typical, nominal savings value for use 
in energy consumption equations. (SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 25) Similarly, NEEA and NPCC stated that such technological 
controls have not been included in the design options. (NEEA and NPCC, 
No. 0059.1 at p. 7)
    A nominal savings value, as suggested by SCE, would be highly 
dependent on many assumptions about the application of the walk-in and 
the pairing of the refrigeration system with the walk-in. As a result, 
DOE does not believe that it would be reasonable to apply this shared 
value to all refrigeration system or door manufacturers because of the 
wide variety of equipment produced by these entities for walk-in 
applications. Moreover, DOE's proposed component level approach 
eliminates the need to consider design options whose efficacy depends 
on the interaction between different components.
    DOE also did not consider design options whose benefits would not 
be captured by the test procedure, such as economizer cooling. 
Economizer cooling consists of directly venting outside air into the 
interior of the walk-in when the outside air is as cold as or colder 
than the interior of the walk-in. This technique relieves the load on 
the refrigeration system when a pull-down load (i.e., a load due to 
items brought into the walk-in at a higher temperature than the 
operating temperature and must then be cooled to the operating 
temperature) is necessary. However, the test procedure does not include 
a method for accounting for economizer cooling, as it does not specify 
conditions for air that would be vented into the walk-in, nor does it 
provide a method for measuring the energy use of the economizer. 
Therefore, any benefits from including an economizer on a WICF would 
not be captured by the test procedure.
2. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Panels and Doors
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the following 
technologies for envelopes: revolving doors, energy storage systems, 
fiber optic natural light, non-electric anti-sweat systems, and 
automatic insulation deployment systems. DOE did not receive comments 
regarding any of the screened-out technologies, and will continue to 
exclude them from this rulemaking. DOE has also screened out additional 
technologies as part of its proposal to regulate the components of the 
envelope separately (i.e., display doors, non-display doors, and 
panels.) See chapter 4 of the TSD for more details on the screened-out 
technologies.
b. Refrigeration
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE screened out the following 
technologies for refrigeration systems: Higher-efficiency evaporator 
fan motors, improved evaporator coil, three-phase motors, and 
economizer cooling. In response to DOE's request for comment on the 
screening analysis, American Panel, AHRI and CrownTonka agreed with 
this approach to screen out these technologies. (American Panel, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 98; AHRI. Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 99; CrownTonka, No. 0057.1 at p. 1) Emerson, however, 
disagreed with DOE's decision to screen out economizer cooling because 
there are potential energy savings under certain circumstances. 
(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 100) Also, 
Heatcraft disagreed with the exclusion of phase motor technology 
because three-phase motors are the dominant motor type in the larger 
walk-in envelopes that are a part of this rulemaking. (Heatcraft No. 
0069.1 at p. 2) Manitowoc remarked that there are

[[Page 55805]]

other ways to achieve an effective economizer cooling cycle and 
encouraged DOE to investigate other options to improve cycle 
efficiency, but did not provide any specific recommendations. 
(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 92)
    DOE continues to screen out three-phase motor technology. The use 
of three-phase motor technology generally provides higher energy 
savings as compared to single-phase motors. Three-phase power is 
commonly used to power large motors and heavy electrical loads; 
however, it is not available for all businesses, particularly small 
business consumers of walk-ins. DOE did not consider three-phase motor 
technology as a design option based on utility to the consumer, one of 
the four screening criteria. In addition, use of three-phase motor 
technology may also be impracticable to install and service given the 
lack of three-phase power for some businesses. DOE did find that, as 
Heatcraft noted, very large refrigeration systems typically use three-
phase power, and notes that manufacturers may use three-phase motors to 
improve the efficiency ratings of their equipment as the benefit would 
likely be captured by the test procedure. However, DOE continued to 
screen three-phase motor technology from its analysis for the reasons 
discussed above.
    DOE also did not consider economizer cooling in its analysis. 
Although there are potential energy savings under certain 
circumstances, as Emerson mentioned, these energy savings are not 
captured by the test procedure, as discussed in section IV.B.1.
    Regarding Manitowoc's remark about considering other options to 
improve cycle efficiency, DOE did not identify any options to improve 
cycle efficiency beyond what was already considered. DOE requests 
specific recommendations on how to improve cycle efficiency.
3. Screened-In Technologies
    Based on DOE's decision to regulate walk-ins on a component level, 
DOE will consider separate technologies for each covered walk-in 
component (i.e. panels, display doors, non-display doors, and 
refrigeration systems). The remaining technologies that were not 
``screened-out'' are called the ``screened-in'' technologies and will 
be used to create design options for improving the efficiency of the 
walk-in components. The ``screened-in'' technologies for each covered 
component include:
     Panels
    [cir] Insulation thickness
    [cir] Insulation material
    [cir] Framing material
     Display doors
    [cir] High-efficiency lighting
    [cir] Occupancy sensors
    [cir] Improved glass system insulation performance
    [cir] Anti-sweat heater controls
     Non-display doors
    [cir] Insulation thickness
    [cir] Insulation material
    [cir] Framing material
    [cir] Improved window glass systems
    [cir] Anti-sweat heat controls
     Refrigeration Systems
    [cir] Higher efficiency compressors
    [cir] Improved condenser coil
    [cir] Higher efficiency condenser fan motors
    [cir] Improved condenser fan blades
    [cir] Condenser fan control
    [cir] Ambient sub-cooling
    [cir] Improved evaporator fan blades
    [cir] Evaporator fan control
    [cir] Defrost controls
    [cir] Hot gas defrost
    [cir] Head pressure control

C. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis determines the manufacturing costs of 
achieving increased efficiency or decreased energy consumption. DOE has 
identified the following three methodologies to generate the 
manufacturing costs needed for the engineering analysis: (1) The 
design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding 
design options to a baseline model to improve its efficiency; (2) the 
efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of 
achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to the 
particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the 
cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides 
``bottom-up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various 
levels of increased efficiency based on detailed data as to costs for 
parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for 
models that operate at particular efficiency levels.
    DOE conducted the engineering analyses for this rulemaking using a 
combination of the design-option and cost-assessment approaches in 
analyzing the U-factor standards for panels, maximum energy use for 
non-display doors and display doors, and minimum AWEF for refrigeration 
systems. More specifically, DOE identified design options for analysis 
and then used the cost-assessment approach to determine the 
manufacturing costs and analytical modeling to determine the energy 
consumption at those levels. Additional details of the engineering 
analysis are in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Representative Equipment
a. Panels and Doors
    In presenting the preliminary analysis, DOE proposed three 
representative sizes for each envelope equipment class: Small, medium, 
and large. American Panel agreed with the sizes that DOE proposed. 
(American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 4) CrownTonka recommended that the 
equipment classes for envelopes be divided into only two sections, 
small and medium, because EPCA covers only walk-ins of less than 3,000 
square feet, which excludes sizes that are typically considered 
``large.'' (CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p.111) 
Heatcraft agreed that the sizes chosen are small, as all the sizes 
considered must be less than 3,000 square feet, and they recommended 
that the distribution of envelope sizes include larger sizes 
approaching the 3,000 square foot limit, the maximum size limit defined 
in the statute. Heatcraft also stated that the selected envelope sizes 
will have an effect on the engineering analysis because certain 
technologies are utilized at different sizes. (Heatcraft, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 111, No. 0058.1 at p. 4) American 
Panel suggested that DOE use three sizes and investigate using an extra 
large size. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 
114) Manitowoc asserted that DOE did not include a large enough range 
of sizes and should consider smaller sized walk-ins to correctly 
represent the energy consumption of a given unit. Additionally, 
Manitowoc noted that as the walk-in's size increases, there are 
different base levels of performance and that if DOE sets the minimum 
efficiency based on a larger size, manufacturers will not be able to 
make small-sized equipment meeting the standards. (Manitowoc, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at pp. 116 and 118) Hill Phoenix 
recommended that the envelope sizes be determined by surface area or 
volume. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 2) NEEA and NPCC suggested that 
DOE establish a standard based on the square feet of panels shipped 
each year and use the square footage to determine the energy 
consumption of a complete functioning envelope. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 
0059.1 at p. 8)
    DOE notes that its proposal rests on a component-based approach and 
does not include infiltration losses. As a result, the size of the 
walk-in envelope does not affect the energy consumption of the 
components. In regard to American Panel's and Heatcraft's

[[Page 55806]]

comments about large sized walk-ins, DOE analyzed a large panel size 
that it considered to represent the large panels found in the industry. 
DOE anticipated the possibility raised by Manitowoc that small panels 
might not be able to meet a standard based on the large panel size 
previously under consideration and is now considering the adoption of 
an approach that considers small, medium, and large sizes. As Hill 
Phoenix suggested, DOE determined the size of the panel based on the 
panel's surface area. Also, similar to NEEA and NPCC's suggestion, DOE 
is proposing a standard for walk-in panels based on the panel's surface 
area.
Panels
    As explained previously, the engineering analysis for walk-in 
panels uses three different panel sizes to represent the variations 
within each class. DOE determined the sizes based on market research 
and the impact on the test metric U-factor. Table IV-3 shows each 
equipment class and the representative sizes associated with that 
class. DOE requests comment on the representative sizes used in the 
proposed analysis.

                                       Table IV-3--Sizes Analyzed: Panels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Representative     Representative
              Equipment class                         Size code              height (feet)       width (feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.M......................................  SML..........................                  8                 1.5
                                            MED..........................                  8                 4
                                            LRG..........................                  9                 5.5
SP.L......................................  SML..........................                  8                 1.5
                                            MED..........................                  8                 4
                                            LRG..........................                  9                 5.5
FP.L......................................  SML..........................                  8                 2
                                            MED..........................                  8                 4
                                            LRG..........................                  9                 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doors
    Similar to the panel analysis, the engineering analyses for walk-in 
display and non-display doors both use three different sizes to 
represent the differences in doors within each size class DOE examined. 
The door sizes were determined using market research. Details are 
provided in Table IV-4 for non-display doors and Table IV-5 for display 
doors.

                                  Table IV-4--Sizes Analyzed: Non-Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Representative      Representative
              Equipment class                         Size code              height (feet)       width (feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD.M......................................  SML.........................                 6.5                 2.5
                                            MED.........................                 7                   3
                                            LRG.........................                 7.5                 4
PD.L......................................  SML.........................                 6.5                 2.5
                                            MED.........................                 7                   3
                                            LRG.........................                 7.5                 4
FD.M......................................  SML.........................                 8                   5
                                            MED.........................                 9                   7
                                            LRG.........................                12                   7
FD.L......................................  SML.........................                 8                   5
                                            MED.........................                 9                   7
                                            LRG.........................                12                   7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table IV-5--Sizes Analyzed: Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Representative      Representative
              Equipment class                         Size code              height (feet)       width (feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD.M......................................  SML.........................                5.25                2.25
                                            MED.........................                6.25                2.5
                                            LRG.........................                7                   3
DD.L......................................  SML.........................                5.25                2.25
                                            MED.........................                6.25                2.5
                                            LRG.........................                7                   3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Refrigeration
    In the engineering analysis for walk-in refrigeration systems, DOE 
used a range of capacities as analysis points for each equipment class. 
The name of each equipment class along with the naming convention was 
discussed in section IV.A.3.b. In addition to the multiple analysis 
points, scroll, hermetic, and semi-hermetic compressors were also 
investigated because different compressor types have different

[[Page 55807]]

efficiencies and costs.\15\ Due to the wide range of capacities 
considered for each condenser type, and the availability of compressors 
at certain capacities, compressors closely matching the condenser 
capacities were examined in terms of their performance at varying 
operating temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Scroll compressors are compressors that operate using two 
interlocking, rotating scrolls that compress the refrigerant. 
Hermetic and semi-hermetic compressors are piston-based compressors 
and the key difference between the two is that hermetic compressors 
are sealed and hence more difficult to repair, resulting in higher 
replacement costs, while semi-hermetic compressors can be repaired 
relatively easily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-6 identifies, for each class of refrigeration system, the 
sizes of the equipment DOE analyzed in the engineering analysis. 
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD includes additional details on the 
representative equipment classes used in the analysis.

                                Table IV-6--Sizes Analyzed: Refrigeration System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sizes analyzed
            Equipment class                    (Btu/h)                       Compressors analyzed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.M.I, < 9,000........................               6,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic.
DC.M.I, >= 9,000.......................              18,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     54,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     96,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
DC.M.O, < 9,000........................               6,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic.
DC.M.O, >= 9,000.......................              18,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     54,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     96,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
DC.L.I, < 9,000........................               6,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
DC.L.I, >= 9,000.......................               9,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     54,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
DC.L.O, < 9,000........................               6,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
DC.L.O, >= 9,000.......................               9,000  Hermetic, Semi-hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     54,000  Semi-Hermetic, Scroll.
                                                     72,000  Semi-Hermetic.
MC.M...................................               4,000
                                                      9,000
                                                     24,000
MC.L...................................               4,000
                                                      9,000
                                                     18,000
                                                     40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Energy Modeling Methodology
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE proposed using an energy 
consumption model to estimate separately the energy consumption rating 
of entire envelopes and entire refrigeration systems at various 
performance levels using a design-option approach. DOE developed the 
model as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet calculated the 
cumulative effect on the energy consumption of adding options above the 
baseline.
    DOE continues to use a spreadsheet-based model, but is now modeling 
panels, display doors, non-display doors, and refrigeration systems 
separately because these components are tested separately. As mentioned 
above, the purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the 
manufacturing costs of achieving increased efficiency or decreased 
energy consumption. DOE assumes that manufacturers will only incur 
costs to achieve efficiency gains or energy reductions that are 
accounted for in their certified equipment rating. Therefore, the 
energy models estimate the performance rating that the manufacturer 
would obtain by testing their equipment using the DOE test procedure 
because manufacturers are required to rate the components using the 
test procedure. The models estimate the energy ratings of baseline 
equipment and levels of performance above the baseline associated with 
specific design options that are added cumulatively to the baseline 
equipment. The model does not account for interactions between 
refrigeration systems and envelope components, nor does it address how 
a design option for one component may affect the energy consumption of 
other components, because such effects are not accounted for in the 
test procedure. Component performance results are found in appendix 5A 
of the TSD. DOE requests comment on the performance data found in 
appendix 5A of the TSD and requests data about the performance of 
panels, display doors, or non-display doors and their design options.
a. Refrigeration
    The refrigeration energy model calculates the annual energy 
consumption and the AWEF of walk-in refrigeration systems at various 
performance levels using a design option approach. AWEF is the ratio of 
the total heat removed, in Btus, from a walk-in envelope during a one-
year period of use (not including the heat generated by operation of 
the refrigeration system) to the total energy input of refrigeration 
systems, in watt-hours, during the same period. DOE proposes to base 
its standards for the refrigeration system using the AWEF metric and 
seeks comment on this approach.
    This model was used to analyze specific examples of equipment in 
each refrigeration system equipment class. For a given class, the 
analysis consists of calculating the annual energy consumption and the 
AWEF for the baseline and several levels of performance above the 
baseline. See chapter 5 of the TSD for further details about the 
analytical models used in the engineering analysis.
    For the preliminary analysis, DOE partially relied on refrigeration 
catalog information to obtain equipment specifications for its energy 
model. Manitowoc and the Joint Utilities believed that catalog 
information was not the best source from an analytical standpoint. 
Manitowoc observed that catalog information is provided mainly for 
sizing equipment and not for representing equipment performance, while 
the Joint Utilities pointed out that

[[Page 55808]]

the rating methodology that produced the data in the catalogs could be 
different from the rating methodology for walk-ins, which could make 
the data inappropriate for analyzing walk-ins. (Manitowoc, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 31; Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at 
p. 3)
    In recognition of these comments, DOE conducted further research 
into refrigeration system performance and has improved the analysis for 
the NOPR in several ways. First, the energy model now calculates system 
performance based on a whole-system approach using thermodynamic 
principles. The model determines the refrigerant properties (pressure, 
temperature, etc.) at each point in the system and these properties, 
rather than catalog specifications, are used to calculate refrigeration 
capacity. Second, for any catalog information based on specific rating 
conditions, DOE ensured the rating conditions were consistent with 
those for walk-in refrigeration systems, or adjusted the specifications 
accordingly. Third, while it continued to rely on catalog data directly 
for some equipment specifications (e.g., typical number of fans and fan 
horsepower for units of the sizes analyzed), DOE also surveyed catalogs 
from various manufacturers to determine the most representative 
specifications for a particular type and size of equipment. See chapter 
5 for more details on the refrigeration system energy model and other 
enhancements made to its analysis.
    The energy consumption calculations in the engineering analysis are 
based on calculations in AHRI 1250-2009, the industry test procedure 
incorporated by reference in the walk-in test procedure. 76 FR at 
33631. These calculations involve the refrigeration system running at a 
high load for one-third of the time and a low load for two-thirds of 
the time. American Panel noted that the load profile for restaurants 
would generally be reversed (i.e., the refrigeration system is sized 
for running at a high load two-thirds of the time and a low load one-
third of the time) and requested DOE to adjust the load assumptions 
based on the walk-in application. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 8)
    DOE's assumption in the engineering analysis about the 
refrigeration load profile was made for purposes of comparing the 
performance of different types of refrigeration equipment that have 
varying features. Furthermore, the analysis attempts to assess the 
impacts of technologies manufacturers might use to improve the 
efficiencies of their equipment, including impacts on the efficiency 
ratings of the equipment. DOE will base any standards it adopts on the 
use of some or all of these technologies, and the DOE test procedure 
would serve as the basis for rating equipment and determining 
compliance. Therefore, the test procedure calculations are used in the 
analysis to determine the efficiency ratings of equipment utilizing the 
various technologies on which DOE might base the standards.
    However, DOE does not treat the load profile assumptions used in 
the engineering analysis as equivalent to the actual duty cycle of 
every class or application of refrigeration systems. Rather, where 
warranted, DOE evaluates other duty cycle assumptions in its energy use 
analysis, which examines the actual energy consumption of the 
refrigeration system under a variety of operating conditions and 
applications. In the energy use analysis, DOE has adjusted its 
assumptions for actual duty cycles based in part on American Panel's 
recommendation. See section IV.E.1 and chapter 7 of the TSD for 
details.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed the result of adding 
design options cumulatively to the baseline. DOE observed that some 
design options (e.g., larger condenser coil) increased the efficiency 
of the refrigeration system while also increasing its capacity. To 
distinguish between these effects, DOE created a ``normalized energy 
consumption'' metric in the preliminary analysis which represented the 
energy consumption per unit capacity. DOE expected that the normalized 
energy consumption metric would generally be analogous to an efficiency 
metric. For example, for two units of the same capacity, the unit with 
lower normalized energy consumption would be more efficient because it 
would use less energy for the same heat removal capability.
    In a comment on the preliminary analysis, American Panel stated 
that it was not beneficial for the capacity of a unit to increase 
because the refrigeration system must balance the heat load to control 
temperature and humidity. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 175) After interviewing manufacturers and examining 
refrigeration catalogs, DOE observed that manufacturers typically offer 
refrigeration systems in specific, discrete capacities while providing 
consumers with options for improving system efficiency. DOE reasoned 
that manufacturers would likely design their systems for a certain set 
of capacities regardless of the efficiency options available and, 
consequently, implementing efficiency options on a system would be 
unlikely to change the capacity of the system because the manufacturer 
would prefer to market the system at the established capacity. 
Therefore, DOE agrees with American Panel's assessment and has 
implemented its suggestion into the NOPR analysis.
    DOE notes that it analyzed six classes of refrigeration systems at 
various capacity points, as explained in section IV.C.1.b. When a 
design option is added to the baseline, it does not change the capacity 
of the unit; instead, other aspects of the system are adjusted to 
maintain the capacity at the specified point. See chapter 5 of the TSD 
for details.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered the effects of adding 
design options to the baseline. Some interested parties commented on 
the interactive effects of design options. Thermocore stated that there 
are substantial differences in performances based on the integrated 
system as opposed to considering options separately. (Thermocore, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 86) Emerson stated that DOE 
must account for how the technologies are combined because the effects 
will vary depending on what is already included in the system. 
(Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 93) AHRI agreed 
that efficiency gains due to combinations of certain design options are 
not necessarily additive and noted that assessing the aggregate benefit 
from combined design options requires rigorous analysis and simulation 
of the total system. (AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 2)
    DOE recognizes that the interactive effects of design options must 
be considered because the efficacy of certain design options differs 
depending on whether they are analyzed separately or in conjunction 
with other design options. DOE has taken a system-based approach to the 
refrigeration system energy model that calculates the effect on the 
entire system of adding design options. Each efficiency level above the 
baseline consists of a design option added cumulatively and the 
interactive effects of each new design option on all previously added 
design options are considered. In formulating the cost-efficiency 
curves, DOE attempted to capture the most cost-effective design option 
at each efficiency level, given all previously added design options at 
that level. Manufacturers may use any combination of design options to 
meet the future energy conservation standard. See chapter 5 of the TSD 
for further discussion on the interactive effects of design options.

[[Page 55809]]

    Some commenters disagreed with DOE's refrigeration energy modeling 
approach. SCE recommended using DOE 2.2R (an expanded version of the 
building simulation program DOE 2.2) to directly model certain design 
options, such as modulating the fan speed for the on-cycle fan power 
for a unit cooler connected to a multiplex system. (SCE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 138) NEEA and NPCC also stated that the 
spreadsheet-based model does not adequately evaluate all of the design 
options and their combinations, and that DOE should consider using DOE 
2.2R for modeling instead. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 9)
    DOE 2.2R is designed to simulate the operation of building 
refrigeration systems, such as those found in supermarkets, 
refrigerated warehouses, and industrial facilities. Although DOE 2.2R 
is a powerful simulation tool that can aid in refrigeration system 
design, DOE believes it is inappropriate for the energy modeling that 
DOE is conducting as part of this rulemaking. This rulemaking is taking 
a component-level approach and determining the performance of each 
component (the panels, the doors, and the refrigeration system) 
separately, whereas DOE 2.2R models the interactions of components that 
comprise an entire building. Also, the component performance as modeled 
in the engineering analysis must be based on the operating conditions 
and calculations contained in the test procedure, which DOE believes is 
not consistent with the simulation methodology in DOE 2.2R. To address 
the concerns of SCE, NEEA and NPCC that a spreadsheet model would be 
inadequate for certain options or combinations of options, DOE has 
modified the spreadsheet model to more accurately account for 
combinations of design options and interactive effects of design 
options within a component. To address the Joint Utilities' concerns 
with fan speed modulation, DOE included calculations for fan speed 
modulation that are consistent with the test procedure.
    Although DOE is not conducting the analysis using DOE 2.2R, DOE 
encourages interested parties to submit their own simulation results 
from DOE 2.2R modeling and compare them to DOE's engineering results.
3. Cost Assessment Methodology
a. Teardown Analysis
    To calculate the manufacturing costs of the different components of 
walk-in coolers and freezers, DOE disassembled baseline equipment. This 
process of disassembling systems to obtain information on their 
baseline components is referred to as a ``physical teardown.'' During 
the physical teardown, DOE characterized each component that makes up 
the disassembled equipment according to its weight, dimensions, 
material, quantity, and the manufacturing processes used to fabricate 
and assemble it. The information was used to compile a bill of 
materials (BOM) that incorporates all materials, components, and 
fasteners classified as either raw materials or purchased parts and 
assemblies.
    DOE also used a supplementary method, called a ``virtual 
teardown,'' which examines published manufacturer catalogs and 
supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences 
between equipment that was physically disassembled and similar 
equipment that was not. For virtual teardowns, DOE gathered product 
data such as dimensions, weight, and design features from publicly-
available information, such as manufacturer catalogs.
    The teardown analyses allowed DOE to identify the technologies that 
manufacturers typically incorporate into their equipment. The end 
result of each teardown is a structured BOM, which DOE developed for 
each of the physical and virtual teardowns. DOE then used the BOM from 
the teardown analyses as one of the inputs to the cost model to 
calculate the manufacturer production cost (MPC) for the product that 
was torn down. The MPCs derived from the physical and virtual teardowns 
were then used to develop an industry average MPC for each equipment 
class analyzed. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more details on the 
teardown analysis.
    For display doors and non-display freight doors, limited 
information was publicly available, particularly as to the assembly 
process and shipping. To compensate for this situation, DOE conducted 
physical teardowns for two representative units, one within each of 
these equipment classes. DOE supplemented the cost data it derived from 
these teardowns with information from manufacturer interviews. The cost 
models for panels and for non-display structural doors were created by 
using public catalog and brochure information posted on manufacturer 
Web sites and information gathered during manufacturer interviews.
    For the refrigeration system, DOE conducted physical teardowns of 
unit cooler and condensing unit samples to construct a BOM. The 
selected systems were considered representative of baseline, medium-
capacity systems, and used to determine the base components and 
accurately estimate the materials, processes, and labor required to 
manufacture each individual component. From these teardowns, DOE 
gleaned important information and data not typically found in catalogs 
and brochures, such as heat exchanger and fan motor details, assembly 
parts and processes, and shipment packaging.
    Along with the physical teardowns, DOE performed several virtual 
teardowns of refrigeration units for the NOPR analysis. The complete 
set of teardowns helped DOE obtain the baseline average MPC for all 
equipment classes proposed.
b. Cost Model
    The cost model is one of the analytical tools DOE used in 
constructing cost-efficiency curves. DOE derived the cost model from 
the teardown BOMs and the raw material and purchased parts databases. 
Cost model results are based on material prices, conversion processes 
used by manufacturers, labor rates, and overhead factors such as 
depreciation and utilities. For purchased parts, the cost model 
considers the purchasing volumes and adjusts prices accordingly. 
Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), i.e., the manufacturers of 
WICF components, convert raw materials into parts for assembly, and 
also purchase parts that arrive as finished goods, ready-to-assemble. 
DOE bases most raw material prices on past manufacturer quotes that 
have been inflated to present day prices using Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) and American Metal Market (AMM) inflators. DOE 
inflates the costs of purchased parts similarly and also considers the 
purchasing volume--the higher the volume, the lower the price. Prices 
of all purchased parts and non-metal raw materials are based on the 
most current prices available, while raw metals are priced on the basis 
of a 5-year average to smooth out spikes. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 
describes DOE's cost model and definitions, assumptions, data sources, 
and estimates.
    For panels, non-display doors, and display doors DOE used a 
``parameterized'' computational cost model, which allows a user to 
manipulate the components parameters such as height and length by 
inputting different numerical values for these features to produce new 
cost estimates. This parameterized model, coupled with the design 
specifications chosen for each representative unit modeled in the 
engineering analysis, was used to develop fundamental MPC costs. The 
fundamental MPC costs were then

[[Page 55810]]

incorporated into the engineering analysis model where they were 
combined with additional costs associated with each design option. 
Costs for each design option were calculated based on discussions with 
panel, non-display, and display door manufacturers and pricing from 
commercially available sources.
    As previously mentioned in section IV.B.3, DOE is considering high 
efficiency lighting, specifically light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, 
as a design option to improve the efficiency of display doors. 
Forecasts of the LED lighting industry, including those performed by 
DOE, suggest that LED lighting is an emerging technology that will 
continue to experience significant price decreases in coming years. For 
this reason, in an effort to capture the anticipated cost reduction in 
LED fixtures in the analyses for this rulemaking, DOE incorporated 
price projections from its Solid State Lighting program into its MPC 
values. The price projections for LED lighting were developed using 
projections created for the DOE's Solid State Lighting Program's 2012 
report, Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General 
Illumination Applications 2010 to 2030 (``the energy savings report''). 
In the appendix of this report, price projections from 2010 to 2030 
were provided in ($/klm) for LED lamps and LED luminaires. DOE analyzed 
the models used in the Solid State Lighting program work and determined 
that the LED luminaire projection would serve as a proxy for a cost 
projection to apply to LEDs on walk-in display doors.
    The price projections presented in the Solid State Lighting 
program's energy savings report are based on the DOE's 2011 Solid State 
Lighting R&D Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP).\16\ The MYPP is developed 
based on input from manufacturers, researchers, and other industry 
experts. This input is collected by the DOE at annual roundtable 
meetings and conferences. The projections are based on expectations 
dependent on the continued investment into solid state lighting by the 
DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The DOE Solid-State Lighting Research and Development 
Multi-Year Program Plan is a document that outlines DOE's research 
goals and planned methodologies with respect to the advancement of 
solid-state lighting technologies in the United States. The complete 
document is available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2011_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE incorporated the price projection trends from the energy 
savings report into its engineering analysis by using the data to 
develop a curve of decreasing LED prices normalized to a base year. 
That base year corresponded to the year when LED price data were 
collected for the NOPR analyses of this rulemaking from catalogs, 
manufacturer interviews, and other sources. DOE started with LED cost 
data specific to walk-in manufacturers and then applied the anticipated 
trend from the energy savings report to forecast the projected cost of 
LED fixtures at the time of required compliance with the proposed rule 
(2017). These 2017 cost figures were incorporated into the engineering 
analysis to calculate the MPC of display doors with LEDs as a design 
option. The LCC analysis (section IV.F) was carried out with the 
engineering numbers that account for the 2017 cost of LED luminaires. 
The reduction in costs of LED luminaires from 2018 to 2030 were taken 
into account in the NIA (section IV.G). The cost reductions were 
calculated for each year from 2018 and 2030 and subtracted from the 
equipment costs in the NIA.
    During the preliminary analysis, DOE developed a cost model for the 
proposed representative sizes of walk-in envelopes. Panel manufacturers 
generally make panels with a combination of raw materials and purchased 
parts, and DOE estimated manufacturing process parameters, the required 
initial material quantity, scrap, and other factors to determine the 
value of each component. DOE then aggregated all parameters related to 
manufacture and assembly to determine facility requirements at various 
manufacturing scales and the final unit cost.
    To more accurately model walk-in costs, DOE used common factory 
parameters, which affect the cost of each unit produced (e.g., labor 
and fabrication rates). American Panel commented on some of the factors 
assumed in the cost model and the resulting values. In particular, in 
its view, approximately 1 million square feet of panels are 
manufactured per year per manufacturer, and most door manufacturers 
produce 1,800 doors per year. Accordingly, these numbers suggest a 
total walk-in production volume of well under DOE's initial estimate of 
30,000 per year per manufacturer. American Panel believed that 
overestimating the amount of panels manufactured per year would cause 
the small manufacturers to be at a disadvantage. (American Panel, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 14-15; American Panel, No. 
0048.1 at pp. 5-6)
    Assuming an average walk-in surface area of 500 ft\2\ (roughly 
corresponding to an 8-foot by 10-foot walk-in), American Panel's 
estimate equates to approximately 2,000 walk-ins per year, per 
manufacturer--much lower than DOE's estimate. DOE understands that its 
estimate may be more reasonable for a large manufacturer than a small 
one and agrees with American Panel that impacts on small manufacturers 
may be underestimated in an analysis that assumes a high production 
capacity. Thus, DOE has considered particular impacts on small 
manufacturers in the MIA by adjusting for their reduced production 
capacity as compared to larger manufacturers. See sections IV.I.3.c and 
V.B.2.d (Manufacturer Impact Analysis) and VI.B (Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, which specifically address the impact of the rule on small 
business manufacturers).
    Additionally, American Panel, citing its own experience, stated 
that other DOE cost estimates needed adjusting. Some examples include 
the following:
     The cost of the tongue and groove design found on panels 
should be increased by a factor of 10.8.
     The cost of the advanced door sweep should increase by a 
factor of 7.8.
     The DOE cost per square foot of panel was too high and 
actual costs were closer to $0.25 per square foot.
     The actual MSP for walk-in cooler envelopes was 70-112 
percent lower than the DOE estimate.
     The actual MSP for walk-in freezer envelopes was 24-42 
percent lower than the DOE estimate. (American Panel, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at pp. 14-15; American Panel, No. 0048.1 at pp. 5-
6).
    DOE appreciates the efforts made by American Panel in preparing 
detailed comments and providing useful information about factory 
parameters, material costs, and the resulting manufacturing selling 
price for walk-in envelopes. Some of the differences can be explained 
based on the parameters used in the cost model, such as the material 
costs. DOE particularly appreciates American Panel's comments related 
to the costs of certain designs and has taken these costs into 
consideration in its analysis by aggregating them with other data DOE 
has received through research and confidential manufacturer interviews. 
For instance, American Panel's cost per square foot of panel was 
particularly useful in helping DOE estimate the costs of certain 
materials that make up the panel.
    DOE was not, however, able to use some of the cost data--for 
example, costs related to infiltration-reducing measures were not used 
because DOE is no longer considering infiltration in the analysis. 
Also, DOE has not calculated costs related to the assembly of the 
entire envelope--for instance, the MSP

[[Page 55811]]

of the envelope--as part of the engineering analysis because of the 
component-based approach DOE is proposing to use. Consequently, DOE is 
now using the cost model to determine the manufacturer production costs 
and manufacturer selling prices of the individual components covered by 
the standards.
    DOE estimated installation costs for the refrigeration systems and 
the envelope components separately as part of the life-cycle cost 
analysis. DOE has proposed new manufacturer cost estimates in chapter 5 
of the TSD and seeks comment on the new parameters proposed for each 
component.
c. Manufacturing Production Cost
    Once it finalized the cost estimates for all the components in each 
teardown unit, DOE totaled the cost of the materials, labor, and direct 
overhead used to manufacture the unit to calculate the manufacturer 
production cost of such equipment. The total cost of the equipment was 
broken down into two main costs: (1) The full manufacturer production 
cost, referred to as MPC; and (2) the non-production cost, which 
includes selling, general, and administration (SG&A) costs; the cost of 
research and development; and interest from borrowing for operations or 
capital expenditures. DOE estimated the MPC at each design level 
considered for each equipment class, from the baseline through max-
tech. After incorporating all of the data into the cost model, DOE 
calculated the percentages attributable to each element of total 
production cost (i.e., materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead). 
These percentages were used to validate the data by comparing them to 
manufacturers' actual financial data published in annual reports, along 
with feedback obtained from manufacturers during interviews. DOE uses 
these production cost percentages in the MIA (see section IV.I).
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE developed both an envelope cost 
and a refrigeration system cost for each equipment class and size using 
a manufacturing cost model. See chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. 
American Panel suggested that manufacturer cost should be estimated 
using a sample from 40 manufacturers and representative volumes. 
(American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 312) In 
response to American Panel's comment, DOE believes it is infeasible to 
sample so many manufacturers because data on manufacturing cost and 
representative volumes are not publicly available for most 
manufacturers of walk-ins and walk-in components, particularly small, 
private companies. Additionally, not all manufacturers were willing to 
share cost information with DOE. DOE did hold confidential interviews 
with manufacturers, some of whom chose not to share this information. 
DOE notes that cost information it did obtain was helpful in enabling 
the agency to develop and refine its estimates of manufacturer cost. 
The interview process is explained in chapter 12 of the TSD.
d. Manufacturing Markup
    DOE uses MSPs to conduct its downstream economic analyses. DOE 
calculated the MSPs by multiplying the manufacturer production cost by 
a markup and adding the equipment's shipping cost. The production price 
of the equipment is marked up to ensure that manufacturers can make a 
profit on the sale of the equipment. DOE gathered information from 
manufacturer interviews to determine the markup used by different 
equipment manufacturers. Using this information, DOE calculated an 
average markup for each component of a walk-in. DOE requests comments 
on the proposed markups listed in Table IV-7.

                    Table IV-7--Manufacturer Markups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Markup
                     Walk-in component                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panels.....................................................           32
Display Doors..............................................           50
Non-Display Doors..........................................           62
Refrigeration Equipment....................................           35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Shipping Costs
    In the preliminary analysis TSD, DOE calculated manufacturer 
shipping costs assuming that manufacturers include outbound freight as 
part of their equipment selling price. In response to DOE's request for 
comment on shipping assumptions, American Panel and NEEA and NPCC 
remarked that DOE's costs were significantly higher than actual 
industry shipping rates. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at pp. 15, 142; NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059 at p. 9) Additionally, 
American Panel stated that freight costs are typically paid in full by 
the customer and not absorbed by the manufacturer who is selling the 
equipment. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 5) Both American Panel and 
CrownTonka said that sometimes the freight cost would be included as 
part of the selling price and sometimes it would be entirely separate; 
i.e., paid by the buyer directly to the freight company. (American 
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 143; CrownTonka, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 144) NEEA and NPCC stated 
that freight costs are normally included in the packaged price to 
consumers. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 9)
    DOE re-evaluated the shipping rates in preparing this NOPR. These 
rates were developed by conducting additional research on shipping 
rates and by interviewing manufacturers of the covered equipment. For 
example, DOE found through its research that most panel, display door, 
and non-display door manufacturers use less than truck load freight to 
ship their respective components and revised its estimated shipping 
rates accordingly. DOE also found that most manufacturers, when 
ordering component equipment for installation in their particular 
manufactured product, do not pay separately for shipping costs; rather, 
it is included in the selling price of the equipment. However, when 
manufacturers include the shipping costs in the equipment selling 
price, they typically do not mark up the shipping costs for profit, but 
instead include the full cost of shipping as part of the price quote. 
DOE has revised its methodology accordingly. Please refer to chapter 5 
of the TSD for details.
4. Baseline Specifications
a. Panels and Doors
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE set the baseline level of 
performance to correspond to the most common least efficient component 
that is compliant with the standards set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(f)(1)(3)) DOE determined specifications for each equipment class 
by surveying currently available units and models. This approach was 
used for the NOPR analyses to determine the baseline units for panels, 
display doors, and non-display doors. More detail about the 
specifications for each baseline model can be found in chapter 5 of the 
TSD.
    Because the walk-in market is comprised of panels insulated with 
polyurethane and extruded polystyrene, DOE proposed in the preliminary 
analysis that the R-value for the baseline insulation used in the walk-
in envelope would be the average of the typical long term thermal 
resistance (LTTR) R-values of polyurethane and extruded polystyrene. 
CPI opposed the use of an average R-value for extruded polystyrene and 
polyurethane because it would affect the accuracy of the normalized 
energy consumption calculation for the envelope. (CPI, No.

[[Page 55812]]

0052.1, at p.1) DOE agrees with CPI's concern and is using in the 
revised analysis foam-in-place polyurethane as the baseline insulation 
for panels and non-display doors. Polyurethane is more commonly used as 
panel or non-display door insulation, has a better long term thermal 
resistance, and is less expensive than extruded polystyrene. DOE notes 
that extruded polystyrene may outperform polyurethane in other 
respects, like moisture absorption, which are not captured in the 
energy consumption model because they are not included in the test 
procedure.
    DOE's analysis also uses wood framing members as the baseline 
framing material in panels. The analysis assumes the typical wood frame 
completely borders the insulation and is 1.5 inches wide. DOE requests 
comment on its baseline specifications for walk-in panels, specifically 
the assumptions about framing material and framing dimensions.
    The baseline display doors modeled in DOE's analysis are based on 
the minimum specifications set by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)) DOE 
modeled baseline display cooler doors comprised of two panes of glass 
with argon gas fill and hard coat low emittance or low-e coating. The 
baseline cooler display door requires 2.9 Watts per square foot of 
anti-sweat heater wire and does not have a heater wire controller. The 
baseline display freezer doors modeled in DOE's analysis consist of 
three panes of glass, argon gas, and soft coat low-e coating. Baseline 
freezer doors use 15.23 watts per square foot of anti-sweat heater wire 
power and require an anti-sweat heater wire controller. DOE also 
estimates that each baseline door includes one fluorescent light with 
electronic ballasts, with a door shorter than 6.5 feet having a 5-foot 
fluorescent bulb and a door equal to or taller than 6.5 feet having a 
6-foot fluorescent bulb. DOE requests comment on the baseline 
assumptions for display cooler and freezer doors. In particular, DOE 
requests data illustrating the energy consumption of anti-sweat heaters 
found on cooler and freezer display doors.
    DOE's analysis assumes that the baseline non-display doors are 
constructed in a similar manner to baseline panels. Therefore, DOE's 
analysis uses baseline non-display doors that consist of wood framing 
materials 1.5 inches wide that completely border the foamed-in-place 
polyurethane insulation. DOE also includes a small window in a non-
display door that conforms to the standards set by EPCA. DOE estimates 
that all passage doors have a 2.25 square foot window regardless of the 
passage door's size. DOE analyzed two different size windows for non-
display freight doors. The small freight doors have a 2.25 square foot 
window and both the medium and large freight doors have a 4-square foot 
window. DOE requests comment on the baseline specifications for non-
display doors, and specifically on the size of the windows included in 
the baseline doors.
    DOE also received comments about the amount of energy savings 
attributed to infiltration reduction devices (IRDs) on baseline walk-in 
doors. NEEA and NPCC commented that even though EISA requires an 
infiltration reduction device on the baseline door, DOE should also 
include additional IRDs as a design option. NEEA and NPCC continued to 
suggest that DOE should re-evaluate the amount of energy savings 
associated with IRDs. (NEEA and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 170) The Joint Utilities also believed that DOE 
overestimated the impacts of IRDs in the baseline doors and explained 
that overestimating the baseline savings from an IRD affects the amount 
of savings achieved by the design options DOE evaluated. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 5) DOE agrees with NEEA and NPCC and the 
Joint Utilities that a baseline door must have an IRD because this is 
required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(A)(B)) However, the walk-in 
test procedure does not measure energy consumption from door-opening 
infiltration so there is no rated energy saving from IRDs and DOE is 
not estimating the amount of energy saved from IRDs on baseline doors.
b. Refrigeration
    As with panels and doors, DOE set the baseline level of 
refrigeration system performance to correspond to components that were 
the least efficient but compliant with the standards set forth in EPCA. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)-(3). DOE determined specifications for each 
equipment class by surveying currently available models. See chapter 5 
of the TSD for more details about the specifications for each baseline 
model.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed several representative 
baseline units for refrigeration systems and requested comment on the 
characterization of the baseline units. In response to DOE's request 
for comment on the representative units analyzed, several stakeholders 
expressed concern that the range of refrigeration systems DOE evaluated 
was too limited. Heatcraft and the Joint Utilities encouraged DOE to 
include larger capacity equipment and different compressor types. 
(Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at pp. 3-4; Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 2; Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 3) American Panel echoed this concern and 
stated that DOE should explore the full range of condensing units and 
that WICF envelopes should be paired with different sized refrigeration 
systems based on use. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at pp. 8-9) DOE has 
considered these comments and has expanded its analysis to include a 
larger range of refrigeration system capacities. DOE has also included 
different compressor types in the refrigeration system analysis; see 
section IV.C.5.b and chapter 5 of the TSD for details. DOE has not 
considered pairing WICF envelopes and refrigeration systems in the 
engineering analysis, however, because DOE is applying a component-
based approach.
    The preliminary analysis also presented estimated baseline 
specifications and costs for the representative units it analyzed. 
American Panel remarked that the baseline costs in the engineering 
analysis were too low and were not comparable to their data. 
Additionally, it stated that the refrigeration load will increase if 
the product is not at the same temperature as the walk-in cooler or 
freezer. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 7) Interested parties also 
commented on certain baseline unit subcomponents that were not included 
in the engineering analysis. American Panel noted that baseline units 
could include a downstream solenoid valve that would prevent 
refrigerant from migrating to the evaporator and Heatcraft encouraged 
DOE to make sure that the amount of refrigerant, piping, and insulation 
scale properly with size. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 7; 
Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 3)
    In response to American Panel's comments on refrigeration system 
costs, DOE adjusted its cost model as described in section IV.C.3 and 
believes its costs are now more representative of typical equipment. 
Regarding refrigeration load, DOE does not consider the effect of 
different product loads in the engineering analysis because the 
engineering analysis is based on the rating conditions; DOE considers 
product loads in the energy use analysis as explained in section 
IV.E.3. In response to American Panel's and Heatcraft's comments about 
subcomponents of refrigeration equipment, the revised analysis now 
includes all necessary subcomponents from the manufacturer--i.e., those 
subcomponents needed for the unit to operate. The analysis includes a 
calculation of refrigerant charge that is

[[Page 55813]]

scaled with the size of the unit, as Heatcraft suggested. DOE has 
tentatively decided not to include piping and insulation between the 
unit cooler and condensing unit, as it believes these components would 
not be supplied by the manufacturer or included in the equipment's MSP, 
but by the contractor upon installation of the equipment. DOE requests 
comment on this assumption.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE made certain assumptions regarding 
saturated evaporator temperature (SET) and saturated condensing 
temperature (SCT) that it used in the analysis for freezers and coolers 
and indoor and outdoor units. In general, DOE based these temperatures 
on an assumed temperature difference (TD) between the coil temperature 
and the ambient temperature where the ambient temperature for indoor 
and outdoor units was specified by the rating conditions in AHRI 1250-
2009, the test procedure for refrigeration systems. 76 FR at 33631. The 
Joint Utilities and Heatcraft both submitted comments about the 
temperature set points in the baseline equipment; the Joint Utilities 
suggested a condensing temperature control point of 90[emsp14][deg]F 
for both freezers and coolers, while Heatcraft recommended different 
temperatures for several equipment classes. (Joint Utilities, No. 
0061.1 at p. 10; Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 2)
    In determining appropriate temperature set points, DOE considered 
information from various sources when formulating its assumptions, 
including comments, research, and discussions with manufacturers and 
other parties. DOE notes that the ambient temperature for the test 
procedure is 90 and 95 [deg]F for indoor and outdoor condensing units, 
respectively. Given that the system must maintain a reasonable TD 
between the SCT and the ambient temperature, the SCT during the test 
procedure would be higher than the 90-95 [deg]F assumption recommended 
by the Joint Utilities. Even though the set point during actual use may 
be lower, equipment is rated--and evaluated for meeting the standard--
at the test procedure rating points. For these reasons, DOE believes 
its SCT assumptions are reasonable for baseline equipment operating at 
the rating conditions required for the test procedure. DOE requests 
comment on this assumption, particularly whether the TDs for baseline 
and higher efficiency equipment are appropriate. See chapter 5 of the 
TSD for details.
5. Design Options
a. Panels and Doors
    For the preliminary analysis, DOE included the following design 
options for the walk-in envelope:
     Improved wall, ceiling, and floor insulation
     Improved door gaskets and panel interface systems
     Electronic lighting ballasts and high-efficiency lighting
     Occupancy sensors and automatic door opening and closing 
systems
     Air curtains and strip curtains
     Vestibule entryways
     Display and window glass system insulation enhancements
     Anti-sweat heater controls and no anti sweat heat systems
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE presented tables detailing each 
design option, including the cost of implementing each option and a 
description of the design option's properties. The discussion below 
sets forth comments received on these design options for panels and 
doors, as well as DOE's proposed approach in today's NOPR.
Panels
    Stakeholders commented on steady state IRDs that DOE initially 
considered including as design options for the walk-in envelope. Craig 
Industries commented that DOE should consider different caulking 
materials as a design option because it is inexpensive and would reduce 
infiltration by sealing the joints of walk-ins, but noted that this 
design option would conflict with the current National Sanitation 
Foundation (NSF) standards. (Craig Industries, No. 0064.1 at p. 3) 
American Panel stated that changing the gasketing or joint profile of 
an insulated panel would require a new test burden of $20,000, and that 
the improved gasketing is not necessarily going to be functional. It 
also noted that improved panel interfaces may not mate with existing 
walk-in panels, which would prevent manufacturers from supplying 
replacement panels. Lastly, in its view, the complex gasketing and 
panel interface systems could cause walk-ins to become more difficult 
to build. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 6; American Panel, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 121) Hill Phoenix commented that 
enhancing the gasketing between panels will not have a significant 
impact on the walk-in's energy consumption. In its view, the main heat 
load caused by infiltration is from door openings as opposed to steady 
state infiltration. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 3)
    For the reasons stated in the test procedure final rule, the test 
procedure promulgated by DOE no longer requires manufacturers to 
measure a walk-in's steady-state infiltration. Therefore, design 
options for reducing steady state infiltration, including caulking and 
improved gasketing, would not impact the rated energy consumption of 
any of the walk-in components addressed in this rulemaking. 76 FR 
21580, 21595 (April 15, 2011). Furthermore, DOE would screen out any 
design options (including caulking) that would be likely to have 
significant adverse impacts on the utility of the equipment or had an 
adverse impact on health or safety, according to the screening criteria 
described in section IV.B.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered design options that 
increased the baseline insulation thickness and improved insulation 
material. The preliminary analysis used a baseline insulation thickness 
of 4 inches and analyzed design options with increased insulation 
thicknesses of 5 inches, 6 inches, and 7 inches. The baseline panel 
insulation R-value was an average of extruded polystyrene and foamed-
in-place polyurethane. The improved insulation materials in the 
preliminary analysis were vacuum insulated panel (VIP) insulation and 
hybrid insulation, a combination of the baseline material and vacuum 
insulated panels.
    Many stakeholders commented on the proposed insulation 
improvements. American Panel did not agree with the initial costs DOE 
initially presented for the increased thicknesses of insulation. In its 
view, costs were higher due to the increased difficulty of 
manufacturing thicker panels. To accurately reflect this inefficiency, 
American Panel suggested DOE increase the cost of labor per panel 
because it takes more time to foam the fixture. (American Panel, No. 
0048.1 at p. 5) American Panel also remarked that most manufacturers 
possess tooling that is adjustable only from 4-6 inches. (American 
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 121) Hill Phoenix 
stated that panel thicknesses above 5.5 inches will have a costly 
impact on the manufacturer and end user because manufacturers need to 
purchase more equipment to deal with the increased weight and the end-
user will need more floor space to house or site the walk-in. (Hill 
Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 3) American Panel criticized the preliminary 
analysis for omitting insulating floor panels or an insulation slab 
with vertical breaks as design options. American Panel explained that 
although the payback period would be longer if these options

[[Page 55814]]

are included, DOE should still consider the long term energy savings 
that these options may yield. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 5)
    DOE agrees with American Panel that most manufacturers do not 
currently have the tooling to produce panels with more than 6 inches of 
insulation. In addition, DOE finds that constructing and handling 
panels thicker than 6 inches would be unduly burdensome to the 
manufacturer because panels thicker than 6 inches would be very 
difficult to handle, store, ship, and produce at typical industry 
production volumes. Because panels thicker than 6 inches would not be 
practicable to manufacture, DOE screened them out from its analysis. 
DOE's NOPR analysis limits the maximum insulation thickness to 6 inches 
of foam and DOE does not expect its proposed standard to require panels 
thicker than 5 inches (see chapter 5 and appendix 10D of the TSD); 
however, the agency requests comment on this assumption in the 
analysis. DOE notes Hill Phoenix's comment about the increased labor 
cost associated with increasing the panel thickness and proposes to 
account for the increased cost of handling large panels in its cost-
efficiency analysis. DOE also agrees with American Panel's comment that 
requiring insulated floor panels for walk-in coolers would produce long 
term energy savings. However, DOE is not proposing to set a standard 
for walk-in cooler floors as explained in section IV.A.2.a of this 
notice.
    Two stakeholders made comments specifically about VIPs. NanoPore 
stated that silica-carbon based core materials have a better lifetime 
performance than fiberglass core materials when using vacuum insulated 
panels, and noted that VIPs have reached a point of large scale 
commercialization. (NanoPore, No. 0067.1 at pp. 1 and 6) However, Hill 
Phoenix commented that VIPs are impractical because of the high cost to 
the manufacturer, and that vacuum insulated panels would require 
additional labor and tooling. (Hill Phoenix, No. 0066.1 at p. 3)
    DOE included hybrid insulation (half foam-in-place polyurethane and 
half VIP) as a design option to improve the efficiency of walk-in 
panels and non-display doors. It did not, however, include VIP 
insulation as a design option because DOE cannot definitively conclude 
that VIPs have the structural capability of supporting typical walk-in 
loads, particularly since VIPs can easily be punctured, which would 
cause a loss in thermal insulation (see chapter 5 of the TSD for 
details). DOE notes that while NanoPore stressed the benefits of 
silica-carbon based VIP, DOE did not specify the type of VIP used in 
the engineering analysis in order to maximize manufacturer flexibility 
in meeting the proposed standard. DOE agrees with Hill Phoenix that 
VIPs are more expensive and may require additional tooling, but DOE 
does not find this increased cost would prevent manufacturers from 
implementing VIPs. DOE also notes that the high costs of VIPs are 
captured in the engineering analysis for panels and non-display doors.
    In its engineering analysis for walk-in panels, DOE included design 
options which increase the baseline insulation thickness, change the 
baseline insulation material from foam-in-place polyurethane to a 
hybrid of polyurethane and VIP, change the baseline framing material 
from wood to high density polyurethane, and eliminate a structural 
panel's framing material. DOE assumed in its analysis that freezer 
floor panels retain some type of framing material to maintain 
structural integrity because the foam itself may be unable to support 
heavy, perpendicular loads--e.g. personnel, machinery, and products--to 
the panel's face. DOE also assumed that high density polyurethane 
framing materials used in a panel have the same dimensions as the wood 
framing materials used in a wood-framed panel. DOE seeks comment on 
these panel design options, particularly with respect to the 
specifications for high density polyurethane framing materials.
Doors
    Stakeholders also commented on design options that would reduce the 
infiltration from door openings: namely, automatic door opening and 
closing systems, which automatically open and close the door by sensing 
when a person is about to pass or has passed through; air curtains and 
strip curtains, both of which provide a secondary barrier to air 
infiltration when the door is open; and vestibule entryways, which 
consist of a series of two doors separated by a space through which one 
would pass to enter the walk-in. Hired Hand noted that the engineering 
analysis omitted automatic roll-up doors or bi-folding envelope doors, 
and that these doors cannot be adequately subsumed under ``automatic 
door opening and closing'' (which DOE did include) because this option 
does not capture the full benefit of these doors. (Hired Hand, No. 
0050.1 at pp. 1-2) American Panel was skeptical that automatic door 
opening and closing sensors existed in the industry and did not agree 
with DOE's proposed cost of the technology. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 
at p. 6) American Panel also stated that a vestibule is not a practical 
design option because the cost of the floor space and the layout of 
standard stores would be prohibitive to the end user. It noted that the 
cost of a vestibule is higher than DOE estimated, and predicted that 
the cost for materials and equipment would be well over $2,500. 
(American Panel, No. 0048.1 at pp. 3 and 6)
    For the reasons stated in its recent final rule, the test procedure 
does not include a method for measuring the door opening infiltration 
associated with walk-ins. See 76 FR at 21595. Therefore, the energy 
consumption caused by door opening infiltration is not accounted for in 
the panel, display door, or non-display door engineering analyses, and 
design options related to door opening infiltration would not affect 
the energy consumption of the walk-in components.
    Some stakeholders specifically commented about the strip curtains 
design option. NEEA and NPCC stated that strip curtains are already 
required by EPCA, and should not be considered a design option, but 
that infiltration load could still be reduced by additional IRDs. (NEEA 
and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 170; NEEA and NPCC, 
No. 0059.1 at p. 8) NEEA, NPCC and Master-Bilt disagreed with DOE's 
assumption that strip curtains can reduce the total energy consumption 
of a walk-in by half. NEEA and NPCC suggested strip curtains would more 
likely reduce the energy consumption by one third, according to a 
Pacific Northwest study, and Master-Bilt commented that strip curtains 
reduce the compressor load by less than 5 percent according to their 
own field tests. (NEEA and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at 
p. 152; NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 8; Master-Bilt, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 159; Master-Bilt, No. 0046.1 at p. 1) 
American Panel noted that strip curtain manufacturers indicated that 
the device achieves a 25 percent reduction in air infiltration, much 
lower than DOE's assumption of 90 percent effectiveness. (American 
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 154; American Panel, 
No. 0048.1 at p. 6) Lastly, AHRI also commented that DOE overestimated 
the benefit of strip curtains, and that DOE should verify their 
assumptions with field data; AHRI did not provide any alternative data 
on the benefit of strip curtains. (AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 2) As 
explained in section IV.B.1 of this document, however, infiltration 
devices are no longer included in the engineering analysis.

[[Page 55815]]

    Stakeholders also commented on the door lighting design options 
presented in the preliminary analysis; specifically, occupancy sensors 
that cause the lights to operate only when people are present; 
electronic lighting ballasts, which are more efficient than typical 
magnetic ballasts; and high-efficiency light-emitting diode (LED) 
lighting, a type of lighting that uses semiconducting materials to 
produce light and uses less energy per lumen than incandescent or 
fluorescent lighting. American Panel stated that LED lighting is not a 
viable design option because the LED fixture and bulb payback period is 
2.5 years. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 6) The Joint Utilities 
suggested that DOE should add LED lighting with motion controls as a 
design option for display cases. (Joint Utilities, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 26; Joint Utilities, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 89; Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 3)
    In response to American Panel's concern about the cost of LED 
lighting, DOE accounts for the cost of the bulb and fixture when 
estimating the total cost of LED lighting. However, DOE has not 
automatically eliminated LED lighting from consideration based on 
payback period but includes it in the range of design options it is 
considering. For more details on the payback period analysis, see 
section IV.F. In response to the suggestion from Joint Utilities, a 
combined design option with LED lighting and motion control sensors is 
not warranted because DOE already includes a lighting sensor and LED 
lighting as separate design options in the walk-in display door 
engineering analysis. A separate design option for lighting sensors 
allows the sensor to be applied to fluorescent as well as LED lighting.
    Some stakeholders commented on the anti-sweat heater wire design 
option. CrownTonka commented that anti-sweat heater wire should be 
applied to non-display freezer doors and any windows in non-display 
doors. (CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 89) Craig 
Industries supported the inclusion of self-regulating heater wire and 
noted that this wire is readily available and more efficient than other 
types of heater wires. (Craig Industries, No. 0064.1 at p. 1) DOE 
agrees with CrownTonka and proposes to include anti-sweat heater wire 
around the outer edge of non-display freezer doors as well as on the 
windows located on non-display doors as design options. In response to 
Craig Industries' suggestion, the energy savings from self-regulating 
anti-sweat heater wire alone cannot be captured in the proposed 
engineering analysis for display and non-display doors because the 
energy savings are not captured by the test procedure. The test 
procedure credits the manufacturer with energy savings if a 
preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system is 
used in conjunction with anti-sweat heater wire. The credit is called a 
percent time off (PTO) credit, which reduces the calculated power 
associated with the device. 76 FR 33631, 33635, 33637 (June 9, 2011).
    The display door design options used in the analysis include 
improved glass packs--where ``glass pack'' refers to the combination of 
glass panes, gas fill, and low-emission coatings making up the 
transparent part of the door; anti-sweat heater controls for cooler 
doors; LED lighting; and lighting sensors that control when the lights 
turn on and off. DOE did not analyze anti-sweat heater controls for 
freezer display doors because baseline freezer doors are already 
required to have a controller to regulate the power consumed by the 
anti-sweat heater wire. EISA requires all freezer doors to have an 
anti-sweat heater control if the anti-sweat heater wire consumes more 
than 7.1 watts per square foot of door opening, and DOE estimated that 
baseline display doors consume 15.2 watts per square foot of door 
opening. Therefore, baseline display doors already have an anti-sweat 
heater wire control system in order to comply with EISA.
    As explained previously, the walk-in cooler and freezer test 
procedure credits the manufacturer for having a control. The type or 
amount of controls does not change the credit nor increase the energy 
savings realized by the DOE test procedure. For these reasons, DOE did 
not include control systems as a design option. Additionally, DOE did 
not consider eliminating anti-sweat heater wire as a separate design 
option. The improvements made to the glass pack cause a reduction in 
the power draw of the anti-sweat heater wire. In the case of display 
cooler doors, the performance of the glass pack is improved enough so 
that anti-sweat heater wire is no longer required on the door. DOE also 
did not consider higher efficiency ballasts in its analysis because it 
found that electronic ballasts already incorporated into baseline units 
and DOE is not aware of more efficient ballasts. DOE requests comment 
on its analyzed design options and specifically seeks any heat transfer 
data for the improved glass packs detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    The design options that DOE analyzed in the engineering analysis 
for non-display doors include increasing the insulation thickness, 
changing the insulation material from baseline to a hybrid of 
polyurethane and VIP, changing the baseline framing material from wood 
to high density polyurethane, improving the window's glass pack, and 
adding an anti-sweat heater wire controller to the door. These options 
are more fully described in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE requests comment 
on the non-display door design options it analyzed, particularly with 
respect to the cost of the window improvements detailed in chapter 5 of 
the TSD.
    American Panel suggested that DOE consider low cost methods for 
extending the envelope and door lifetimes. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 
at p. 9) DOE has not considered options in this analysis that do not 
improve the rated performance of the equipment, as described in section 
IV.B.1. The purpose of the engineering analysis is to analyze the 
manufacturing cost and the performance of the covered equipment as 
rated by the test procedure. Examining methods to extend the life of 
walk-in equipment, including the impact of such methods on standards 
adopted by DOE, would complicate and create a significant impediment to 
completion of this rulemaking, without any clear prospect that it would 
affect the standards DOE ultimately adopts. For this reason, DOE has 
decided not to pursue this issue.
    After considering all the comments it received on the design 
options, DOE is including the following design options in the NOPR 
analysis for panels, display doors, and non-display doors:
Panels
     Increased insulation thickness up to 6 inches
     Improved insulation material
     Improved framing material
Display Doors
     High-efficiency lighting
     Occupancy sensors
     Display and window glass system insulation performance
     Anti-sweat heater controls
Non-Display Doors
     Increased insulation thickness up to 6 inches
     Improved insulation material
     Improved panel framing material
     Display and window glass system insulation performance
     Anti-sweat heater controls
     No anti-sweat systems
b. Refrigeration
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE included the following design 
options for the walk-in refrigeration system:
     High-efficiency compressors

[[Page 55816]]

     Improved condenser coil
     High-efficiency condenser fan motors
     Improved condenser fan blades
     Improved evaporator coil
     Improved evaporator fan blades
     Evaporator fan controls
     Floating head pressure
     Defrost controls
    The preliminary analysis contained tables detailing each design 
option, including the cost of implementing each option and a 
description of the design option's properties. The discussion below 
sets forth comments received on these design options for refrigeration 
systems, as well as DOE's proposed approach in today's NOPR.
    One option DOE considered was high-efficiency compressors. For 
example, DOE suggested using scroll compressors to represent the 
performance associated with higher efficiency compressors in walk-in 
applications. In response, Master-Bilt and Heatcraft commented that 
scroll compressors are not necessarily more efficient than other 
compressor types and are limited by their application and the prevalent 
conditions in which the compressor operates. (Master-Bilt, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 1; Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at p. 2) 
Heatcraft also stated that with increasing horsepower, fewer compressor 
types are available. (Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 1) The Joint 
Utilities added that for larger walk-in units, semi-hermetic 
compressors are more efficient than scroll types--except at low 
temperatures where, in their view, scroll compressors are more often 
utilized--but they did not provide information supporting the same. In 
addition, the Joint Utilities stated that hermetic compressors hold an 
added cost advantage over semi-hermetic compressors. (Joint Utilities, 
No. 0061.1 at pp. 6 and 10) With regard to the types of compressors 
used in the food service market, American Panel suggested that hermetic 
compressors were dominant and stated that semi-hermetic compressors' 
high initial cost made them less prevalent generally. (American Panel, 
No. 0048.1 at p. 9)
    DOE conducted additional research on available compressors and 
found that the prevalence of some compressor types varied at certain 
sizes. DOE also ensured that its analysis accounted for the effect that 
different applications and conditions may have on the relative 
efficiency of compressor types. In particular, the NOPR analysis 
includes an evaluation of a wide range of refrigeration capacities, and 
DOE has separately evaluated the different compressor types available 
at each capacity point. DOE believes that this modified analysis 
adequately captures the performance of each compressor type at each 
size and set of operating conditions.
    To obtain data on compressor performance, DOE's preliminary 
analysis relied on manufacturer Web sites and related product 
specification sheets and did not consider the effect of the return gas 
conditions. The compressor data were based on return gas conditions 
under which the individual compressors were rated. The Joint Utilities 
stated that the return gas conditions were inconsistent with the 
typical operating conditions of walk-ins. (Joint Utilities, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 27 and No. 0061.1 at p. 11) In 
consideration of the Joint Utilities' comment, DOE investigated the 
effect of the return gas conditions on compressor performance and has 
updated the compressor characteristics using return gas conditions that 
are consistent with the rating conditions in AHRI 1250-2009, which are 
different from the rating conditions for individual compressors. The 
conditions are contained within AHRI 1250-2009 itself, which DOE has 
incorporated into its test procedure. 76 FR at 33631.
    After considering the stakeholder comments and conducting further 
research, DOE expanded its initial compressor range beyond scroll 
compressors and hermetic compressors to now include semi-hermetic 
compressors in the list of compressor options in order to capture most 
of the market share. This was done specifically due to the varying 
compressor efficiencies at different operating temperatures, and the 
lack of availability of certain compressor types at all capacity 
ranges. For example, it is difficult to obtain hermetic compressors at 
capacities exceeding 30,000 Btu/h, so manufacturers may be more likely 
to use semi-hermetic compressors at these capacities as a lower-cost 
alternative to scroll compressors.
    The preliminary TSD discusses the evaporator and condensing coil 
baseline and improved efficiency as coil size increases. In that 
analysis, DOE selected increased coil size as a design option because 
increasing the coil size corresponds to a drop in temperature 
difference, which would increase compressor capacity and result in 
lower normalized energy consumption.
    DOE received several comments about heat exchanger coil size and 
the associated savings. The Joint Utilities, Manitowoc and Heatcraft 
commented that the analysis did not consider an increase in fan power 
with an increase in coil size. (Joint Utilities, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 27 and No. 0061.1 at p. 6; Manitowoc, No. 
0056.1 at p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at pp. 2 and 3) American Panel 
stated that increasing condenser coil size would also require an 
increase in evaporator coil size, while Manitowoc suggested that the 
coil heat transfer equation should use log-mean temperature. (American 
Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 6; Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 2)
    After carefully considering these comments, DOE modified its 
analysis by increasing fan power proportionally to coil size. DOE found 
through its analysis, however, that as coil size increases, the 
decrease in compressor power far exceeds the increase in fan power, 
which ultimately decreases the net energy consumption. As a result, DOE 
retained increased coil size as a design option in its analysis. DOE 
agrees with Manitowoc's comment that using log mean temperature 
difference is a more accurate way to calculate heat transfer because 
this method accounts for changes in air temperature and refrigerant 
temperature across the refrigerant coil rather than assuming that these 
temperatures are constant. DOE's analysis had used a simplified form of 
the heat transfer equations in the preliminary analysis, but now 
includes a log mean temperature difference in its analysis for the 
NOPR. In response to American Panel's comment about requiring an 
increase in evaporator coil with condenser coil, DOE has taken a 
complete system modeling approach in analyzing the refrigeration 
system's performance to capture any effects on the evaporator 
conditions from condenser coil changes. At this point, DOE believes 
that increasing the coil size of the condenser does not necessarily 
require an increase in coil size for the evaporator because the 
manufacturer would balance other aspects of the system to maintain the 
same capacity. DOE requests comment on this assumption, particularly 
from manufacturers who currently utilize larger condenser coils.
Condenser Fan Motors
    In chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD, DOE discussed more efficient 
condenser fan motors as a viable design option. EPCA requires that 
walk-in condenser fan motors of less than 1 horsepower must use 
permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or 
three-phase motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(F)) Permanent split capacitor 
(PSC) motors are less expensive and less efficient than electronically-
commutated (EC) motors and are currently used by the majority of 
manufacturers. DOE also assumed the

[[Page 55817]]

same motor efficiencies for PSC and EC motors that were assumed in the 
ANSI/ARI Standard 1200-2006--that is, 29 percent and 66 percent 
respectively. (The analysis screened out three-phase motors as a design 
option based on utility to the consumer, as explained in section 
IV.B.2.b, although manufacturers may still use this technology to 
improve the overall efficiency of the equipment they manufacture.)
    DOE received comments about the assumed efficiency of fan motors. 
Manitowoc commented that DOE's assumed efficiency for PSC motors was 
too low and should be about 50 percent, while Heatcraft stated that PSC 
motor efficiency would likely be between 45 and 55 percent, three-phase 
motor efficiency would be approximately 80 percent, and EC motor 
efficiency would range from 60 to 90 percent. (Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at 
p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at p. 2 and No. 0069.1 at p. 2) The Joint 
Utilities suggested that the methodology of determining input power 
from efficiency ratings for small motors was inaccurate. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 8) Heatcraft provided a list of parts to be 
added to the engineering analysis. (Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 1)
    DOE has considered the suggestions of Manitowoc and Heatcraft 
regarding motor efficiency and has changed its assumptions for PSC 
motors to 50 percent and EC motors to 75 percent after researching 
currently available motors. Additionally, regarding comments received 
from Heatcraft about three-phase motors, DOE did not include three-
phase motors as a design option or as part of the design of smaller 
baseline equipment due to adverse utility to the consumer and 
impracticability to manufacture, install and service, because many 
consumers do not have three-phase power sources; however, DOE assumed 
that larger baseline equipment would use three-phase motors. See 
section IV.B.2.b for more details. DOE also included in its analysis 
the fan motor parts Heatcraft identified after evaluating teardown data 
and conducting further analysis of those parts. In response to the 
Joint Utilities' comment that DOE should not determine input power from 
efficiency ratings, DOE has used this method as its best estimate for 
motor power consumption. DOE has not identified a more accurate 
methodology for determining input power and requests feedback on this 
issue.
    Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD presented several fan blade 
options for the evaporator and condenser fan blade design option. 
Responding to these options, Heatcraft suggested the inclusion of swept 
fan blades as they are more aerodynamic and reduce vibrations and noise 
that result in inefficiencies. In addition, it also suggested that 
motor efficiency is independent from fan blade efficiency because more 
efficient fan blades do not result in high efficiencies for motors and 
vice versa. Rather, the efficiency of each component is due to its own 
intrinsic characteristics. After considering Heatcraft's comment, DOE 
is continuing to treat the motor and fan blade options separately.
    The preliminary analysis examined evaporator fan controls as a 
design option. The impacts of fan controls were analyzed consistent 
with the test procedure requirement that ``controls shall be adjusted 
so that the greater of a 25 percent duty cycle or the manufacturer 
default is used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. For variable-speed 
controls, the greater of 25 percent fan speed or the manufacturer's 
default fan speed shall be used for measuring off-cycle fan energy.'' 
Because of this requirement, DOE set a 75 percent reduction in off-
cycle fan energy as the energy savings achieved for the fan control 
technology option. DOE did not differentiate between modulated fan 
controls and variable speed fan controls in the preliminary analysis. 
DOE received comments both on its characterization of the fan control 
design option and on the energy results for that design option. NEEA 
and NPCC expressed concern that DOE's analysis caused the evaporator 
fan control option to appear less cost-effective compared to other 
design options, possibly indicating that DOE underestimated its 
potential energy savings. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 7) The Joint 
Utilities cited studies indicating that fan speed control is one of the 
most, if not the most, cost-effective design option for many 
refrigeration systems. (Joint Utilities, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 28; No. 0061.1 at pp. 2 and 6) The Joint Utilities also 
criticized DOE's initial approach of not distinguishing between fan 
cycling and fan speed control. They indicated that the approach taken 
by DOE overly simplified the analysis, which then yielded considerably 
smaller projected savings for multiplex systems. Because of the 
complexity of the size ranges and system variations of these units, a 
more detailed analysis than the single design option used in the 
preliminary analysis is, in their view, required to sufficiently 
evaluate the potential energy savings from using a fan control system. 
They recommended that an analysis of fan speed controls include the 
benefit of operating at reduced fan speeds for the majority of the time 
the system operates. (Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at pp. 6 and 9) NEEA 
and NPCC agreed with DOE's approach insofar as fan controls that adjust 
envelope interior temperature conditions should be applied to every 
walk-in. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 7)
    Some interested parties also cautioned DOE about the unintended 
consequences of implementing different types of fan controls. The Joint 
Utilities stated that a fan duty-cycling control strategy would be 
unacceptable in many applications because of the increased likelihood 
of uneven temperatures and the related concern for perishable products. 
(Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 9) Zero Zone stated that variable 
speed evaporator fan motors could prevent the walk-in from maintaining 
the desired product temperature. (Zero Zone, No. 0051.1 at p. 1) 
American Panel stated that if fan controls cause the compressor to run 
for longer periods, energy consumption will increase because the 
compressor draws more power than the fans. American Panel also 
recommended that DOE ensure that whatever standards it may propose, 
that air defrost evaporators still be able to defrost ice build-up on 
refrigeration coils during off-cycle periods using lower fan speeds. 
(American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 7)
    One interested party commented on DOE's assumed cost of the fan 
control option. The Joint Utilities stated that the assumed cost of 
$300 for fan control would likely be lower, particularly for small 
walk-ins, because the EC motors have inherent variable speed capability 
and the microcontrollers used to control these motors can provide the 
required voltage signal to control the EC motors. (Joint Utilities, No. 
0061.1 at p. 9)
    To address these concerns, DOE has made several changes to its fan 
control analysis. DOE is now considering both modulated (fan cycling) 
and variable speed controls as potential design options. Modulated fan 
controls cycle the fans at 50 percent runtime at 100 percent speed when 
the compressor is off, while variable speed controls set the fan speed 
to 50 percent of maximum speed at 100 percent runtime when the 
compressor is off. DOE's analysis applies the commonly used fan power 
laws, which describe the relationship between power and speed during a 
fan's operation. A reduction in fan speed causes a reduction in fan 
power to the third power. For example, reducing speed to 50 percent of 
full speed reduces the power to 12.5 percent of full power. Thus, 
variable speed controls

[[Page 55818]]

would be expected to save more energy than modulated fan controls for 
the particular control strategies analyzed.
    DOE applied both modulated fan controls and variable speed fan 
controls as a design option for all classes analyzed. DOE did not, 
however, consider controls that respond to specific box conditions 
because, as stated in the test procedure final rule, the impact of 
these controls would not be captured using the component-level 
approach, which analyzes refrigeration systems separately from envelope 
components. DOE notes that, as a result of the enhancements made to its 
analytical approach, the NOPR analysis indicates that modulated and 
variable speed fan controls would likely be among the primary options 
to improve walk-in refrigeration system efficiency.
    DOE appreciates the concerns about fan controls raised by American 
Panel, the Joint Utilities, and Zero Zone. DOE's research does not 
indicate that air defrost would be adversely affected by fan controls. 
Therefore, air defrost would likely still be adequate with reduced fan 
speed. To address commenters' concerns about the potential effects of 
fan controls on food safety, DOE estimates that the outcome of using 
such controls would be equivalent to an overall 50 percent decrease in 
runtime (for a cycle control) or a 50 percent decrease in speed (for a 
variable-speed control) and has tentatively concluded that the impact 
of the controls it analyzed will be limited and not affect the 
maintenance of safe food temperatures. See chapter 5 for details. DOE 
requests comment from interested parties as to whether food 
temperatures would be adequately maintained in the specific control 
cases it has analyzed and, if not, what an appropriate control strategy 
would be. DOE seeks any data that interested parties can provide to 
show the relationship between fan controls and food temperatures. DOE 
also seeks information as to whether additional components are 
necessary to ensure food temperature, such as extra thermostats located 
in certain areas of the walk-in. To address American Panel's comment 
about compressor runtime, DOE does not expect compressor runtime to 
increase from the inclusion of fan control implementation because the 
fans run at full speed while the compressor is running and fan speed or 
cycling controls are activated only when the compressor is off. DOE 
also does not expect controls to increase the amount of time the 
compressor is off because the compressor cycles on based on the walk-
in's interior temperature, which DOE believes will not be significantly 
affected by the fan control strategy modeled in the analysis.
Defrost Controls
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated several defrost control 
options available in the market. DOE considered using time-initiated, 
time-terminated defrost as the baseline. The design option involved a 
generic defrost control that would result in half as many defrosts per 
day. Heatcraft and American Panel doubted whether existing defrost 
controls could achieve the 50 percent reduction in defrosts assumed in 
the preliminary analysis. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 7; 
Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at p. 4) In addition, Heatcraft, American Panel 
and the Joint Utilities suggested DOE replace time termination with 
temperature termination in the base case. (Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at p. 
4; American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 7; Joint Utilities, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 26) Heatcraft and the Joint Utilities also 
noted that defrost time should be dependent on system size to account 
for the greater surface area of larger units and suggested that the 
baseline defrost control strategy be a time-initiated, temperature-
terminated scheme, which is the industry standard. (Heatcraft, No. 
0058.1 at pp. 3-4; Joint Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 3)
    In response to comments received about defrost control, DOE's 
analysis now applies a temperature-terminated defrost approach for all 
defrost control schemes (baseline or higher). The defrost cycle ends 
once the coil temperature reaches 45[emsp14][deg]F. For the defrost 
design option, DOE is continuing to apply a generic defrost control 
that would reduce the number of defrosts per day. The magnitude of the 
reduction is set at 40 percent, which is less than the 50 percent level 
originally assumed in the preliminary analysis. DOE chose this reduced 
level because it would result in significant energy savings while still 
maintaining adequate defrost capability. Further details about the 
defrost control parameters are found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
Floating Head Pressure
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE also considered floating head 
pressure as a design option. With floating head pressure, the 
compressor pressure and the saturated condensing temperature (SCT) 
float down to the minimum level at which the compressor can operate. 
DOE assumed that floating head pressure would allow the SCT to float 
down to 70[emsp14][deg]F. DOE also assumed that the SCT would decrease 
at the same rate as the ambient temperature such that the system would 
maintain the same temperature difference (TD) between the SCT and the 
ambient air. This change resulted in a predicted reduction in energy 
consumption because compressors generally run more efficiently at a 
lower SCT. The capacity of the system was related to the SCT and the 
TD.
    Some interested parties commented on DOE's assumptions relating to 
floating head pressure. Heatcraft disagreed with DOE's assumption that 
the TD would be constant as SCT decreases and stated that the TD 
increases as SCT decreases. To illustrate its point, Heatcraft 
calculated the TD of a system at an SCT of 115[emsp14][deg]F and again 
at an SCT of 70[emsp14][deg]F and found that the ratio of the condenser 
TD between these two SCT conditions would be approximately 1.19, not 
1.0 (where a ratio of 1.0 would correspond to no change in TD as SCT 
decreases). This value was calculated using the total heat of rejection 
(THR) of the condenser. (Heatcraft, No. 0058.1 at p. 4) The Joint 
Utilities had several comments relating to the implementation of 
floating head pressure. They recommended that DOE account for the 
additional fan power required for floating head pressure, and stated 
that varying the speed of condenser fans as part of a floating head 
pressure control has effects on the system such as more stable 
operation of the expansion valve and less likelihood of compressor 
damage due to liquid refrigerant reaching the compressor. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at pp. 6 and 10) The Joint Utilities also 
identified two different head pressure control types that have an 
impact on projected energy savings: fan control or fan cycling and a 
condenser valve to maintain the minimum condensing temperature. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 10) Finally, the Joint Utilities pointed 
out that if a lower initial or baseline SCT value is assumed, the 
estimated savings for floating head pressure will be less. (Joint 
Utilities, No. 0061.1 at p. 10)
    To account for the suggestions made by commenters, DOE has 
implemented changes to its NOPR analysis of floating head pressure. 
First, DOE investigated the control methods identified by the Joint 
Utilities. In the current model used for the NOPR analysis, fan 
modulation is implemented in the baseline to maintain a fixed head 
pressure. When floating head pressure is implemented, a valve and 
accompanying controls are added to maintain a minimum condensing 
temperature. Regarding the comments on fan power submitted by the Joint 
Utilities, DOE agrees that at lower ambient temperatures, the

[[Page 55819]]

required fan airflow is higher when floating head pressure is 
implemented because the TD is smaller. DOE's current energy model 
calculates the fan power necessary to maintain adequate heat transfer 
when floating head pressure is implemented. DOE assumed that condenser 
fans would be modulated in the baseline; variable speed condenser fans 
are considered as a separate design option. DOE's model calculates the 
energy savings of variable speed condenser fans with or without 
floating head pressure implemented. The energy model does not capture 
increased stability in the expansion valve or the reduced possibility 
of compressor damage because the energy model attempts to capture the 
performance as rated by the test procedure, and for the reasons stated 
in the test procedure final rule, the test procedure established by DOE 
is designed to rate only certain aspects of the equipment--e.g., AWEF 
and capacity. 76 FR 21580, 21597-21598 (April 15, 2011).
    DOE also assumes that a system tested by the manufacturer would 
likely be a new system, which is unlikely to experience decreased 
stability in the expansion valve; therefore, DOE did not capture 
expansion valve stability in the energy model. The energy model also 
does not capture long-term compressor damage because DOE assumes the 
test procedure would be performed at the point of manufacture of the 
equipment, and would therefore not capture such damage to the 
compressor. Compressor replacement is, however, addressed in the life 
cycle cost analysis (see section IV.F.6). Any additional benefits that 
accrue due to reduced maintenance are also not captured in the 
engineering analysis.
    DOE also acknowledges the Joint Utilities' observation that the 
savings for the floating head pressure option depends on the baseline 
SCT and DOE's energy modeling confirms their assertion that the 
floating head pressure option would appear to save less energy if the 
baseline SCT were lower. However, DOE chose certain baseline SCT values 
for each class that would be realistic considering the equipment rating 
conditions, as explained in section IV.C.4.b. To address Heatcraft's 
comment that TD would increase with decreasing SCT, DOE analyzed the 
total heat of rejection of sample systems using the specified 
temperatures in the test procedure and found an average TD ratio 
corresponding to each compressor type analyzed. DOE implemented the TD 
ratio in the engineering analysis. See chapter 5 of the TSD for more 
details on the floating head pressure design option. DOE requests 
comment on its assumptions and implementation of this option, 
particularly regarding the cost to implement various floating head 
pressure control schemes and the energy savings that would be achieved.
Refrigeration Summary
    After considering all the comments it received on the design 
options, DOE is including the following design options in the NOPR 
analysis:
     Higher efficiency compressors
     Improved condenser coil
     Higher efficiency condenser fan motors
     Improved condenser and evaporator fan blades
     Ambient sub-cooling
     Evaporator and condenser fan control
     Defrost control
     Hot gas defrost
     Head pressure control
    Each design option is explained in detail in chapter 5 of the TSD.
6. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Panels and Doors
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE plotted total energy consumption 
in kilowatt-hours per day versus the increasing cost of representative 
walk-in envelopes. Because DOE is proposing to set component level 
standards, each of the three main products that make up walk-in 
envelopes have independent cost-efficiency curves. For panels, DOE 
measured the U-factor, a measure of thermal conductivity expressed in 
British thermal units per hour-square foot-Fahrenheit (Btu/h-ft\2\-F); 
that is, the heat conducted through the panel per unit time, per square 
foot of panel surface area, per degree Fahrenheit. A lower U-factor 
corresponds to less heat conducted through the panel, indirectly 
decreasing the energy use of the walk-in because the refrigeration 
system does not have to expend additional energy to remove heat from 
the walk-in. DOE plotted the decrease in U-factor versus the increase 
in cost of a single panel. For non-display doors and display doors, DOE 
plotted energy consumption in kWh/day versus the increasing cost of an 
individual non-display door. For a more detailed description of the 
engineering analysis results, see appendix 5A of the TSD.
b. Refrigeration
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE chose refrigeration system sizes 
that best represented the market, but did not attempt to match the 
refrigeration systems to any particular envelope in the engineering 
analysis. DOE received several comments on the preliminary analysis 
regarding matching the refrigeration system to the envelope size. 
American Panel suggested that, because of their interdependence, 
refrigeration and walk-in size should be analyzed together. (American 
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 115) NEEA, NPCC, 
Heatcraft, and American Panel recommended that the refrigeration system 
size match the envelope size. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 9, 
Heatcraft, No. 0069.1 at p. 1, American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 4)
    DOE is proposing to regulate the refrigeration system as an 
individual component in accordance with its proposed component-level 
approach, and is also analyzing the individual components of an 
envelope (panels and doors), rather than the entire envelope. For these 
reasons, DOE did not attempt to match refrigeration systems with any 
particular envelope size. Rather, DOE chose refrigeration system sizes 
for the analysis that capture the range of systems that might be used 
in a walk-in.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE plotted the cost-efficiency data 
points using normalized energy consumption for its engineering 
analysis. AHRI recommended using AWEF and commented that the normalized 
values favor design options, which, in its view, do not necessarily 
reduce energy consumption. The Joint Utilities believed that non-
normalized values would be helpful to understand the analyses. (AHRI, 
No. 0055.1 at pp. 2-3; Joint Utilities, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 171) Consistent with the test procedure final rule and 
AHRI's suggestion, DOE is using AWEF to construct its cost-efficiency 
curves. See 76 FR 21597-21598, 10 CFR 431.302.
    In chapter 5, Appendix A of the preliminary TSD, DOE provided cost-
efficiency curves for all the equipment classes. Numerous stakeholders 
requested that DOE provide more detail about the methodology behind the 
cost efficiency curves because they are concerned about the accuracy of 
these curves. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 165; 
AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 169 and No. 0055.1 at 
p. 2,4; Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 2 and Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 125) Additionally, Manitowoc suggested that a broader 
view of the industry's costs and sizes is required to improve the 
accuracy of the results (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 
at p. 162)
    DOE appreciates the stakeholder comments and notes that it has 
updated

[[Page 55820]]

its initial cost-efficiency curves based on changes to its analysis. 
DOE has provided more detail in this NOPR and the NOPR TSD about the 
calculation methodology used in the engineering analysis, particularly 
due to the publication of the test procedure final rule. DOE also 
updated its analysis with the most recent pricing data related to the 
costs of materials and purchased parts and adjusted the projected 
energy savings of certain design options as detailed in section 
IV.C.5.b.
c. Numerical Results
    Table IV-8, Table IV-9, Table IV-10, and Table IV-11 present cost-
efficiency data for panels, display doors, non-display doors, and 
refrigeration systems, respectively. For refrigeration systems, because 
of the large number of analysis points, DOE presents results for only 
one type of system, DC.L.O, in this notice. See appendix 5A of the TSD 
for complete cost-efficiency results.

                                                     Table IV-8--Cost-Efficiency Results for Panels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Efficiency level
             Class/size                                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Baseline        1            2            3            4            5            6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP.M.SML............................  Cost [$]...............          $54          $58          $61          $67          $73          $86         $231
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.082        0.046        0.040        0.032        0.027        0.024        0.011
SP.M.MED............................  Cost [$]...............         $153         $159         $165         $179         $192         $229         $615
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.061        0.043        0.038        0.030        0.025        0.024        0.011
SP.M.LRG............................  Cost [$]...............         $240         $247         $256         $276         $296         $354         $951
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.056        0.042        0.037        0.030        0.025        0.024        0.011
SP.L.SML............................  Cost [$]...............          $56          $61          $67          $73          $86         $231  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.073        0.040        0.032        0.027        0.024        0.011  ...........
SP.L.MED............................  Cost [$]...............         $159         $165         $179         $192         $229         $615  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.053        0.038        0.030        0.025        0.024        0.011  ...........
SP.L.LRG............................  Cost [$]...............         $249         $256         $276         $296         $354         $951  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.050        0.037        0.030        0.025        0.024        0.011  ...........
FP.L.SML............................  Cost [$]...............          $85          $93          $97         $104         $111         $270  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.071        0.041        0.036        0.030        0.025        0.018  ...........
FP.L.MED............................  Cost [$]...............         $176         $190         $195         $209         $222         $566  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.059        0.039        0.035        0.029        0.024        0.015  ...........
FP.L.LRG............................  Cost [$]...............         $301         $322         $331         $353         $374         $973  ...........
                                      U-factor [Btu/h-ft-F]..        0.054        0.039        0.035        0.028        0.024        0.014  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  Table IV-9--Cost-Efficiency Results for Display Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Efficiency level
             Class/size                                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Baseline        1            2            3            4            5            6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD.M.SML............................  Cost [$]...............         $277         $274         $340         $423         $544         $710       $1,375
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         2.50         1.74         0.98         0.84         0.68         0.58         0.38
DD.M.MED............................  Cost [$]...............         $357         $354         $420         $530         $651         $870       $1,751
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         2.91         2.15         1.14         0.96         0.80         0.66         0.40
DD.M.LRG............................  Cost [$]...............         $470         $478         $544         $692         $813       $1,108       $2,291
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         3.76         2.78         1.43         1.18         0.99         0.81         0.46
DD.L.SML............................  Cost [$]...............         $509         $506         $627         $793         $960       $1,375  ...........
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         5.22         4.34         4.14         2.73         2.02         1.66  ...........
DD.L.MED............................  Cost [$]...............         $643         $640         $761         $980       $1,202       $1,751  ...........
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         6.47         5.58         5.39         3.49         2.56         2.08  ...........
DD.L.LRG............................  Cost [$]...............         $831         $839       $1,135       $1,432       $1,553       $2,291  ...........
                                      Energy Use [kWh/day]...         8.54         7.40         4.83         3.57         3.36         2.70  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Table IV-10--Cost-Efficiency Results for Non-Display Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Efficiency level
             Class/size                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Baseline      1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD.M.SML...........................  Cost [$].............         $180     $184     $210     $214     $222     $273     $281     $487     $655  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.30     0.27     0.22     0.22     0.21     0.17     0.16     0.04     0.02  .......
PD.M.MED...........................  Cost [$].............         $210     $214     $240     $245     $255     $306     $316     $522     $741  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.32     0.28     0.24     0.23     0.22     0.18     0.17     0.05     0.03  .......
PD.M.LRG...........................  Cost [$].............         $265     $270     $296     $303     $316     $368     $381     $587     $904  .......

[[Page 55821]]

 
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.36     0.31     0.27     0.25     0.24     0.20     0.19     0.06     0.04  .......
PD.L.SML...........................  Cost [$].............         $235     $240     $291     $342     $351     $359     $425     $553     $728  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         7.08     6.96     6.52     6.26     6.23     6.20     6.07     6.01     5.98  .......
PD.L.MED...........................  Cost [$].............         $265     $270     $322     $373     $383     $393     $459     $587     $814  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         7.82     7.69     7.25     6.99     6.95     6.92     6.79     6.72     6.67  .......
PD.L.LRG...........................  Cost [$].............         $322     $328     $380     $431     $445     $459     $524     $653     $978  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         9.03     8.88     8.43     8.18     8.11     8.07     7.94     7.88     7.79  .......
FD.M.SML...........................  Cost [$].............         $356     $362     $388     $398     $417     $469     $489     $694   $1,119  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.39     0.35     0.30     0.28     0.26     0.22     0.21     0.08     0.05  .......
FD.M.MED...........................  Cost [$].............         $574     $581     $647     $662     $692     $738     $768     $860   $1,225   $1,899
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.65     0.60     0.46     0.44     0.40     0.36     0.34     0.31     0.25     0.19
FD.M.LRG...........................  Cost [$].............         $719     $727     $793     $813     $853     $898     $938   $1,029   $1,394   $2,296
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].         0.73     0.66     0.53     0.49     0.45     0.41     0.38     0.35     0.29     0.21
FD.L.SML...........................  Cost [$].............         $416     $423     $474     $526     $546     $566     $632     $760   $1,194  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].        10.25    10.08     9.63     9.38     9.29     9.23     9.10     9.03     8.92  .......
FD.L.MED...........................  Cost [$].............         $679     $688     $753     $845     $875     $905     $997   $1,225   $1,911  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].        13.71    13.49    12.58    12.13    11.99    11.90    11.67    11.55    11.35  .......
FD.L.LRG...........................  Cost [$].............         $828     $838     $904     $995   $1,035   $1,075   $1,167   $1,394   $2,310  .......
                                     Energy Use [kWh/day].        15.62    15.36    14.45    14.00    13.81    13.69    13.45    13.34    13.06  .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                 Table IV-11--Cost-Efficiency Results for Refrigeration Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Efficiency level
               Class/size                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Baseline     1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8        9         10        11       12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.L.O HER*.............................  Cost [$]......................     $1591    $1616    $1641    $1671    $1745    $1749    $1760    $1798    $1848    $1898      $2058  .......  .......
6 kBtu..................................
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      2.40     2.62     2.81     2.97     3.30     3.31     3.34     3.43     3.56     3.62       3.65  .......  .......
DC.L.OHER 9 kBtu........................  Cost [$]......................     $1720    $1745    $1770    $1800    $1876    $1881    $1919    $1969    $1980    $2144      $2194  .......  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      2.91     3.10     3.27     3.47     3.86     3.87     3.96     4.07     4.09     4.38       4.44  .......  .......
DC.L.O SCR 6 kBtu.......................  Cost [$]......................     $1838    $1863    $1888    $1918    $1992    $1996    $2034    $2084    $2095    $2250      $2300  .......  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      2.86     3.14     3.39     3.70     4.07     4.09     4.24     4.44     4.48     4.79       4.89  .......  .......
DC.L.O SCR 9 kBtu.......................  Cost [$]......................     $1944    $1969    $1999    $2024    $2100    $2105    $2143    $2193    $2204    $2381      $2531    $2581  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      3.70     3.98     4.35     4.64     5.11     5.13     5.28     5.48     5.52     5.86       6.15     6.25  .......
DC.L.O SCR 54 kBtu......................  Cost [$]......................     $6938    $6968    $7018    $7068    $7188    $7288    $7312    $7362    $7512    $7594     $10312   $10337   $11062
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      4.09     4.44     4.92     5.38     5.93     6.27     6.34     6.43     6.58     6.64       7.77     7.78     7.91
DC.L.O SEM 6 kBtu.......................  Cost [$]......................     $2095    $2120    $2145    $2175    $2248    $2253    $2291    $2341    $2352    $2402      $2555  .......  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      2.47     2.69     2.90     3.15     3.48     3.50     3.60     3.74     3.77     3.84       3.93  .......  .......
DC.L.O SEM 9 kBtu.......................  Cost [$]......................     $2270    $2295    $2320    $2350    $2426    $2430    $2468    $2518    $2666    $2677      $2727  .......  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      2.78     2.96     3.12     3.40     3.77     3.78     3.86     3.96     4.28     4.30       4.36  .......  .......
DC.L.O SEM 54 kBtu......................  Cost [$]......................     $7776    $7806    $7856    $7906    $8006    $8129    $8208    $8258    $8340   $11254     $11720   $11804  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      3.36     3.63     3.99     4.32     4.74     5.24     5.36     5.43     5.47     6.37       6.52     6.54  .......
DC.L.O SEM 72 kBtu......................  Cost [$]......................     $9772    $9802    $9877    $9952   $10075   $10175   $10225   $10304   $10427   $11091     $13999   $14083  .......
                                          AWEF Btu/Wh...................      3.41     3.70     4.11     4.50     4.96     5.36     5.44     5.53     5.58     5.79       6.71     6.72  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* HER indicates a hermetic compressor, SCR indicates a scroll compressor, and SEM indicates a semi-hermetic compressor.

D. Markups Analysis

    This section explains how DOE developed the distribution channel 
and supply chain markups to determine installed costs for the end-users 
of refrigeration systems and envelope components.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE described different distribution 
channels for the two broadly defined segments of the WICF market: the 
food sales (grocery) segment and the food service segment for the 
purposes of

[[Page 55822]]

calculating markups. In the food sales segment, the refrigeration 
systems are predominantly unit coolers connected to multiplex 
condensing systems. In the food service and convenience store market 
segment, the refrigeration systems are mostly dedicated condensing 
systems. DOE acknowledged that walk-in units may also be assembled in 
the field, with key components sourced from different vendors through 
different channels. However, in the preliminary analysis, DOE conducted 
the markups analysis on complete walk-in systems and did not apply 
separate markups for different components. Consequently, DOE assumed in 
the preliminary analysis that the refrigeration system and the envelope 
followed identical distribution channels even if they were manufactured 
by a different set of manufacturers.
    One interested party recommended that DOE include an additional 
distribution channel. Heatcraft commented that the refrigeration system 
manufacturers often sell directly to the envelope manufacturers, who 
integrate the refrigeration systems with the envelopes and then sell 
the assembled units. (Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at 
p. 187) Heatcraft identified this market segment as OEMs and observed 
that this important channel of distribution was not considered by DOE, 
even though 50 percent of the refrigeration system business is 
distributed through the OEM market segment.
    The revised NOPR analysis uses component-level standards for 
specific envelope components and for the refrigeration systems. Because 
of this component-level standards approach, DOE conducts all the key 
analysis steps separately for the refrigeration systems and the 
selected envelope components in the NOPR analysis. As part of this 
approach, DOE includes a distinct OEM distribution channel in the 
markup analysis. Based on interviews with several manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that the percentage share of the aggregate shipments of 
refrigeration systems attributable to the OEM segment of the market is 
55 percent for all dedicated condensing refrigeration systems, similar 
to the 50 percent share indicated by Heatcraft.
    Another interested party commented on the relative shares of the 
different market segments DOE identified. In the preliminary analysis, 
DOE estimated that for walk-ins with dedicated condensing units, 50 
percent of aggregate sales were for the food service segment and the 
remaining 50 percent were for the convenience and small grocery stores 
segment. American Panel commented that for walk-in equipment sold with 
dedicated condensing equipment, the share of the food service segment 
across the two broad market segments should be 80 percent and the share 
of the convenience and small grocery stores segment should be 20 
percent. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 8) In the NOPR, DOE revised 
its shipment analysis as described in chapter 9 of the TSD and noted 
that for the walk-ins with dedicated condensing equipment, the relative 
shares for the food service segment and the convenience and small 
grocery stores segment are now 78 percent and 22 percent, respectively, 
compared to 50 percent each for these two segments estimated in the 
preliminary analysis. These new values closely match the percentage 
shares indicated by American Panel.
    Several interested parties commented on the shares of different 
distribution channels across the market segments that DOE previously 
applied. In the preliminary analysis, DOE indicated that the percentage 
share of the aggregate shipments of refrigeration systems through 
refrigeration wholesalers was 15 percent for multiplex equipment and 
57.5 percent for dedicated condensing equipment on an average basis for 
all the market segments. Heatcraft stated that the percentage share of 
the aggregate shipments of refrigeration systems through the 
refrigeration wholesalers is 50 percent. (Heatcraft, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 284) Based on information gathered through 
interviews with manufacturers of refrigeration systems, DOE has revised 
its estimates for the percentage share of the aggregate shipments of 
refrigeration systems through wholesalers. For the NOPR, DOE revised 
these estimates to 42 percent for dedicated condensing systems and 45 
percent for the unit coolers connected to a multiplex condensing 
system.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that the share of 
electronic commerce (E-commerce) resellers in the food service market 
for dedicated condensing systems is 10 percent. American Panel 
commented that this figure was too high and should be 1 percent or, at 
most, 2 percent. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 
at p. 195 and No. 0048.1 at p. 8) Manitowoc pointed out that E-commerce 
resellers often represent food service equipment distributors selling 
to territories outside the specific territory assigned to them by the 
manufacturer and that their sales could be considered distributor 
sales. In its view, if this aspect is considered, then the share of the 
E-commerce business estimated by DOE in the preliminary analysis is too 
high. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 195) NEEA 
and NPCC reinforced the observations made by American Panel and 
Manitowoc, and suggested that DOE adjust the markup analysis 
accordingly. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 9) DOE agrees with 
Manitowoc's observation that the E-commerce share of total sales is 
essentially composed of sales through the distributor segment and, 
therefore, there is no need to identify this channel of distribution 
separately. As a result of this observation, DOE did not identify this 
as a separate distribution channel in the NOPR analysis.
    American Panel noted that the distribution channel shares described 
by DOE for walk-ins with dedicated condensing equipment sold in the 
food service market segment are accurate for the national accounts and 
distributors under the current economic situation, but it expected to 
see the market share of the national chains increase to 20 percent with 
the economy improving in the next 2 to 3 years. (American Panel, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 144) American Panel also pointed out 
that, for walk-ins with dedicated condensing equipment sold to the food 
service segment, the market share for contractors should be 5 percent 
instead of 10 percent. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 194) In the NOPR markup analysis, DOE has factored American 
Panel's estimates and revised the corresponding market shares to 10 
percent for the national chains and 5 percent for the contractors.
    Regarding the values of the markup multipliers presented in chapter 
6 of the preliminary TSD, several interested parties commented on the 
methodology for arriving at the multiplier. AHRI stated that, when 
multiple-stage markups (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and 
contractor) are estimated separately and multiplied to estimate the 
overall markups, the errors in the different stages are compounded in 
the final result. (AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 3) AHRI suggested that DOE 
avoid compounding errors and instead use retail prices in the analysis. 
DOE notes that the current methodology of the markup analysis is 
standardized in DOE's economic analysis in its energy conservation 
rulemaking activities. A retail price analysis is not feasible, because 
a representative sample of direct end-user prices is difficult to 
obtain from distributors and contractors because pricing data are 
considered business-sensitive. Furthermore, these

[[Page 55823]]

parties often use aggregate markups on the entire contract and separate 
markups for labor and/or equipment installations cannot be established. 
Therefore, DOE continues to use a markup analysis in this NOPR.
    Craig Industries commented that the mechanical contractor may not 
always purchase envelope components from the distributor, but can 
purchase them directly from the manufacturers and, therefore, the 
baseline markup for the mechanical contractor should not include the 
distributor markup. (Craig Industries, No. 0064.1 at p. 1) In the NOPR, 
DOE is proposing component-level standards for the envelope components 
and has revised the markup analysis accordingly. DOE assumes that the 
general contractors would purchase the envelope components directly 
from the manufacturer, and hence, did not include the markup 
percentages of the distributors in the estimated overall markups for 
sales through the contractor channel in the NOPR analysis.
    Regarding the values of the markup multipliers presented in chapter 
6 of the preliminary TSD, American Panel commented that the markup 
multiplier values were too high and should correspond to approximately 
10-12 percent of the markup. (American Panel, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 201) American Panel also questioned DOE's 
assumption that the markup multipliers for unit coolers connected to 
multiplex systems would be substantially lower than the multipliers for 
the dedicated condensing equipment, when both types of equipment move 
through the same channel of distribution. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 
at p. 8) In response to the first comment, DOE notes that the markup 
multipliers obtained in the revised analysis are consistent with the 
markup multipliers derived for other refrigeration products that often 
share the same distribution channels with walk-in coolers and freezers. 
Therefore, DOE considers the markup multipliers to be representative of 
the industry. Regarding the second comment, DOE notes that the overall 
markup multipliers depend not only on the channels through which the 
products are sold, but also on the relative shares of sales of the 
distribution channels. Because unit coolers connected to multiplex 
condensing systems are predominantly used in food sales, and a larger 
percentage of such equipment is sold directly to contractors, the 
equipment would be expected to have lower weighted average markup 
multipliers. The NOPR analysis uses weighted average baseline markup 
multipliers for multiplex and non-multiplex equipment of 1.43 and 1.51, 
respectively.
    One interested party commented on DOE's data sources. NEEA and NPCC 
recommended that, in view of the several comments DOE received on the 
markup analysis and ongoing restructuring and consolidation of the food 
retailing industry, DOE should obtain manufacturer assistance in re-
crafting the markup estimates for each distribution channel. (NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 9) In the NOPR analysis, DOE has revised many of 
its estimates of the shares of individual channels based on comments 
received from interested parties. Given their general reliability, in 
estimating the markup multipliers in specific distribution channels, 
DOE uses data from trade associations and economic census data from the 
U.S. Census Bureau. The NOPR analysis relies on the most recently 
available data to derive the markup multipliers.
    Table IV-12 shows the overall weighted average baseline and 
incremental markups for sales of refrigeration systems and envelope 
components. Chapter 6 and appendix 6A of the TSD provide complete 
details of the methodology and data used in the estimation of the 
markup multipliers.

    Table IV-12--Overall Markup Multipliers for All Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Markup multipliers
             Equipment class             -------------------------------
                                             Baseline       Incremental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.M.I *................................            1.51            1.19
DC.L.I *
DC.M.O *................................            1.51            1.19
DC.L.O *
MC.M....................................            1.43            1.25
MC.L
SP.M....................................            1.16            1.09
SP.L
DD.M....................................            1.41            1.29
DD.L
PD.M....................................            1.16            1.09
PD.L
FD.M....................................            1.16            1.09
FD.L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For DC refrigeration systems, markups apply to both capacity ranges.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The energy use analysis estimates the annual energy consumption of 
refrigeration systems serving walk-ins and the energy consumption that 
can be directly ascribed to the selected components of the WICF 
envelopes. These estimates are used in the subsequent LCC and PBP 
analyses (chapter 8 of the TSD) and NIA (chapter 10 of the TSD).
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated the annual energy 
consumption for a complete theoretical walk-in consisting of an 
envelope and a matched refrigeration system, each at a specific 
efficiency level, using a set of assumptions for product loading, duty 
cycle, and other associated conditions. In the NOPR, DOE is proposing 
energy consumption standards separately for the refrigeration systems 
and a selected set of envelope components: Panels, non-display doors, 
and display doors. Consequently, DOE revised the methodology for 
estimating the annual energy consumption to reflect the new approach.
    A key change from the preliminary analysis methodology for 
estimating the annual energy consumption is that in the NOPR analysis, 
DOE is no longer matching the refrigeration systems to specific 
envelope sizes. The estimates for the annual energy consumption of each 
analyzed representative refrigeration system (see section IV.C.2) were 
reached by assuming that (1) the refrigeration system is sized such 
that it follows a specific daily duty cycle for a given number of hours 
per day at full rated capacity, and (2) the refrigeration systems 
produce no additional refrigeration effect for the remaining period of 
the 24-hour cycle. These assumptions are consistent with the present 
industry practice for sizing refrigeration systems. This methodology 
assumes that the refrigeration system is paired with an envelope that 
generates a load profile such that the rated hourly capacity of the 
paired refrigeration system, operated for the given number of run hours 
per day, produces adequate refrigeration effect to meet the daily 
refrigeration load of the envelope with a safety margin to meet 
contingency situations. Thus, the annual energy consumption estimates 
for the refrigeration system depends on the methodology adopted for 
sizing, the implied assumptions and the extent of oversizing. The 
sizing methodology adopted in this NOPR analysis is further discussed 
later in this section.
    For the envelopes, the estimates of product and infiltration loads 
are no longer used in estimating energy consumption in the analysis 
because these factors are not intended to be mitigated by any of the 
component standards. DOE calculated only the transmission loads across 
the envelope components under test procedure conditions and combined 
that with the annual energy efficiency ratio (AEER) to arrive at the 
annual refrigeration energy consumption associated with the specific 
component. AEER is a ratio of the net amount of heat removed from

[[Page 55824]]

the envelope in Btu by the refrigeration system and the annual energy 
consumed in watt-hours using bin temperature data specified in AHRI 
1250-2009 to calculate AWEF. The annual electricity consumption 
attributable to any envelope component is the sum of the direct 
electrical energy consumed by electrically-powered sub-components 
(e.g., lights and anti-sweat heaters) and the refrigeration energy, 
which is computed by dividing the transmission heat load traceable to 
the envelope component by the AEER metric, where the AEER metric 
represents the efficiency of the refrigeration system with which the 
envelope is paired.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated aggregate refrigeration 
loads of three sizes of complete WICF envelopes in each of the four 
envelope classes (i.e., storage and display coolers and freezers.) In 
the NOPR, given the component-level approach, DOE estimated the annual 
energy consumption per unit of the specific envelope components by 
calculating the transmission load of the component over 24 hours under 
the test procedure conditions, and then calculating the annual 
refrigeration energy consumption attributed to that component by 
applying an appropriate AEER value.
1. Sizing Methodology for the Refrigeration System
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE calculated the required size of 
the refrigeration system for a given envelope by assuming that the 
rated capacity of the refrigeration system would be adequate to meet 
the refrigeration load of a walk-in cooler or freezer during the high-
load condition. The load profile of WICF equipment that DOE used 
broadly followed the load profile assumptions of the industry test 
procedure for refrigeration systems--AHRI 1250-2009, Standard for 
Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (``AHRI 1250-
2009''). As noted earlier, that protocol was incorporated into DOE's 
test procedure. 76 FR 33631 (June 9, 2011).
    As a result, the DOE test procedure incorporates an assumption 
that, during a 24-hour period, a WICF refrigeration system experiences 
a high-load period of 8 hours corresponding to frequent door openings, 
product loading events, and other design load factors, and a low-load 
period for the remaining 16 hours, corresponding to a minimum load 
resulting from conduction, internal heat gains from non-refrigeration 
equipment, and steady-state infiltration across the envelope surfaces. 
During the high-load period, the ratio of the envelope load to the net 
refrigeration system capacity is 70 percent for coolers and 80 percent 
for freezers. During the low-load period, the ratio of the envelope 
load to the net refrigeration system capacity is 10 percent for coolers 
and 40 percent for freezers. The relevant load equations correspond to 
a duty cycle for refrigeration systems, where the system runs at full 
design point refrigeration capacity for 7.2 hours per day for coolers 
and 12.8 hours per day for freezers. Specific equations to vary load 
based on the outdoor ambient temperature are also specified.
    DOE received several comments on its duty cycle assumptions in the 
preliminary analysis. American Panel pointed out that the average 
envelope load hourly distributions for low and high loads used by DOE 
in the preliminary analysis represented a light loading condition and 
should be reversed, implying that a typical refrigeration system would 
experience 16 hours of high load and 8 hours of low load per day, 
rather than DOE's assumptions of 8 hours and 16 hours for high and low 
load, respectively. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
0045 at p. 212) For the restaurant market segment in particular, 
American Panel noted that the high-load and low-load periods would both 
typically be 12 hours each. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 8) 
American Panel also commented that its own heat load calculations use 
18 hours of maximum refrigeration system run time for the freezers and 
noted that this is the industry standard. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 
at p. 3) Manitowoc and Heatcraft, however, agreed with DOE's 
assumptions of the hourly load distributions for the high-load and low-
load periods, which are consistent with AHRI 1250-2009. (Manitowoc, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 215; Heatcraft, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 213) NEEA and NPCC noted that the 
duty cycle assumptions for the energy use analysis were credible and 
did not recommend any changes to this part of the analysis. (NEEA and 
NPCC, No. 0059.1 at p. 10) AHRI also commented that the assumptions 
made by DOE to calculate the duty cycle are acceptable for the 
analysis. (AHRI, No. 0055.1 at p. 3) Manitowoc noted that the envelope 
load assumptions are not supported with measurements from real life 
walk-in monitoring but are based on conservative sizing practices 
followed by the industry to ensure that even in worst-case situations, 
the walk-in will maintain the necessary temperature. (Manitowoc, No. 
0056.1 at p. 3)
    In light of the comments received from American Panel on current 
industry sizing practices, and Manitowoc's comment that actual duty 
cycles differ from the AHRI test procedure conditions, DOE tentatively 
concludes that the duty cycle assumptions of AHRI 1250-2009 should not 
be used for the sizing purposes because they may not represent the 
average conditions for WICF refrigeration systems for all applications 
under all conditions. DOE recognizes that test conditions are often 
designed to effectively compare the performance of equipment with 
different features under the same conditions.
    For the energy use analysis, DOE revisited the duty cycle issue and 
found that the current industry practice for sizing the refrigeration 
system is based on providing a 10 percent safety margin multiplier to 
the calculated aggregate refrigeration load over a 24-hour daily cycle 
and assuming a nominal run time of 16 hours for coolers and 18 hours 
for freezers for sizing the refrigeration system. DOE's key assumption 
in the preliminary analysis of equating the refrigeration capacity to 
the high-box load is not practiced in the industry and DOE has made no 
attempt to model the peak load. The nominal run time varies only in 
special situations--such as when freezers use hot gas defrost or when 
the temperature of the evaporator coil is higher than 32[emsp14][deg]F. 
Consequently, DOE adopted the industry practice described above for 
calculating the energy use and load characterization.
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes a nominal run time of 16 hours per day 
for coolers and 18 hours per day for freezers to calculate the capacity 
of a ``perfectly'' sized refrigeration system. A fixed oversize factor 
is then applied to this size to calculate the actual runtime. With the 
oversize factor applied, DOE assumes that the runtime of the 
refrigeration system is 13.3 hours per day for coolers and 15 hours per 
day for freezers at full design point capacity. The reference outside 
ambient temperatures for the design point capacity conform to the AHRI 
1250-2009 conditions incorporated into the DOE test procedure and are 
95[emsp14][deg]F and 90[emsp14][deg]F for refrigeration systems with 
outdoor and indoor condensers, respectively.
    DOE notes that the AHRI assumptions for high-load and low-load 
conditions were supported by some interested parties and acknowledges 
that the distribution of high-load and low-load hour assumptions could 
be relevant to the equipment energy consumption. DOE has observed, 
however, that the high-load situation is not taken into account by the 
industry in its standard sizing methods and would not represent

[[Page 55825]]

current industry practices. Thus, for the NOPR analysis, DOE has 
revised its sizing methodology to be consistent with its understanding 
of the current industry practice. DOE requests comment on the sizing 
methodology.
2. Oversize Factors
    American Panel commented that DOE's preliminary analysis 
assumptions regarding duty cycle and sizing conflicted with the 
prevalent practice in the industry, which resulted in considerable 
oversizing of the refrigeration systems when paired with a given 
envelope. Oversizing leads to higher first cost estimates for the 
refrigeration equipment and distorts the LCC and PBP results because 
the energy savings are not commensurate with the first costs. American 
Panel further commented that because the refrigeration systems examined 
as part of the preliminary analysis are poorly matched to the 
envelopes, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the accompanying 
LCC, PBP, and NIA results. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 8 and p. 
11) Regarding the annual energy calculations presented in chapter 7 of 
the TSD, American Panel did not believe that DOE properly matched the 
refrigeration systems and envelopes--which yielded an estimated 8 hours 
or less of runtime per day. In its view, this preliminary estimate is 
incorrect. (American Panel, No. 0048.1 at p. 9) American Panel also 
submitted additional documentation demonstrating its own methodology 
for matching the selected refrigeration system capacity to the 
estimated heat load of a walk-in expressed in Btu/h. (American Panel, 
No. 0048.1 at p. 9) DOE investigated further and found that the load 
calculation manuals and sizing software of several refrigeration system 
manufacturers supported American Panel's recommendation on the approach 
to sizing.
    As stated previously, DOE observed that the typical and widespread 
industry practice for sizing the refrigeration system is to calculate 
the daily heat load on the basis of a 24-hour cycle and divide by 16 
hours of runtime for coolers and 18 hours of runtime for freezers. DOE 
also found that it is customary in the industry to allow for a 10 
percent safety margin to the aggregate 24-hour load resulting in 10 
percent oversizing of the refrigeration system.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered a scaled mismatch 
factor in addition to the oversizing related to its duty cycle 
assumptions. DOE recognized that an exact match for the calculated 
refrigeration capacity may not be available for the refrigeration 
systems available in the market because most refrigeration systems are 
mass-produced in discrete capacities. The capacity of the best matched 
refrigeration system is likely to be the nearest higher capacity 
refrigeration system available. This consideration led DOE to develop a 
scaled mismatch factor that could be as high as 33 percent for the 
smaller refrigeration system sizes, and was scaled down for the larger 
sized units. In the preliminary analysis, DOE applied this mismatch 
oversizing factor to the required refrigeration capacity at the high-
load condition to determine the required capacity of the refrigeration 
system to be paired with a given envelope.
    DOE received multiple comments regarding the mismatch factor. 
Manitowoc pointed out that the mismatch factors used by DOE in the 
preliminary analysis are high. DOE assumed that compressors are 
available only in capacity increments of 6000 Btu/h but Manitowoc noted 
that compressors are available at capacity increments of 2000 Btu/h and 
1500 Btu/h for medium- and low-temperature systems, respectively. 
(Manitowoc, No. 0056.1 at p. 3; Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 0045 at p. 220 and p. 222) American Panel pointed out that the 
maximum mismatch factor could be 15 percent. (American Panel, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 0045 at p. 220) Heatcraft stated that DOE's 
assumption that the sizes of refrigeration systems available in the 
market are at 0.5-ton intervals is not applicable for larger sized 
systems. For sizes from 5-10 horsepower, the compressors are available 
in 2.5-horsepower intervals, and for sizes from 10-30 horsepower, 
compressors are available in 5-horsepower intervals. (Heatcraft, No. 
0069.1 at p. 2)
    Based on these comments, DOE recalculated the mismatch factor 
because compressors for the lower capacity units are available at 
smaller size increments than what DOE assumed in the preliminary 
analysis. DOE also agrees with Manitowoc that for larger sizes, the 
size increments of available capacities are higher than size increments 
available for the lower capacities. DOE further noted as part of the 
revised analysis that under current industry practice, if the exact 
calculated size of the refrigeration system with a 10 percent safety 
margin is not available in the market, the user may choose the closest 
matching size even if it has a lower capacity, allowing the daily 
runtimes to be somewhat higher than their intended values. The designer 
would recalculate the revised runtime with the available lower capacity 
and compare it with the target runtime of 16 hours for coolers and 18 
hours for freezers and, if this value falls within acceptable limits, 
then the chosen size of the refrigeration system is accepted and there 
is no mismatch oversizing.
    DOE further examined the data of available capacities in published 
catalogs of several manufacturers and noted that the range of available 
capacities depends on compressor type and manufacturer. Furthermore, 
because smaller capacity increments are available for units in the 
lower capacity range and larger capacity increments are available for 
units in the higher capacity range, the mismatch factor is generally 
uniform over the range of equipment sizes. For the NOPR, DOE 
tentatively concluded from these data that a scaled mismatch factor 
linked to the target capacity of the unit may not be applicable, but 
that the basic need to account for discrete capacities available in the 
market is still valid. To this end, DOE is now applying a uniform 
average mismatch factor of 10 percent over the entire capacity range of 
refrigeration systems.
3. Product Load
    The NOPR analysis does not include an explicitly modeled product 
load to determine the annual energy consumption. Instead, the annual 
energy consumption estimates for the refrigeration systems are based on 
industry practice duty cycle assumptions. This approach does not 
require any explicit modeling of the product load. However, for the 
shipment analysis of refrigeration systems, DOE expressed annual 
shipments and stocks in terms of installed refrigeration capacity (Btu/
h). The shipments of the refrigeration system were linked to the 
shipments of envelopes, which required DOE to estimate the required 
refrigeration capacity for the units shipped. DOE included several 
assumptions about product loads in these calculations. These 
assumptions are discussed in the relevant section on shipment (Section 
IV.G of this NOPR).
4. Other Issues
    DOE received one comment on the issue of the interaction of 
building air-conditioning systems with WICF systems installed within 
them. Ingersoll Rand stated that envelope improvements may not lead to 
significant energy savings because the load on the refrigeration 
systems of the WICF unit would be replaced by the load on the building 
air-conditioning system. DOE did not account for the

[[Page 55826]]

difference in overall energy use that could be directly attributed to 
the improvement of envelope components on the whole building cooling 
load and, correspondingly, any space-cooling energy impacts. At the 
same time, any envelope component improvements may also result in a 
decrease in the use of heating energy within the buildings. This impact 
on building heating and cooling loads would only occur for WICF units 
located indoors. The relative cooling-energy-use penalty to heating-
energy-use benefit is a function of the climate of the region in which 
the building is located, the building type and size, and the placement 
of the WICF units within the building. The relative monetary benefits 
are also a function of the relative heating and cooling fuel costs. The 
quantification of the relative benefits impact would have required an 
extensive analysis of building climate-control performance, which is 
both unnecessary and outside the scope framed by Congress.
    For the refrigeration systems, DOE calculated the annual energy 
consumption for all six classes of refrigeration systems at various 
capacity points with all available compressor options and at all 
efficiency levels for which results of engineering analysis were 
available. The annual energy consumption results were used as inputs to 
the LCC and PBP analyses. Based on the results of the LCC analysis, DOE 
selected the most cost-efficient combination of compressors and other 
components at a given AWEF level for a specific capacity point. 
Fourteen efficiency options were selected from the entire range of 
available AWEF values for each capacity point analyzed. To simplify 
further analysis, however, DOE chose two points from a set of four or 
five capacity points in each of the four dedicated condensing equipment 
classes, and one for each of the two multiplex condensing equipment 
classes. DOE used the shipment data to derive a shipment weighted AEER 
value for each TSL option for the refrigeration system. For the 
envelope components, DOE estimated the associated refrigeration energy 
at each of the TSL options and each level of efficiency of the 
components. The units of analysis were the unit area for the panels and 
each whole door for the doors. DOE added the direct electrical energy 
consumed for each of the doors at different efficiency levels to the 
refrigeration energy to arrive at the total annual energy consumption. 
The annual energy consumption results for the components were used as 
inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses for the components. Chapter 7 of the 
TSD shows the annual average energy consumption estimates by equipment 
class and efficiency level for both the refrigeration system and the 
components.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
of potential energy conservation standards for walk-ins on individual 
consumers--that is, buyers of the equipment. As stated previously, DOE 
adopted a component-based approach for developing performance standards 
for walk-in coolers and freezers. Consequently, the LCC and PBP 
analyses were conducted separately for the refrigeration system and the 
envelope components: panels, non-display doors, and display doors.
    The LCC is defined as the total consumer expense over the life of a 
product, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs 
(expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To calculate the 
operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of 
purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. The PBP is 
defined as the estimated number of years it takes consumers to recover 
the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more 
efficient product. The increased purchase cost is derived from the 
higher first cost of complying with the higher energy conservation 
standard. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the increase in purchase 
cost (normally higher) by the change in the average annual operating 
cost (normally lower) that results from the standard.
    NEEA and NPCC suggested that, when estimating equipment lifetimes, 
DOE should consider both the economic and physical lifetimes of WICF 
equipment. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 0559.1 at p. 11) The physical lifetime 
refers to the duration before the equipmen