Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers, 95758-95807 [2016-29708]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
95758
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–TP–0030]
RIN 1904–AD72
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Walk-in Coolers and
Walk-in Freezers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
test procedure for certain walk-in cooler
and freezer components by improving
the procedure’s clarity, updating related
certification and enforcement provisions
to address the performance-based
energy conservation standards for walkin cooler and freezer equipment, and
establishing labeling requirements to aid
manufacturers in determining
compliance with the relevant standards
for walk-in cooler and freezer
applications. The amendments consist
of provisions specific to certain walk-in
cooler and freezer refrigeration systems,
including product-specific definitions,
removal of a performance credit for hot
gas defrost, and a method to
accommodate refrigeration equipment
that use adaptive defrost and on-cycle
variable-speed evaporator fan control.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
January 27, 2017. The final rule changes
will be mandatory for representations
starting June 26, 2017. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on January 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP0030. The docket Web page will contain
simple instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email:
Ashey.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
(1) AHRI Standard 420–2008 (‘‘AHRI
420–2008’’), ‘‘Performance Rating of
Forced-Circulation Free-Delivery Unit
Coolers for Refrigeration,’’ copyright
2008.
(2) AHRI Standard 1250–2009 (‘‘AHRI
1250–2009’’), ‘‘Standard for
Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers
and Freezers,’’ approved 2009.
(3) ASHRAE Standard 23.1–2010
(‘‘ASHRAE 23.1–2010’’), ‘‘Methods of
Testing for Rating the Performance of
Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units that
Operate at Subcritical Temperatures of
the Refrigerant,’’ ANSI approved
January 28, 2010.
(4) ASTM C518–04 (‘‘ASTM C518’’),
Standard Test Method for Steady-State
Thermal Transmission Properties by
Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus, approved May 1, 2004.
Copies of AHRI Standard 420–2008
and AHRI Standard 1250–2009 may be
purchased from AHRI at 2111 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA
22201, or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
Copies of ASHRAE 23.1–2010 may be
purchased from ASHRAE at 1971 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or by
going to www.ashrae.org.
Copies of ASTM C518 may be
obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, (610) 832–9500.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section IV.N.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Actions in Response to ASRAC
Negotiated Terms
1. Definitions
2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure
Modifications
B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation of
Energy Conservation Standards
1. Re-Organization and Clarification of the
Test Procedure for Walk-In Refrigeration
Systems, Doors, and Panels
2. Representation Requirements
3. Certification and Compliance
Requirements
4. Enforcement Provisions
5. Labeling Requirements
C. Compliance With Other EPCA
Requirements
1. Test Burden
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
D. Additional Comments From Interested
Parties
1. High Temperature Freezer Applications
2. Unit Cooler With Mounted/Ancillary
Components
3. Off-Cycle Unit Cooler Variable-Speed
Fan Setting
4. Unit Cooler Capacity Determination in
Condensing Unit Only Test
5. Insulation Aging
6. Laboratory Qualification
7. Variable-Capacity Condensing Unit Test
Method
8. Request for Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
9. ASRAC Working Group Representation
10. EPCA Prescriptive Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised in Response to
the IRFA
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Businesses Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
1. Description of the Requirements
2. Information Collection Request Title
3. Type of Request
4. Purpose
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers
(collectively, ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’)
are included in the list of ‘‘covered
equipment’’ for which the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) By
definition, a walk-in is an enclosed
storage space of less than 3,000 square
feet that can be walked into and is
refrigerated to prescribed temperatures
based on whether the given unit is a
cooler or a freezer. See generally 42
U.S.C. 6311(20). In simple terms, a
walk-in is an insulated box (or
envelope) serviced by a refrigerated
system that feeds cold air to the box’s
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
interior. DOE’s energy conservation
standards and test procedures for walkins are currently prescribed at 10 CFR
431.306 and 10 CFR 431.304,
respectively. The following sections
discuss DOE’s authority to establish test
procedures for walk-ins and relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s consideration of test procedures
for this equipment.
A. Authority
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’
or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law
94–163, as amended (codified as 42
U.S.C. 6311–6317) established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, a program
covering certain industrial equipment,
including walk-ins, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
In general, this program addresses the
energy efficiency of certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment.
Relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42
U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316 and 6296(d)). Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA provides in relevant part that any
test procedures prescribed or amended
under this section shall be reasonably
designed to produce test results that
measure the energy efficiency, energy
use or estimated annual operating cost
of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use and shall not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2) (detailing criteria for setting
test procedures for industrial
equipment).
DOE also generally periodically
reviews its test procedures and if it
determines that an amendment is
warranted, DOE publishes a proposal to
amend them and offers the public an
opportunity to present oral and written
comments on that proposal. (See
generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) DOE also
generally determines the extent, if any,
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
to which the test procedure
amendment(s) would alter the measured
energy efficiency of any covered
product as determined under the
existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1)) For purposes of this
rulemaking, DOE has made this
determination through its conducting of
a parallel rulemaking setting standards
for certain classes of walk-in
refrigeration systems.
B. Background
Section 312 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110–140 (December 19,
2007), required DOE to establish test
procedures to measure walk-in energy
use. On April 15, 2011, DOE published
test procedures for the principal
components that make up a walk-in:
panels, doors, and refrigeration systems.
DOE took this component-based testing
approach after carefully considering a
significant body of feedback from
interested parties that requiring a single
test procedure for an entire walk-in
would be impractical because most
walk-ins are assembled on-site with
components from different
manufacturers. 76 FR 21580, 21582
(April 15, 2011).
On February 20, 2014, DOE initiated
another test procedure rulemaking for
walk-ins to clarify and modify the test
procedures published in April 2011.
DOE also proposed to revise the existing
regulations for walk-ins to allow
manufacturers, once certain
qualifications are met, to use an
alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘AEDM’’) to certify compliance
and report ratings. That effort, which
came in the form of a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘SNOPR’’), solicited public comments,
data, and information on the proposed
test procedure modifications. 79 FR
9818 (February 20, 2014). DOE
published a final rule codifying the
AEDM provisions and amendments to
the test procedure for walk-ins on May
13. 2014. 79 FR 27388.
DOE also published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to
establish new performance-based energy
conservation standards for walk-ins on
September 11, 2013. (‘‘September 2013
NOPR’’) 78 FR 55782. That NOPR
addressed the comments received
during earlier stages of the rulemaking
and proposed new energy conservation
standards for this equipment. In
conjunction with the September 2013
NOPR, DOE published a technical
support document (‘‘TSD’’) to
accompany the proposed rule along
with spreadsheets addressing aspects of
DOE’s engineering analysis,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95759
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(‘‘GRIM’’), life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’), and
national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’). See
Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015.
DOE proposed standards for eight
dedicated condensing classes of
refrigeration systems, two multiplex
condensing classes of refrigeration
systems, three classes of panels, four
classes of non-display doors, and two
classes of display doors. (The proposed
refrigeration system standards used the
metric ‘‘annual walk-in energy factor’’
(‘‘AWEF’’), and the door standards used
the metric maximum energy
consumption that incorporates thermal
insulating ability and electrical energy
used by the door. The proposed panel
standards were equivalent to those
previously established by Congress and
use a measurement of thermal
insulation—or ‘‘R-value’’—to represent
the energy efficiency of these
components.) DOE published a final
rule adopting these new standards on
June 3, 2014 (‘‘June 2014 final rule’’). 79
FR 32050. Except for the equipment
class standards that were vacated, as
described below, compliance with the
standards adopted in the June 2014 final
rule is required starting on June 5, 2017.
After publication of the June 2014
final rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating
and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) and
Lennox International, Inc. (a
manufacturer of walk-in refrigeration
systems) filed petitions for review of
DOE’s final rule and DOE’s subsequent
denial of a petition for reconsideration
of the rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1,
2014)) with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lennox
Int’l v. Dep’t of Energy, Case No. 14–
60535 (5th Cir.). Other walk-in
refrigeration system manufacturers—
Rheem Manufacturing Co. (owner of
Heat Transfer Products Group) and
Hussmann Corp.—along with the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America (a
trade association representing
contractors who assemble walk-in
refrigeration systems) intervened on the
petitioners’ behalf, while the Natural
Resources Defense Council (‘‘NRDC’’)—
representing itself, the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, and the Texas Ratepayers’
Organization to Save Energy—
intervened on behalf of DOE. As a result
of this litigation, a settlement agreement
was reached that addressed, among
other things, six of the refrigeration
system standards—the standards for
low-temperature dedicated condensing
equipment classes and both mediumand low-temperature multiplex
condensing equipment classes.
A controlling Order from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95760
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Circuit, issued on August 10, 2015,
vacated those six standards. On
November 12, 2015, DOE amended the
CFR to reflect this Order. 80 FR 69837.
The remaining standards promulgated
by the June 2014 final rule—i.e., the (1)
Four standards applicable to dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems
operating at medium-temperatures, (2)
three standards applicable to panels,
and (3) six standards applicable to
doors—were not vacated and continue
to remain subject to the June 5, 2017
compliance date prescribed in the June
2014 final rule. See 79 FR at 32051–
32052 (Table I.1) and 32123–32124
(codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a), (c)–(e)).
To address the vacated standards,
DOE established a Working Group to
negotiate proposed energy conservation
standards to replace them. Specifically,
on August 5, 2015, DOE published a
notice of intent to establish a Working
Group for Certain Equipment Classes of
Refrigeration Systems of Walk-in
Coolers and Freezers to Negotiate a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Energy Conservation Standards
(‘‘Working Group’’). 80 FR 46521. The
Working Group was established under
the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (‘‘FACA’’) and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act (‘‘NRA’’). (5 U.S.C.
App. 2; 5 U.S.C. 561–570, Pub. L. 104–
320.) The purpose of the Working Group
was to discuss and, if possible, reach
consensus on proposed standard levels
for the energy efficiency of the affected
classes of walk-in refrigeration systems.
The Working Group consisted of 12
representatives of parties having a
defined stake in the outcome of the
proposed standards and one DOE
representative (see Table 1). All of the
meetings were open to the public and
broadcast via webinar. Several people
who were not members of the Working
Group attended the meetings and were
given the opportunity to comment on
the proceedings. Non-Working Group
meeting attendees are listed in Table 2.
The Working Group consulted as
appropriate with a range of experts on
technical issues. The Working Group
met in-person on 13 days of meetings
held between August 27 and December
15, 2015.
TABLE 1—WALK-IN REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING WORKING GROUP
Full name
Affiliation
Ashley Armstrong .......................................................................................................................
Lane Burt ....................................................................................................................................
Mary Dane ..................................................................................................................................
Cyril Fowble ................................................................................................................................
Sean Gouw .................................................................................................................................
Andrew Haala .............................................................................................................................
Armin Hauer ................................................................................................................................
John Koon ...................................................................................................................................
Joanna Mauer .............................................................................................................................
Charlie McCrudden .....................................................................................................................
Louis Starr ..................................................................................................................................
Michael Straub ............................................................................................................................
Wayne Warner ............................................................................................................................
U.S. Department of Energy.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Traulsen.
Lennox International, Inc.
CA Investor-Owned Utilities.
Hussmann Corp.
ebm-papst, Inc.
Manitowoc Company.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Rheem Manufacturing.
Emerson Climate Technologies.
TABLE 2—OTHER ASRAC WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS MEETING ATTENDEES AND AFFILIATIONS
Full name
Affiliation
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Akash Bhatia ...............................................................................................................................
Bryan Eisenhower .......................................................................................................................
Dean Groff ..................................................................................................................................
Brian Lamberty ...........................................................................................................................
Michael Layne .............................................................................................................................
Jon McHugh ................................................................................................................................
Yonghui (Frank) Xu ....................................................................................................................
Vince Zolli ...................................................................................................................................
On December 15, 2015, the Working
Group reached consensus on, among
other things, a series of energy
conservation standards to replace those
that were vacated as a result of the
litigation. The Working Group
assembled their recommendations into a
single Term Sheet (See Docket EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016, No. 56) that was
presented to, and approved by, the
ASRAC on December 18, 2015. DOE
anticipates adopting in a separate
rulemaking document energy
conservation standards consistent with
the Working Group’s Term Sheet for
those classes of walk-in refrigeration
systems whose standards were vacated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
Tecumseh Products Company.
VaCom Technologies.
Danfoss.
Unknown.
Turbo Air.
McHugh Energy.
National Coil Company.
KeepRite Refrigeration.
See Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0016 for all background documents on
the negotiated rulemaking.
While the Working Group’s focus
centered primarily on addressing the six
energy conservation standards for lowtemperature dedicated condensing
equipment classes and both mediumand low-temperature multiplex
condensing equipment classes, (see
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
No. 1 and 2), the Term Sheet also
included recommendations that DOE
consider making certain amendments to
the walk-in test procedure. These
recommendations included technical
corrections to the test procedure itself,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
definitions for certain terms to provide
clarity regarding the applicability of the
standards (and, relatedly, the test
procedure), and other changes that the
Working Group deemed necessary in
order to implement the agreed-upon
refrigeration system standards.2 DOE
2 The recommended changes to the test procedure
deal exclusively with efficiency measurement and
certification for the classes of refrigeration systems
that were the subject of the negotiations. These
changes do not affect the test procedures for the
refrigeration system standards that were not
vacated. They specifically address removing test
procedure provisions, including hot gas defrost, and
adding requirements that certified efficiency levels
for evaluating standards compliance would not rely
on the current test procedure provisions for
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
considered the approved Term Sheet,
along with other comments received
during the negotiated rulemaking
process, and proposed several test
procedure amendments addressing
these Term Sheet recommendation in a
NOPR published August 17, 2016
(‘‘August 2016 NOPR’’). 81 FR 54926.
The NOPR also included additional
proposals to facilitate implementation of
energy conservation standards for WICF
components. DOE held a public meeting
to discuss the NOPR on September 12,
2016 and accepted written comments
during a comment period that ended
October 17, 2016. DOE considered these
comments when developing this final
rule.
DOE is requiring manufacturers to use
the prescribed test procedure described
in this document when making
representations regarding the energy use
or efficiency of covered equipment.
Manufacturers will have 180 days after
the final rule’s publication date to
ensure that these representations are
based on this test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d))
The amendments adopted in this final
rule will not change the measured
energy use of the classes of refrigeration
systems whose standards were not
vacated.3 As such, all test procedure
amendments adopted in this final rule
are effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register and required for
representations regarding the energy
consumption of covered equipment 180
days after publication of this final rule
in the Federal Register. The compliance
dates for labeling requirements are
aligned with the corresponding energy
conservation standards compliance
dates, i.e., June 2017 for the standards
established by the June 2014 final rule
that were not vacated, and January 2020
for the refrigeration system standards for
unit coolers and low-temperature
dedicated condensing units.
In addition to implementing the
recommendations detailed in the Term
Sheet developed as part of the ASRAC
negotiated rulemaking meetings, this
final rule fulfills DOE’s obligation to
periodically review its test procedures
under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a). DOE also
adaptive defrost or on-cycle variable-speed
evaporator fans.
3 DOE anticipates adopting performance-based
energy conservation standards for certain classes of
refrigeration systems for walk-ins in a separate
rulemaking—those standards would replace the
standards vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order.
See Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
reviewed other aspects of the WICF test
procedure and ultimately concluded
that, with the exception of the
amendments being made in this final
rule, no other changes are needed at this
point in time. DOE anticipates that its
next evaluation of this test procedure
(and the addressing of any remaining
issues detailed in the Term Sheet that
relate to the WICF test procedure) will
occur in a manner consistent with this
provision. (Term Sheet at EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016, No. 56,
Recommendation #6)
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR
431.304, ‘‘Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy consumption of
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers,’’
and related certification, compliance,
and enforcement provisions of 10 CFR
part 429. The amendments fall into two
groups.
The first group consists of test
procedure modifications and other
additions to the regulatory text
recommended by the Working Group
and listed in the Term Sheet, including
the following:
(1) Adding definitions for the terms
‘‘dedicated condensing unit,’’ ‘‘outdoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system,’’ ‘‘indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system,’’ ‘‘adaptive
defrost,’’ ‘‘process cooling,’’ and
‘‘refrigerated storage space.’’ DOE also is
adding definitions for ‘‘dedicated
condensing refrigeration system,’’
‘‘single-package dedicated system,’’
‘‘matched condensing unit,’’ ‘‘matched
refrigeration system,’’ and modifying the
definition of ‘‘refrigeration system’’ to
complete a comprehensive structure for
defining all relevant terms discussed in
the test procedure.
(2) Removing the method for
calculating defrost energy and defrost
heat load of a system with hot gas
defrost and establish a method to test
hot gas defrost refrigeration systems to
obtain AWEF ratings equivalent to those
of electric defrost refrigeration systems.
(3) Establishing a regulatory approach
for refrigeration systems with adaptive
defrost and/or on-cycle variable-speed
evaporator fan control that requires that
these features be deactivated when such
units are tested to demonstrate
compliance with the standard, while
allowing for representations of their
improved performance when using
these features.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95761
The second group of amendments
consists of test procedure modifications
and certification, compliance, and
enforcement provisions that, while not
part of the Term Sheet, are necessary for
implementing the energy conservation
standards. This group of changes
includes the following:
(1) Re-organizing the test procedure
provisions in 10 CFR 431.304 to
improve clarity, and correct
typographical errors in the rule
language.
(2) Clarifying section 3.0 ‘‘Additional
Definitions’’ in appendix A to subpart R
of part 431.
(3) Modifying the current walk-in
certification and reporting requirements
in 10 CFR 429.53 to clarify applicability
of walk-in test procedures to certain
equipment classes and add provisions
for reporting additional rating metrics.
(4) Adding walk-in refrigeration
systems, panels, and doors to the list of
products and equipment included as
part of the enforcement testing
requirements prescribed in 10 CFR
429.110(e)(2).
(5) Adding product specific
enforcement provisions for walk-ins.
(6) Adding labeling requirements for
walk-in refrigeration systems, panels,
and doors.
III. Discussion
This final rule stems from the detailed
discussions and suggestions offered by
Working Group participants during the
walk-in negotiated rulemaking. These
participants, in addition to providing
detailed technical feedback on replacing
the vacated standards, also offered
detailed recommendations regarding the
walk-in test procedures. These
recommendations were offered as a
means to address questions related to
the treatment of certain types of features
or components that may be present in a
given walk-in refrigeration system. DOE
developed specific proposals to
incorporate the Working Group
recommendations into its test
procedures, resulting in the August
2016 NOPR. 81 FR 54926. DOE received
comments from a number of interested
parties. A list of these parties is
included in Table 3—Interested Parties
Who Commented on the WICF NOPR.
The comments received and DOE’s
decisions regarding finalization of the
test procedure amendments are
discussed in the sections that follow.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95762
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—INTERESTED PARTIES WHO COMMENTED ON THE WICF NOPR
Comment
No.
(Docket
Reference) 1
Commenter
Acronym
Affiliation
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute .................
American Panel Corporation .......................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project and Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. .....................................................
California Investor Owned Utilities ..............................................
CrownTonka ................................................................................
Dow Chemical Company .............................................................
Emerson Climate Technologies ..................................................
EPS Industry Alliance ..................................................................
Heat Controller Inc.2 ....................................................................
Hussmann Corporation ...............................................................
Imperial Brown Inc. .....................................................................
KeepRite Refrigeration ................................................................
KPS Global LLC ..........................................................................
Lennox International, Inc. and Heatcraft Refrigeration Products,
LLC.
Manitowoc Company ...................................................................
National Coil Company ...............................................................
North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
Panasonic Corporation ................................................................
Rheem Manufacturing Company and Heat Transfer Products
Group, LLC.
Ron Shebiu .................................................................................
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.
The Delfield Company .................................................................
Zero Zone, Inc. ............................................................................
AHRI .........................................
APC, American Panel ..............
ASAP and NEEA ......................
Trade Association ....................
Manufacturer ............................
Efficiency Organizations ...........
11, 23
7, 23
19
Bally ..........................................
CA IOUs ...................................
CrownTonka .............................
Dow ..........................................
Emerson ...................................
EPS–IA .....................................
Heat Controller .........................
Hussmann ................................
IB ..............................................
KeepRite ...................................
KPS ..........................................
Lennox ......................................
Manufacturer ............................
Utility Association .....................
Manufacturer ............................
Component/Material Supplier ...
Manufacturer ............................
Trade Association ....................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
22, 23
21
23
9
*
12
23
20, 23
23
17
8
13, 23
Manitowoc ................................
NCC ..........................................
NAFEM .....................................
Panasonic .................................
Rheem ......................................
Manufacturer ............................
Component/Material Supplier ...
Trade Association ....................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
10
16, 23
14
*
18, 23
Shebiu ......................................
DHHS OIG ...............................
Individual ..................................
Federal Agency/Association .....
*
*
Delfield .....................................
Zero Zone .................................
Manufacturer ............................
Manufacturer ............................
*
15
Notes:
1. Comment number 23 indicates the party commented during the public meeting.
2. This commenter is listed as Roxanne Scott in the public meeting transcript.
* These commenters were present at the public meeting but did not make comments at the meeting or submit written comments.
A. Actions in Response to ASRAC
Negotiated Terms
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
1. Definitions
The Working Group recommended
that DOE define the terms ‘‘dedicated
condensing unit,’’ ‘‘matched condensing
unit,’’ and ‘‘outdoor condensing unit’’
(Term Sheet at EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0016, No. 56, Recommendation #1);
‘‘adaptive defrost’’ (Term Sheet at
EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, No. 56,
Recommendation #2); and ‘‘process
cooling,’’ ‘‘preparation room
refrigeration,’’ and ‘‘storage space.’’
(Term Sheet at EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0016, No. 56, Recommendation #7) DOE
sought to define these terms to more
clearly identify the categories of
equipment that are covered and to
clarify the application of the test
procedures and standards to these
equipment. To this end, DOE proposed
definitions for these terms along with
several others, notably, the terms
‘‘dedicated condensing refrigeration
system,’’ ‘‘outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system,’’
‘‘indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system,’’ ‘‘matched
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
refrigeration system,’’ ‘‘unit cooler,’’ and
‘‘packaged dedicated system.’’ These
supplemental definitions were
developed to help enhance the clarity of
the walk-in regulatory framework and to
assist manufacturers in readily
ascertaining how to classify (and certify
for compliance purposes) the myriad of
refrigeration systems they produce.
Finally, DOE proposed to modify the
current definition of ‘‘refrigeration
system’’ to align it more closely with the
terminology being defined. See 81 FR at
54929–54932. The following sections
discuss the proposed definitions and
comments received from stakeholders
regarding the proposals. The precise text
for the final definitions, which will all
appear in 10 CFR 431.302, is contained
in the regulatory text appearing at the
end of this document.
a. Dedicated Condensing Unit and
Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration
System
DOE proposed to define the dedicated
condensing equipment class to address
three refrigeration system
configurations—(1) a dedicated
condensing unit; (2) a packaged
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dedicated system; and (3) a matched
refrigeration system. DOE proposed
defining what a dedicated condensing
refrigeration system is to clarify the
scope of this equipment class.
Consistent with Lennox’s assertion that
single-package refrigeration systems are
a type of dedicated condensing system
(Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
DOE and Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (October 16, 2015), No. 63 at
pp. 249–251), DOE proposed to include
this configuration in the proposed
definition. DOE also proposed that a
matched condensing system—consisting
of a dedicated condensing unit that is
distributed in commerce with one or
more specific unit coolers—would also
be treated as a dedicated condensing
system. Finally, DOE also proposed to
treat as a dedicated condensing system
a dedicated condensing unit sold
separately from any unit cooler. This
proposed clarification underpins DOE’s
certification approach of allowing
manufacturers to test and rate
condensing units separately when
certifying compliance with the
dedicated condensing standard, without
having to distribute their condensing
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
units in commerce with one or more
specific unit coolers. 81 FR at 54929–
54930.
DOE’s proposed definition for
‘‘dedicated condensing unit’’ reflected
each of these elements. Under the
proposed definition, such a unit would
be a positive displacement condensing
unit that is part of a refrigeration system
(as defined in 10 CFR 431.302) and is
an assembly that (1) includes 1 or more
compressors, a condenser, and one
refrigeration circuit and (2) is designed
to serve one refrigerated load. The term
‘‘factory-made’’ was omitted from the
proposed definition to avoid suggesting
that such an assembly is not a
condensing unit (and thus not covered
by DOE regulations) if it happens to be
assembled from its subcomponents after
shipment from the factory. Id.
Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and
NEEA agreed with the proposed
definition of ‘‘dedicated condensing
unit.’’ (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2;
ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 1)
DOE did not receive any opposing
comments regarding its proposed
definition for ‘‘dedicated condensing
unit.’’ Accordingly, DOE is adopting
this definition as proposed.
Additionally, DOE proposed to define
‘‘dedicated condensing refrigeration
system’’ as referring to a (a) dedicated
condensing unit, (b) packaged dedicated
system, or (c) matched refrigeration
system. 81 FR at 54930.
ASAP and NEEA supported this
proposed definition. (ASAP and NEEA,
No. 19 at p. 1) Others, however,
challenged the inclusion of packaged
dedicated systems within the proposed
definition (e.g., Rheem, No. 18 at p. 1).
Comments addressing packaged
dedicated systems are addressed in
section III.A.1.b, including DOE’s
conclusion that these systems, which
are being renamed as ‘‘single-package
dedicated systems,’’ fall within the
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system class. In finalizing this
definition, DOE made no other changes.
b. Single-package Dedicated System
DOE proposed to treat a packaged
dedicated system as a type of dedicated
condensing refrigeration system. These
systems are factory-assembled
equipment where the components
serving the compressor, condenser, and
evaporator functions are ‘‘packaged’’
into a single piece of equipment. The
system is then installed as part of a
walk-in application, with the
compressor and condenser located on
the outside of the walk-in envelope (i.e.,
the boxed storage enclosure) and the
evaporator on the inside. Walk-ins that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
use such a system include a hole in one
of the walls or ceiling of the insulated
enclosure into which the packaged
system is mounted. The use of this
equipment is necessarily limited to
small-capacity walk-ins due to loadbearing limitations of the walk-in
envelope. DOE proposed to define
‘‘packaged dedicated systems’’ by
combining elements of the proposed
definition for ‘‘dedicated condensing
unit’’ (see section III.A.1.a) and the
definition for ‘‘forced-circulation freedelivery unit cooler (unit cooler)’’ from
AHRI–1250–2009. Consequently, DOE
proposed to define a ‘‘packaged
dedicated system’’ as ‘‘a refrigeration
system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302)
that is a single-package assembly that
includes one or more compressors, a
condenser, a means for forced
circulation of refrigerated air, and
elements by which heat is transferred
from air to refrigerant, without any
element external to the system imposing
resistance to flow of the refrigerated
air.’’ DOE did not include the term
‘‘factory-made’’ in the proposed
definition for the same reasons that the
term was omitted from the ‘‘dedicated
condensing unit’’ definition, as
explained earlier. See 81 FR at 54930–
54931.
Rheem and American Panel
commented that a ‘‘packaged dedicated
system’’ leaves the factory as a complete
system, with only power hookup and air
inlet and outlet to be configured on-site.
Consequently, they suggested adding
the clause ‘‘factory-assembled’’ to the
definition for a packaged dedicated
system. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 19–21;
American Panel, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 22)
Public meeting and written comments
submitted to DOE from several
manufacturers and AHRI indicated that
there is no viable test procedure for
packaged systems. Commenters
requested that DOE clarify how to test
and rate this equipment. The
commenters pointed out the necessity of
disassembling the unit to install mass
flow meters and to install the evaporator
and condenser sections in separate
environmental chambers when testing
packaged systems under the current test
procedure. The commenters suggested
that packaged systems should be exempt
from the scope of the WICF standards
because there is no test procedure for
them. Further, Rheem, Manitowoc, and
AHRI stated that it was their
understanding from the ASRAC
Working Group meeting that packaged
systems do not fall within the definition
of dedicated condensing unit, and are
not subject to the dedicating condensing
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95763
class standards. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 16–17; Lennox,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
18; Manitowoc, No. 10 at pp. 3–4;
Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 1–2; Hussmann,
No. 20 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6) The
CA IOUs disagreed with manufacturers’
claims that AHRI 1250–2009 is not an
appropriate test procedure for packaged
dedicated system WICF systems, noting
that AHRI 1250–2009 specifically cites
‘‘integrated single package refrigeration
units’’ as part of its scope. In addition,
the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
change the term, ‘‘packaged dedicated
system,’’ to ‘‘single-package dedicated
system,’’ or ‘‘self-contained units’’. (CA
IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 2–3)
DOE notes that the definition for
‘‘refrigeration system’’ was established
in the context of walk-ins to include
‘‘(1) [a] packaged dedicated system
where the unit cooler and condensing
unit are integrated into a single piece of
equipment’’ in the April 15, 2011 final
rule establishing test procedures for
WICFs. 76 FR at 21605. In DOE’s view,
packaged systems are walk-in
refrigeration systems and are subject to
the applicable prescriptive standards
established by Congress through EISA
2007 along with the performance
standards that DOE prescribes for these
systems.4 DOE notes that this view is
not restricted to DOE, as two
manufacturers confirmed that a singlepackage refrigeration system is a type of
dedicated condensing system on two
occasions during the Working Group
meetings. (Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–
STD–0016; Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (October 16, 2015), No. 63 at
pp. 249–251; Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript (December 3, 2015), No. 57 at
p. 157) Thus, DOE does not support the
position that these systems are not
considered to be WICF refrigeration
systems subject to WICF standards,
including the prescriptive standards
mandated by EPCA.
DOE notes that section 2.1 of AHRI
1250–2009 describes the scope of this
testing standard as applying ‘‘to
mechanical refrigeration equipment
consisting of an integrated single
package refrigeration unit, or separate
4 With respect to these prescriptive requirements,
DOE notes that relevant statutory provision does
not indicate that the promulgation of performance
standards supplants those standards that Congress
already mandated through its enactment of EISA
2007. Accordingly, because there is no explicit
authority in this instance for DOE to override a
statutorily-prescribed standard, the initial design
requirements established by Congress continue to
apply. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)–(5) (detailing
prescriptive design requirements for certain walkin components and the process by which DOE must
prescribe separate walk-in performance-based
standards).
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95764
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
unit cooler and condensing unit
sections, where the condensing section
can be located either outdoor or
indoor.’’ The testing standard further
explains that these controls ‘‘may be
integral, or can be provided by a
separate party as long as performance is
tested and certified with the listed
mechanical equipment accordingly.’’
AHRI 1250–2009, section 2.1.
Further, the possibility that the
equipment has one or more design
characteristics that prevent testing
according to the prescribed test
procedures does not exempt
manufacturers from coverage under the
standards. DOE has established the
waiver process to address such
circumstances. See 10 CFR 431.401.
While DOE acknowledges stakeholders’
comments that the configurations of
certain models of refrigeration systems
may prevent testing according to the
prescribed test procedures,
manufacturers may avail themselves of
the procedures under 10 CFR 431.401 to
obtain a waiver that would enable them
to test this equipment using an
alternative test procedure. This process
requires, among other things, that
manufacturers include in a petition for
waiver any alternate test procedures
known to evaluate the performance of
the equipment in a manner
representative of the energy
consumption characteristics of the basic
model (10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii)). The
filing of the waiver does not exempt a
manufacturer from compliance with
standards or certification requirements.
(10 CFR 431.401(a)(2))
In response to comments that
‘‘factory-assembled’’ should be part of
the definition for single-package
dedicated system, DOE notes that DOE
omitted this clause from several of the
definitions to avoid implying that a
piece of equipment that otherwise meets
the definition does not meet it if part of
the assembly occurs outside a factory.
An example of this is a refrigeration
system that is shipped from the factory
in multiple boxes and then assembled in
the field. DOE agrees that it is likely that
nearly all such single-package systems
are fully assembled in a factory.
However, DOE believes that any such
refrigeration system that is not fully
assembled in a factory, for example, by
having the condenser fan assembly
mounted to the unit in the field, should
still be considered a single-package
refrigeration system and regulated under
the relevant requirements under the
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system equipment class. Hence, DOE is
not adopting the suggested change.
Regarding the CA IOUs’ suggestion
that the term ‘‘packaged dedicated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
system’’ be changed to ‘‘single-package
dedicated system’’ for purposes of
DOE’s regulatory definitions, DOE
surveyed manufacturer literature, and
found that packaged dedicated systems
are marketed as ‘‘Packaged Systems’’ or
‘‘Packaged Refrigeration Systems’’.
(Master-Bilt product specification sheet,
No. 32 at p. 7; Lennox product catalog,
No. 31 at p. 190; and Rheem product
specification, No. 30) However, DOE
believes that the suggested use of the
term ‘‘single-package dedicated
refrigeration system’’ would provide
further clarity, indicating more precisely
what this equipment is, and would be
consistent with the approach already
used for air-conditioning units. This
consistency is significant since walk-in
refrigeration systems are generally very
similar in classification and operation to
air conditioning systems. Accordingly,
the use of the term ‘‘single-package’’ in
the walk-in context would help clarify
the categorization of this equipment and
reduce the potential for industry and
market confusion. To reduce the risk of
confusion, DOE is adopting the
suggested change from the CA–IOUs
and is renaming the ‘‘packaged
dedicated systems’’ category as ‘‘singlepackage dedicated refrigeration
systems.’’
c. Matched Condensing Unit and
Matched Refrigeration System
DOE proposed to define a ‘‘matched
condensing unit’’ as ‘‘a dedicated
condensing unit that is distributed in
commerce with one or more unit
cooler(s) specified by the condensing
unit manufacturer.’’ DOE also proposed
to define ‘‘matched refrigeration
system’’ (also called ‘‘matched-pair’’) as
‘‘a refrigeration system including the
matched condensing unit and the one or
more unit coolers with which it is
distributed in commerce.’’ 81 FR at
54931.
KeepRite supported the proposed
definitions for matched condensing unit
and matched refrigeration system.
(KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1) DOE did not
receive any other comments regarding
this definition and therefore is adopting
it as proposed.
d. Outdoor and Indoor Dedicated
Condensing Refrigeration Systems
DOE has established separate
equipment classes for indoor and
outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration systems. See, e.g. 10 CFR
431.306(e) (breaking out dedicated
condensing refrigeration system classes
based on whether they are indoor/
outdoor units and capacity). DOE
proposed to define an ‘‘outdoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
system’’ as a system that is encased and
capable of maintaining a net capacity at
the 35 °F outdoor temperature condition
that is no less than 65 percent of the net
capacity measured at the 95 °F outdoor
temperature condition for a period of no
less than one hour. See 81 FR at 54931.
This approach differed from the WICF
Term Sheet definition, which focused
on a given unit’s ability to operate in a
35 °F ambient condition—i.e., the unit
‘‘is capable of maintaining the medium
temperature or low temperature DOE
test procedure box conditions (as
specified in 10 CFR 431.304) for an
extended period at the 35 °F outdoor
temperature condition.’’ (Term Sheet at
EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, No. 56,
Recommendation #1) DOE explained
that it modified this part of the
definition to clarify the meaning of the
phrases ‘‘maintaining the . . . box
conditions’’ and ‘‘extended period.’’ See
81 FR at 54931. DOE also proposed to
define an ‘‘indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system’’ as a system that is
not an outdoor dedicated refrigeration
system. See 81 FR at 54932.
Rheem and Lennox commented that
65 percent of net capacity at 95 °F
would not be an effective metric for
differentiating models. (Rheem, No. 18
at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6) Rheem
further indicated that box load and
condensing unit capacity are not the
same and that as ambient temperature is
lowered, the condensing unit capacity
increases, which means overall capacity
will be higher at a 65 °F ambient
temperature than at a 95 °F ambient
temperature. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 24–25)
Manitowoc, Rheem, Lennox, KeepRite
and AHRI also suggested that the
definition should reference existing test
conditions from the test procedure
rather than the proposed conditions—
the use of which, some manufacturers
suggested, has not been supported with
substantiating data in the record.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11
at p. 7)
AHRI, Manitowoc, Lennox, and
Rheem supported the inclusion of ‘‘no
less than one hour’’ in the proposed
‘‘outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system’’ definition. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 7; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p.
4; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 2)
Finally, Manitowoc, Rheem, and
AHRI also requested that the term
‘‘packaged dedicated systems’’ be
removed from both the proposed
definition and the test procedure.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7)
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
As addressed in section III.A.1.b, DOE
considers the renamed ‘‘single-package
dedicated systems’’ to be part of the
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system class, and does not agree with
these commenters’ suggestion to remove
this category of equipment from the
‘‘outdoor’’ definition, since such units
can be designed for outdoor use. Other
than the name change for this
equipment, which was discussed earlier
in section III.A.1.b, the ‘‘outdoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system’’ definition adopted in this final
rule retains this term.
NCC commented that some
condensing units could be used with
both outdoor and indoor applications.
(NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at p. 26) Rheem commented that,
because the outdoor requirements are
more demanding, units that have passed
outdoor certification testing should be
able to apply for indoor certification
without retesting. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 27)
Heat Controller noted that often in the
field a unit that is marketed and sold as
an indoor unit will be fitted with an
aftermarket weather covering and
installed in an outdoor environment by
a contractor. Heat Controller also
commented that the manufacturer
typically provides performance
characteristics for its units at a range of
ambient temperatures and installers will
use these data to verify the unit’s
performance in an outdoor
environment. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 28–30)
Rheem expressed concern about how
DOE would enforce the regulation in
this scenario, where a unit labeled and
certified for indoor use is installed in an
outdoor environment. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 30–31)
ASAP and NEEA noted that outdoor
units have certain design options (e.g.,
floating head pressure control, variablespeed condenser fans, ambient subcooling) that allow them to perform
more efficiently in outdoor
environments. They argued that a test
procedure that would permit a
‘‘loophole’’ allowing units designed and
tested for indoor conditions to be used
for outdoor applications would result in
lost energy savings. ASAP and NEEA
advocated creating a definition that
prevents these ‘‘loopholes’’. (ASAP and
NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)
Hussmann noted that, given that some
condensing units already in the market
are sold for outdoor applications
without an enclosure, the term
‘‘encased’’ should be removed from the
proposed ‘‘outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system’’
definition. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
However, in light of the comments
discussed above indicating that indoor
units are often installed in outdoor
applications, it is not clear whether this
comment suggests that units designed
for outdoor use do not have enclosures
or whether it is confirming that indoor
units are installed outdoors.
The CA IOUs commented that indoor
units should be labeled for ‘‘indoor use
only’’ to help contractors, building
inspectors, and building owners verify
that the equipment complies with
standards. The CA IOUs also explained
that since indoor units have less
stringent AWEF requirements and are
not designed to adjust to the wide
fluctuations in outdoor temperature,
they are generally less costly to
purchase. They speculated that this
price difference could lead to increased
energy consumption, incentivizing
customers to buy less efficient, more
affordable indoor units for outdoor
applications. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 4)
ASAP and NEEA also encouraged DOE
to consider whether labeling
requirements and/or marketing
restrictions could help prevent
equipment certified for indoor use from
being used in outdoor applications.
(ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)
DOE notes that the industry
comments recommended changing the
definition to more closely adhere to the
wording provided in the Term Sheet,
particularly, ‘‘maintaining box
conditions’’ with respect to the interior
of the walk-in enclosure. (KeepRite, No.
17 at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4;
AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 6–7; Lennox, No. 13
at p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2) However,
the commenters were unable to offer
any clarity in applying the phrase
‘‘maintaining box temperature’’—a
central concern raised in DOE’s request
for comments. DOE’s proposed
definition attempted to provide a
measurable criterion to clarify what
maintaining box conditions entails.
Specifically, DOE recognized that
during a WICF refrigeration system test,
the test room conditioning system
would maintain the box conditions if
the unit under test did not. 81 FR at
54931. DOE considered what it would
mean for a refrigeration system to be
maintaining box conditions if it is
refrigerating a walk-in under the
specified ambient temperature (35 °F),
and concluded that the ability to
maintain box conditions would depend
on the load on the refrigeration system.
If the thermal load exceeds the capacity
of the unit, the unit will not maintain
box conditions. DOE considered that the
test procedure temperatures and
specified loads in AHRI 1250–2009
might be a reasonable reference
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95765
regarding the typical box thermal load.
DOE notes that AHRI developed the
industry test procedure, AHRI 1250, in
2009, with input from a working group
consisting of industry and other
stakeholders. Among other elements of
the test procedure, the box load
equations were developed through
working group consensus and based on
a comprehensive load analysis
incorporating all key elements of the
expected heat load. In developing the
equations, that working group assumed
a load of 70% of the capacity at 95 °F
for coolers, and 80% of the capacity at
95 °F for freezers based on industry
input. DOE used the box load equations
in AHRI 1250–2009 (Equation 3 for
medium-temperature and Equation 7 for
low-temperature) in developing the
proposed outdoor unit definition. DOE
notes that commenters asserted that
DOE provided no data, but the
commenters did not dispute the
suggestion that AHRI 1250–2009 might
provide a reasonable indication of box
loads, nor did they provide any
alternative suggestion regarding what
the box load might be at 35 °F. Hence,
DOE believes that its proposed approach
is appropriate to clarify the meaning of
maintaining the box temperature and
does not require additional data to
substantiate it.
In response to Rheem’s observation
that the box load and the condensing
unit capacities are not the same, DOE
agrees. DOE considered that the box
load equations specified in the industry
standard AHRI 1250–2009 test
procedure, which are the basis of the
AWEF efficiency metric, would be a
good representation of the relationship
between the box load and the net
capacity (in 95 °F test conditions) of a
properly-sized condensing unit. DOE
calculated the box load for a walk-in
located in 35 °F ambient outdoor
temperature conditions by using these
equations specified in AHRI 1250–2009.
For both medium-temperature and lowtemperature units, the calculated box
load is approximately 65% of the net
capacity measured in 95 ;°F conditions.
As mentioned above, in order to
‘‘maintain box conditions’’, the capacity
must be equal to the box load—hence,
DOE proposed that maintaining the box
load in 35 °F ambient conditions is
equivalent to having a capacity in this
ambient temperature that is 65% of the
capacity in 95 °F conditions. Hence,
DOE believes that the proposed
definition is equivalent to both the Term
Sheet recommendation and addressed
comments that the definition for indoor/
outdoor dedicated condensing unit
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95766
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
should include language to ‘‘maintain
box conditions.’’
However, given the comments
provided on the proposed definition,
DOE is concerned that the definition (as
proposed) would not be sufficient to
clearly distinguish outdoor units from
indoor units. DOE agrees that unit
capacity at 35 °F may exceed the
capacity at 95 °F. However, if this is true
for an indoor unit, the indoor unit
would be able to maintain box
conditions in a 35 °F ambient
temperature, and in this case, the ability
to ‘‘maintain box conditions’’ would not
distinguish outdoor units from indoor
units—which would undercut its value
as a means of distinguishing outdoor
condensing unit from an indoor unit.
Regarding Hussmann’s comment
regarding enclosures, DOE is not certain
whether it meant that true outdoor units
are sometimes sold without enclosures.
DOE’s research has not identified any
condensing units marketed for outdoor
use that do not have enclosures, but
agrees that it is possible for a system
without an enclosure to be marketed for
outdoor use. In recognition of this
possibility, DOE’s finalized definition
does not include this requirement.
Given all of these considerations, DOE
is unconvinced that the proposed
definition, or the alternatives
recommended by commenters, would be
sufficient to clearly distinguish outdoor
units from indoor units. Thus, DOE is
taking a third approach in this final
rule, allowing the designation of indoor
or outdoor to be provided by the
manufacturer. However, in order to help
ensure that dedicated condensing
systems are installed and used
appropriately, DOE is adopting the CA
IOUs recommendation and will require
that dedicated condensing units not
designated for outdoor use will be
labeled ‘‘indoor use only’’. While DOE
does not believe, as suggested by the CA
IOUs, that the indoor system standard is
less stringent than the outdoor system
standard (see further discussion
regarding this issue below), DOE does
have concerns that refrigeration systems
that are not designed for outdoor use
may not operate properly when
installed outdoors, and thus use more
energy.
The ‘‘indoor use only’’ label will help
prevent the use of indoor units in
outdoor applications, for which they are
not suited. Further, DOE will allow a
manufacturer to designate a unit for
both outdoor and indoor use, thus
acknowledging that condensing units
suitable for outdoor units may be
acceptable for use in indoor
applications, as indicated by Rheem.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 27)
Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the
definition of an outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system as a
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system designated by the manufacturer
for outdoor use and is also finalizing the
definition of an indoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system as a
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system designated by the manufacturer
for indoor use or for which there is no
designation regarding the use location.
DOE notes that ‘‘designated’’ in these
definitions means any form of
representation that the system may be
used in the given location—this
includes representations made in
brochures, online product information,
technical bulletins, installation
instructions, labels, and other related
materials. DOE notes that a dedicated
condensing refrigeration system may be
both an outdoor system and an indoor
system according to the DOE
definitions—but system cannot avoid
classification by having no designation.
Regarding Rheem’s comment that any
outdoor dedicated condensing unit
should also be allowed to be certified as
an indoor dedicated condensing unit
without additional testing, DOE believes
that outdoor systems should be allowed
to be sold as indoor systems if they
comply with both the indoor and
outdoor standards. A manufacturer
choosing this approach would need to
certify the system both as an indoor and
as an outdoor system. It would also
need to test that system at different
requisite conditions related to outdoor
and indoor use in accordance with the
applicable test procedure provisions—
specifically, tests for an outdoor unit are
conducted at 95 °F, 59 °F, and 35 °F
outdoor temperatures, while the active
mode (i.e., while the compressor is
operating) test for an indoor unit is
conducted in a 90 °F environment. (See,
e.g., Table 3 of AHRI–1250–2009 for test
conditions for indoor matched-pair
dedicated condensing mediumtemperature units and Table 4 for
outdoor indoor matched-pair dedicated
condensing medium-temperature units.)
DOE notes that the higher AWEF level
and the typically more complicated
design of outdoor units (i.e., they are
designed with provisions to maintain
elevated condensing temperature for
operating in cooler outdoor
temperatures) do not necessarily mean
that the outdoor standard is more
stringent. The outdoor AWEF is higher
in part because it is calculated on the
basis of many hours of operation in cool
outdoor ambient temperatures.
Consequently, this fact indicates that a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
given basic model’s compliance with an
outdoor dedicated condensing system
standard level does not imply
compliance with the corresponding
indoor standard—thereby undercutting
Rheem’s implied contention that a
compliant outdoor system would always
comply with the applicable indoor
standard when tested using the indoor
test. Generally, equipment meeting the
definition of multiple equipment classes
when operated would have to be tested
and certified as each of these equipment
classes to demonstrate compliance with
DOE’s energy conservation standards.
Hence, in the case of outdoor dedicated
condensing units that also meet the
indoor definition (because they are also
designated for indoor use), to ensure
that no potential loopholes exist with
outdoor units, compliance with both the
outdoor and indoor standard must be
adequately demonstrated by testing in
accordance with the applicable test
procedure (and sampling plan) or by
applying an AEDM that meets DOE’s
regulatory requirements.
e. Unit Cooler
In addition to dedicated condensing
systems, the definition of ‘‘refrigeration
system’’ in 10 CFR 431.302 also
includes unit coolers connected to a
multiplex condensing system. DOE
previously referred to this class of
equipment as ‘‘multiplex condensing,’’
abbreviated as ‘‘MC.’’ DOE proposed to
drop the term ‘‘multiplex condensing’’
and rename this class of equipment as
‘‘unit coolers’’ (i.e., ‘‘UC’’), in order to
align the term with this equipment’s
actual use. DOE also proposed to define
unit coolers as ‘‘an assembly, including
the means for forced air circulation and
elements by which heat is transferred
from air to refrigerant without any
element external to the cooler imposing
air resistance.’’ 81 FR at 54954. This
definition intentionally omits the term
‘‘factory-made’’ to avoid suggesting that
an assembly that is assembled from its
subcomponents after shipment from the
factory is not a unit cooler (and thus not
covered by DOE’s regulations).
Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and
NEEA supported the proposed
definition. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 7;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 33;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; ASAP and NEEA,
No. 19 at p. 1) Hussmann commented
that the proposed definition could be
applied to a condenser, if, the phrase
‘‘transferred from air to refrigerant’’ is
interpreted as potentially referring to
either heating or cooling the air.
(Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 32–33)
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
In response to Hussmann’s concern,
DOE is modifying its proposal by adding
‘‘thus cooling the air’’ to the definition
of unit cooler to clarify the direction of
heat transfer. DOE believes this
clarification will exclude condenser
applications from the definition, since
they heat rather than cool the air that
passes through them. Accordingly, the
definition for unit cooler refers to ‘‘an
assembly, including means for forced air
circulation and elements by which heat
is transferred from air to refrigerant,
thus cooling the air, without any
element external to the cooler imposing
air resistance.’’
f. Refrigeration System
DOE proposed defining a
‘‘refrigeration system’’ as ‘‘the
mechanism (including all controls and
other components integral to the
system’s operation) used to create the
refrigerated environment in the interior
of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting
of: (1) A dedicated condensing
refrigeration system (as defined in 10
CFR 431.302); or (2) A unit cooler.’’ 81
FR at 54932.
Rheem, Manitowoc, and KeepRite
commented that the use of ‘‘or’’ between
proposed clauses (1) and (2) in the
definition would imply that a unit
cooler would be considered a full
refrigeration system, while, in reality, a
unit cooler must be matched with a
condensing unit to function as a full
refrigeration system. Manitowoc and
KeepRite recommended replacing ‘‘or’’
with ‘‘and’’ in the proposed definition.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at pp. 34–35; Manitowoc, No. 10 at
p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
DOE initially defined ‘‘refrigeration
system’’ to set out the scope of coverage
of this equipment in the April 2011 test
procedure final rule for walk-ins. 76 FR
at 21596–21597. However, DOE’s test
procedure for walk-in refrigeration
systems has since been adjusted to
permit manufacturers to certify
compliance on a component basis, i.e.,
manufacturers may separately certify
their condensing units and unit coolers,
if their equipment is distributed in
commerce on this basis. The
‘‘refrigeration system’’ definition was
never intended to be a technical term
that implied that the defined item
included a complete refrigeration
circuit, including the compressor,
condenser, expansion device, and
evaporator.
DOE notes that if the ‘‘or’’ is replaced
by ‘‘and’’ as suggested in the written
comments, the scope of coverage would
be reduced to only pairs including a
dedicated condensing system combined
with a unit cooler. However, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
mentioned earlier in this discussion, by
defining this term, DOE seeks to clearly
set out the scope of regulatory coverage
for this equipment, which could extend
to an individual unit cooler or an
individual condensing unit. Therefore,
consistent with this approach, DOE is
adopting the proposed definition in this
rule.
g. Adaptive Defrost
Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE
proposed to define ‘‘adaptive defrost’’ as
a defrost control system that reduces
defrost frequency by initiating defrosts
or adjusting the number of defrosts per
day in response to operating conditions
(e.g., moisture levels in the refrigerated
space, measurements that represent coil
frost load) rather than initiating defrost
strictly based on compressor run time or
clock time. See 81 FR at 54932–54934.
KeepRite and Rheem supported the
proposed definition. (KeepRite, No. 17
at p. 7; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3) Lennox
agreed with DOE’s proposed definition
but noted that the proposed definition
does not specifically indicate the unit
construction (e.g., presence of a defrost
control) that must be in place to receive
the credit. As a result, Lennox expressed
concern that the credit may be applied
to units that are not able to achieve the
represented efficiency level and whose
unit rating cannot be verified because
adaptive defrost construction is not
physically installed on the unit.
Therefore, Lennox recommended
revising the language of the adaptive
defrost definition to indicate that
representation of energy use
improvements associated with adaptive
defrost can only be applied to
equipment that has adaptive defrost
already included with the unit from the
factory. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 7)
As DOE noted in the August 2016
NOPR, this proposed definition is
consistent with the Working Group’s
agreement that manufacturers should
rate their systems for compliance
purposes without the adaptive defrost
credit, but that the test procedure would
continue to retain its current method for
calculating the benefit of adaptive
defrost to permit manufacturers to make
representations of system efficiency
with this feature included. As indicated
in the NOPR, the Working Group
discussed this topic extensively. (See,
e.g., manufacturer discussion expressing
concerns that DOE had not adequately
defined adaptive defrost and that the
test procedure could permit a
manufacturer to claim the energy
efficiency credit for systems with this
feature even if those systems may not
necessarily yield the efficiency
performance improvement consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95767
with the credit provided by the test
procedure—Docket No. EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016; Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 61
at p. 87; Lennox and Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript (September 30,
2015), No. 67 at pp. 138–144.) After
settling on the certification approach for
adaptive defrost, the Working Group
agreed on a definition of adaptive
defrost without resolving the question of
how DOE would verify that a unit cooler
or condensing unit has adaptive defrost
capability. 81 FR at 54933. DOE agrees
with Lennox’s assertion that
representation of energy use
improvement associated with adaptive
defrost should be allowed only for units
that actually have the technology
installed on the unit. The requirement
that the manufacturer certify to DOE the
improved AWEF of such an adaptive
defrost model suggests that these
models are manufactured with adaptive
defrost controls and are shipped from
the factory with such controls already
installed, rather than being an option
installed after shipping. For this reason,
DOE is including the phrase ‘‘factoryinstalled’’ in the definition to help
ensure that those models with improved
AWEF representations all have adaptive
defrost technology installed. Thus, DOE
is modifying the definition consistent
with this approach by defining adaptive
defrost as referring to a factory-installed
defrost control system that reduces
defrost frequency by initiating defrosts
or adjusting the number of defrosts per
day in response to operating conditions
rather than initiating defrost strictly
based on compressor run time or clock
time.
h. Process Cooling
Background
EPCA defines a walk-in as ‘‘an
enclosed storage space,’’ that can be
walked into, which has a total area of
less than 3,000 square feet, but does not
include products designed and
marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes. (42
U.S.C. 6311(20)) The use of the term
‘‘storage space’’ in the definition raises
questions about which refrigerated
spaces would qualify as a ‘‘storage
space’’ and thereby comprise equipment
subject to the walk-in standards. DOE
has discussed the scope of this
definition throughout its rulemakings to
develop test procedures and energy
conservation standards for walk-ins—
most recently, the August 2016 NOPR
addressed whether the scope extends to
process cooling equipment such as blast
chillers and blast freezers that can be
walked into. 81 FR at 54934–54936.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95768
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE
described the background leading to the
proposal of a definition for walk-in
process cooling refrigeration equipment.
81 FR at 54934. As described in that
document, interested parties requested
that DOE clarify the applicability of
standards to this equipment as part of
the initial standards rulemaking that
DOE conducted for developing walk-in
performance-based standards. The
discussions in that prior rulemaking led
DOE to conclude in the June 2014 final
rule that equipment used solely for
process cooling would not be required
to meet the walk-in standards, but that
products used for ‘‘both process and
storage’’ applications could not
categorically be excluded from coverage.
79 FR at 32068. The August 2016 NOPR
noted also the October 2014 meeting to
clarify aspects of the test procedure,
during which DOE again stated that
blast chillers and blast freezers did not
fall within the scope of the energy
conservation standards established for
walk-ins in the June 2014 final rule.
However, DOE acknowledged at the
time that it did not have a definition for
‘‘process’’ cooling in the context of
walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–
TP–0024, Heatcraft and DOE, Public
Meeting Transcript (October 22, 2014),
No. 0117 at pp. 23, 61– 63) The question
of process cooling arose again during
the Walk-in Working Group meetings,
during which meeting participants
asked DOE to add definitions to clarify
the meaning of process cooling (See
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016:
Manufacturer-submitted material, No. 6
at p. 2; Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (August 27, 2015), No. 15 at
pp. 96–97; AHRI, Public Meeting
Transcript (December 15, 2015), No. 60
at pp. 141–142; and Term Sheet, No. 56,
Recommendation #7)
The August 2016 NOPR explained
that DOE considered process cooling
more carefully in light of the Working
Group’s request to develop clarifying
definitions and concluded that its initial
statements in the 2014 final rule that
blast chillers and blast freezers are not
walk-ins were in error. DOE observed
that, although the EPCA definition
refers to a walk-in as an ‘‘enclosed
storage space’’, there is no clarity
regarding the meaning of ‘‘storage’’ or
the minimum duration for an item to
remain in an enclosure to be considered
in ‘‘storage’’. Hence, DOE now believes
that these categories of equipment,
referred to as ‘‘process cooling
equipment’’ do fall under the EPCA
definition for walk-ins and are, subject
to standards. 81 FR at 54934.
The August 2016 NOPR went on to
discuss DOE’s proposal for defining a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
walk-in process cooling refrigeration
system. DOE specifically developed this
proposal, acknowledging the different
energy use characteristics of process
cooling refrigeration systems as well as
their different equipment attributes (as
compared to other walk-in refrigeration
systems), to exclude such equipment
from being subject to walk-in
refrigeration system performance
standards. (Because DOE now regards
process cooling systems as ‘‘walk-in
coolers or freezers,’’ they will be subject
to the statutory design requirements.)
DOE proposed defining a ‘‘walk-in
process cooling refrigeration system’’ as
‘‘a refrigeration system that is used
exclusively for cooling food or other
substances from one temperature to
another.’’ 81 FR at 54936. The proposed
definition specified that a process
cooling refrigeration system must either
be (1) distributed in commerce with an
enclosure consisting of panels and
door(s) such that the assembled product
has a refrigerating capacity of at least
100 Btu/h per cubic foot of enclosed
internal volume or (2) a unit cooler
having an evaporator coil that is at least
four-and-one-half (4.5) feet in height
and whose height is at least one-andone-half (1.5) times the width. This
proposed definition would cover
process cooling systems that are
distributed in commerce as part of a
complete assembly, process cooling unit
coolers that are distributed separately
from the enclosure, and refrigeration
systems—including unit coolers
meeting the process cooling definition.
81 FR at 54954.
DOE noted in the NOPR that it
proposed to consider process cooling
refrigerated insulated enclosures to be
walk-ins that are subject to the
prescriptive statutory requirements for
walk-ins. DOE also notes that its
discussion and proposals focused on
process cooling refrigeration systems
rather than the panels and doors that
make up the insulated enclosure. Hence,
DOE intended the exclusions associated
with the proposals to apply only to
refrigeration systems that meet the
process cooling definition, and that the
exclusions would be associated with
walk-in refrigeration system
performance standards. Id. at 54934–
54936. DOE also provided a table in the
public meeting presentation to clarify its
interpretation of the applicability of
walk-in standards to different
components of process cooling
equipment. (Public Meeting
Presentation, No. 3 at p. 30) This table
indicated that the proposed exclusion
for process cooling refrigeration systems
would apply to, among other things,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
dedicated condensing units that are
exclusively distributed in commerce
with unit coolers meeting the unit
cooler portion of the process cooling
definition. DOE notes that this
exclusion was not explicit in the
proposed definition and is clarifying it
to explicitly include such dedicated
condensing units in the definition.
Importance of Coverage for Process
Cooling Equipment
DOE explained in the August 2016
NOPR the reasons it believed that walkin process cooling equipment should be
considered to be covered under the
walk-in definition. See 81 FR 54934–
54936. DOE discusses comments
responding to this position, and DOE’s
responses to them. DOE ultimately
concludes that this equipment should
be covered as walk-in equipment. In
DOE’s view, covering this equipment as
a class of walk-in is important in
furthering DOE’s goals for reducing and
limiting energy use because this
equipment represents a growing sector
of the refrigeration industry. Process
cooling equipment emerged on the
market relatively recently in 1990 to
serve a range of food sales and service
applications. (Master-Bilt Blast Chillers,
No. 25 at pp. 2, 3, 10) The global blast
chiller market is expected to grow by an
estimated 4.62% per year from 2016–
2020 and North America is expected to
remain a dominant portion of this
market.5 This growth is the expected
result of increased demand in the food
service industry (e.g., restaurants,
bakeries, catering) and meat processing
industry and growth in the frozen food
market.6 Hence, DOE believes that there
will be a robust market for process
cooling equipment to serve this growing
market need, and that there is a large
potential growth in energy use
associated with this market.
Process Cooling Equipment Status as
Walk-In Equipment
Many commenters argued that process
cooling equipment does not fall under
the walk-in definition. Several of these
comments argued that food is not
‘‘stored’’ in this equipment and/or the
temperature within it is not ‘‘held’’ at a
given temperature for storage purposes.
5 Infinity Research Limited (Technavio), Global
Commercial Blast Chillers Market 2016–2020;
Published November 2016; Accessed November
2016 at www.technavio.com/report/globalmiscellaneous-global-commercial-blast-chillersmarket-2016-2020.
6 Hexa Research, Frozen Food Market Analysis By
Product (Ready Meals, Meat, Seafood, Fruits &
Vegetables, Potatoes, Soup) And Segment Forecasts
To 2020; Published November 2014; Accessed
November 2016 at www.hexaresearch.com/
research-report/frozen-food-industry/.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem,
and Hussmann stated that process
refrigeration systems are not used for
storage and therefore do not satisfy the
statutory definition for a walk-in as an
‘‘enclosed storage space.’’ (AHRI, No. 11
at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18
at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4)
Similarly, Zero Zone argued that the
purpose of process refrigeration systems
conflicts with the dictionary definition
of ‘‘storage.’’ (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 1)
American Panel also explained that
product could be dehydrated and
damaged if left in the process cooling
equipment for an extended period of
time. In its view, this fact should
disqualify process cooling equipment
from being considered as storage
space—one of the key elements of the
walk-in definition. (American Panel,
No. 7 at p. 1) AHRI added that the Term
Sheet included the recommendation
that DOE define process cooling for the
purpose of clarifying that process
cooling equipment are not included in
the scope of WICFs. (AHRI, No. 11 at p.
5)
EPCA defines ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and
‘‘walk-in freezer’’ as an enclosed storage
space refrigerated to temperatures,
respectively, above, and at or below 32
degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked
into, and has a total chilled storage area
of less than 3,000 square feet. (42 U.S.C.
6311(20)(A)) While EPCA does not
define the component terms ‘‘storage’’
or ‘‘can be walked into’’ used in the
walk-in definition, it does expressly
exclude certain equipment from the
definition (i.e. equipment designed and
marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes). (42
U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))
Commenters appear to be arguing that
a unit must hold contents for some
minimum time-period to meet the
‘‘storage’’ element of the definition but
offered no suggested time period for
DOE to consider in applying this
definition. The statutory definition of
‘‘walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer’’
does not indicate a specific timing
requirement or provide further
information about when the use of a
space constitutes storage. Further,
although dictionary definitions of
‘‘storage’’ indicate that the contents be
kept for some period of time, no specific
period is provided.7 As noted in the
7 ‘‘Storage: 1. the act of storing; state or fact of
being stored. 2. capacity or space for storing. 3. a
place, as a room or building, for storing. 4.
Computers. memory (def 11). 5. the price charged
for storing goods.’’ en.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/storage. ‘‘Storage: 1a: space or a place for
storing b: an amount stored c: memory; 2a: the act
of storing: the state of being stored; especially: the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
NOPR, the Working Group
recommended that DOE define ‘‘storage
space’’—which suggests that the term is
ambiguous. 81 FR at 54934. DOE
acknowledges that the role of a process
cooler or freezer is to chill food rapidly
(to approach the temperature of the
cooler or freezer, respectively), and one
could interpret ‘‘storage space’’ to mean
a space the primary purpose of which is
storage. However, that understanding of
‘‘storage space’’ would be incongruous
in the context of walk-in coolers and
freezers. The purpose of such
equipment is not simply storage per se,
like a warehouse; it is storage at cold
temperatures. Storage at cold
temperatures necessarily encompasses
chilling the items to be stored until they
reach the temperature of the storage
space, because items are rarely at
exactly the storage temperature when
they arrive to a walk-in cooler or freezer.
A process cooler or freezer chills items
more quickly than many walk-ins, but
DOE regards that difference as being a
difference in degree, not a fundamental
difference in kind that makes a process
cooler ‘‘chilling’’ equipment and not
‘‘storage’’ equipment.
DOE notes that Recommendation #7
from WICF Term Sheet (which contains
the only mention of process cooling in
the Term Sheet) recommended that DOE
add ‘‘WICF specific definitions for
process cooling, preparation room
refrigeration, and storage space.’’
(Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3) This
recommendation does not state that
these categories of equipment are
excluded from the scope of WICFs. In
fact, a comment received in response to
the initial 2013 notice of proposed
rulemaking for energy conservation
standards stated that process cooling
equipment would appear to fall within
the walk-in definition. (Docket No.
EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015, Hussmann,
No. 93 at pp. 2, 8–9) In re-examining
that comment, along with other
information and materials since the
publication of the June 2014 rule, DOE
has reconsidered its prior views on
process cooling equipment.
As noted in the NOPR, contents are
placed in process cooling equipment for
at least a brief period of time to reduce
their temperature. 81 FR at 54934. When
asked during the public meeting how
long the products remain in a process
cooling system when they are being
cooled, American Panel noted that,
although the Food and Drug
safekeeping of goods in a depository (as a
warehouse) b: the price charged for keeping goods
in a storehouse.’’ www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/storage.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95769
Administration and NSF International
issue recommended maximum
processing times, there is no industryspecified minimum or maximum
processing duration for blast chillers or
blast freezers. (American Panel, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 48)
DOE notes that the 2013 FDA Food
Code requires that food starting at 135
°F be cooled to 70 °F within 2 hours and
to 41 °F within 6 hours (FDA 2013 Food
Code, Chapter 3, Section 501.14(A)),
while NSF requires that rapid pulldown
refrigerators and freezers be able to
reduce food temperature from 135 °F to
40 °F in 4-hours. (NSF/ANSI 7–2009,
section 10.5.1) These time periods differ
significantly and are substantially
longer than the 90-minute pulldown
times discussed in the June 2014 final
rule. (79 FR at 32068). This observation
underscores American Panel’s statement
that there is no standard maximum
processing time. Also, while DOE
recognizes that product may remain in
process cooling equipment for a short
period of time, this fact alone does not
necessarily clarify that the equipment
cannot be considered to have a storage
function. The period of time a product
can be held in a cooler or freezer
without sustaining some damage can be
expected to vary product by product,
depending on a variety of factors
including, whether the product is
chilled or frozen, its packaging when
inserted into the equipment (e.g., what
type and size container it is in, whether
or not it is covered, etc.), moisture
content, size of the individual food
pieces, and other factors. Commenters
did not provide any indication of how
long food products can remain in
process cooling equipment after
completion of cooldown before they
must be removed to avoid damage—
hence, making it difficult to draw clear
distinctions between residence time in
this equipment and lengths of time that
would be associated with ‘‘storage.’’
Absent a definitive time-period to
delineate the use of space as storage
space, DOE considered the design and
operation of process cooling equipment
with other equipment falling within the
WICF definition. DOE considers that
design and operation are reflective of
the function of equipment (i.e. whether
it constitutes storage space) because
these two elements are necessary
components in determining the function
or purpose of a given type of equipment.
Manitowoc and AHRI argued that the
panels and doors used by process
cooling systems are not the same as
those used in other WICF systems and
therefore the WICF prescriptive
requirements should not apply.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; AHRI, No.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95770
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
11 at p. 5) Manitowoc and AHRI did not
clarify how the panels and doors are
different, and provided no indication
that process coolers needed specific
utility features that would justify the
use of different efficiency levels or be
the basis for relief from the performance
requirements that are already in place.
DOE notes that this discussion of panels
and doors did not provide any clarity as
to whether process cooling equipment
provides any storage function.
In the context of blast chillers,
American Panel noted that while the
panels and doors for this equipment
were similar to those used in other
walk-ins, the refrigeration systems used
in blast chillers are designed and used
very differently from walk-ins—a fact
that, in its view, necessitated that these
(and similar process cooling equipment)
be treated separately from walk-ins.
(American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1)
American Panel did not clarify how the
refrigeration systems are designed
differently, in spite of DOE’s request for
data or information on the qualities,
characteristics, or features specific to
the refrigeration system that would
cause a process refrigeration system to
be unable to meet a walk-in refrigeration
system standard. See 81 FR at 54950.
American Panel, however, asserted
that blast chillers and shock freezers
differ from walk-ins in that they have an
on/off switch, they do not reach a stable
condition until the pulldown cycle
ends, either automatically or manually,
and they rely on the user to stop and
restart the cycle. (American Panel, No.
7 at p. 1) In its view, all of these features
differed from the operation of walk-ins,
which typically operate continuously
and independent of user action, being
connected to power at all times. DOE
notes that this description of
refrigeration equipment operation also
applies to other walk-in systems. The
walk-in refrigeration system is sized so
that its capacity is greater than the walkin box load. Equation 1, for example, in
AHRI 1250–2009, indicates that the box
load for a walk-in is 70 percent of the
net refrigeration system capacity at the
design temperature for conditions
outside the box. Hence, a walk-in
refrigeration system does not achieve
steady state operation—it relies on a
thermostat to shut the system off at the
desired internal temperature (e.g., 35 °F
for a walk-in cooler) as the refrigeration
system is pulling down temperature to
what would be a lower steady-state
temperature. As American Panel
indicated, a process cooling system does
not reach stable operation until the
pulldown cycle has ended and an
automatic control may end the cycle to
transition the system from the pulldown
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
cycle into stable operation. This ending
of the pulldown with an automatic
control is the same as a walk-in system’s
pulldown cycle ending by a thermostat.
Hence, in DOE’s view, American Panel’s
observations do not provide a clear
distinction between process cooling and
other walk-in equipment since the
fundamental operational characteristics
remain the same.
American Panel also contended that,
because a blast chiller’s operation
changes continuously and the
equipment exhibits no stable operating
condition, it cannot be tested to a rated
AWEF and a test procedure cannot be
applied. (American Panel, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 46–47,
56, 78) American Panel added that, if
the test procedure were to be updated to
include blast chiller performance
testing, the food industry would support
using NSF’s testing methods for rapid
pulldown refrigeration as a starting
point. (American Panel, No. 07 at p. 2)
DOE notes first that a performancebased test procedure requiring steady
state operation is not necessary for
process cooling refrigeration systems,
because equipment meeting the
definition is excluded from the walk-in
refrigeration system performance
standards,8 and, hence, a method for
measuring AWEF for such equipment is
not needed. However, DOE notes also
that a blast chiller refrigeration system
appears to have no steady operating
condition because its capacity is so
much larger per insulated box internal
volume than for other walk-ins. Once
the products have been pulled down to
the specified temperature, the walls of
the box do not transmit sufficient load
to prevent the internal box temperature
from dropping further—i.e. the box does
not absorb enough heat to prevent its
interior from becoming colder. If the
same refrigeration system were serving
a much larger box, the internal
temperature may very well stabilize to
a steady-state operating temperature.
Conducting a test to determine the
system’s AWEF would require testing
the equipment with a test chamber
whose indoor-room conditioning system
has enough heating capacity to balance
the refrigeration system’s cooling
capacity. Hence, the difference between
a process cooling refrigeration system
and other walk-in refrigeration systems
is a function of the magnitude of
capacity, rather than any fundamental
difference in the operation of the
8 DOE notes that this exclusion does not apply to
condensing units distributed in commerce
individually, because, as discussed elsewhere in
this section, they are indistinguishable from other
walk-in refrigeration systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
equipment. While the magnitude of
capacity is relevant to how quickly a
unit lowers the temperature of its
contents, and may be instructive as to
the duration of storage, it does not
inform the fundamental consideration of
whether a unit provides any storage.
Process cooling equipment such as
blast chillers and blast freezers, despite
any asserted differences, have several
characteristics in common with more
conventional walk-ins that make them
capable of serving the function of
refrigerated product storage. These
characteristics include having an
insulated enclosure made of insulated
panels and a door (or doors) sufficiently
large that the enclosure can be walked
into, and being cooled with a
refrigeration system consisting of a
dedicated condensing unit and a
refrigerant evaporator that operates
using forced convection heat transfer
(i.e., enhanced by air movement created
by a fan). The panels and doors are
fabricated with a sheet metal exterior
shell around insulation that serves as a
thermal barrier. The panels and/or door
also may also have a multi-pane
window to allow viewing of the interior
of the enclosure from the outside. The
doors have hinges or another
mechanism to allow opening for access
to the enclosure interior, with a latching
mechanism to ensure positive closure
when shut. The refrigeration system can
operate to cool the enclosure to
refrigerated temperatures. Product can
be placed in the refrigerated enclosure.
If the product is not already at the
temperature of the internal refrigerated
space, the product’s temperature will
drop, approaching the temperature of
the interior, due to transfer of heat to the
air within the enclosure; otherwise the
product temperature remains at the
average internal temperature until
removed from the enclosure. As
discussed above, while some of the
details of the design of such systems
differ from other walk-ins, these
equipment generally resemble all walkins and are capable of serving the
function of refrigerated product storage.
AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem also
asserted that process cooling equipment
is inconsistent with the term ‘‘walk-in’’
because a person cannot walk into a
process cooling enclosure during
operation. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 3) However, DOE notes that the
walk-in definition does not specify
when the equipment can be walked
into—it simply states that the
equipment must be one ‘‘that can be
walked into.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A))
In interpreting the ‘‘walk-in cooler
and freezer’’ definition, DOE also
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
considered the terms in the context of
EPCA’s WICF provisions as a whole.
EPCA establishes a number of
prescriptive requirements for WICFs.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) While not
dispositive, none of the prescriptive
requirements conflicts with including
process cooling equipment as a class of
walk-in. Additionally, Congress has
already spoken to the groups of
equipment that are excluded from the
walk-in definition by listing specific
equipment (i.e. ones designed and
marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes) that
would be walk-ins. (42 U.S.C.
6311(20)(B)) Process cooling equipment
is not part of this listing, which suggests
that Congress did not contemplate that
this equipment would be excluded from
being treated as a class of walk-in
equipment.
In consideration of these factors, DOE
has determined that process cooling
equipment falls within the EPCA
definition of ‘‘walk-in cooler’’ and
‘‘walk-in freezer.’’ While products may
not be able to be stored in process
cooling equipment on a long-term basis,
products are still stored in process
cooling equipment at least for the
duration they are cooled. If Congress
had intended to limit the application of
the walk-in definition to include only
long-term storage, it could have done so
when crafting the final language of the
statute. Congress, in fact, did not limit
what comprises storage space.
Moreover, when comparing the design
and function of process cooling
equipment with other WICFs, DOE was
unable to determine a distinction with
regard to storage.
AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem,
and Hussmann argued that including
process cooling equipment in the
definitions of walk-in cooler and walkin freezer would be inconsistent with
DOE’s proposed definition for
refrigerated storage space, ‘‘as space
held at refrigerated temperatures’’ since
process cooling equipment does not
hold a specific temperature but changes
the temperature of the contents. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p.
3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4)
DOE notes that comments submitted by
Bally describe process cooling
equipment as operating at ‘‘cold
temperatures (min. of 5 °F)’’ and having
‘‘doors [that] must stay condensate free
while the air temperature is at 5 °F.’’
(Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) These descriptions
suggest control of temperature within
the blast chiller is held at the minimum
5 °F—in other words, the interior is held
at a temperature near 5 °F. This fact
suggests that process cooling equipment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
can (and do) hold temperatures,
contrary to the comments. Nevertheless,
DOE notes that the proposed definition
for refrigerated storage space as ‘‘space
held at refrigerated temperatures’’ does
not require that the temperature be held
at a discrete constant value—instead, it
only requires that the space is held at a
temperature consistent with
‘‘refrigerated,’’ i.e., ‘‘held at a
temperature at or below 55 °F’’. The
spaces within blast chillers and freezers
are held below 55 °F and, thus are
consistent with the definition of
‘‘refrigerated storage space.’’
NAFEM also weighed in on this issue
generally, arguing that blast chillers
should not be considered within the
scope of the walk-in definition because
there is no appropriate test procedure
for blast chillers. (NAFEM, No. 14 at p.
1) However, EPCA’s walk-in definition
does not stipulate that its scope extends
only to equipment for which there is a
test procedure. In fact, EPCA mandated
prescriptive standards for walk-ins that
took effect (on January 1, 2009, see 42
U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) before DOE finalized a
test procedure on April 15, 2011 for
measuring a given unit’s energy
efficiency. 76 FR 21580. Similarly, in
response to American Panel’s comment
that a process cooling refrigeration
system is not a walk-in because it
cannot be rated with an AWEF,
satisfaction of the separate statutory
prescriptive requirements specified in
the statute (e.g. use of certain
componentry, satisfaction of certain
thermal insulation thresholds for doors
and panels, and installation of devices
to minimize infiltration) have no direct
bearing on the AWEF value of a given
refrigeration system. Hence, the
question of whether a given walk-in
refrigeration system can be rated with
this metric has no bearing on whether
the equipment is a walk-in.
Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also
noted that an ASHRAE Special Project
Committee (‘‘SPC’’) has been formed to
draft a relevant testing standard titled,
‘‘Method of Testing for (Rating) Small
Commercial Blast Chillers, Chiller/
Freezers, and Freezers.’’ They argued
that in light of this work, it is premature
to define process cooling systems while
this new industry standard is still under
development. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p.
3; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 11
at p. 5) DOE notes that the WICF
Working Group, which included
Manitowoc and Rheem, requested that
DOE develop a definition for process
cooling. Before the finalization of the
WICF Term Sheet on December 15,
2015, DOE was not aware of any
announcement from ASHRAE SPC
regarding the start of its work.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95771
Nevertheless, the SPC has not finished
its work, and the commenters did not
provide any indication of what
equipment definitions the SPC is
considering. Accordingly, DOE has
finalized its definition in the manner
proposed, based on the industry input
provided. DOE may consider revising its
‘‘process cooling’’ definition if
necessary once the ASHRAE rating
method for blast chillers, chiller/
freezers, and freezers is complete.
Finally, DOE notes that the CA IOUs
supported treating process cooling as a
subset category of WICF equipment.
Further, they supported requiring
process cooling panels, doors, and
dedicated condensing units not sold as
part of a ‘‘matched-pair with a unit
cooler’’ to meet the 2014 final rule WICF
standards and the proposed standards
under consideration. (CA IOUs, No. 21
at p. 2)
As described in the NOPR, DOE
concluded that while process cooling
enclosures that resemble walk-ins are
within the scope of walk-ins, it
proposed to exclude some of the
refrigeration systems of these process
cooler walk-ins from the performancebased standards established and in
development for WICF refrigeration
systems. 81 FR at 54934–54937. For the
reasons described earlier, DOE has not
revised its proposed approach after
review of the comments, and believes
that its definition, as adopted in this
rule, satisfies the recommendations of
the Working Group Term Sheet.
Distinguishing Characteristics of Process
Cooling Refrigeration Systems
DOE received few comments
regarding the distinguishing
characteristics proposed for process
cooling refrigeration systems. In fact,
only one of the commenters mentioned
any characteristic of the refrigeration
system condensing unit of a process
cooling system that might distinguish it
from the equipment serving other walkins—Bally commented that the
condensing units are not unique to blast
chillers, except with respect to extra
receiver capacity. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1)
However, DOE would not consider a
larger receiver to be a sufficient
difference to distinguish these
condensing units since using a larger
receiver would not affect steady state
energy use as measured by the test
procedure, since the receiver itself does
not consume energy and does not
contribute significantly to the heat
transfer function of the condenser.
Furthermore, there is a range of
refrigerant receiver capacities used in
walk-in refrigeration systems and it is
not clear that there is an appropriate
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95772
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
receiver capacity threshold that would
indicate that a condensing unit is used
for process cooling rather than for other
walk-in functions—neither Bally nor
other commenters suggested such a
threshold value. Consequently, DOE
would not consider a larger receiver to
distinguish process cooling condensing
units. Absent any other clear
distinguishing feature, DOE must
conclude that the condensing units used
for process cooling are no different than
those used for other walk-ins.
Lennox recommended that the
evaporator coil height, width, and depth
be defined on a diagram accompanying
the proposed definition to prevent a
misinterpretation of the dimensions.
(Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 40) Lennox provided a diagram
to illustrate this in its written comments
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) In reviewing
this diagram, DOE agrees that the
dimensions shown in the provided
diagram are consistent with the
proposed definition’s intent and agrees
that a diagram would be useful to clarify
the applicable dimensions. Accordingly,
the final rule incorporates a diagram
based on the one submitted by Lennox
to clarify the process cooling definition.
With respect to blast freezers, Bally
noted that some of these equipment use
horizontally-oriented evaporator units
and some non-process cooling
refrigeration systems chill their contents
using a circular pattern. In its view,
because of the absence of any standard
orientation or chilling pattern for
process cooling and non-process cooling
refrigeration systems, these design
characteristics are not useful for
differentiating process refrigeration
systems. (Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 41–42) DOE
notes that a horizontally-oriented
evaporator that is not part of a unit
cooler as defined would not be subject
to the unit cooler standards, nor would
it, as a matched pair with a dedicated
condensing unit, be subject to the
dedicated condensing unit standards. In
order to clarify the extension of this
exclusion to matched pairs including
such evaporators, DOE has modified the
process cooling refrigeration system
definition to explicitly list dedicated
condensing units that are distributed in
commerce exclusively with evaporators
that are not unit coolers.
Alternatively, Bally suggested that
airflow rate may be a good characteristic
for differentiating process refrigeration
systems from other walk-in refrigeration
systems. (Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 44) American
Panel expressed concern with the use of
a cooling capacity per enclosed volume
rating to differentiate process cooling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
equipment because the equipment may
be used to process different quantities or
densities of product at different times—
a condition which may prevent a given
blast chiller from satisfying a definition
based on cooling capacity per enclosed
volume. (American Panel, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 38–39)
DOE had considered airflow rate or air
velocity to distinguish process cooling
evaporators, noting that evaporator fan
power, velocity, or air flow of a unit
cooler could be atypically high for a
number of reasons, including the use of
inefficient fans or motors, long air
‘‘throw’’ distance, and other factors.
(See 81 FR at 54936) For example,
DOE’s investigation of evaporator fan
horsepower showed that the horsepower
for process cooling evaporator fans,
although generally higher than for other
walk-in evaporators, is not always
higher than all such other walk-in
evaporators—a potential overlapping
fact that lessens the value of using
horsepower as a clear distinguishing
characteristic. Hence, DOE concluded
that there would be too much overlap
with other WICF unit coolers on the
basis of these parameters. DOE notes
that Bally’s submission did not provide
sufficient information or data that
would support the use of a specific air
flow rate on which DOE could rely that
would serve as the basis for
distinguishing process coolers from
other walk-in refrigeration systems.
With respect to American Panel’s
concerns, DOE notes that its comments
provided no alternative value of cooling
load per volume for DOE to consider
that would enable one to readily
distinguish process cooling refrigeration
systems from non-process cooling
refrigeration systems. While American
Panel seems to suggest that the capacity
of the refrigeration system would
depend on the load inserted into a
process cooler, DOE disagrees, because
the capacity cited in the proposed
definition is the refrigeration system’s
net capacity when determined in a
manner consistent with the prescribed
walk-in test conditions—this capacity
depends on the refrigeration system
characteristics, not on how much
product is being cooled. Specifically,
when testing a condensing unit alone,
the test calls for maintaining certain
operating conditions (see, e.g., tables 11
through 14 of AHRI 1250–2009, which
specify air and refrigerant entering
conditions and refrigerant exiting
subcooling condition, but nothing about
the quantity of product being cooled).
No commenters provided specific
suggestions regarding the
appropriateness of the proposed 100
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Btu/h per cubic foot, i.e., what lower
value would be more appropriate.
Additionally, commenters provided no
other suggestions regarding more
appropriate distinguishing
characteristics to use for process cooling
refrigeration systems, and none
provided specific quantified values for
recommended parameters to use in the
definition. Hence, DOE is largely
adopting the approach contained in its
proposed definition.
However, to address the comments
regarding the inconsistency of the
‘‘storage’’ aspect of walk-ins with the
pulldown of product temperature in
process cooling equipment, DOE will
modify the definition to identify
refrigeration systems that are ‘‘capable
of rapidly cooling food or other
substances’’ rather than systems that are
‘‘used exclusively’’ for this purpose.
Also, in order to clarify that the
enclosure that uses these refrigeration
systems is insulated, DOE will insert
‘‘insulated’’ before the word
‘‘enclosure’’ in the definition.
KPS raised concern regarding the
precision of the process cooling
definition, indicating that ‘‘blast
chillers’’ and ‘‘blast freezers’’ are used
by customers and manufacturers to
describe a range of product types. (KPS,
No. 8 at p. 1) KPS did not, however,
elaborate on what other types of
equipment should be addressed (or
excluded) by DOE’s proposed
definition. DOE is aware, for example,
of blast chillers and freezers that are
smaller than walk-ins and that might be
considered ‘‘reach-in process cooling
equipment,’’ i.e., process cooling
equipment which the user reaches into
rather than walks into to insert or
remove product. This terminology is
consistent with the term ‘‘reach-in’’
used with commercial refrigeration
equipment (see, e.g., Reach In
Refrigerator, No. 26) However, DOE is
not concerned that such equipment
would be confused with walk-in process
cooling equipment, because such reachin equipment cannot be walked into.
Other Comments From Manufacturers of
Process Cooling Equipment
Bally noted that blast chillers are built
in small quantities with uniquely
designed electronically commutated
motors (‘‘ECMs’’) and expressed concern
with how the proposed regulations
would affect the ECM supply chain.
(Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at pp. 42–43) Bally elaborated in
written comments that ECM orders can
have up to 15 weeks of lead-time and
have to be ordered in small batches.
(Bally, No. 22 at pp. 1–2) Accordingly,
Bally suggested that the proposed 60-
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
day enforcement delay be extended to
allow for changes in the refrigeration
equipment industry to meet the new
regulations. (Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 50) Given the
15-week lead-time indicated in the
comment, DOE plans to issue a policy
stating that DOE will exercise its
enforcement discretion for 120 days
after publication of the final rule, to
allow manufacturers of walk-in
refrigeration systems that are used
exclusively in process cooling
applications to comply and to certify
compliance with the applicable
statutory standard.
With respect to the proposed
definition for process cooling
refrigeration systems, Bally suggested
that the definition specify that the doors
used with this equipment be freezer
doors. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 53) Bally reiterated this
comment in its written submission,
indicating that the 5 °F temperature
inside a blast chiller makes it
challenging to prevent the formation of
condensation. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) In
response, DOE notes that a walk-in with
a 5 °F internal temperature is
technically a freezer (see e.g., the
definition for walk-in cooler and walkin freezer, which states that freezers are
refrigerated to temperatures below 32
°F, 42 U.S.C 6311(20)(A)), and hence,
the door standards applicable to freezer
doors would apply for such equipment.
Bally also requested that there be no
requirement for floor insulation for
process equipment. It noted that tray
carts must roll in and out of the
enclosure, which means that they
cannot use ramps, and that building a
pit to accommodate the necessary
insulation would be expensive and
could pose structural issues. (Bally, No.
22 at p. 1) Consistent with DOE’s view,
as discussed elsewhere in this
discussion, that the process cooling
enclosures discussed by Bally would be
considered to be walk-in freezers, DOE
notes that the statutory prescriptive
requirements already require floor
insulation of R–28. (42 U.S.C.
6311(f)(1)(D)) Given this requirement,
DOE has no discretion regarding the
applicability of the floor insulation
requirement, which is imposed by
statute.
i. Preparation Room Refrigeration
DOE proposed defining ‘‘preparation
room refrigeration’’ as comprising
applications that use ‘‘a unit cooler that
is designed for use in a room occupied
by personnel who are preparing food
and that is characterized by low outlet
air velocity, evaporator temperature
between 30 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
and electric or hot gas defrost.’’ 81 FR
at 54937. While DOE proposed to define
this type of refrigeration system for the
purpose of enhancing clarity, this
equipment would not be exempt from
the applicable standards that were
already prescribed by Congress with
respect to walk-ins. DOE requested
comment on any other characteristics of
preparation room refrigeration that
would (1) clearly distinguish it from
other walk-in refrigeration systems and
(2) otherwise make this equipment
unable to meet a given walk-in
refrigeration standard.
Preparation Room Equipment Status as
Walk-in Equipment
Commenters addressed whether
preparation room equipment falls under
the scope of walk-ins. As mentioned in
section III.A.1.h, AHRI noted that
preparation room refrigeration was
included in the WICF Term Sheet in
order to exclude this equipment from
the scope of walk-ins. (AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 5) However, as noted in the
discussion of that section, the Term
Sheet did not provide any guidance
regarding whether preparation room
refrigeration falls within the scope of
walk-ins. (Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3)
AHRI, Lennox, Manitowoc,
Hussmann, Rheem, and KeepRite
asserted that preparation rooms fall
outside the scope of walk-ins and urged
DOE to exclude them. (AHRI, No. 11 at
pp. 4–5; Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 8–9;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Hussmann,
No. 20 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Commenters
provided several reasons why
preparation room equipment should not
be considered within the scope of walkins. AHRI stated that ‘‘these systems are
not commonly enclosed’’ and that they
are not for storage. (AHRI, No. 11 at p.
4) Other stakeholders provided
variations on the ‘‘not enclosed’’ theme,
including, for example, Rheem (‘‘not
always an enclosed space’’), Hussmann
(‘‘often not enclosed,’’ but also discusses
the possibility that they are enclosed,
i.e., ‘‘when enclosed, these are rooms
where . . .’’), KeepRite and Manitowoc
(‘‘not commonly enclosed’’), and
Lennox (‘‘are not ‘enclosed storage
spaces’’’). (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58; Hussmann,
No. 20 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 8)
Regarding the issue of equipment use
for food storage, Lennox commented
that preparation rooms are areas where
humans occupy the space to prepare
and package food. (Lennox, No. 13 at p.
8) Hussmann commented that
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95773
preparation rooms are places where
work is being performed on the product,
not places where finalized goods are
stored. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) Other
commenters, including Manitowoc,
AHRI, KeepRite, and Rheem also stated
that preparation rooms are not used for
storage. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2;
AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17
at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3)
Several commenters suggested that
DOE consider an alternative definition:
‘‘An open space or space without a
sealed door (as defined in 10 CFR part
431.302) that separates the interior
volume of a unit of commercial
refrigeration equipment from the
ambient environment, designed for use
in a room occupied by personnel who
are preparing and packaging food. A
preparation room is not designed for
storage.’’ (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Similar
definitions of preparation room or
preparation space were suggested by
Lennox, Rheem, and Manitowoc.
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8; Rheem, No. 18
at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at pp. 2–3)
DOE notes that the WICF Term Sheet
recommended that DOE develop a
definition for ‘‘preparation room
refrigeration’’ to focus on the
refrigeration system, rather than
preparation spaces in general. (Docket
EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, Term Sheet,
No. 56 at p. 3) This approach is
reinforced by the agenda for the WICF
Working Group meetings, which
included as key issues, (a) proposed
energy conservation standards for six
classes of refrigeration systems, and (b)
potential impacts on installers, neither
of which addresses preparation spaces
generally. 80 FR at 46523. Hence, DOE’s
intent in requesting comment on its
definition of preparation room
refrigeration was to solicit information
regarding the characteristics of this
equipment that would distinguish it
from walk-in refrigeration systems.
Discussion of the proposed
characteristics appears below, but DOE
notes that none of the comments
received provided information regarding
features that distinguish preparation
room refrigeration systems from walk-in
refrigeration systems. The emphasis of
the commenters on the lack of an
enclosure or the use of preparation room
space for purposes other than storage
does not represent any feature that
distinguishes the refrigeration systems
used in these two groups of equipment.
As indicated in the NOPR, DOE had not
identified any characteristics of
preparation room refrigeration systems
that would distinguish them from other
walk-in refrigeration systems. The
definition was primarily proposed in
order to explore the recommendation of
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95774
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
the WICF Working Group and to solicit
information regarding distinguishing
characteristics of this equipment. The
definition was not proposed as the basis
for an exclusion. 81 FR at 54937.
Comments regarding the proposed
distinguishing characteristics for this
equipment are described in more detail
below, but DOE notes that commenters
did not believe the proposed
characteristics could be used as the
basis for distinguishing this equipment
from other walk-in refrigeration
equipment. Nor, as mentioned, did they
provide alternative characteristics that
could be used for this distinction. With
this final rule notice, DOE confirms,
based on comments received, that the
initial conclusion was correct that there
are no clear distinguishing
characteristics of preparation room
refrigeration systems and other walk-in
refrigeration.
Regarding the suggested alternative
definitions based on non-refrigeration
system-based characteristics, in DOE’s
view, these characteristics play no role
in distinguishing those refrigeration
systems used in preparation room
applications from non-preparation room
applications, since they describe
preparation room space but do not
address the refrigeration systems used
for these spaces. Accordingly, DOE is
declining to adopt these suggested
changes to the proposed definition.
Comments regarding the proposed
distinguishing characteristics and DOE’s
responses are discussed in more detail
below.
Distinguishing Characteristics of
Preparation Room Refrigeration Systems
DOE received several comments
regarding the characteristics it proposed
including as part of the proposed
definition of preparation room
refrigeration to distinguish this
equipment from non-preparation room
refrigeration systems. AHRI stated that
DOE’s proposed definition is unclear
and incorrect because the evaporator
temperature specification does not
indicate whether it is ambient or suction
temperature, there is no quantified
specification for ‘‘low outlet air
velocity,’’ and because these systems do
not exclusively use electric or hot gas
defrost. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Others
made these same points. Manitowoc
indicated that specifying the evaporator
temperature does not clarify whether
the temperature is ambient or suction
temperature. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3)
Rheem and Lennox suggested that the
evaporator temperature in the definition
be clarified as the ‘‘saturated suction
temperature’’. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 57; Lennox,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
58) Rheem, Manitowoc, Lennox, and
KeepRite also commented that
preparation room refrigeration systems
may use air defrost, which argues in
favor of not limiting the definition to gas
or electric defrost units. Finally, Rheem,
Manitowoc, Lennox, and KeepRite
suggested that the ‘‘low air velocity’’
cited in the proposed definition should
be more specifically defined. (Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
58; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
AHRI also requested that information
related to preparation room refrigeration
systems (beyond its suggested
alternative definition) be removed in the
final rule. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 4–5)
Manitowoc also requested that DOE
exclude all information related to
preparation room refrigeration from the
scope of this rulemaking. (Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 3) Regarding the
characteristics of preparation room
refrigeration systems, in light of some of
the limitations with the proposed
definition and the absence of any
specifications from commenters that
would help with its clarification (e.g.,
specifying a ‘‘low outlet air velocity’’),
DOE is declining to adopt a definition
for preparation room refrigeration at this
time. In DOE’s view, the alternative
definitions suggested by commenters
were insufficient since they failed to
address the refrigeration system itself—
i.e., the item which DOE sought to
define. Accordingly, because of the
absence of any meaningful way to
distinguish these systems from nonpreparation refrigeration systems, DOE
will treat preparation room refrigeration
systems as falling within the scope of
walk-in refrigeration systems and being
subject to the standards and reporting
requirements that apply. DOE may
revisit this issue in the future if an
appropriate definition distinguishing
such equipment can be developed.
j. Storage Space
Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE
proposed to define ‘‘refrigerated storage
space’’ in the context of the current
definition for a walk-in as ‘‘a space held
at refrigerated (as defined in 10 CFR
431.302) temperatures.’’ 81 FR at 54937.
Hussmann suggested modifying the
proposed ‘‘refrigerated storage space’’
definition to reflect WICF room intent,
which is to ‘‘maintain product at a
specific temperature for storage
purposes.’’ 81 FR at 54937. Hussmann
argued that making this change would
help clarify the difference between
WICF rooms and process rooms,
because, in its view, the term
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘maintain’’ would specify the presence
of a holding area with the equipment—
rather than equipment that imparts any
changes on the products placed inside
of it.
While the proposed definition does
not delineate a difference between
equipment that is subject to standards
and equipment that is not subject to
standards, as discussed earlier in
section III.A.1.h of this final rule, DOE
does not interpret the phrase ‘‘held at
temperatures’’ to mean that the
equipment is held at a constant
temperature. Instead, DOE views this
term as referring to a temperature at or
below the 55 °F specified for
‘‘refrigerated’’ as defined in 10 CFR
431.302. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing
the definition as proposed.
2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure
Modifications
a. Hot Gas Defrost
Reflecting Recommendation #3 of the
WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p.
2), DOE proposed to amend the test
procedure by removing the method for
calculating the defrost energy and heat
load of a system with hot gas defrost. 81
FR at 54937–54938. With this change,
manufacturers of refrigeration systems
with hot gas defrost would be unable to
take account of that feature in testing or
rating their systems when using the
DOE test procedure. Id.
All commenters agreed with the
proposed removal of the hot gas defrost
credit in the test procedure. Rheem and
Heat Controller agreed that the credit
should be removed from the efficiency
calculation because it unfairly favored
systems using hot gas defrost over
comparable electric defrost systems.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 64; Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 66)
Lennox and KeepRite also agreed with
removing the hot gas defrost credit.
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9; KeepRite, No.
17 at p. 2)
However, Rheem and the CA IOUs
also argued that, because the proposed
approach would fail to quantify the
energy used by hot gas systems during
the defrost cycle, thereby eliminating
any accounting of the energy use
contribution for defrost in the test
procedure calculations, the proposed
change would still unfairly favor hot gas
defrost systems. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 60–61; CA
IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to ensure that WICF
equipment with hot gas defrost and
electric defrost are treated fairly within
the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
p. 3) ASAP and NEEA agreed, adding
that unit coolers with only hot gas
defrost should be required to meet a
performance level equivalent to unit
coolers with improved evaporator fan
blades and off-cycle variable-speed
evaporator fans. (ASAP and NEEA, No.
19 at p. 3)
Rheem and Manitowoc asserted their
belief that the removal of the hot gas
defrost credit would correspondingly
remove the need for manufacturers to
certify the performance of this
equipment. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 63; Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 3) KeepRite also supported
the removal of the certification
requirements for these systems.
(KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) In response,
DOE notes that the requirement to test
and certify hot gas defrost walk-in
refrigeration systems was adopted by
the May 2014 test procedure final rule
and the June 2014 energy conservation
standard final rule—this is not a new
requirement. The Fifth Circuit Order did
not strike the requirement for
certification of performance for any
refrigeration systems on or after their
standards compliance date. The
discussions during the Working Group
meetings did not address relief of testing
and certification requirements for this
equipment—hence, these requirements
still stand, regardless of the removal of
the hot gas defrost credit.
DOE notes that the NOPR public
meeting attendees briefly discussed
ways to assign an AWEF level to a hot
gas defrost refrigeration system during
the public meeting and in a separate
meeting between DOE and industry
representatives (Ex Parte
Communication of September 29, 2016
Meeting, No. 6). When asked whether
there would generally be an equivalent
electric defrost model whose AWEF
rating could be used for any given hot
gas defrost model, Rheem noted that
most hot gas defrost models have a
comparable electric defrost model.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 62) However, Bally commented
that the individual models sometimes
are part of different basic models.
Rheem and Bally added that significant
clarification would be needed to specify
how a proxy rating system would work
to avoid misinterpreting the regulation.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 62; Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 64)
Commenters suggested ways to assign
an AWEF value for hot gas defrost units.
AHRI and Hussmann suggested
permitting manufacturers to assign the
minimum allowable AWEF to a hot gas
refrigeration system. (AHRI, No. 11 at p.
5; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
commenters also offered an alternative
to this approach, which would allow
manufacturers to assign the AWEF value
of an equivalent electric defrost unit to
the hot gas defrost unit. AHRI and
multiple manufacturers suggested,
without offering any supporting details
or reasoning, that equivalence in this
context be defined as an electric defrost
system within 10 percent of the rated
net capacity of the hot gas defrost unit.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6; Manitowoc, No.
10 at p. 3; NCC, No. 16 at p. 2; Lennox,
No. 13 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) ASAP and
NEEA agreed that using equivalent
electric defrost units as surrogates for
rating hot gas defrost units would
address the concerns with the proposed
test procedure. (ASAP and NEEA, No.
19 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also agreed
with this approach, but presented
another alternative: Apply a default
defrost energy consumption value for
hot defrost units based on their
refrigeration capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 21
at p. 3) The CA IOUs offered no further
detail on how to determine this value.9
KeepRite suggested that the hot gas
defrost unit should be assigned the
AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost
unit and also be part of the same basic
model as that electric defrost unit.
(KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) ASAP, NEEA,
the CA IOUs, and KeepRite did not offer
any definition for equivalence. AHRI
and Rheem noted that if being a part of
the same basic model were a
requirement of equivalence, the
definition for basic model would have
to be altered, because the defrost type
affects the equipment’s energy
consumption (see definition in 10 CFR
431.302). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6; Rheem,
No. 18 at p. 2)
Commenters also offered a few
methods for dealing with cases where
there is no equivalent unit. Manitowoc
suggested that, in these cases, the AWEF
value be determined based on
interpolation between electric defrost
units with higher and lower capacities—
which would create a weighted average
of the AWEFs of the two electric defrost
units). (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3)
Lennox suggested using an AEDM,
which would use a calculated energy
contribution for defrost and apply it to
the hot gas defrost unit’s calculated
performance as if it were an electric
defrost unit. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4)
AHRI and Rheem argued that the model
9 DOE suspects that the CA IOUs may have meant
to suggest using an approach similar to the
assignment of electric defrost energy use and heat
load that is used for testing of dedicated condensing
units (see paragraphs 3.4.2.4 and 3.4.2.5 of subpart
R, appendix C of 10 CFR part 431, as finalized in
this document).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95775
should be rated with the minimum
AWEF value (as defined in 10 CFR
431.306) in these cases. (Rheem, No. 18
at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6)
Some commenters recommended
separate approaches for condensing
units and unit coolers. NCC suggested
that a hot gas defrost condensing unit
should be tested as an electric defrost
model by first removing all mechanical
components associated with hot gas
defrost functions. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 1)
For this approach, the proposed test
procedure would specify standardized
values for the electric defrost energy use
and heat addition. See, e.g., 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendix C, section
3.4.2.4 as proposed, 81 FR at 54958. For
a unit cooler, NCC recommended using
the AWEF of an equivalent electric
defrost model, which it defined as an
electric defrost model having a net
capacity within 10 percent of that of the
hot gas defrost unit, and that also
belongs to the same basic model group.
If an equivalent model is not available,
NCC recommended that the
manufacturer petition DOE for a test
procedure waiver. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 2)
Regarding the suggestions that AWEF
ratings for hot gas defrost units not be
required, in DOE’s view, such an
approach would likely remove any
incentive for manufacturers to design
and build hot gas defrost equipment that
would maintain steady state efficiency
in a manner consistent with the
standards that apply to electric defrost
systems since, under this approach, the
unit’s design has no influence on
whether it complies with the applicable
electric defrost system standard.
Similarly, simply assigning a baseline
AWEF value to the unit fails to impose
any requirements on the units’
efficiencies, since a default value would
be applied to this equipment, which
again would make compliance unrelated
to the unit’s design.
Further, while using the AWEF of an
equivalent electric defrost unit to rate
hot gas defrost units may have merit,
DOE does not have, and the commenters
did not provide, any information
demonstrating how the use of the
suggested 10-percent range would
impact manufacturer incentives to use
efficient designs. This suggested
equivalence criterion, if adopted, would
play little to no role with respect to the
energy use of the unit’s components,
such as the energy use of a unit cooler’s
evaporator fan. A smaller evaporator
coil with greater fan power and more air
flow could provide the same net
capacity as a larger coil with less fan
power and air flow, but use more fan
power to do it.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95776
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, comparing the net
capacity of the hot gas defrost unit with
those of electric defrost units to test
equivalency implies that it is
understood how to determine that
value. As discussed in the comments,
net capacity as measured in the test
procedure is not the same as capacity
reported for application ratings. See,
e.g., AHRI, No. 0011 at p. 3 (discussing
application temperature points). A
manufacturer using the suggested
approach could claim an unlikely net
capacity in order to be within 10% of
the net capacity of an electric defrost
unit with a high AWEF. Further, a
manufacturer could (without any
verification) select the highest AWEF of
electric defrost units within the +/¥10
percent range. But since the design of
the unit also has little or no bearing on
whether it is compliant with the
standards under this approach, it only
shows that a given hot gas defrost unit
has a claimed net capacity within ten
percent of the net capacity of a
compliant electric defrost unit.
Regarding the suggested use of an
AEDM along with a prescribed value for
the energy consumption from defrost
usage, DOE notes that an AEDM
simulates a unit’s performance during
testing, which requires that there first be
a test procedure that the AEDM would
simulate. Because there is no hot gas
defrost test procedure, this approach
would also be unworkable unless a test
procedure were first developed and
defined. In short, DOE agrees with
Rheem and Bally that significant
clarification would be needed to specify
how a proxy rating system would work
to avoid misinterpreting the regulation.
For the reasons described earlier,
however, DOE is not convinced that the
suggested ‘‘within 10 percent of net
capacity’’ provides sufficient
clarification.
NCC’s comment addressed possible
approaches for testing hot gas defrost
condensing units and unit coolers. But
because coverage also extends to
matched-pair or single-package systems,
a hot gas defrost test approach must also
be developed for these system
categories.
After considering various possibilities
for developing procedures to test hot gas
defrost features, as discussed above,
DOE continues to believe a test that
measures the energy benefits of hot-gas
defrost is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly, DOE is adopting, in this
respect, an approach consistent with the
intent of the one set forth in the NOPR.
Namely, a manufacturer will test a hot
gas defrost condensing unit without
measuring the impacts of the hot gas
defrost feature, and that feature will not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
affect the rated efficiency either
positively or negatively. In that sense,
the test procedure for units with hot gas
defrost will be the same as the test
procedure for units with electric defrost.
DOE is clarifying one aspect of the
test procedure with respect to hot gas
defrost. DOE recognizes that the hot gas
defrost components can impose
pressure drop on the refrigerant lines
during the test, which can reduce
performance. This issue was discussed
in the WICF Working Group meetings,
where the addition of a pressure drop
equivalent to 3 °F dew point reduction
in the suction line was included in the
initial engineering analysis developed
for hot gas defrost units to reflect this
issue. (Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0016, Working Group Meeting
Presentation, Fifth and Sixth Meetings:
Engineering Analysis, No. 26 at p. 34)
(The hot gas defrost calculations were
subsequently removed from the
engineering analysis because hot gas
defrost was not considered as a design
option.) Thus, the presence of hot gas
defrost components would cause the hot
gas defrost feature to detract from a
model’s rated efficiency. That outcome
would be inconsistent with the
approach DOE set forth in the NOPR,
the purpose of which was to make rated
efficiencies neutral with respect to the
presence of hot gas defrost. While DOE
does not have information to support a
general presumption that hot gas defrost
increases efficiency by a particular
amount, it does not believe that hot gas
defrost ordinarily decreases efficiency
in operation. Accordingly, DOE will
permit a manufacturer to remove the hot
gas defrost components. Thus,
incorporating hot gas defrost in a
condensing unit will not cause a
decrease in the unit’s rated efficiency
under the test procedure.
However, DOE recognizes that simply
removing the hot gas defrost
components may not be sufficient to set
up a condensing unit for a test, since
removal of a component may leave pipe
ends open to the surroundings. Some of
these pipe ends may have to be capped
or connected with each other, and at
least two ends represent the suction
inlet and liquid outlet of the condensing
unit. Also, some of the hot gas defrost
components may make little impact to
the operation of the system and
accompanying measurement—which
would encourage a manufacturer not to
remove those components. To ensure
that any third party testing is conducted
consistently with manufacturer testing
or its recommendations for testing,
information to clarify which
components are removed and the
subsequent piping connections may
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have to be provided. DOE will consider
proposing in a future rulemaking that
certification reporting for hot gas defrost
units include as non-public information
a list of the hot-gas-defrost components
that must be removed for the test and
instructions for piping connections to
allow proper testing. DOE may also
consider allowing any such instructions
to be provided in pdf form as
supplementary test information. The
regulations being adopted are generic in
nature such that manufacturers (and
other stakeholders that utilize the test
procedure) should have sufficient
instruction on how to test all basic
models that have hot-gas defrost
components.
Further, DOE is also adopting this
approach for testing hot gas defrost unit
coolers, matched-pairs, or singlepackage refrigeration systems. For these
systems, the hot gas defrost components
would also be removed from the system,
and pipes reconnected as required. The
units would be tested measuring steady
state performance, but frosting or defrost
tests would not be feasible under this
approach and they would not be run.
Using this procedure, the test chambers
would have to be operated with low
moisture levels to prevent frost
formation during testing. Performing
this test will generally require using test
facilities with conditioning systems that
can cool down the indoor room and
remove its moisture before operation of
the unit under test can start to ensure
that the test unit does not collect any
moisture from the room. It also requires
that infiltration into the indoor room be
minimized. The defrost heat and energy
use for the test would be calculated in
the same manner as for an electric
defrost condensing unit tested alone,
thus allowing determination of
equivalent AWEF. DOE has adopted this
approach for hot gas defrost
refrigeration systems in 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendix C.
Although some test facilities may not
be equipped with conditioning systems
that would allow cooling of the indoor
room and removal of moisture prior to
start of the test unit, DOE expects that
some manufacturers will develop
performance representations for their
hot gas defrost units using AEDMs, as
suggested by some of the comments, and
that there may be limited need for the
actual testing of hot gas defrost unit
coolers and matched-pairs under this
approach. The AEDMs would only need
to be able to estimate the steady state
performance of the systems in
refrigerating mode, since they would,
like the test, use the standardized
contributions for hot gas defrost energy
input and heat addition.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Heat Controller emphasized the need
to develop a test method to quantify the
differences between various defrost
technologies. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 66)
Lennox also supported the development
of a method to determine the AWEF for
hot gas defrost models. (Lennox, No. 13
at p. 4) DOE notes that WICF Term
Sheet Recommendation #6 would
involve DOE initiating a future test
procedure rulemaking to adopt test
procedure provisions for several items,
including hot gas defrost. Developing
and adopting such a test procedure
would enable one to differentiate
between technologies. DOE plans to
address this issue in the future.
b. Adaptive Defrost
Consistent with the Recommendation
#4 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket
EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, Term Sheet,
No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend
the test procedure so that the provisions
for assigning a benefit to adaptive
defrost cannot be used to certify
compliance with the energy
conservation standard. 81 FR at 54938–
54939.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal and is adopting
the proposed amendment.
c. On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator
Fan Control
Consistent with Recommendation #4
of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016, Term Sheet, No.
56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend the
test procedure so that unit cooler
compliance with the applicable walk-in
refrigeration system standard would be
assessed without using on-cycle
variable-speed evaporator fans. As part
of this approach, manufacturers would
be permitted to make representations of
the energy efficiency or consumption for
a unit cooler basic model using on-cycle
variable-speed fans as measured in
accordance with the DOE test
procedure, provided that the additional
represented value has been certified to
DOE per 10 CFR 429.12.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal and is adopting
it in this final rule.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation
of Energy Conservation Standards
1. Re-Organization and Clarification of
the Test Procedure for Walk-In
Refrigeration Systems, Doors, and
Panels
DOE proposed to re-organize the
walk-in test procedure found at 10 CFR
431.304 into three separate appendices,
one for each metric corresponding to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
regulated component. DOE proposed to
revise Appendix A to Subpart R of Part
431 by designating it as, and retaining
only the procedure for, measuring the
energy consumption (in kWh/day) for
walk-in doors. DOE also proposed to
create a new Appendix B to Subpart R
of Part 431, which would contain the
method of measuring the R-value, which
would apply to walk-in doors and
panels. Lastly, DOE proposed creating a
new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part
431, which would contain the test
method for refrigeration systems. In
addition, DOE proposed to clarify some
of the definitions and terminology used
in the test procedure.
Specifically, DOE proposed to revise
Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431,
which contains the procedure for
measuring energy consumption (in
kWh/day) for display and non-display
doors, by removing the definitions and
references related to walk-in panels.
DOE proposed to (1) remove the
definition of ‘‘core region,’’ (2) move the
definition of ‘‘edge region’’ to the
proposed Appendix B, and (3) remove
the prescribed subfloor temperature
listed in Table A.1 of Appendix A.
Further, DOE proposed to amend the
definition of ‘‘surface area’’ by removing
the currently inserted example
referencing walk-in panels and
modifying the definition of ‘‘rating
condition’’ by removing the discussion
of internal walk-in components. 81 FR
at 54939. These amendments were
intended to clarify Appendix A and did
not substantively change the DOE test
procedure for measuring the energy
consumption of walk-in doors.
To clarify how to calculate door
power usage, DOE proposed defining
‘‘rated power’’ as the electricityconsuming device’s power as specified
on the device’s nameplate. If the device
does not have a nameplate or such
nameplate does not list the device’s
power, then the rated power must be
read from the device’s product data
sheet. See 81 FR at 54939. In addition,
DOE proposed that, for each basic
model of walk-in door that has an
electricity consuming device(s) for
which rated power is taken from a
product data sheet, the walk-in door
manufacturer must retain the product
data sheet as part of the test data
underlying the walk-in door’s
certification report. 81 FR at 54939.
Hussmann expressed concern about
how to calculate the rated power for
certain variable-power door
components, like variable-resistance
heaters and door-opening devices. In its
view, the proposed definition for rated
power, which would require
manufacturers to use 100% of a device’s
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95777
rated power, does not make sense when
applied to variable power devices that
have a lower average power.
(Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 73–74) In sections 4.4.2
and 4.5.2 of Appendix A to Subpart R
to Part 431, DOE’s current test
procedure details how to calculate the
power usage for each type of electricity
consuming device used in a walk-in
door. The procedure includes percent
time off values to account for energy
saving features like timers, control
system, or other auto-shut-off system.
These values also reduce the calculated
power usage for features that are not
constantly operational, e.g., lighting
without controls is assigned a 25%
percent time off. As a result, in DOE’s
view, the procedure, as modified by the
proposal, would sufficiently account for
the lower energy use conditions
identified by Hussmann. Accordingly,
DOE is adopting its proposed definition
for rated power. DOE notes that if a
manufacturer believes that the test
procedure is unrepresentative of a walkin door basic model’s energy use, it may
avail itself of the test procedure waiver
provisions of 10 CFR 431.401 to obtain
approval to use an alternative test
procedure when measuring the energy
efficiency of its equipment.
Additionally, DOE proposed adding a
new Appendix B to Subpart R of Part
431 to improve the clarity of the walkin test procedure. This appendix would
include the currently prescribed method
of measuring the R-value found in 10
CFR 431.304. Specifically, DOE
proposed to move the provisions found
at 10 CFR 431.304(b) and (c) into
Appendix B. DOE also proposed to add
the definition of ‘‘edge region’’ that was
previously located in Appendix A to
Subpart R of Part 431 to Appendix B, as
this definition is relevant to the R-value
test method.
Dow supported the creation of
Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431,
commenting that this change would
help highlight the fundamental
differences between doors and panels
and clarify how each are treated in the
proposed and future test procedures.
(Dow, No. 9 at p. 2) In addition, Dow
commented that it understood that the
R-value for insulation used in WICFrelated panels and doors must be
determined in accordance with the
WICF test procedures in Appendix B to
Subpart R of Section 431 and sought
confirmation of the accuracy of this
understanding from DOE. (Dow, No. 9 at
p. 3)
DOE did not receive any negative
comments regarding the re-organization
of Appendix A and proposed addition
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95778
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
of a new Appendix B to Subpart R of
Part 431.
Appendix B to Subpart R of Section
431 as adopted in this final rule
contains the test method for measuring
the R-value of insulation. This test
method must be used when determining
the R-value for walk-in panels and
doors.
With respect to the proposed
amendments regarding Appendices A
and B, Dow supported the inclusion of
ASTM C518–04 in the test procedure
but recommend updating the procedure
to reference the new version of this
standard, ASTM C518–10. (Dow, No. 9
at p. 2) In this rulemaking, DOE
proposed to make only editorial changes
to the test procedure for measuring Rvalue but may consider Dow’s
suggestion to reference the most recent
version of ASTM C518 in a future
rulemaking.
DOE also proposed to add a new
Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431
and include the test method for
refrigeration systems in this appendix.
Within Appendix C, DOE further
organized its discussion of test
procedures in terms of the refrigeration
system configuration types—i.e.
matched-pairs, single-package dedicated
systems, individually distributed unit
coolers and condensing units. Within
Appendix C, DOE proposed to
incorporate the (1) provisions that are
currently included in 10 CFR 431.304,
sections (10) through (12), which
specify that walk-in refrigeration
systems be tested using AHRI 1250–
2009—the test procedure incorporated
by reference in 10 CFR 431.303—and (2)
clarify and modify certain provisions of
the test procedure. One subsection
would contain the general modifications
to the test conditions and tolerances
applied to the industry test procedure
that were incorporated into DOE’s May
2014 test procedure rule. 79 FR at
27399–27403. A second subsection
would contain proposed modifications
to the method of test and the remaining
subsections addressed proposed
modifications specific to the system
configuration types. 79 FR at 27398–
27399. The NOPR also proposed, and
this final rule adopts, adding to
Appendix C the modifications to the test
procedure for walk-in refrigeration
systems that are discussed in section
III.A.2. See 81 FR at 54956–54958.
DOE also proposed to correct
typographical errors in the regulatory
text contained in the proposed
Appendix C. DOE proposed to correct
the saturated suction A and saturated
suction B temperatures to be ¥20 °F
and ¥26 °F, respectively, in the table
currently in 10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)(xv).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
81 FR at 54939. DOE also proposed
correcting an equation for defrost heat
load contribution currently at 10 CFR
431.304(c)(12)(ii). The equation for
defrost heat load contribution currently
specifies that this contribution should
be divided by 3.412 Btu/W-h, but it
should instead be multiplied by 3.412
Btu/W-h. 81 FR at 54939–54940.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding its proposal to add a new
Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431 or
its proposal to include the test method
for refrigeration systems in this same
appendix. DOE did not receive any
comments in response to its proposal to
correct typographical errors within the
test procedure language or equation that
would become part of the proposed
Appendix C. Therefore, DOE is adopting
its proposed changes in this final rule.
2. Representation Requirements
DOE proposed to amend the
representation requirements for
refrigeration systems to clarify how to
apply the test procedure to the range of
possible kinds of refrigeration systems.
Specifically, DOE proposed to direct
manufacturers of unit coolers, dedicated
condensing units, single-package
dedicated systems, and matched
refrigeration systems to the appropriate
subsections of Appendix C to Subpart R
of Part 431—the DOE test procedure for
refrigeration systems. DOE also
proposed not to require the rating of a
matched refrigeration system if the
constituent unit cooler(s) and dedicated
condensing unit have been tested and
rated separately. However, if a
manufacturer wished to represent the
efficiency of the matched refrigeration
system separately from the efficiency of
either constituent component, or if the
manufacturer cannot rate one or both of
the constituent components using the
specified method (e.g., if the system has
a variable-capacity condensing unit,
thereby preventing the manufacturer
from being able to test the condensing
unit individually), the manufacturer
must test, represent, and certify the
matched refrigeration system as
specified in this section. A component
that is part of a certified matched-pair
and that has not been rated individually
cannot be sold individually, nor can it
be sold as part of a different matchedpair (that is, with a different component
matched to it) unless that new matchedpair has also been tested and certified.
DOE did not receive any comments on
these proposed requirements and is
adopting them in this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Certification and Compliance
Requirements
DOE explained in its proposal that a
manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer is any person who: (1)
Manufactures a component of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer that affects
energy consumption, including, but not
limited to, refrigeration, doors, lights,
windows, or walls; or (2) manufactures
or assembles the complete walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer. 10 CFR
431.302.
Several of the statutory standards, as
well as DOE’s 2014 standards and any
energy conservation standards that DOE
may adopt in its separate ongoing
rulemaking (see Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016), apply to specific
components of a walk-in. A
manufacturer of a walk-in component
(i.e., part 1 of the definition of a
manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer) is the entity that
manufactures, produces, assembles or
imports a walk-in panel, door or
refrigeration system. A manufacturer of
a walk-in component is responsible for
ensuring the compliance of the
component(s) it manufactures. DOE
requires a manufacturer of a walk-in
component to certify the compliance of
the components it manufactures.
A manufacturer of a complete walk-in
(i.e., part 2 of the definition of a
manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer) is the entity that
manufactures, produces, assembles or
imports a walk-in cooler or freezer (i.e.,
an enclosed storage space meeting the
definition of a walk-in cooler or freezer).
This includes ‘‘installers’’ of complete
walk-ins. Although DOE does not
require a manufacturer of a complete
walk-in to certify the compliance of the
‘‘box’’ as a whole, a manufacturer of a
complete walk-in must ensure that the
walk-in, including all of its regulated
constituent components, meets
applicable statutory and/or regulatory
standards. After the compliance date of
any amended performance-based walkin cooler or freezer standard (i.e., either
those noted in the concurrent WICF
refrigeration system standards
rulemaking or those currently in the
regulation for which compliance is
required in 2017), manufacturers of
complete walk-ins may continue to
assemble and install walk-ins using
components remaining in inventory that
were manufactured before the
compliance date for the amended
performance-based component
standards. DOE emphasizes that the
components must have been compliant
with all requirements and certified to
DOE before the compliance date of such
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
component’s amended standard. A more
detailed discussion of this will appear
in the related standards final rule. See
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016.
If a manufacturer of a complete walk-in
also meets part 1 of the definition (i.e.,
it also manufactures individual
components), then it must certify the
compliance of the components it
manufactures. Compliance
responsibilities for manufacturers of
complete walk-ins are discussed in
more detail later in this section.
Dow stated that the certification and
compliance requirement language
regarding doors, walls, ceiling, and floor
panels/components is not clear. It noted
that some WICF floors, which are
considered ‘‘panels’’ under DOE’s
regulations are not, in fact, separate preassembled panels but are built into the
floor of the building in which the WICF
is located. In this case, Dow noted that
the floor would be a component of the
WICF but not a ‘‘panel.’’ (Dow, No. 9 at
p. 1) Dow also noted that, although
WICF panels consist of an assembly of
materials (metal skins, insulation,
fasteners, etc.), the text refers to
insulation material alone as a panel,
which, in its view, adds confusion on
how to apply the test procedure. (Dow,
No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with Dow’s comments
that a WICF floor may comprise preassembled panels or layer(s) of
insulation and/or some other floor
covering material (e.g., concrete). DOE
notes that the definition for ‘‘panel’’
includes any ‘‘construction component
that is not a door and is 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.’’ (10 CFR 431.302)
Therefore, a WICF floor built from
layer(s) of insulation and floor-covering
material would satisfy the definition
since it contains ‘‘elements that separate
the interior refrigerated environment of
the walk-in from the exterior.’’ Id.
a. Manufacturers of Walk-In
Components
A manufacturer of a walk-in
component must ensure that the
component meets the applicable
standard. In the August 2016 NOPR,
DOE proposed to modify this current
approach (detailed at 10 CFR
429.12(b)(6)) by requiring that for each
brand name, a walk-in manufacturer
must submit both the basic model
number and the manufacturer’s
individual model number(s). When it
first established reporting requirements
for walk-ins, DOE explained that it was
adopting a limited approach since it did
not have sufficient information at the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
time to determine whether reporting
individual model numbers for walk-in
components was feasible. See 76 FR
12422, 12466 (March 7, 2011) (‘‘March
2011 CCE Rule’’). DOE noted that it
would revisit this issue in the future. Id.
As part of their certification of
compliance responsibilities,
manufacturers have routinely submitted
both basic model numbers and
individual model numbers for walk-in
refrigeration systems, panels, and doors.
These submissions suggest that it is
feasible for manufacturers to certify both
basic model numbers and individual
model numbers for each brand.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to require
that a walk-in manufacturer include
individual model number(s) as part of
its reporting submission.
AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, Zero Zone,
NCC, and KeepRite opposed DOE’s
proposal to expand the model number
reporting requirements. (AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem,
No. 18 at p. 6; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p.
2; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17
at p. 2) AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem
disagreed with DOE’s observation that
manufacturers routinely submit both
basic and individual model numbers for
WICF systems, noting that this is not the
case for all manufacturers or types of
equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No.
18 at p. 5) AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem,
NCC, and KeepRite also noted that the
proposed reporting change will greatly
increase the number of models listed in
DOE’s Certification Compliance
Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) because
there may be hundreds of combinations
for a given basic model, and make the
database more difficult for customers to
navigate. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No.
18 at pp. 5–6; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Bally
commented that DOE also needs to
consider the effect of an increase in door
basic models as a result of the new
energy conservation standard going into
effect on June 3, 2017. Once the
maximum energy consumption metric
becomes effective many variables such
as door area, U-value, and power
consumption will impact door basic
models. Separating its models by door
area alone, Bally states that it has 63
different combinations. (Bally, No. 22 at
p. 1) NCC asserted that it may have to
recertify daily because it manufactures
so many custom products. (NCC, No. 16
at p. 6) Hussmann and KeepRite
commented that the proposed
requirement would significantly
increase the complexity of reporting,
which would result in the reporting of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95779
hundreds of model numbers.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 2) Zero Zone commented
that the additional model number
reporting requirements would increase
paper work for the manufacturers
without providing any value to
customers. (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 2)
Lennox argued that the proposed
individual model number reporting
requirement would be burdensome
unless it was allowed to group its
individual model numbers using the
‘‘wildcard’’ digit placeholders it
currently uses when reporting. (Lennox,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
70–71) Hussmann added that allowing
placeholder digits (‘‘wildcards’’) for
both AWEF-altering and AWEF-agnostic
model changes would simplify the
reporting process, allow for a clean
transition to marketing materials, and
clarify the rating system for consumers.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3) Rheem and
NCC similarly advocated for the use of
placeholder characters (e.g., ‘‘*’’) in
model numbers to represent design
options that do not materially affect the
reported efficiency performance.
(Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5; NCC, No. 16 at
p. 6) NCC also requested clarification on
the use of wildcards for individual
model numbers and basic model
numbers. (NCC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 76–77)
DOE acknowledges that its proposal
requiring manufacturers to report the
basic model number and individual
model number(s) for each brand
distributed in commerce may result in
an increase in reporting burden.
However, as explained in the August
2016 NOPR, DOE believes the
additional burden to be minimal. 81 FR
at 54940. DOE disagrees with the
comments from AHRI, Manitowoc, and
Rheem that manufacturers are not
currently reporting individual model
numbers. As of October 2016, each basic
model listed in DOE’s Compliance
Certification Database 10 lists an
individual model number. Examples of
certifications that have both basic model
numbers and individual model numbers
can be found in this rulemaking’s
docket. (See EERE—Compliance
Certification Database, Walk-ln Coolers
and Freezers Refrigeration Systems
Screenshots, No. 27 at p. 1) Further, as
all certifications appearing in DOE’s
Compliance Certification Database
already include a basic model and
individual model number, DOE does not
agree with AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem,
NCC, and KeepRite that the proposed
10 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can
be found at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95780
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
reporting change will greatly increase
the number of models.
However, as requested by Lennox,
Hussmann, and NCC, manufacturers
may use wildcards to represent nonenergy consuming features when
certifying individual model numbers.
Wildcards may not be used to represent
energy consuming components that
would result in a different
representative value, but manufacturers
may elect to group those individual
models into one basic model at their
discretion. Based on the comments
received from Lennox and Hussmann,
DOE understands that allowing
wildcards will simplify the requirement
to report individual models and will
alleviate the concerns noted by AHRI,
Manitowoc Foodservice, Rheem, Zero
Zone, NCC, KeepRite, Bally, and
Hussmann. Therefore, with the
clarifications noted in this paragraph,
this rule will require walk-in
component manufacturers to submit
both the basic model number and the
manufacturer’s individual model
number(s).
With respect to the issue of energyconsuming components, Hussmann
questioned whether individual models
with design differences that are small
but affect the units’ energy consumption
(e.g., one model with full electric
heaters and another model with only a
drain pan heater) could be grouped
under the same basic model number
under the lowest AWEF rating in the
group. (Hussmann, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 71–72) DOE
refers Hussmann to the March 2011 CCE
Rule where it established the basic
model concept for walk-in coolers and
freezers. That rule explained that the
basic model concept permits flexibility
in determining how manufacturers
choose to group individual models with
essentially, but not exactly, identical
energy efficiency characteristics. DOE
encouraged manufacturers to adopt a
reasonable approach to basic model
groupings and to certify as a single basic
model those individual models that
possessed only superficial differences,
such as product finishes. The
Department clarified that all models
identified in a certification report as
being the same basic model must have
the same certified energy efficiency or
consumption rating. Additionally, any
individual model that is modified in a
manner resulting in performance that is
less efficient (or more consumptive)
than the rated level when tested in
accordance with the DOE test
procedures in Parts 430 and 431 and the
applicable sampling plans in Part 429
must be re-rated as a new basic model
and certified to DOE. Certified ratings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
must be supported by tested values that
are at least as efficient as the rating
when the applicable sampling plans in
Part 429 are applied. 76 FR at 12429.
DOE also proposed adding reporting
requirements for both the standards
promulgated in the June 2014 final rule
(with a June 2017 compliance date) and
for the standards for certain equipment
classes of walk-in refrigeration systems
that will be defined in a separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking (see
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016).
In addition to the reporting
requirements defined in 10 CFR
429.53(b), DOE proposed requiring
certification reports to include the
following product-specific information
to show compliance with the amended
energy conservation standards:
—Doors: Rated energy consumption,
rated surface area in square feet, the
rated power of each light, heater wire,
and/or other electricity consuming
device associated with each basic model
of display and non-display door, and
whether such device(s) has a timer,
control system, or other demand-based
control reducing the device’s power
consumption.
—Refrigeration systems: Rated annual
walk-in energy factor (AWEF), rated net
capacity, and the configuration tested
for certification (e.g., condensing unit
only, unit cooler only, or matched-pair).
ASAP and NEEA supported the
proposed expansion of reporting
requirements for doors and other WICF
components, and agreed with DOE that
this information is necessary to allow
DOE to verify the door’s rated energy
consumption. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19
at p. 3)
KPS commented that the new
reporting requirements are burdensome
to WICF OEMs that do not manufacture
all door options and other power-rated
accessories or any nonstandard option.
In its view, this information is dynamic
and may change with each order. KPS
asked if the WICF OEM can rely on each
of the relevant vendors to meet the
component testing requirements and be
in compliance with DOE. (KPS, No. 8 at
p. 1) A manufacturer of a walk-in
component (i.e., the entity that
manufactures, produces, assembles or
imports a walk-in panel, door or
refrigeration system) is responsible for
ensuring the compliance of the
component(s) it manufactures. A
manufacturer of a complete walk-in
must ensure that the walk-in, including
all regulated constituent components,
meets applicable statutory and/or
regulatory standards. That is, a
manufacturer of a complete walk-in is
required to use components that comply
with the applicable standards and have
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
been certified as compliant, and must
ensure the final product satisfies the
statutory design requirements.
Bally suggested that manufacturers of
door components (e.g., display
windows) should be responsible for
verifying the U-value of their products,
rather than having the testing burden
rest with refrigeration door
manufacturers. (Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 75) Similarly, as
noted earlier, Dow commented that it
understood from the proposal that the
insulation supplier is not responsible
for certifying and reporting the R-value
of the finished panels, but is responsible
for providing the panel or component
manufacturer with accurate R-value
testing results of the insulation
supplier’s material. Dow requested that
DOE further clarify the role of the
insulation supplier in the certification
and compliance process. (Dow, No. 9 at
p. 3)
Walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
manufacturers may rely on test data
developed by other entities that supply
sub-assemblies of a walk-in component
(e.g., insulation suppliers or display
window suppliers). However, the
manufacturer of a walk-in component
(i.e., the entity that manufactures,
produces, assembles or imports a walkin panel, door or refrigeration system) is
responsible for ensuring the compliance
of the component(s) it manufactures.
DOE’s new certification requirements
will provide comprehensive, up-to-date
efficiency information about walk-in
equipment sold in the United States at
any given time—a necessary predicate
to an effective enforcement program.
This rule adopts these new certification
regulations for walk-in doors and
refrigeration systems to ensure that DOE
has the information it needs to ensure
that regulated products sold in the
United States comply with the law. As
discussed in section III.A.1.d of this
final rule, DOE is also requiring indoor
dedicated condensing units to specify if
the basic model is also certified as an
outdoor dedicated condensing unit and,
if so, the basic model number for the
outdoor dedicated condensing unit.
Hussmann expressed concern
regarding how doors from a walk-in
system manufactured before the current
standard would be replaced, suggesting
that there may be challenges retrofitting
compliant doors to these older systems.
(Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 111–112) DOE clarifies that
all walk-in doors manufactured on or
after June 5, 2017 must comply with
applicable energy conservation
standards. 10 CFR 431.306(c)–(d) DOE
does not provide an exclusion for
retrofit or replacement doors.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
b. Manufacturers of Complete Walk-ins
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE
explained that while it does not require
manufacturers of complete walk-ins to
submit certification reports for the
complete walk-in itself, a manufacturer
of a complete walk-in must ensure that
each walk-in it manufactures meets the
various statutory and regulatory
standards. That is, a manufacturer of a
complete walk-in is required to use
components that comply with the
applicable standards and to ensure the
final product fulfills the statutory design
requirements.
For example, consider an installer
deciding which panels to use. The
installer could assemble a compliant
walk-in in several ways. The installer
could build a panel, test it, and certify
it as the component manufacturer. The
installer could use an uncertified panel
with a claimed compliant R-value and
accept responsibility for its compliance.
The installer could use a certified panel
with a label that meets DOE
requirements and bear no responsibility
for the testing and certification of the
panel. In any of these situations, the
installer must use compliant panels.
The only difference between the three
scenarios is that in the third scenario
the installer is permitted to rely upon
the representations of the manufacturer
of a WICF component to ensure
compliance of the component; if those
representations turn out to be false, the
component manufacturer is responsible.
As discussed in more detail in III.B.5
of this final rule, DOE proposed several
labeling provisions to help
manufacturers of complete walk-ins,
who are not manufacturers of walk-in
components, ensure compliance with
the standards. In addition to the
component-based regulations requiring
certification (doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems), walk-ins
generally must: have automatic door
closers; have strip doors, spring hinged
doors, or some other method of
minimizing infiltration when doors are
open; and for all interior lights, use light
sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens
per watt or more. It is the responsibility
of the manufacturer of the complete
walk-in to ensure that the walk-in
incorporates these design features.
At the public meeting discussing the
proposed test procedure, Bally remarked
that it seems unlikely that an installer
could use an uncertified panel with a
claimed compliant R-value because
component manufacturers cannot
distribute panels that are uncertified.
(Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 110) DOE clarified that its
proposal covers a scenario where a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
walk-in is built out of insulated building
materials designed for applications
other than walk-in coolers and freezers.
In this scenario, the manufacturer of a
complete walk-in is responsible for the
compliance of the walk-in that it
assembled and ensuring that the
insulated building materials used to
construct the walk-in meet the
applicable R-value standards.
c. Compliance Date
Commenters raised questions
regarding the compliance dates for
walk-in refrigeration energy
conservation standards and related
refrigeration system reporting
requirements.
Hussmann requested that the
enforcement date for medium
temperature condensing units be
pushed back to align with that of the
other WICF refrigeration systems.
Hussmann argued that these systems
often share components and this change
would allow manufacturers the
flexibility to work with all equipment
classes at one time. (Hussmann, No. 20
at p. 3)
DOE issued an enforcement policy on
February 1, 2016, explaining that DOE
will not seek civil penalties or
injunctive relief concerning violations
of the four energy conservation
standards applicable to dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems
operating at medium temperatures
detailed at 10 CFR 431.306(e). DOE will
not seek civil penalties or injunctive
relief in these cases provided that the
violations relate to the distribution in
commerce of WICF refrigeration system
components manufactured prior to
January 1, 2020.11
Lennox asked that DOE explicitly
align the reporting requirements for
medium temperature condensing units
with the January 1, 2020 enforcement
date (i.e., delay reporting to January 1,
2020). (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6) DOE did
not waive the certification requirements
for dedicated condensing refrigeration
systems operating at medium
temperatures that are promulgated at 10
CFR 431.306(e). Accordingly,
manufacturers must certify compliance
in a manner consistent with the
applicable compliance date specified in
that provision. Only those models
properly certified as compliant with
applicable standards will be posted on
DOE’s CCMS public database.
11 DOE’s enforcement guidance can be found at:
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/
Enforcement%20Policy%20Statement%20%20WICF%2002-01-16.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95781
4. Enforcement Provisions
a. Sampling Plan for Enforcement
Testing of Covered Equipment and
Certain Low-Volume Covered Products
DOE proposed to include walk-ins to
the list of equipment subject to the
enforcement testing sampling plan for
covered equipment found in Appendix
B of Subpart C of Part 429. DOE
received no comments on this proposal
and is adopting it in this final rule.
b. Equipment-Specific Enforcement
Provisions
DOE proposed to add specific
enforcement provisions for walk-in
refrigeration systems and doors to 10
CFR 429.134. Specifically, DOE
proposed to clarify which entity or
entities are liable for the distribution of
noncompliant units in commerce and
how to verify the refrigeration capacity
for walk-in refrigeration systems and
surface area of walk-in doors.
If DOE determines that a basic model
of a panel, door, or refrigeration system
for walk-ins fails to meet an applicable
energy conservation standard, then the
manufacturer of that basic model is
responsible for that noncompliance. If
DOE determines that a complete walkin cooler or walk-in freezer or any
component thereof fails to meet an
applicable energy conservation
standard, then the manufacturer of that
complete walk-in cooler or walk-in
freezer is responsible for the
noncompliance with the applicable
standard. However, a manufacturer of a
complete walk-in would not be held
responsible for the use of components
that were certified and labeled (in
accordance with DOE labeling
requirements) as compliant but later
found to be noncompliant with the
applicable standards. DOE did not
receive any comments on this aspect of
its proposal and is adopting it in this
final rule.
DOE also proposed adding an
explanation of how DOE verifies the
refrigeration capacity for walk-in
refrigeration systems to 10 CFR 429.134.
Specifically, DOE proposed that the
refrigeration capacity of the basic model
would be measured pursuant to the test
requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for
each unit tested. The results of the
measurement(s) would be averaged and
compared to the value of refrigeration
capacity certified by the manufacturer.
Under this approach, the certified
refrigeration capacity would be
considered valid only if the average
measured refrigeration capacity is
within 5 percent of the certified
refrigeration capacity. If the certified
refrigeration capacity is found to be
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95782
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
valid, that refrigeration capacity will be
used as the basis for calculating annual
energy consumption for the basic
model. If the certified refrigeration
capacity is found to be invalid, the
average measured refrigeration capacity
will serve as the basis for calculating
annual energy consumption for the
basic model. See 81 FR at 54941.
Manitowoc commented in support of
the 5 percent tolerance during
enforcement testing. (Manitowoc, No. 10
at p. 2) AHRI and Lennox supported
DOE’s proposal to verify the net
capacity, but suggested that ‘‘within’’ be
replaced by ‘‘plus or minus’’ to provide
a slightly wider range around the net
capacity value. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4;
Lennox, No. 13 at p. 10)
DOE agrees with Lennox and AHRI
that specifying ‘‘plus or minus 5
percent’’ clarifies the regulatory text at
10 CFR 429.134(l)(2). In this rule, DOE
will finalize its proposal related to the
certified refrigeration capacity, but will
amend it to specify that the certified net
capacity will be considered valid ‘‘only
if the average measured net capacity is
within plus or minus five percent of the
certified net capacity.’’
Further, DOE proposed to specify how
DOE would verify the surface area for
walk-in display doors and non-display
doors in 10 CFR 429.134. The certified
surface area would be considered valid
only if the average measured surface
area of the door is within 1 percent of
the certified surface area. If the certified
surface area is found to be valid, that
surface area value would be used as the
basis for calculating the maximum
energy consumption for the basic
model. If the certified surface area is
found to be invalid, the average
measured surface area would serve as
the basis for calculating maximum
energy consumption for the basic
model. See 81 FR at 54941.
Bally commented that in some walkin applications the door cap height is
reduced by 2-inches to accommodate
grout and tile used for walk-in floors,
resulting in a shorter walk-in door. The
1% certified surface area will mean that
for a 78″ door, each 3⁄4″ of an inch will
require a new basic model number.
Bally asked that DOE consider allowing
these ‘‘shortened doors’’ to be measured
to the nominal full door measurements,
as compared to the door frame. (Bally,
No. 22 at p. 2) DOE understands from
the scenario Bally described that a 1%
tolerance on door height is too stringent
and would require door manufacturers
to create additional basic models to
allow for small changes in door height.
DOE declines to adopt Bally’s
suggestion to use a nominal door height
because nominal door height is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
undefined and may allow for too much
size variation. However, DOE is
adopting a tolerance of 3% in this final
rule to give door manufacturers more
flexibility to establish basic models. A
3% tolerance allows a 78-inch door to
be adjusted by 2 inches to accommodate
features like raised flooring as specified
by Bally. Accordingly, under the
provision adopted here, which aligns
with the provision adopted for
refrigeration capacity tolerance, DOE
will treat certified surface areas as valid
‘‘only if the average measured surface
area is within plus or minus three
percent of the certified surface area.’’
DOE also proposed to specify in 10
CFR 429.134 how it will account for the
rated power (as defined in the proposal)
of each electricity consuming device(s)
in calculating the walk-in door energy
consumption. For each basic model of
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer door,
DOE would calculate the door’s energy
consumption using the power listed on
the nameplate of each electricityconsuming device shipped with the
door. If an electricity-consuming device
shipped with a walk-in door does not
have a nameplate or such nameplate
does not list the device’s power, then
DOE would use the device’s ‘‘rated
power’’ included in the door’s
certification report. 81 FR at 54941. DOE
did not receive any comments regarding
this proposal and is adopting it in this
final rule.
5. Labeling Requirements
If the Secretary has prescribed test
procedures for any class of covered
equipment, a labeling rule applicable to
such class of covered equipment must
be prescribed. See 42 U.S.C. 6315(a).
EPCA, however, also sets out certain
criteria that must be met prior to
prescribing a given labeling rule.
Specifically, to establish these
requirements, DOE must determine that:
(1) Labeling in accordance with Section
6315 is technologically and
economically feasible with respect to
any particular equipment class; (2)
significant energy savings will likely
result from such labeling; and (3)
labeling in accordance with Section
6315 is likely to assist consumers in
making purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C.
6315(h))
If these criteria are met, EPCA
specifies certain aspects of equipment
labeling that DOE must consider in any
rulemaking establishing labeling
requirements for covered equipment. At
a minimum, such labels must include
the energy efficiency of the affected
equipment, as tested under the
prescribed DOE test procedure. The
labeling provisions may also consider
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the addition of other requirements,
including: Directions for the display of
the label; a requirement to display on
the label additional information related
to energy efficiency or energy
consumption, which may include
instructions for maintenance and repair
of the covered equipment, as necessary,
to provide adequate information to
purchasers; and requirements that
printed matter displayed or distributed
with the equipment at the point of sale
also include the information required to
be placed on the label. (42 U.S.C.
6315(b) and 42 U.S.C. 6315(c))
DOE proposed labeling requirements
for walk-ins—specifically, that certain
information be shown on the permanent
nameplates of doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems. DOE also
proposed to clarify requirements with
respect to the disclosure of efficiency
information in marketing materials and
the labeling requirements for process
cooling refrigeration systems. In the
following sections, DOE’s specific
proposal and comments received
regarding its proposed nameplate
requirements are discussed in detail.12
a. EPCA Criteria To Prescribe a Labeling
Rule
DOE reviewed the labeling
requirements proposed in the August
2016 NOPR with respect to the three
statutory prerequisites addressing the
Secretary’s authority to promulgate
labeling rules. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)) The
following paragraphs addresses these
elements and accounts for the
comments responding to this aspect of
DOE’s proposal.
Economically Justified and
Technologically Feasible
DOE found the proposed labeling
recommendations would be
technologically and economically
feasible with respect to walk-in cooler
and freezer equipment class. In general,
DOE also found that walk-in
refrigeration system manufacturers and
display door manufacturers already
include nameplates on their equipment.
Typically, these nameplates include the
equipment’s model number.13 DOE
explained that the inclusion of energy
efficiency or energy consumption
information on these labels would be
technologically feasible for refrigeration
12 In addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6315,
DOE also sought written input from the Federal
Trade Commission. The FTC had no comments
regarding DOE’s labeling proposal.
13 Examples of walk-cooler and freezer
component labels can be found in this rulemaking’s
docket. (See 2016–12–01 Label Examples for Walkin Cooler and Freezer Components, No. 28, pp.
1–10.)
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
system and display door manufacturers
to accomplish without increasing the
size of the label and that the associated
costs of doing so would be negligible.
Accordingly, in DOE’s view, the
proposed labeling requirement would be
economically feasible as well. 81 FR at
54942.
DOE explained in the August 2016
NOPR that it was less common for nondisplay doors and panels for walk-ins to
have nameplates, but that it was more
likely that an entire assembled walk-in
may have a single nameplate.
Nonetheless, DOE found that adding a
permanent nameplate or permanent
sticker to both walk-in non-display
doors and panels would be
technologically feasible, as both types of
equipment have adequate useable
surface to apply such labels. DOE
estimated that the total cost of applying
labels to non-display doors and panels
would be negligible—less than a tenth
of one percent of the average
manufacturer’s annual revenue.
Accordingly, based on these facts, DOE
found that the proposed labeling
requirements would be economically
feasible. 81 FR at 54942.
Several commenters responded to
these aspects of DOE’s proposal.
Bally commented that the proposed
requirements for panel labeling is not
technologically feasible because putting
the date of manufacture on each panel
is difficult. Since the labels are usually
printed days or weeks before the actual
manufacturing date, the proposed
requirement would force manufacturers
to put a second label on the panel
printed on the day or day after
manufacture. Further, in its view,
labeling is not technologically feasible
because labeling each panel requires the
creation of many unique nameplates for
even a small walk-in. (Bally, No. 22 at
p. 2) Regarding these comments, as
discussed in section III.B.5.b of this
final rule, DOE is no longer requiring
walk-in panel labels to include the Rvalue, model number, or date of
manufacture. Therefore, under the
approach adopted in this rule, walk-in
panels will not require two labels as
Bally suggested. Additionally, DOE is
adopting a requirement to have a
generic statement for walk-in panel
labels, which eliminates the need for
each panel to have a unique label.
KPS claimed the amount of
information being requested for labels
will increase the size of the label, and
that their presence will disrupt the
aesthetics of the panel because the OEM
will be required to place them on each
panel or door. (KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) Heat
Controller also commented that, for
some small equipment, the increased
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
size of the label due to the proposed
regulation may make it difficult to place
the label according to UL’s
requirements. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 96)
KPS also stated that the label must be
dynamic for each unique job, and the
burdens faced by manufacturers come in
the form of the cost of implementing the
proposed changes—namely, the cost of
the change, the time to implement the
labeling requirement, and the materials
used to make the labels. Marketing
collateral changes, required system
changes, and the burden to customers
will, in KPS’s view, result in a cost
impact much greater than $10,000.
(KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) Hussmann noted
that the proposed labeling requirements
would require it to develop a new label
format, rewrite labeling software, and
purchase new labeling machines that
can handle the increased size of the
label. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) Bally
also expressed concern regarding the
economic implications of the proposed
requirements. It noted that describing
the label as a ‘‘nameplate’’ implies
higher costs than ‘‘label’’. (Bally, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 87)
American Panel commented that it is
not economically feasible to label each
panel because label(s) would have to be
high-grade Mylar/polyester in order to
withstand being power washed and
cleaned with harsh chemicals. The
added cost to track and uniquely label
each panel would bring no more benefit
than having a single label for an entire
walk-in. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1)
With respect to the labeling
requirements generally, DOE notes that
the requirements adopted in this rule
will align with some of the labeling
information already required by UL
(e.g., brand name, model number, and
date of manufacture). To this end, DOE
believes that this alignment will make it
less likely that manufacturers will need
to increase the size of the labels that are
already applied to walk-in panels and
doors.
Regarding the remaining potential
feasibility issues raised by commenters,
DOE notes that the final rule reduces the
amount of information required on
component nameplates and the amount
of information required to be disclosed
in catalogs and marketing materials for
walk-in panels, doors, and refrigeration
systems. In light of KPS’s concerns, the
final rule does not require each walk-in
component to have a unique label
showing the applicable representative
energy efficiency or energy
consumption. Regarding Hussmann’s
comment that the proposed labeling
requirements will cause manufacturers
to undergo significant retooling, in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95783
DOE’s view, the reduced requirements
adopted in this rule for all walk-in
components will likely reduce the
amount of retooling—if any—that may
be required by the rule. See section
III.B.4.b, supra. As to Bally’s and
American Panel’s concerns on the
expenses associated with using
permanent nameplate materials, DOE
clarifies that it is using the term
‘‘permanent’’ to mean that the label is
not easily removable and will not
become detached from the equipment
under everyday wear and tear. As long
as walk-in labels meet the
aforementioned specifications,
manufacturers may select appropriate
labeling materials at their discretion.
DOE also notes that it considered the
cost to manufacturers of updating their
marketing materials to include
efficiency information, brand, model
number, and the disclosure statement
on each page of the document that listed
the walk-in component. See 81 FR at
54944 and 54945–54946 (discussing
potential burden impacts on walk-in
manufacturers, including small
manufacturers). Marketing materials
include literature, data sheets, selection
software, sales training, and compliance
documentation. In this final rule, DOE
reduced the burden by removing the
term ‘‘each page’’ from its requirement
to disclosure of efficiency information
in catalogs and marketing materials.
Instead, DOE is requiring that all
catalogs that list a regulated walk-in
component and all materials used to
market the component prominently
display the same information that
appears on the component’s permanent
nameplate and the applicable efficiency
information. However, this information
is not required to be on each page of
such materials.
All of the changes that DOE is
adopting in this final rule create less
burdensome labeling requirements than
those proposed in the NOPR. The
labeling requirements for panels and
doors are designed such that the labels
can be applied across a range of basic
models. Also, DOE is adopting less
burdensome information display
requirements for product catalogues.
Reflecting the nature of these changes,
DOE is estimating labeling and
compliance costs on a per manufacturer
basis rather than on a per model basis.
Activities associated with software
selection, sales training and compliance
documentation are typically a one-time
expense for each manufacturer and do
not scale with the number of models.
Further, product literature templates are
generally standardized templates shared
between groups of walk-in components.
Therefore, updates to these materials are
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95784
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
more accurately scaled by manufacturer
than by model. DOE estimated an
investment of $50,000 per manufacturer
to produce nameplates and literature
that meet the labeling requirements
based on conversations with
manufacturers and published
literature.14
Significant Energy Savings
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
DOE stated in the August 2016 NOPR
that the proposed labeling requirements
would likely result in significant energy
savings. The related energy conservation
standards are expected to save
approximately 3 quadrillion British
thermal units (quads). DOE explained
that requiring labels that include the
rated value subject to the standards will
increase consumer awareness of the
standards. 81 FR at 54943. As a result,
requiring the labels may increase
consumer demand for more efficient
walk-in components, thus leading to
additional savings beyond that
calculated for the standards. In addition,
labeling requirements would both help
installers, assemblers, and contractors
ensure that they are selecting equipment
that the component manufacturer
intended to be used as part of a
completed walk-in, and limit the
potential compliance burden faced by
these entities. For example, DOE
understands from manufacturer
interviews and market research that
insulated metal panels may be used in
other types of applications, such as
communications equipment sheds.15
Labeling requirements differentiate
walk-in cooler and freezer panels from
other types of insulated metal panels
that are not appropriate for use in walkins.
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE also
explained that the proposed labeling
requirements are likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing
decisions. By including the rated metric
on the nameplate and marketing
materials, manufacturers are able to
demonstrate to purchasers that the
equipment they are purchasing meets
the DOE standard and is acceptable for
use in a walk-in. Additionally,
consumers have the information needed
to compare the energy efficiency
performance between different
component models, with the assurance
that the ratings were calculated
14 Food and Drug Administration, https://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04n0382/04n0382-bkg0001-Tab-05-01-vol1.pdf, page 3–13 (last
accessed November 2016).
15 Examples of insulated metal panels can be
found in this rulemaking’s docket. (See ‘‘Examples
of Insulated Panels Used in Applications Other than
WICF’’, No. 29, pp. 1–11).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
according to a DOE-specified test
procedure. 81 FR at 54943.
AHRI claimed that consumers will not
see a label on the equipment before it is
purchased, and that a label will not save
energy, increase demand for more
efficient walk-ins, or be used to make
purchasing decisions. In addition, AHRI
argued that most walk-ins are built to
order and the labels will not assist
customer decision making. Furthermore,
it noted that customers do not want
labels visible on their equipment, which
is frequently displayed in a client-facing
business setting. However, AHRI
remarked that the ratings in CCMS and
marketing materials may assist
customers in purchasing decisions, but
the tangible labels placed on equipment
require additional cost without any
consumer benefit. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp.
1–2) Manitowoc and Rheem agreed that
ratings displayed in DOE’s CCMS and in
marketing materials may assist
customers in purchasing decisions, but
argued that labels would incur cost to
manufacturers without any customer
benefit. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5) Manitowoc,
Rheem, Zero Zone, and KeepRite also
commented that WICF units are usually
built to order, not to sell in a retail
setting, and therefore labels will not
assist customers in their buying
decisions. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No.
15 at p. 2; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 3)
Bally argued that because the
customer purchases the panels before
seeing them, the panel labels have less
of an effect on purchasing decisions
than marketing literature. (Bally, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 86;
Bally, No. 22 at p. 3) Bally added that
energy savings will not likely result
from the proposed labeling regulation.
Bally commented that while the test
procedures for panels and doors include
‘‘short cuts’’ that assist manufacturers
with testing, they can distort equipment
comparisons. Specifically, regarding
door labels, Bally noted that the rating
does not reflect the range of actual uses
seen in the field and the customers’
actual energy use will not be accurately
reflected by the energy consumption on
the nameplate. Bally contended that this
situation may confuse customers and
cause them to misjudge the
requirements of their equipment.
Regarding panel labels, Bally noted that
the R-value is not easily converted into
cost savings. Bally also noted that
manufacturers (especially of freezers)
only certify that their equipment meet
the minimum requirements; therefore,
customers would not be able to make
significant judgments from the data
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
displayed on the label. (Bally, No. 22 at
p. 3)
In this rule, DOE is adopting labeling
requirements that will likely result in
significant energy savings by increasing
consumers’ awareness of the standards
and helping installers, assemblers, and
contractors ensure that the equipment
they select is intended for walk-in
applications. In addition, DOE’s labeling
requirements are likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing
decisions. As explained in section
III.B.5.a and section III.B.5.c of this final
rule, DOE modified its labeling
requirements to specify that catalogs
and marketing materials for each walkin component must include each basic
model’s representative energy
consumption or energy efficiency, as
applicable. As AHRI, Manitowoc,
Rheem, and Bally commented,
including this information in marketing
materials is beneficial to customers
making purchasing decisions.
Regarding built-to-order equipment,
DOE notes that energy conservation
standards for walk-in components were
established, in part, to address
regulatory complications associated
with the customization of walk-ins.
Even if a complete walk-in is designed
from a variety of components from
different manufacturers, applying labels
on walk-in equipment allows the
installer verify that each component is
appropriate for walk-in applications. In
addition, including representative
efficiency information in equipment
catalogs and marketing materials allows
entities designing walk-ins to compare
the efficiency of walk-in components.
In response to Bally’s comment that
the test procedure for walk-in doors
distorts energy consumption and is not
indicative of energy use in the field,
DOE notes that the specific rating
conditions in the test procedure were
established so that measured energy
consumption is more equitable across
the market. If a manufacturer believes
that the test procedure is
unrepresentative of a basic model’s
energy use, it may seek a test procedure
waiver in accordance with the
requirements in 10 CFR 431.401.
AHRI requested that DOE rescind the
labeling proposal because the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6315 have not
been met. Specifically, AHRI
commented that labeling will not assist
customers in making purchasing
decisions nor will labels save energy by
increasing demand for more efficient
walk-ins. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1–2) As
explained in the preceding paragraphs,
however, DOE concludes that this final
rule meets the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6315.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
b. Information Disclosed on Permanent
Nameplates
DOE proposed that the permanent
nameplates of doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems display certain
information.
For walk-in doors, DOE proposed that
the permanent nameplates of these
components must be clearly marked
with the rated energy consumption,
brand name, model number, date of
manufacture, and an application
statement that states, ‘‘This door is
designed and certified for use in walkin cooler and freezer applications.’’
Specifically, the energy consumption
would need to be identified with an
‘‘ECl’’ immediately preceding the
relevant value and the model number
would need to be displayed in one of
the following forms: ‘‘Modell’’, ‘‘Model
numberl’’, or ‘‘Model No. l’’. 81 FR at
54942.
With respect to panels, DOE proposed
that the permanent nameplates of panels
for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezers
clearly display the rated R-value, brand
name, model number, date of
manufacture, and an application
statement that states, ‘‘This panel is
designed and certified for use in walkin cooler and freezer applications.’’ The
R-value would be identified with an ‘‘Rvaluel’’ immediately preceding the
relevant value. The model number
would also need to be displayed in one
of the following forms: ‘‘Modell’’,
‘‘Model numberl’’, or ‘‘Model No. l’’.
81 FR at 54954.
For walk-in refrigeration systems that
are not manufactured solely for process
cooling applications, DOE proposed that
the permanent nameplates of these
components be clearly marked with the
AWEF, brand name, refrigeration system
model number, date of manufacture,
and an application statement that states,
‘‘This refrigeration system is designed
and certified for use in walk-in cooler
and freezer applications.’’ The AWEF
must be identified with ‘‘AWEFl’’
immediately preceding the relevant
value and the model number must be
displayed in one of the following forms:
‘‘Modell’’, ‘‘Model numberl’’, or
‘‘Model No. l’’. 81 FR at 54942. In
addition, DOE proposed that the
permanent nameplate of a refrigeration
system component that can only be used
as part of a process cooling refrigeration
system must be marked clearly with the
brand name, model number, the date of
manufacture, and the statement, ‘‘This
refrigeration system is designed only for
use in walk-in cooler and freezer
process cooling refrigeration
applications.’’ The model number
would be displayed in one of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
following forms: ‘‘Modell’’, ‘‘Model
numberl’’, or ‘‘Model No. l’’. If a
refrigeration system can be used for both
process cooling refrigeration and nonprocess cooling refrigeration
applications, then the refrigeration
system must be clearly marked with its
applicable AWEF, brand name, model
number, date of manufacture, and an
application statement that says, ‘‘This
refrigeration system is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and
freezer applications.’’ 81 FR at 54942.
Finally, for each of these proposed
requirements, DOE proposed that all
orientation, spacing, type sizes,
typefaces, and line widths used to
display this required information must
be the same as or similar to the display
of the other performance data contained
on the component’s permanent
nameplate. 81 FR at 54942.
DOE received general comments as
well as specific concerns on its labeling
proposal. ASAP and NEEA supported
the proposed labeling requirements.
(ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at pp. 3–4)
The CA IOUs supported the adoption of
WICF component labeling requirements
that would apply to each WICF
component, including labels on each
individual panel and door. (CA IOUs,
No. 21 at p. 3) AHRI, Manitowoc,
Rheem, and Zero Zone recommended
that DOE drop the proposed labeling
requirements for WICF refrigeration
systems because labels will not help
customers make purchasing decisions.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; Manitowoc, No.
10 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Zero
Zone, No. 15 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 20
at p. 2) Similarly, KeepRite requested
that the labeling requirements be
removed for refrigeration equipment
and panels. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 3)
Hussmann requested that there be no
additional labeling requirement and
added that it already labels their
equipment as required by UL.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) Rheem
added that potential labeling
requirements should have been brought
up during the ASRAC negotiation.
(Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5)
With respect to the labeling of
efficiency information, AHRI suggested
that DOE require efficiency information
to be included only in published
materials. AHRI explained that
customers will use marketing materials
to compare energy efficiency and ensure
ratings were calculated according to the
DOE-specific test procedure. (AHRI, No.
11 at p. 2) Rheem argued that online
resources, including the CCMS database
and manufacturer’s literature, are
preferable to labels since these sources
of information offer consumers context,
meaning and the opportunity to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95785
compare ratings—none of which are
possible with the proposed physical
labels. Rheem explained that because
WICFs are not built to be purchased in
a retail setting or for head-to-head
comparison—as most WICF equipment
is built to order—labels will not assist
customers in making purchasing
decisions. Moreover, consumers would
prefer not to have labels on equipment
that is for display purposes. (Rheem,
No. 18 at p. 4–5)
CrownTonka, Bally, and KeepRite
expressed concern about labeling each
panel individually. CrownTonka
commented that most of their food
customers and local health officials do
not want labels on each panel.
(CrownTonka, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 84–85) Bally
commented that requiring labels for
each panel model would require
manufacturers to invest in in-house
labeling capabilities and may impact
manufacturing process times. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
102–103) Bally also noted that panels
qualifying for both freezer and cooler
applications would require two separate
R-value labels for each operating
condition. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3)
KeepRite commented that labeling every
panel is not necessary, redundant and
wasteful. KeepRite added that the
labeling of every panel would not be
aesthetically pleasing and could lead to
sanitation issues. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p.
3) American Panel agreed that walk-in
components should be labeled to
demonstrate DOE compliance, but saw
no value to the customer having labels
on every walk-in insulated panel.
American Panel added that labels are
not seen until installation, and some
panels are hidden by floor covering.
(American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1)
However, the CA IOUs supported
requiring labels on each individual
panel and door, noting that this is
common practice for many construction
materials (wall insulation, windows).
(CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3)
Stakeholders also recommended
alternative approaches to reduce the
labeling burden. Manitowoc and
KeepRite suggested that, if DOE retains
the labeling requirements, then DOE
should allow manufacturers to have a
single label on each walk-in.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 3) KeepRite explained that
a majority of panels arrive to the jobsite
on the same truckload. (KeepRite, No.
17 at p. 3) CrownTonka noted that it
usually provides all floor, wall, and
ceiling panels for a given walk-in; IB
noted that, in addition to all panels, it
also usually provides passage doors.
Therefore, both manufacturers suggested
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95786
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
a labeling system where all of the
components they provide for an initial
installation could be covered under a
single label, and only replacement
panels ordered later on would be
individually labeled. (CrownTonka,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
97–99; IB, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 99–100) Hussmann
commented that since walk-ins are
assembled in the field, labeling each
door or panel would be excessive and it
preferred using a single label for the
whole WICF. In addition, Hussmann
criticized the proposed labeling
statements as being long and likely to
crowd the nameplate. It suggested as an
alternative that a mark indicating
compliance, similar to the UL or
ENERGY STAR marks, be used instead.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2)
Other stakeholders commented on the
proposed language for inclusion on all
walk-in equipment permanent
nameplates—i.e., ‘‘This [equipment
class] is designed and certified for use
in walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.’’ Bally commented that
while it supported the phrase concept,
it preferred to include only this phrase
on equipment labels. Bally explained
that they could easily include the
phrase on a UL sticker, but information
like R-value, model number, or date of
manufacturer would require custom
label machinery. (Bally, Bally, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 102)
Bally and CrownTonka supported using
a set of three generalized labels which
could applied to a range of panel
models. (Bally, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 105, 101–102;
CrownTonka, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 106)
CrownTonka commented that it
generally builds and sells panels with a
specific design, i.e. cooler or freezer, in
mind. (CrownTonka, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 105) To this end,
it suggested using one of the following
phrases to indicate the intended
purpose of WICF doors: ‘‘Walk in
(Cooler/Freezer) Door Assembly’’ or
‘‘Certified Walk in (Cooler/Freezer)
Door.’’ (Bally, No. 22 at pp. 3–4)
Similarly, Rheem and NCC suggested
that, given the differences in freezer and
cooler standards, the label’s text stating
the intended use of the panel should
read, ‘‘This refrigeration system is
designed and certified for use in walkin cooler or freezer applications.’’
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 92; NCC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 91) Lennox
recommended changing the required
wording on the nameplate to read, ‘‘This
refrigeration system is designed and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
certified to DOE requirements for use in
walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.’’ (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9)
DOE agrees with the suggestion from
Bally, CrownTonka, Rheem, and NCC.
Walk-in components may be designed
for walk-in cooler applications, walk-in
freezer applications, or both walk-in
cooler and freezer applications.
Therefore, DOE finds that the approach
suggested by these manufacturers
improves the application statement
because it not only identifies that the
component is designed for use in a
walk-in, but also identifies the type of
walk-in (cooler, freezer, or both) for
which the component is designed. This
additional information would help
installers verify that they are using the
appropriate component for a particular
application. Therefore, DOE is
modifying its proposed permanent
nameplate requirement by requiring that
the permanent nameplate indicate
whether the basic model is designed
and certified for use in (1) walk-in
cooler applications, (2) walk-in freezer
applications, or (3) both walk-in cooler
and walk-in freezer applications. For
example, a walk-in panel designed and
certified for use only in a walk-in cooler
must contain on its label the following
statement, ‘‘This panel is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler
applications.’’ Similarly, if a walk-in
panel is designed and certified for both
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
applications, then it must contain on its
label the following statement, ‘‘This
panel is designed and certified for use
in walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.’’ Although the ‘‘certified’’
language on the label pertains
specifically to the certification of
compliance to DOE, to minimize the
labeling burden, DOE is adopting
Lennox’s suggestion of dropping the
proposed inclusion of the language ‘‘to
DOE requirements’’ to the label.
Regarding the proposed labeling
requirements, DOE’s intention is to
adopt a limited set of labeling
requirements for walk-in components
that would reduce the overall burden on
manufacturers, including for installers
who will be relying on these labels
when assembling a given walk-in. For
walk-in doors, DOE is requiring that
they include a permanent nameplate
marked with the door brand name and,
as applicable, the statement, ‘‘This door
is designed and certified for use in
[walk-in cooler, walk-in freezer, or
walk-in cooler and freezer]
applications.’’
Similarly, to reduce the burden on
walk-in panel manufacturers while
preserving information useful for walkin installers, DOE is requiring these
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
components to have a permanent
nameplate that includes the brand name
and, as applicable, the statement, ‘‘This
panel is designed and certified for use
in [walk-in cooler, walk-in freezer, or
walk-in cooler and freezer]
applications.’’
In DOE’s view, the more limited
labeling requirements being adopted in
this rule will enable manufacturers to
demonstrate that a given walk-in
component complies with the
applicable DOE energy conservation
standards, while eliminating the burden
of creating a different label for each
basic model. These limited labeling
requirements are generalized and can be
applied to a range of basic models in the
manner suggested by Bally and
CrownTonka. Further, these limited
labeling requirements reduce
manufacturer burden because
components designed for both walk-in
cooler and freezer applications would
not require two separate labels, a
concern expressed by Bally.
With respect to the concept of using
a single label for a completed walk-in,
DOE notes that its regulatory framework
for this equipment relies on the
component-based statutory scheme
established by Congress. As a result,
applying the single, completed walk-in
labeling approach suggested by
Manitowoc, KeepRite, CrownTonka, IB,
and Hussmann would be inconsistent
with that Congressionally-enacted
scheme and potentially less effective at
ensuring that installers and consumers
have reliable information regarding
whether the walk-in components they
are using comply with the applicable
standards. The requirements in this
final rule are intended to help
manufacturers of a complete walk-in
identify components that comply with
the applicable standards and have been
certified as such. In DOE’s view, a single
label for a complete walk-in would
reduce the utility of the label with
respect to complete walk-in
manufacturers (e.g., installers) since it
would offer no information regarding
the performance of the walk-in’s
regulated components.
DOE considers energy efficiency
information an important aspect of
walk-in design, advertising and
purchasing and is therefore maintaining
the requirement to report such
information in catalogs and marketing
materials. This change is consistent
with the approach suggested by AHRI
and Rheem. Specifically, DOE is
requiring walk-in door manufacturers to
include each basic model’s
representative energy consumption in
catalogs and marketing materials while
walk-in panel manufacturers would
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
include each basic model’s
representative R-value in their catalogs
and marketing materials.
Regarding door labels, Bally requested
that required door labels should include
units of measure that follow the
maximum energy consumption metric,
‘‘kWh/day’’. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE
agrees with Bally that energy
consumption information should be
listed with the appropriate units of
measure. As explained in the previous
paragraphs, DOE is not requiring walkin doors to have energy consumption
marked on their nameplates. However,
manufacturers must include the
representative energy consumption for
each basic model of walk-in door in
equipment catalogs and marketing
materials. Per Bally’s suggestion, DOE is
adding a requirement that door energy
consumption must be listed with the
units of measure, ‘‘kWh/day’’.
Lennox, NCC, Heat Controller,
CrownTonka, and Bally also commented
that some of the information that the
proposal would require on a label is
already included in current markings or
is otherwise tracked and recorded by
manufacturers. AHRI, Rheem, and
Hussmann commented that current
safety standards require WICF
manufacturers to provide the brand
name, date of manufacture, and model
number via a label, and that this
information will allow consumers to
look up efficiency information online—
which Hussmann asserts is the preferred
method to review information because it
provides context, meaning and the
opportunity to compare ratings. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5;
Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) Bally stated
that UL labels already placed on each
door include power consumption and
the energy consumption labeling
proposed would be redundant and
confusing. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3)
Similar to walk-in doors and panels,
DOE’s intention is to adopt labeling
requirements for walk-in refrigeration
systems that are not overly burdensome
to manufacturers and that provide
installers with enough information to
assemble walk-ins with compliant
components. In addition, based on the
comments from AHRI, Rheem, and
Hussmann, DOE understands that walkin customers benefit from having brand
name, date of manufacture and model
number information included on
refrigeration system labels because this
information allows walk-in customers to
look up efficiency information in CCMS
or in manufacturer literature. In light of
the comments received from Lennox,
NCC, Heat Controller, CrownTonka,
AHRI, Rheem, and Hussmann, DOE
finds that refrigeration systems are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
already labeled with the brand, date of
manufacture, and model number
information, all of which supports the
view that it is technologically feasible
for refrigeration systems to be labeled
with this information. Further,
manufacturers will have minimal
financial impacts because they do not
need to modify equipment nameplates
in order to meet a requirement to label
walk-in refrigeration systems with brand
name, date of manufacturer, and model
number. This rule requires walk-in
cooler and freezer refrigeration systems
(that are not manufactured solely for
process cooling applications) to have a
permanent nameplate marked with the
refrigeration system’s brand name,
model number, date of manufacture,
and the statement, ‘‘This refrigeration
system is designed and certified for use
in [walk-in cooler, walk-in freezer, or
walk-in cooler and freezer]
applications.’’ In addition, DOE is
requiring a refrigeration system that is
not designated for outdoor use be
labeled with the statement, ‘‘Indoor use
only.’’ See section III.A.1.d for more
details. The permanent nameplate of a
refrigeration system component that can
only be used as part of a process cooling
refrigeration system must be marked
clearly with the statement, ‘‘This
refrigeration system is designed for use
exclusively in walk-in cooler and/or
freezer process cooling refrigeration
applications.’’ DOE is requiring
manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration
systems to include each basic model’s
representative AWEF in catalogs and
marketing materials.
DOE also notes that EPCA generally
requires that labels prescribed by the
Secretary must indicate the energy
efficiency of the affected equipment, as
tested under the prescribed DOE test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b)) For walkin equipment, the labeling requirements
prescribed by the Secretary shall
indicate the energy efficiency of the
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6315(e).
DOE’s rule requires that manufacturers
disclose whether a given regulated
walk-in component meets the applicable
energy efficiency requirement that
applies. In DOE’s view, this approach
satisfies the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6315 since it discloses whether a given
component meets the prescribed level of
efficiency, while minimizing the
associated burden requirements. DOE
notes that the specific requirements of
42 U.S.C. 6315(e) do not require that a
specific value be provided on the
label—only that the label ‘‘indicate the
energy efficiency of the equipment.’’ In
DOE’s view, this final rule’s labeling
requirement, which would also be
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95787
coupled with a requirement that
equipment catalogs prominently display
the energy efficiency of regulated
components, satisfies this provision
since the label will readily indicate
whether a given component satisfies the
prescribed energy efficiency level for
that component. Accordingly, DOE’s
adopted approach satisfies its legal
obligations while balancing the interests
in providing sufficient information to
the public against the potential costs of
requiring a label for walk-in
components. DOE notes that
manufacturers are free to provide
additional information regarding the
performance of their components
should they choose to do so, see section
III.B.5.b for additional details.
Given that the disclosure statement
represents that the labeled component is
certified as compliant with the
applicable energy conservation
standard, if a manufacturer has not
certified to DOE that a component meets
applicable standards, the components
may not contain any labels indicating
compliance or certification.
DOE also received comments specific
to the proposed requirement that the
date of manufacture be included on the
label. Lennox commented that the
month and year of manufacture are
already included in its UL markings,
while NCC noted that its UL markings
indicate the manufacturing date by
quarter and year. (Lennox, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 83;
NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at p. 91) NCC further explained that the
exact date of manufacture cannot be
determined when the nameplates are
printed; instead they indicate the date of
manufacture by quarter within their
serial numbers, as controlled by the UL
safety procedure file. NCC
recommended that DOE allow
manufacturers to continue using the
formats defined in their safety
procedure files. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 2)
CrownTonka commented that they print
serial numbers on each component and
use these numbers to keep records of the
manufactured date, intended use and
other details. (CrownTonka, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 92–93)
Bally commented that it currently prints
the manufactured date, job number, and
other information on each panel. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
103–104) Lennox added that it found
the proposed manufacturing date
labeling requirement unclear regarding
the required format for the date code,
and recommended that the
manufacturing date labeling
requirement to be represented by the
date code, which is incorporated into
the unit serial number. (Lennox, No. 13
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95788
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
at p. 9) Heat Controller commented that
the proposed requirement would
duplicate information that is already
embedded in its product serial numbers,
and that its marketing materials already
show customers how to read this
information. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 96–97)
DOE clarifies that if manufacturers
typically include model number
information on the label of a walk-in
panel, door, or refrigeration system,
then that specific requirement is already
satisfied for purposes of the labeling
requirements being adopted in this rule,
and no further action by a manufacturer
would be needed. Regarding the issues
raised by Lennox and Heat Controller,
DOE agrees that if the date of
manufacture is embedded in the serial
number of a given regulated component,
DOE will consider this approach to
satisfy the manufacture date
requirement. However, DOE emphasizes
that a walk-in refrigeration system
manufacturer is responsible for
maintaining records to discern the date
of manufacture from the serial number
for each walk-in refrigeration system.
DOE is specifying in its labeling
requirements that if the date of
manufacture is embedded in the unit’s
serial number, then the manufacturer of
the refrigeration system must retain any
relevant records to discern the date from
the serial number.
DOE believes that the date of
manufacture must reflect the month and
year the unit was manufactured since
the compliance date for the energy
conservation standards for walk-in
equipment is based on the date of
manufacture. Labeling equipment with
the date of manufacture enables DOE to
readily determine whether a given unit
is subject to the walk-in energy
conservation standards. Quarterly dates
of manufacture alone contain
insufficient information to enable either
DOE or the manufacturer to readily
make this determination.
Heat Controller asked if a dedicated
condensing unit had to be labeled with
information specific to the dedicated
condensing unit or information related
complete refrigeration system installed
in a walk-in under DOE’s proposal. Heat
Controller explained that they would
not know where a dedicated condensing
unit would end up and would not know
the brand or model number under
which the complete refrigeration system
was sold. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 94)
DOE clarifies that a dedicated
condensing unit distributed in
commerce without a matched unit
cooler would only need to be labeled
with information specific to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
dedicated condensing unit—e.g., the
model number of the dedicated
condensing unit, the date the dedicated
condensing unit was manufactured, etc.
In commenting on the proposed
inclusion of the requirement to identify
the ‘‘refrigeration system brand,’’
Lennox viewed this proposal as
referring to the original equipment
manufacturer (‘‘OEM’’) name and not
the brands under which they market
their products. It requested that
‘‘refrigeration system brand’’ be changed
to ‘‘refrigeration manufacturer name’’
instead. Lennox stated that
manufacturer name information is
currently represented on all Lennox
WICF equipment nameplates and DOE’s
proposal would pose no additional
burden if implemented in this manner.
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9) DOE agrees that
either the manufacturer name or the
brand name must be displayed on the
label for walk-in components. In this
rule, DOE is adopting labeling
requirements for walk-in panels, doors,
and refrigeration systems that require
either the manufacturer name or brand
name to be displayed on each unit.
CrownTonka requested that DOE
clarify the term ‘‘permanent.’’ It added
that making labels permanent can
require different materials, different ink,
different combinations of systems, with
significant costs. (CrownTonka, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 97–98)
DOE clarifies that it is using the term
‘‘permanent’’ to mean that the label is
not easily removable and will not
become detached from the equipment or
unreadable through everyday wear and
tear.
In the NOPR, DOE also considered a
requirement specifying the location of
the permanent nameplates on doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems. The
NOPR proposed to require that the
permanent nameplate must be visible at
all times, including when the
component is assembled into a complete
walk-in.
ASAP and NEEA agreed that labels
should be visible because it will
effectively enable utilities and code
inspectors to verify the installation of
qualified equipment. (ASAP and NEEA,
No. 19 at pp. 3–4) The CA IOUs
suggested that the labels should be
placed such that they would be fully
visible if the walk-in were assembled in
an ‘‘open air’’ environment, with none
hidden or covered by any joints. (CA
IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3)
Other commenters, however, opposed
this proposed requirement. Manitowoc
and Rheem noted that WICF customers
do not want visible labels on their
equipment, which are often clientfacing. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1;
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4) Hussmann also
commented that the label should not be
fully visible to the customer. Hussmann
expressed concern about requiring a
door label that would block view of any
product, but supported using a hinge
label that is visible only when the door
is opened. (Hussmann, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 89–90) It added
that it places labels in discreet but
accessible locations because customers
do not want to have visible labels on
their equipment. (Hussmann, No. 20 at
p. 2) American Panel suggested as an
alternative that walk-in door labels be
placed on the door frame with other
product labeling and safety information.
(American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) Bally
noted that if labels are affixed in a
visible location they will allow dirt to
collect around their periphery and will
interfere with cleaning. (Bally, No. 22 at
p. 3)
Heat Controller was concerned that
the label visibility requirements could
necessitate the placement of multiple
labels on a single component.
Specifically, it asked whether rooftop
refrigeration systems would need a
second label in the walk-in envelope
that was visible from ground level. (Heat
Controller, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 95) CrownTonka also asked
that the visibility and permanence
requirements of the label be clarified.
(CrownTonka, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 97–98)
American Panel commented that floor
panels are often installed beneath a
permanent floor covering (e.g., concrete,
plastic treatments), which would render
the proposed label unseen and
inaccessible. (American Panel, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 101)
In light of these comments, DOE is
electing not to require the permanent
nameplate to be visible at all times,
including when the component is
assembled into a complete walk-in.
However, the label must be visible to
the entity that purchases the walk-in
component. For example, a panel may
have a label on an edge that is not
visible when the panel is assembled into
a complete walk-in. However, the
contractor that purchased the panel
would be able to see the label prior to
assembly. Additionally, as explained by
American Panel, even if a floor panel is
covered by a permanent floor covering
like concrete, the floor panel must have
a label that is visible prior to their
integration into a fully assembled walkin. In response to Heat Controller’s
comment, DOE clarifies that
refrigeration systems installed on a
walk-in roof would not need a second
label that is visible from ground level.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Lastly, Dow commented that it
understood that the NOPR did not
propose to require insulation suppliers
to label walk-in panels and requested
that DOE clarify the role, if any, of
insulation suppliers in regards to
labeling. (Dow, No. 9 at pp. 2–3) DOE
notes that only walk-in component
manufacturers are responsible for
labeling their equipment.
c. Information Disclosed on Marketing
Materials
DOE proposed to clarify the
requirements for the disclosure of
efficiency information in marketing
materials and to require that such
marketing materials prominently
display the same information required
to appear on a walk-in component’s
permanent nameplate.
Lennox supported the reporting
requirements to communicate the rated
efficiency and net capacity in their
literature for each model, but stated that
reporting the information on each page
of product literature is duplicative, adds
no value to individuals reading the
literature and creates an additional
burden to manufacturers. Lennox
requested the language be revised to
remove the term ‘‘each page’’ and
indicate that reporting of this
information is required in product
literature. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 10) NCC
noted that while many marketing
materials provide performance
information at a range of operating
conditions, some marketing materials,
such as leaflets, may not have space
available for detailed technical data.
(NCC, No. 16 at p. 3)
In response to these concerns, DOE is
modifying its proposal. Marketing
materials must prominently display the
same information that must appear on a
walk-in component’s permanent
nameplate. In addition, DOE is requiring
manufacturers to disclose the R-value of
walk-in panels, the energy consumption
for walk-in doors, and the AWEF for
walk-in refrigeration systems in each
catalog that lists the component and all
materials used to market the
component. However, as suggested by
Lennox, DOE is removing the term
‘‘each page’’ from this requirement. DOE
believes that reporting efficiency
information on each page of catalogs
and marketing materials may be overly
burdensome. DOE also notes that while
this rule does not require that detailed
technical data, like a range of operating
conditions, be reported in all marketing
materials, the rule requires that all
marketing materials that list the walk-in
component, including leaflets, must
disclose the efficiency of that
component.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and
KeepRite requested that DOE clarify that
net capacity need not be included in
marketing materials. These stakeholders
argued that net capacity is not familiar
or useful to consumers and may cause
them confusion. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No.
18 at pp. 6–7; NCC, No. 16 at p. 3;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) AHRI, Rheem,
and KeepRite also asked that DOE
clarify in the final rule that only
information on the proposed label is
required in marketing literature. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 6–
7; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) NCC
commented that manufacturers should
be allowed to publish total capacity data
at both rated and application
conditions. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 3) AHRI
and Manitowoc commented that the
performance tables used in existing
marketing materials are valuable to
customers. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2) KeepRite
asked that DOE clarify whether the
current marketing methods for ratings
(i.e., tables) are allowed in marketing
literature. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
This rule contains no requirement to
include net capacity in marketing
materials. As discussed earlier in
section III.B.5.b of this final rule, DOE
elected to limit its labeling requirements
for panels, doors, and refrigeration
systems. In addition to the limited
information displayed on walk-in
component labels, DOE is requiring
catalogs and marketing materials for
doors, panels, and refrigeration systems
to include the representative energy
efficiency or energy consumption for
each walk-in component model listed in
the literature. With respect to
publishing certain application ratings,
manufacturers may continue to do so.
Specifically, manufacturers may publish
total capacity, net capacity, system total
power consumption and component
power consumptions. In response to
AHRI’s, Manitowoc’s, and KeepRite’s
request to retain the existing
performance tables in marketing
literature, DOE agrees that these tables
may be retained so long as that
information is consistent with this rule.
NCC also requested that DOE permit
manufacturers to publish all necessary
application capacities, even if some of
the associated AWEF values may be
below the minimum requirement. In
addition, NCC asked whether
accessories that are required for certain
applications but may reduce the
measured AWEF values can be listed on
a manufacturer’s marketing material
with a note stating that it ‘‘may not meet
DOE minimum AWEF requirements,’’ or
similar language. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 3)
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95789
Manufacturers must determine the
represented AWEF for each basic model
of walk-in refrigeration system in
accordance with DOE’s test procedure
(10 CFR 431.306) and sampling
requirements (10 CFR 429. 53). All
walk-in refrigeration system basic
models, including those basic models
sold with accessories, are required to
meet the applicable AWEF standards.
Distribution in commerce of any
covered equipment that does not
comply with an applicable energy
conservation standard is prohibited.
C. Compliance With Other EPCA
Requirements
In addition to the issues discussed
above, DOE examined its other
obligations under EPCA in developing
this final rule. These requirements are
addressed in greater detail below.
1. Test Burden
EPCA requires that the test
procedures DOE prescribes or amends
be reasonably designed to produce test
results that measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered
product during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. These
procedures must also not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C.
6314(a). DOE has concluded that the
adopted amendments satisfy this
requirement. The adopted test
procedure amendments generally
represent minor changes to the test
procedure that do not affect the
equipment required for testing and
either reduce or have no effect on the
time required to conduct the testing.
Section III.A.2.a of this final rule
discusses the reasons for removing the
method for addressing the treatment of
hot gas defrost—a credit—from the test
procedure. That credit represented the
efficiency improvement of hot gas
defrost and applied to any lowtemperature refrigeration system that
uses hot gas defrost. The procedure
adopted in this rule will require
refrigeration systems with hot gas
defrost to be tested by measuring their
steady-state performance with their hot
gas defrost components removed and
pipes reconnected according to the
manufacturer’s specifications, as
discussed in section III.A.2.a of this
document. This step represents a
potential increase in test burden when
testing unit coolers, matched pairs, and
single-package dedicated systems with
hot gas defrost. The reason for this step,
as discussed in section III.A.2.a of this
document, is that the evaporators of
such systems cannot defrost themselves
and cannot remove moisture from the
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95790
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
indoor room of the test facility without
collecting frost, which necessitates
testing be conducted in a facility with
an indoor room conditioning system
that can cool down the room and
remove moisture. To the extent that a
manufacturer without access to such a
test facility must conduct such a test for
hot gas defrost equipment, the
associated test burden represents either
installing such a conditioning system in
the indoor room of their facility, or
contracting such test work to third party
laboratories.
DOE does not have detailed
information regarding the test facilities
that manufacturers use to test
refrigeration systems, or whether all
manufacturers have their own test
facilities. DOE expects, however, that
most of these test facilities have indoor
room conditioning systems to ensure
that low-capacity systems, whose
capacity may not exceed the indoor
room thermal load and would therefore
not be able to pull the indoor room
temperature down to specified test
conditions, could be tested. In support
of this expectation, DOE notes that
Figure C1 of appendix C of AHRI 1250–
2009 shows a conditioning system in
the indoor room of the illustrated test
facility. DOE also expects that some
manufacturers will develop
performance representations for their
hot gas defrost units using AEDMs, an
approach that limits the need for actual
testing of hot gas defrost unit coolers
and matched-pairs. Therefore, DOE does
not expect these increased requirements
to add unduly to test burden.
Section III.A.2.b of this final rule
discusses DOE’s revisions to the test
procedure for refrigeration systems with
adaptive defrost. This final rule does not
require manufacturers of refrigeration
systems with adaptive defrost to
measure and certify their performance
using this feature. Manufacturers that
make representations showing the
benefit of adaptive defrost may continue
using the testing and certification
requirements for performance
incorporating this feature since these
provisions are not affected by this final
rule. Hence, in DOE’s view, there is no
added test burden involved with the test
procedure as finalized in this notice.
Section III.A.2.c of this final rule
discusses DOE’s revisions to the test
procedure for unit coolers with on-cycle
variable-speed fan control. Prior to this
final rule, DOE allowed manufacturers
to test the benefit of this feature using
the DOE test procedure for unit coolers.
DOE is modifying the test procedure to
specify that certified ratings of systems
with this feature shall exclude the
credit. This approach lowers the testing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
burden for unit coolers with this feature
because manufacturers no longer need
to perform this test to obtain ratings for
certification. (Manufacturers may still
make representations of unit cooler
efficiency with this feature; in this case,
the testing burden will not change.)
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
In general, when modifying a given
test procedure, DOE determines to what
extent, if any, the new test procedure
would alter the measured energy use of
covered products. (42 U.S.C 6293(e)(1)).
DOE has made this determination in
light of the corresponding standards
rulemaking that it is conducting in
parallel with this test procedure
rulemaking. See 81 FR 62980. (That
rulemaking addresses potential energy
conservation standards for certain
classes of walk-in refrigeration systems.)
DOE has determined that the adopted
test procedure amendments could affect
the measured energy use of certain
covered products, but the amendments
would only affect aspects related to
testing after the compliance date of the
amended energy conservation standards
that DOE is proposing in a separate
notice. The test procedure amendments
would not, however, affect the current
standards for any walk-in components,
nor would they affect the refrigeration
system standards promulgated in the
June 2014 final rule with a compliance
date of June 5, 2017 (i.e., the standards
for medium-temperature, dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems).
Instead, the modifications in this rule
will affect only low-temperature
dedicated condensing refrigeration
systems and unit coolers. The separate
analysis for the standards rulemaking
that DOE is conducting explicitly
accounts for the test procedure changes
finalized in this rule. Accordingly, this
rule will require no further changes to
the energy conservation standards
beyond those which DOE has already
considered in its parallel standards
rulemaking analysis.
D. Additional Comments From
Interested Parties
This section discusses additional
comments made by interested parties
during this rulemaking that were
unrelated to any of DOE’s specific
proposals.
1. High Temperature Freezer
Applications
Lennox commented that in the
current market, high temperature freezer
applications (10 °F to 32 °F room
temperature) are served by medium
temperature condensing units. (Lennox,
No. 13 at p. 2) Lennox, Rheem and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
AHRI pointed out the challenges that
using lower GWP refrigerants pose for
reaching freezer testing conditions with
medium temperature condensing units.
Lennox, Rheem and AHRI
recommended that DOE allow
manufacturers to publish application
ratings below 32 °F room temperature
for medium temperature WICF products
without having to certify this equipment
as low temperature refrigeration systems
using the low-temperature test
conditions. (Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 2–4;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 11 at
p. 7) Lennox suggested that this ‘‘high
temperature freezer’’ application may
justifiably represent a third class of
walk-in refrigeration systems (in
addition to low-temperature and
medium-temperature), which could
require establishing a third set of test
procedure operating conditions and
standards. However, Lennox also
highlighted the cost and reporting
burden associated with establishing a
new equipment class for the high
temperature freezer application.
(Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 2–4) Hussmann
requested that manufacturers be allowed
to market and sell medium temperature
unit coolers for applications with
interior temperatures less than 32 °F.
Although not explicitly stated in the
comment, DOE assumes Hussmann
intended this as a request that DOE not
require the testing and certifying of such
equipment as low-temperature unit
coolers. Hussmann explained that unit
coolers cannot have optimized
performance at both ¥10 °F and closeto-32 °F test conditions. (Hussmann, No.
20 at p. 3)
As noted earlier, DOE published a
notice of proposed rulemaking to
address potential energy conservation
standards for certain classes of walk-in
refrigeration equipment. In response to
that rulemaking proposal, Lennox
submitted additional information on the
high temperature freezer issue. (See
docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
Lennox, No. 89 at pp. 2–5) In particular,
Lennox provided AWEF values for
operation at 10 °F room temperature
showing that medium-temperature
condensing units are more efficient than
low-temperature condensing units at 10
°F room temperature. These values also
indicated that medium-temperature
condensing units were more efficient
under these conditions than the lowtemperature AWEF standard levels
proposed by DOE (which apply for ¥10
°F rather than 10 °F room conditions).
See 81 FR at 62982 (detailing proposed
standard levels for various walk-in
refrigeration equipment classes). Lennox
used these data to argue that DOE’s
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
interests (i.e. ensuring that the most
efficient equipment will be used in
walk-ins) would best be served by
allowing use of medium temperature
condensing units in the 10 °F to 32 °F
range without additional testing or
certification, because of the mediumtemperature units’ better efficiency.
(Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
Lennox, No. 89 at p. 4)
DOE discussed the issues regarding
publishing application ratings in section
III.B.2. DOE acknowledges the market
need for equipment to serve the hightemperature freezer market and that
medium-temperature units may have
better efficiency than low-temperature
units in this temperature range.
However, models that span multiple
equipment classes are to be tested and
certified as compliant with the
applicable standard for each equipment
class. If these equipment cannot be
tested in a way that properly represents
their performance characteristics,
manufacturers have the option of
petitioning DOE for test procedure
waivers as described in 10 CFR 431.401.
DOE notes the test method of
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers includes provisions
for testing equipment at the lowest
application product temperature. (10
CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart C)
While DOE is not formalizing such an
approach in this rule, the manufacturer
may consider such an approach or other
applicable test methods when
petitioning for a waiver. DOE may also
consider establishing new equipment
classes and developing applicable test
methods in future rulemakings.
2. Unit Cooler With Mounted/Ancillary
Components
Lennox recommended that DOE
update the test procedure in section
3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix C to indicate that any
mounted or ancillary components
installed in the refrigerant flow path
upstream of the distributor and
downstream of the heat exchanger exit
are to be removed during the test.
Lennox noted the 10 °F temperature
differential (‘‘TD’’) at the heat exchanger
was specified as the basis for the test
procedure 16 and also used in
calculations to establish the proposed
unit cooler (‘‘UC’’) AWEF standards.
Lennox indicated the pressure drop of
the ancillary components outside of the
16 For example, for a freezer unit cooler, section
3.3.1 of 10 CFR 431, subpart R, appendix C as
finalized in this notice indicates that the suction A
condition of Table 16 of AHRI 1250–2009 is used
for testing. For this condition, the entering air
temperature is ¥10 °F and the saturated suction
temperature is ¥20 °F, representing a 10 °F TD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
heat exchanger was not considered
when setting the UC standards. Lennox
commented that the pressure drop
results in loss of ability to attain the 10
°F TD at the heat exchanger. Therefore,
the ancillary components should be
removed during testing. (Lennox, No. 13
at p. 5)
Regarding this issue, DOE notes that
the current test conditions for testing
unit coolers includes a 25 °F saturated
suction temperature for medium
temperature unit coolers and ¥20 °F for
low-temperature unit coolers (see 10
CFR 431.304(12)(ii)). These conditions
represent a 10 °F TD relative to the unit
cooler air entering dry-bulb
temperatures (see Tables 15 and 16 in
10 CFR 431.304), which is consistent
with AHRI 1250–2009. DOE maintained
the same test conditions in this final
rule in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, Appendix C. There is no
indication in AHRI 1250–2009, nor in
the test procedure in 10 CFR 431.304,
that these conditions apply to the heat
exchanger rather than the suction outlet.
For example, Table C2 of Appendix C of
AHRI 1250–2009 lists ‘‘pressure of
superheated refrigerant vapor leaving
the Unit Cooler’’ as a measured
quantity. DOE asserts that ‘‘leaving the
unit cooler’’ is not the same as ‘‘within
the heat exchanger.’’ The ‘‘leaving the
heat exchanger’’ location is underscored
by Figure C1 of Appendix C of the test
standard, which shows the pressure
measurement in the pipe after it has
exited the unit cooler. AHRI 1250–2009
does not point to locations within the
heat exchanger when referencing the
unit cooler exit, focusing instead on the
exit piping. Hence, it is not clear that
the test procedure calls for 10 °F TD
within the heat exchanger if there is any
appreciable pressure drop between the
heat exchanger and the pipe leaving the
unit cooler.
Regarding Lennox’s comment that the
proposed UC AWEF standards used an
assumed 10 °F TD at the heat exchanger,
DOE’s unit cooler energy modeling in
support of its standards proposal did
not involve any assumption regarding
the removal of any mounted/ancillary
components in the refrigerant line. The
analysis also did not assume that there
would be any significant pressure drop
between the heat exchanger’s suction
header and the unit cooler outlet. As
DOE noted in its standards proposal,
DOE’s unit cooler testing indicated that
the unit coolers’ measured capacities are
lower than the nominal capacities
reported in manufacturer literature.
These results suggest that using a unit
cooler’s nominal capacity would
overestimate both capacity and
efficiency when measured during
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95791
testing. (September 11, 2015 Public
Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016, No. 3 at p. 40)
Rheem suggested that this discrepancy
may be due, in part, to the difference
between the test conditions used during
testing and those used when
determining the nominal capacity of a
unit cooler. (Docket No. EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016, Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 61
at pp. 116–117) DOE’s standards
analysis used performance modeling of
WICF evaporator coils, calibrated with
testing data, to develop an equation that
related manufacturer-reported nominal
capacity to the net capacity measured
during unit cooler testing. (September
30, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation,
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
No. 7 at pp. 55 and 57) The tests
conducted were consistent with AHRI
1250–2009, with the pressures
measured in the exit piping leaving the
unit coolers. DOE used this approach,
which was vetted by the WICF Working
Group, for determining unit cooler
measured capacity in the subsequent
analysis. (Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–
STD–0016, various parties, Public
Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015),
No. 62 at pp. 205–209)
Moreover, Lennox did not indicate in
its submission which ancillary
components should be removed. DOE
believes any components that are
necessary for the proper operation of a
given unit cooler should remain part of
that equipment when tested. DOE is
aware that unit coolers equipped with
hot gas defrost are likely to require
additional valves in the refrigerant line.
DOE discusses specific requirements
regarding components installed as part
of hot gas defrost units in section
III.A.2.a of this final rule. DOE notes
that evaporator pressure regulators
(‘‘EPRs’’) are commonly installed with
unit coolers in supermarket refrigeration
systems, but not in dedicated
condensing applications. For this
reason, DOE believes that it may be
acceptable to remove the EPR during
unit cooler testing, but is not
formalizing this approach in the test
procedure at this time. DOE is not aware
of any other ancillary components that
are likely to be installed as indicated by
the comment. If a manufacturer believes
the inclusion of any ancillary
components would make testing nonrepresentative of average use cycles, it
can petition DOE for a waiver in
accordance with the requirements in 10
CFR 431.401.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
95792
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
3. Off-Cycle Unit Cooler Variable-Speed
Fan Setting
Lennox recommended that DOE
specify that during the unit cooler offcycle fan power test, the controls shall
be adjusted to 50% fan speed/duty cycle
only if the controls are adjustable, and
that otherwise the control default
parameters shall be used. (Lennox, No.
13 at p. 5)
Lennox’s suggestion, if adopted,
would potentially allow fans with fixed
two-speed control to use speed below
50% in unit cooler testing. During one
of the Working Group meetings, Rheem
stated concern with air flow distribution
at low fan speed. Lennox and Rheem
agreed with selecting 50% as the
minimum evaporator fan turn-down for
both on-cycle and off-cycle evaporator
fan speed in DOE’s engineering analysis
supporting the standard rulemaking.
(Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
Rheem, Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 61
at pp. 135–136) In a subsequent
meeting, DOE presented analyses that
used as the lowest speed for variablespeed fan operation 50% of the fan’s
maximum speed for both on-cycle and
off-cycle in the analysis. The Working
Group raised no objections to this
approach. (See public meeting
presentation, Docket No. EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016, No. 7 at p. 20; see also
Public Meeting Transcript (September
30, 2015), Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–
STD–0016, No. 67 at p. 106). Consistent
with this approach, DOE used a 50%
lower limit as part of its energy
conservation standard rulemaking
analysis. See Docket EERE–2015–BT–
STD–0016, NOPR Technical Support
Document, No. 70, Section 5.5.6.7 pp.
5–34 to 5–35. The energy conservation
standards developed during the related
negotiated rulemaking are based on the
use of this 50% limit for testing. Hence,
it would be inconsistent to now allow
the use of a lower fan speed in tests for
demonstration of compliance with the
standards. Consequently, consistent
with the approach laid out during the
negotiated rulemaking for walk-in
standards, DOE is continuing to use
50% as the lower limit of evaporator fan
duty cycle and fan speed. The
procedure allows two- or multi-speed
fan controls to use a low (or
intermediate) speed that is no less than
50% of the maximum fan speed. DOE
notes that the test procedure does not
prohibit a manufacturer from offering
evaporator fan speed/duty cycle settings
that are lower than 50% in the market,
but recognizes that such fans would
likely require multi-speed motors. These
designs would likely use low-speed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
settings for the off-cycle in some
installations and intermediate speed
settings for the off-cycle in other
installations that require these higher
(intermediate) speeds to ensure more
complete air mixing—but off-cycle for
testing would be 50% of full-speed or
higher using an intermediate speed
setting.
4. Unit Cooler Capacity Determination
in Condensing Unit Only Test
Lennox and Rheem suggested that the
WICF test procedure lacks clarification
on the capacity calculation when testing
a condensing unit only. Both
commenters suggested using the
condensing unit capacity in the AWEF
calculation. Rheem proposed the
condensing unit capacity should be
calculated using the enthalpy of the
refrigerant leaving the condensing unit
(liquid line), the enthalpy of the
refrigerant entering the condensing unit
(suction line), and the measured
refrigerant mass flow rate. (Lennox, No.
13 at p.11; Rheem, No. 18 at p.7)
DOE notes the saturated refrigerant
temperatures at the unit cooler coil exit
for the purposes of calculating the
enthalpy leaving the unit cooler are
provided in section 3.4.2.1 of the
proposed 10 CFR 431 Subpart R,
Appendix C (and also 10 CFR
431.304(12)(ii) of the current test
procedure), and are 25 °F for medium
temperature and ¥20 °F for low
temperature. Section 3.4.1 indicates that
the suction dew point conditions at the
condensing unit are the ‘‘suction A’’
conditions provided in AHRI 1250–
2009, Tables 11 through 14—these are
23 °F for medium temperature and ¥22
°F for low temperature. Hence, the
pressure drop in the suction line is
assumed to be equivalent to a 2 °F
reduction in dew point temperature.
However, the unit cooler refrigerant
exit temperature or superheat, neither of
which were provided in the test
procedure, is also required to calculate
the unit cooler leaving enthalpy. The
test procedure requires testing with a
suction temperature entering the unit
cooler (i.e., return gas temperature)
equal to 41 °F for medium temperature
and 5 °F for low temperature (see, e.g.,
Tables 11 and 13 of AHRI 1250–2009).
DOE notes that the exit temperature for
a medium-temperature unit cooler could
not be 41 °F, because the temperature of
the air that the refrigerant is cooling is
taken to be 35 °F. Likewise, the exit
temperature for a low-temperature unit
cooler could not be 5 °F, because the
entering air temperature for a lowtemperature unit cooler is taken to be
¥10 °F. By assuming that the refrigerant
temperature leaving the unit cooler is 41
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
°F for medium temperature and 5 °F for
low temperature, the approach proposed
by Lennox and Rheem would take credit
for refrigeration capacity that could not
have been delivered by the unit cooler.
DOE does not believe this is
appropriate.
Instead, DOE considered the approach
recommended by the WICF Working
Group, which DOE applied in its walkin standards engineering analysis.
During the Working Group meetings,
DOE presented the use of a 6.5 °F unit
cooler exit superheat assumption for
calculating unit cooler capacity of low
temperature dedicated condensing unit
tested alone. See Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016, DOE and
Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript
(September 30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 135.
DOE developed a spreadsheet-based
engineering model that calculates the
performance of different WICF
equipment designs and summarizes cost
versus efficiency relationships for the
classes covered in the energy
conservation standard rulemaking. DOE
made a draft version of the spreadsheet
available to the Working Group
members and the general public. See
Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, No.
32. DOE implemented integer superheat
values in the engineering spreadsheet to
avoid refrigerant property calculation
errors. A caucus of manufacturers later
submitted their notes after reviewing the
DOE-provided draft engineering
spreadsheet. There was no disagreement
on the selection of unit cooler superheat
values as part of condensing unit
calculations. See Docket EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0016, No. 45) Consistent with
the superheat values given in the
engineering spreadsheet presented to
the Working Group, DOE is adopting the
same values (6 °F for low temperature,
10 °F to medium temperature) in this
final rule for low temperature and
medium temperature condensing units
tested alone. DOE adds the prescribed
superheat values to section 3.4.2.1 for
purposes of calculating enthalpy leaving
the unit cooler as part of the calculating
gross capacity. DOE notes that the
recommendations made by Lennox and
Rheem for the conditions representing
enthalpy at the unit cooler inlet are
consistent with the engineering analysis
as discussed by the WICF Working
Group, for which unit cooler inlet
enthalpy equals to condensing unit
outlet enthalpy (i.e., 0 °F liquid line
subcooling), (see Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0016, DOE and Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript (September
30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 133–134; see
also October 15, 2015 Public Meeting
Presentation, slide 42, available in
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016,
No. 26 at p. 42), which is equivalent to
the subcooling that would be present at
the exit of a typical condensing unit
during a test.
5. Insulation Aging
EPCA defines the R-value as the 1/K
factor multiplied by the thickness of the
panel, and that the K factor shall be
tested based on ASTM test procedure
C518–2004. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)).
(The K factor represents the thermal
conductivity.) EPCA, however, does not
specify when the R-value should be
determined. As was first discussed in
the 2010 NOPR and later in the 2010
SNOPR, the R-value of polyurethane
and extruded polystyrene (‘‘XPS’’)
insulation products can significantly
decrease with time. 75 FR 185, 192–195
(January 4, 2010) and 75 FR 55067,
55075–55081 (September 9, 2010). To
address this concern, two European
testing standards DIN EN 13164:2009
and DIN EN 13165:2009 were included
in the 2011 Test Procedure final rule in
order to take foam aging into
consideration when determining an Rvalue for these insulation types. 76 FR
at 21585 (April 15, 2011). However, as
discussed in its 2014 final rule
addressing the use of AEDMs and
certain test procedure issues with
respect to walk-ins, DOE received a
number of negative comments regarding
this aspect of the WICF panel test
procedure. See 79 FR 27388. The
comments largely presented two
concerns: Test burden and the
availability of laboratories to conduct
these tests. In these comments, multiple
manufacturers suggested that no
independent laboratories were capable
of conducting DIN EN 13164/13165
tests. Several industry comments
suggested that the cost of these tests
could be excessive, particularly given
the limited availability of independent
test laboratories to perform these
specific tests. See section III.D. of the
2014 AEDM and Test Procedure SNOPR
for a full comment summary, 79 FR at
9835–9837. In response to the concerns
highlighted in these comments, DOE
ultimately removed the portions of the
test procedure referencing DIN EN
13164/13165. 79 FR at 27405.
This issue resurfaced in the comments
of EPS–IA in response to the August
2016 NOPR. EPS–IA reiterated that the
R-value of XPS products reduces
significantly from the time of
production (‘‘fresh’’) to when it’s
assembled in panels (weeks or months
later). Further, EPS–IA noted that panel
manufacturers often accelerate the aging
process by shaping or milling the XPS
product during panel assembly. (EPS–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
IA, No. 12 at p. 2) EPS–IA argued that
existing regulations allow
manufacturers to report, and assemblers
to rely upon, the ‘‘fresh’’ R-value, which
is significantly higher than the actual Rvalue of the XPS in an assembled panel.
(EPS–IA, No. 12 at p. 1) EPS–IA
suggested that DOE modify the
regulation to require the reporting of a
stable, long-term R-value, or
alternatively to define ‘‘fresh’’ and
implement controls to ensure
manufacturers are incorporating ‘‘fresh’’
insulation into the panels. EPS–IA also
suggested that DOE adopt existing FTC
R-value regulations, rather than craft its
own test methodology, and noted that
requiring panel manufacturers to label
each unit will not address the issue.
(EPS–IA, No. 12 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with EPS–IA’s
observation that insulation, including
those types used in walk-in
applications, may exhibit aging.
However, in this test procedure, DOE
proposed editorial changes to the test
procedure for measuring R-value for
walk-in cooler and freezer panels. While
the test procedure does not account for
insulation aging at this time, the
Department may consider alternate test
methods—such as those suggested by
EPS–IA—for addressing insulation aging
in a future energy conservation standard
and test procedure rulemakings.
6. Laboratory Qualification
DOE received written comments on
the capability of test laboratories
performing enforcement testing. AHRI
and Manitowoc recommended that DOE
ensure that laboratories demonstrate
repeatability on a regular basis in order
to justify the results from an
enforcement test. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2) NCC noted
that DOE should pre-qualify laboratories
on testing of WICF refrigeration systems
where enforcement tests for this
equipment would be performed. (NCC,
No. 16 at p. 6)
DOE requires enforcement testing to
be conducted at laboratories accredited
to the International Organization for
Standardization (‘‘ISO’’)/International
Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’),
‘‘General requirements for the
competence of testing and calibration
laboratories.’’ In addition, when
conducting enforcement testing, DOE
requires the specific DOE test procedure
to be on the test laboratory’s scope of
accreditation. 10 CFR 429.110(a)(3) DOE
may consider additional criteria for test
laboratories conducting walk-in cooler
or walk-in freezer testing in a separate
rulemaking that could apply equally to
both test laboratories used by
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95793
manufacturers and those used by DOE
for enforcement.
7. Variable-Capacity Condensing Unit
Test Method
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
begin to address the issues with testing
variable-capacity condensing units. (CA
IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 4–5)
DOE is aware that ASHRAE Standard
Project Committee 210 (SPC 210) has
established a Working Group to address
test methods issues regarding variableand multiple-capacity condensing units.
The SPC 210 Working Group includes
members representing walk-in
refrigeration system and compressor
manufacturers who are familiar with the
design, operation and testing of
variable- and multiple-capacity
compressors and condensing units. DOE
believes it is appropriate to permit
ASHRAE SPC 210 to continue with its
developmental work in defining an
appropriate test method for this
equipment. Allowing these industry
experts to analyze and develop the
parameters of an approach to address
this equipment will help ensure that the
fundamental issues associated with
testing this equipment are sufficiently
vetted and addressed. Once that
development work has completed and a
test method has been developed, DOE
will examine that method and may then
consider its incorporation into the
applicable regulations in a future
rulemaking.
8. Request for Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
AHRI and Manitowoc recommended
that DOE publish a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’) as
the next stage of this rulemaking. The
written comments argued that many of
the NOPR proposals did not originate
from the ASRAC negotiation, and that
many of the proposals do not provide a
clear way forward for implementation.
The comments also indicated DOE has
the necessary time available to issue an
SNOPR. (AHRI, No 11 at p.7;
Manitowoc, No 10 at p.3)
DOE has the authority to propose
amendments to its regulations that are
necessary in order to properly
administer standards and test procedure
requirements. DOE notes the ASRAC
negotiations had a limited scope that
did not address many topics proposed
in the NOPR. The proposals not
originating from the negotiations are
clearly identified in the NOPR and this
final rule, and DOE believes that
stakeholders had ample time to voice
concerns and suggest alternative
approaches. DOE has received
numerous comments to its NOPR and
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95794
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
has considered these comments
carefully in modifying its approach and
finalizing the proposed amendments.
DOE notes that AHRI and Manitowoc
did not provide any detail as to which
of the proposals in the NOPR would
require an SNOPR. For these reasons,
DOE has finalized this rulemaking
without publishing a SNOPR.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
9. ASRAC Working Group
Representation
KPS commented that the ASRAC
Working Group had little representation
from WICF OEMs. KPS also suggested
adding more WICF OEMs to the
Working Group. (KPS, No. 8 at p.1)
Prior to the Working Group meetings,
on August 5, 2015, DOE published a
notice of intent to establish a Working
Group for Certain Equipment Classes of
Refrigeration Systems of Walk-in
Coolers and Freezers to Negotiate a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Energy Conservation Standards. 80 FR
46521. DOE notes that the agenda for
the WICF Working Group meetings
included as key issues (a) proposed
energy conservation standards for six
classes of refrigeration systems and (b)
potential impacts on installers. See id.
at 46523. These issues focused on
refrigeration systems and installers. As
discussed in section I.B, the Working
Group consisted of 12 representatives of
parties having a defined stake in the
outcome of the proposed standards and
one DOE representative. These members
included six representatives of WICF
refrigeration system manufacturers
(Traulsen, Lennox, Hussmann,
Manitowoc, Rheem, and Emerson). In
addition, a representative of the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America
represented walk-in installers. Other
members other than DOE represented
efficiency advocacy groups and utilities.
(Docket EERE–2015–BT–STD–0016, No.
56 at p. 4) Hence, DOE believes that the
representation was appropriate for the
scope of the Working Group.
10. EPCA Prescriptive Requirements
During the public meeting, AHRI
asked for clarification as to whether the
EPCA prescriptive requirements are still
needed with the minimum energy
efficiency standard DOE established.
(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23, at p. 14)
DOE notes it is not within DOE’s
authority to waive the statutorilyprescribed prescriptive design
requirements set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA does not specify
an expiration date for these
requirements and there is no indication
in the statute that the performancebased standards would supplant the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
already-enacted prescriptive
requirements. Hence, these prescriptive
requirements continue to remain in
effect.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly,
this action was not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that when an
agency promulgates a final rule under 5
U.S.C. 553, after being required by that
section or any other law to publish a
general notice of proposed rulemaking,
the agency shall prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’).
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003 to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s Web site: https://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel. DOE has
prepared the following FRFA for the
equipment that are the subject of this
rulemaking.
For manufacturers of walk-in
equipment, the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’) has set a size
threshold, which defines those entities
classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the
purposes of the statute. DOE used the
SBA’s small business size standards to
determine whether any small entities
would be subject to the requirements of
the rule. 65 FR 30848 (May 15, 2000),
as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544
(September 5, 2000) and codified at 13
CFR part 121. The size standards are
listed by North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code
and industry description and are
available at www.sba.gov/contracting/
getting-started-contractor/make-sureyou-meet-sba-size-standards. Walk-in
equipment is classified under NAICS
333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or less for
an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. Based on this
threshold, DOE presents the following
FRFA analysis:
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’
or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law
94–163, as amended (codified at 42
U.S.C. 6311–6317) established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, a program
covering certain industrial equipment,
including walk-ins, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
In general, this program addresses the
energy efficiency of certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment.
Relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42
U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316 and 6296). Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d))
2. Significant Issues Raised in Response
to the IRFA
DOE did not receive written
comments that specifically addressed
impacts on small businesses or that
were provided in response to the IRFA.
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Businesses Regulated
DOE used available public
information to identify potential small
manufacturers. DOE’s research involved
industry trade association membership
directories (including those from
AHRI 17 and NAFEM 18), public
databases (e.g., the SBA Database 19),
individual company Web sites, and
market research tools (e.g., Dun and
Bradstreet reports 20 and Hoovers
reports 21) to create a list of companies
that manufacture or sell equipment
covered by this rulemaking. During the
2014 rulemaking, DOE also asked
17 See www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/
pages/home.aspx.
18 See www.nafem.org/find-members/
MemberDirectory.aspx.
19 See https://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_
dsbs.cfm.
20 See www.dnb.com/.
21 See www.hoovers.com/.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
stakeholders and industry
representatives if they were aware of
any other small manufacturers during
manufacturer interviews and at DOE
public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly
available data and contacted select
companies on its list, as necessary, to
determine whether they met the SBA’s
definition of a small business
manufacturer of covered walk-in coolers
and walk-in freezers. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer equipment
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet
the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or
are foreign-owned.
DOE identified forty-seven panel
manufacturers, of which forty-two are
the small businesses.
DOE identified forty-nine walk-in
door manufacturers. Forty-five of those
produce solid doors and four produce
display doors. Of the forty-five solid
door manufacturers, forty-two produce
panels as their primary business and are
considered in the category of panel
manufacturers in this preamble. The
remaining three solid door
manufacturers are all considered small
businesses. Of the four display door
manufacturers, two are considered small
businesses. Therefore, of the seven
manufacturers that exclusively produce
walk-in doors (three producing solid
doors and four producing display
doors), DOE determined that five are
small businesses.
DOE identified ten walk-in
refrigeration system manufacturers that
produce equipment for one or more of
the equipment classes analyzed in this
proposal. All ten are domestic
companies and three of the ten
manufacturers are small businesses.
Lastly, DOE looked at manufacturers
that assemble the complete walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer (e.g., an
installer). Walk-in installation work is a
subset of the highly fragmented heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and
refrigeration (‘‘HVACR’’) industry. DOE
was unable to identify any company
that exclusively operated as an
assembler of WICFs. In general, WICF
assemblers offer walk-in installation as
part of a broader refrigeration offering
and/or broader heating and cooling
offering.
DOE estimates that 3,400 to 14,100
companies offer walk-in contractor
services. This is a subset of the roughly
87,000 plumbing, heating, and airconditioning contractor establishments
in the United Stated.22 Key activities for
these companies include the installation
22 U.S. Census Bureau. Industry Snapshot
thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_
HotReport2/econsnapshot/2012/
snapshot.hrml?NAICS=238220. (Last accessed July
2016)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
of residential HVAC, commercial
HVAC, commercial refrigeration, and
industrial refrigeration systems. Of
these, DOE estimates the majority are
small businesses.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
Panel manufacturers have had to
comply with standards for their panels’
R-value (a measure of the insulating
value) since 2009. In a previous test
procedure rule, published in May 2014,
DOE established a sampling plan and
certification reporting requirements for
walk-in panels. 79 FR 27388 (May 13,
2014). DOE is not establishing any new
testing, certification, compliance, or
reporting requirements for panels in this
final rule. However, DOE is adopting
labeling requirements for walk-in
panels, and DOE is establishing that
manufacturers include rating
information on marketing materials for
panels. For further discussion of the
labeling requirements, see section
III.B.5. As discussed in that section, the
cost of updating marketing materials
could be up to $50,000 per
manufacturer. DOE calculated that the
cost of updating marketing materials for
a small manufacturer would be less than
one percent of annual revenues; thus,
this requirement would not have a
significant impact on small
manufacturers.
This final rule establishes new
certification requirements for door
manufacturers and refrigeration system
manufacturers to use when certifying
their basic models to DOE. Door
manufacturers must certify that they
meet the June 2014 standards, which
have a compliance date of June 5, 2017.
Manufacturers of refrigeration systems
for which standards were promulgated
in the June 2014 final rule, and which
were not subsequently remanded by the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit’s court order, must also
certify that those refrigeration systems
meet the June 2014 standards, which
have a compliance date of June 5, 2017.
DOE is conducting a separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
those refrigeration system classes whose
standards were remanded. On the
compliance date for those standards,
manufacturers will have to certify that
those refrigeration systems meet the
relevant standards using the
certification requirements in this rule.
In general, DOE modified the data
elements walk-in door manufacturers
and walk-in refrigeration system
manufacturers will be required to
submit as part of a certification report
indicating that all basic models
distributed in commerce in the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95795
comply with the applicable standards
using DOE’s test procedures. These data
elements include product-specific
certification data describing the
efficiency and characteristics of the
basic model. The certification reports
are submitted for each basic model,
either when the requirements go into
effect (for models already in
distribution), or prior to when the
manufacturer begins distribution of a
particular basic model, and annually
thereafter. Reports must be updated
when a new model is introduced or a
change affecting energy efficiency or use
is made to an existing model resulting
in a change in the certified rating. (10
CFR 429.12(a))
DOE currently requires manufacturers
or their party representatives to prepare
and submit certification reports using
DOE’s electronic Web-based tool, the
Compliance Certification Management
System (‘‘CCMS’’), which is the only
mechanism for submitting certification
reports to DOE. CCMS currently has
product-specific templates that
manufacturers must use when
submitting certification data to DOE.
See www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms/
templates. This final rule does not
change the requirement that
manufacturers submit certification
reports electronically. DOE believes the
availability of electronic filing through
the CCMS system reduces reporting
burdens, streamlines the process, and
provides the Department with needed
information in a standardized, more
accessible form. This electronic filing
system also ensures that submitted
reports are recorded in a permanent,
systematic way.
DOE is also requiring manufacturers
to label their doors with the door brand
name and an application statement.
DOE is requiring manufacturers to label
their refrigeration systems with the
brand, model number, date of
manufacture, an application statement
and if applicable specify if the systems
is for indoor use only. For further
discussion of the labeling requirements,
see section III.B.5. As discussed in that
section, the cost of updating marketing
materials could be up to $50,000 per
manufacturer.
DOE added clarifications that the
entity responsible for testing, rating, and
certifying is the WICF component
manufacturer. Thus, WICF
manufacturers that exclusively assemble
the complete WICF and who use
components that are certified and
labelled as compliant with applicable
standards, do not bear any testing and
certification burdens. DOE is also
establishing labeling requirements and
revising the certification requirements
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95796
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
on WICF component manufacturers in
this final rule. These requirements will
reduce any burden on WICF
manufacturers that manufacture or
assemble the complete walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer by allowing them to
more easily identify compliant WICF
components for assembly. This does not
change the compliance requirements for
these WICF manufacturers and
installers; however, DOE believes
labeling will help WICF assemblers
comply with the regulations. In
conclusion, DOE does not believe that
small WICF manufacturers that
assemble complete WICFs will see an
increased burden from this rulemaking.
5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
This section considers alternatives to
the final rule. DOE has tried to
minimize the reporting burden as much
as possible by: (1) Accepting electronic
submissions; (2) providing preformatted
templates that lay out the certification
and compliance requirements for each
product; and (3) allowing manufacturers
to group individual models into basic
models for the purposes of certification
to reduce the number of discrete models
reported to the Department. DOE has
also made efforts to address the
concerns of small businesses by
expanding the ability of manufacturers
to use alternative efficiency
determination methods (‘‘AEDMs’’) in
lieu of conducting tests requiring testing
equipment.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
1. Description of the Requirements
In this rule, DOE is expanding the
information that manufacturers and
importers of covered walk-in equipment
would need to submit to the Department
to certify that the equipment they are
distributing in commerce in the U.S.
complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards. Further, this
rule requires manufacturers to disclose
performance information as part of the
proposed labeling requirements for
walk-in panels, doors, and refrigeration
systems.
2. Information Collection Request Title
Certification Reports, Compliance
Statements, Application for a Test
Procedure Waiver, Recordkeeping for
Consumer Products and Commercial/
Industrial Equipment Subject to Energy
or Water Conservation Standards, and
Label and Marketing Material
Information Disclosure.
3. Type of Request
Revision and Expansion of an Existing
Collection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
4. Purpose
Manufacturers of the covered
equipment addressed in this rule are
already required to certify to DOE that
their equipment complies with
applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their
equipment according to the applicable
DOE test procedures for the given
equipment type, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures, or use AEDMs (as
applicable) to develop the certified
ratings of the basic models. The
collection-of-information requirement
for the certification proposals is subject
to review and approval by OMB under
the PRA.
Manufacturers are required to certify:
(1) New basic models before distribution
in commerce; (2) existing basic models,
whose certified ratings remain valid,
annually; (3) existing basic models,
whose designs have been altered
resulting in a change in rating that is
more consumptive or less efficient, at
the time the design change is made; and
(4) previously certified basic models
that have been discontinued, annually.
Respondents may submit reports to the
Department at any time during the year
using DOE’s online system.
Amendments to the existing walk-in
standards are expected to result in slight
changes to the information that DOE is
collecting for walk-ins. Specifically,
DOE is requiring that, in addition to
information currently required for
certification reports, door manufacturers
report the door energy use as
determined by the DOE test procedure,
the rated power of each light, heater
wire and/or other electricity consuming
device and whether such device(s) has
a control system. Refrigeration system
manufacturers will need to report the
Annual Walk-in Efficiency Factor
(‘‘AWEF’’), net capacity as determined
by the DOE test procedure, the
configuration test for certification, and
whether indoor dedicated condensing
units are also certified as outdoor
dedicated condensing units.
Manufacturers will have to re-submit
certification reports for basic models
that they distribute in commerce
starting on the compliance date of the
amended standards.
In addition, DOE is requiring
manufacturers of walk-in components to
disclose their rated energy use or
efficiency, in all component catalogs
and marketing materials. For further
discussion of the information disclosure
requirements, see section III.B.5. As
discussed in that section, the cost of
initially updating marketing materials
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
could be up to $50,000 per
manufacturer.
Regarding the additional certification
requirements, DOE estimates that the
slight change in certification
requirements would not result in
additional burden because walk-in
component manufacturers are already
required to annually certify compliance
with the existing standards.
DOE estimates the burden for this rule
as follows:
(1) Annual Estimated Number of
Respondents: 63 (47 panel
manufacturers, 7 door manufacturers,
and 10 refrigeration system
manufacturers).
(2) Annual Estimated Number of Total
Responses: 1,216 (188 for panels, 28
door, 1000 for refrigeration systems).
(3) Annual Estimated Number of
Burden Hours: 1,216 (1 hour for
applying and creating label and
updating marketing materials).
(4) Annual Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $91,200.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test
procedure for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that
are categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this final rule.
States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and an opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined this final rule according
to UMRA and its statement of policy
and determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final rule will not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95797
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgated or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95798
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test
procedure for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers adopted in this final rule
incorporates testing methods contained
in certain sections of the following
commercial standards: ASTM C518–14,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Thermal
Steady-State Thermal Transmission
Properties by Means of the Heat Flow
Meter Apparatus’’; AHRI Standard
1250–2009 ‘‘Standard for Performance
Rating of Walk-ins’’; AHRI 420–2008,
‘‘Performance Rating of ForcedCirculation Free Delivery Unit Coolers
for Refrigeration’’; and ASHRAE 23.1–
2010, ‘‘Methods of Testing for
Performance Rating Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors
and Condensing Units that Operate at
Subcritical Temperatures of the
Refrigerant’’. DOE has evaluated these
standards and was unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether they were
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review.) DOE has
consulted with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
about the impact on competition of
using the methods contained in these
standards and has received no
comments objecting to their use.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the ASTM C518–04 test
method titled ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Thermal Steady-State Thermal
Transmission Properties by Means of
the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.’’ This
reference standard is the method by
which thermal conductivity (the ‘‘K
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
factor’’) of a walk-in panel is measured
and its use is mandated by EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A))
Copies of ASTM C518–04 may be
obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, by phone at (610) 832–9500, or by
going to www.astm.org.
Also, DOE incorporates by reference
the test standard published by AHRI,
titled ‘‘Standard for Performance Rating
of Walk-ins,’’ AHRI Standard 1250–
2009. AHRI Standard 1250–2009
establishes definitions, test
requirements, rating requirements,
minimum data requirements for
published ratings, operating
requirements, marking and nameplate
data, and conformance conditions for
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
This testing standard applies to
mechanical refrigeration equipment that
consists of an integrated, single-package
refrigeration unit, or as separate unit
cooler and condensing unit
components, where the condensing unit
can be located either indoors or
outdoors. Controls can be integral or can
be added by a separate party, as long as
their performance is tested and certified
with the listed mechanical equipment.
Copies of AHRI Standard 1250–2009
may be purchased from AHRI at 2111
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington,
VA 22201, or by going to
www.ahrinet.org.
DOE also incorporates by reference
AHRI 420–2008, titled ‘‘Performance
Rating of Forced-Circulation Free
Delivery Unit Coolers for Refrigeration.’’
AHRI 420–2008 establishes the
following elements for forcedcirculation free-delivery unit coolers for
refrigeration: Definitions, test
requirements, rating requirements,
minimum data requirements for
published ratings, marketing and
nameplate data, and conformance
conditions. The standard applies to
factory-made, forced-circulation, freedelivery unit coolers, as defined in
Section 3 of this standard, operating
with a volatile refrigerant fed by either
direct expansion or liquid overfeed at
wet conditions, dry conditions, or both.
Copies of AHRI 420–2008 may be
purchased from AHRI at 2111 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA
22201, or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
Finally, DOE also incorporates by
reference ASHRAE Standard 23.1–2010,
entitled ‘‘Methods of Testing for
Performance Rating Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors
and Condensing Units that Operate at
Subcritical Temperatures of the
Refrigerant.’’ ASHRAE 23.1–2010
provides testing methods for rating the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
thermodynamic performance of positive
displacement refrigerant compressors
and condensing units that operate at
subcritical temperatures of the
refrigerant. This standard applies to all
of the refrigerants listed in ASHRAE
Standard 34, ‘‘Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants,’’ that fall
within the scope of positive
displacement refrigerant compressors
and condensing units that operate at
subcritical temperatures of the
refrigerant, which either (a) do not have
liquid injection or (b) incorporate liquid
injection that is achieved by compressor
motor power.
Copies of ASHRAE 23.1–2010 may be
purchased from ASHRAE at 1971 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or by
going to www.ashrae.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Incorporation by reference,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2,
2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Section 429.12 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
■
§ 429.12 General requirements applicable
to certification reports.
*
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
*
*
28DER2
*
*
(a) Determination of represented
value. (1) The requirements of § 429.11
apply to walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers; and
(2) For each basic model of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration
system, the annual walk-in energy factor
(AWEF) must be determined either by
testing, in accordance with § 431.304 of
this chapter and the provisions of this
section, or by application of an AEDM
that meets the requirements of § 429.70
and the provisions of this section.
(i) Applicable test procedure. If the
AWEF is determined by testing, refer to
the following for the appropriate test
procedure to use:
(A) Unit cooler test procedure. For
unit coolers tested alone, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix C. Follow the general
testing provisions in appendix C,
sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the equipmentspecific provisions in appendix C,
section 3.3.
(B) Dedicated condensing unit test
procedure. For dedicated condensing
units tested alone, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix C. Follow the general
testing provisions in appendix C,
sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the productspecific provisions in appendix C,
section 3.4. Outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems that
are also designated for use in indoor
applications must be tested and certified
as both an outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system and
indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
¯
And x is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample, or,
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence
limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by
0.95, where:
¯
And x is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t
statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence
interval with n–1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A to subpart B).
(C) The represented value of net
capacity shall be the average of the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
capacities measured for the sample
selected.
(iii) Alternative efficiency
determination methods. In lieu of
testing, pursuant to the requirements of
§ 429.70 and the provisions of this
section, a represented value of AWEF
for a basic model of a walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer refrigeration system may
be determined through the application
of an AEDM, where:
(A) Any represented value of AWEF
or other measure of energy efficiency of
a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less
than or equal to the output of the AEDM
and greater than or equal to the Federal
standard for that basic model.
(B) The represented value of net
capacity must be the net capacity
simulated by the AEDM.
(3) For each basic model of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer panel,
display door, and non-display door, the
R-value and/or energy consumption
must be determined by testing, in
accordance with § 431.304 of this
chapter and the provisions of this
section.
(i) Applicable test procedure. Refer to
the following for the appropriate test
procedure:
(A) Display door test procedure. For
determining the energy consumption
and rated surface area in square feet, use
the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, appendix A.
(B) Non-display door test procedure.
For determining the energy
consumption and rated surface area in
square feet, use the test procedure in 10
CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A.
For determining the R-value, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix B.
(C) Panel test procedure. For
determining the R-value, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix B.
(ii) Units to be tested. (A) The general
requirements of § 429.11 apply; and
(B) For each basic model, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly
selected and tested to ensure that—
(1) Any represented value of door
energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which
consumers would favor lower values
shall be greater than or equal to the
higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
¯
And x is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample, or,
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
ER28DE16.002</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
§ 429.53 Walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers.
(C) Single-Package dedicated system
test procedure. For single-package
dedicated systems, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix C. Follow the general
testing provisions in appendix C,
sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the productspecific provisions in appendix C,
section 3.3.
(D) Matched refrigeration system test
procedure. For matched refrigeration
systems, use the test procedure in 10
CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C.
Follow the general testing provisions in
appendix C, sections 3.1 and 3.2, and
the product-specific provisions in
appendix C, section 3.3. It is not
necessary to rate a matched refrigeration
system if the constituent unit cooler(s)
and dedicated condensing unit have
been tested and rated as specified
paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section, respectively. However, if a
manufacturer wishes to represent the
efficiency of the matched refrigeration
system as distinct from the efficiency of
either constituent component, or if the
manufacturer cannot rate one or both of
the constituent components using the
specified method, the manufacturer
must test and certify the matched
refrigeration system as specified in this
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D).
(ii) Units to be tested. (A) If the
represented value for a given
refrigeration system basic model is
determined through testing, the general
requirements of § 429.11 apply; and
(B) For each basic model, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly
selected and tested to ensure that any
represented value of AWEF or other
measure of energy efficiency of a basic
model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal
to the lower of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
ER28DE16.001</GPH>
(b) * * *
(6) For each brand, the basic model
number and the manufacturer’s
individual model number(s) in that
basic model with the following
exceptions: For external power supplies
that are certified based on design
families, the design family model
number and the individual
manufacturer’s model numbers covered
by that design family must be submitted
for each brand. For distribution
transformers, the basic model number or
kVA grouping model number
(depending on the certification method)
for each brand must be submitted. For
commercial HVAC, WH, and
refrigeration equipment, an individual
manufacturer model number may be
identified as a ‘‘private model number’’
if it meets the requirements of
§ 429.7(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 429.53 is revised to read as
follows:
95799
ER28DE16.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
And x~ is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample, or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence
limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by
0.95, where:
And x~ is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t 0.95 is the
statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence
interval with n–1 degree of freedom
(from appendix A to subpart B).
(b) Certification reports. (1) The
requirements of § 429.12 apply to
manufacturers of walk-in cooler and
walk-in freezer panels, doors, and
refrigeration systems, and;
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a
certification report must include the
following public product-specific
information:
(i) For doors: The door type, R-value
of the door insulation, and a declaration
that the manufacturer has incorporated
the applicable design requirements. In
addition, for those walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers with transparent reachin doors and windows, the glass type of
the doors and windows (e.g., doublepane with heat reflective treatment,
triple-pane glass with gas fill), and the
power draw of the antisweat heater in
watts per square foot of door opening
must also be included.
(ii) For walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer panels: The R-value of the
insulation.
(iii) For walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer refrigeration systems: The
installed motor’s functional purpose
(i.e., evaporator fan motor or condenser
fan motor), its rated horsepower, and a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4. Section 429.110 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 429.110
Enforcement testing.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) For automatic commercial ice
makers; commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers;
refrigerated bottled or canned vending
machines; commercial air conditioners
and heat pumps; commercial packaged
boilers; commercial warm air furnaces;
commercial water heating equipment;
and walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
refrigeration systems, DOE will use an
initial sample size of not more than four
units and follow the sampling plans in
appendix B of this subpart (Sampling
Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered
Equipment and Certain Low-Volume
Covered Products).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 429.134 is amended by
adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:
§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers. (1) If DOE determines that a
basic model of a panel, door, or
refrigeration system for walk-in coolers
or walk-in freezers fails to meet an
applicable energy conservation
standard, then the manufacturer of that
basic model is responsible for the
noncompliance. If DOE determines that
a complete walk-in cooler or walk-in
freezer or component thereof fails to
meet an applicable energy conservation
standard, then the manufacturer of that
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer is
responsible for the noncompliance with
the applicable standard, except that the
manufacturer of a complete walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer is not
responsible for the use of components
that were certified and labeled (in
accordance with DOE labeling
requirements) as compliant by another
party and later found to be
noncompliant with the applicable
standard(s).
(2) Verification of refrigeration system
net capacity. The net capacity of the
refrigeration system basic model will be
measured pursuant to the test
requirements of 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, appendix C for each unit
tested. The results of the
measurement(s) will be averaged and
compared to the value of net capacity
certified by the manufacturer. The
certified net capacity will be considered
valid only if the average measured net
capacity is within plus or minus five
percent of the certified net capacity.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
ER28DE16.005</MATH>
¯
And x is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t
statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence
interval with n–1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A to subpart B).
(2) Any represented R-value or other
measure of energy efficiency of a basic
model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal
to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
declaration that the manufacturer has
incorporated the applicable walk-inspecific design requirements into the
motor.
(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13),
starting on June 5, 2017, a certification
report must include the following
public product-specific information in
addition to the information listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
(i) For walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer doors: The door energy
consumption and rated surface area in
square feet.
(ii) For refrigeration systems that are
medium-temperature dedicated
condensing units, medium-temperature
single-package dedicated systems, or
medium-temperature matched systems:
The refrigeration system AWEF, net
capacity, the configuration tested for
certification (e.g., condensing unit only,
unit cooler only, single-package
dedicated system, or matched-pair), and
if an indoor dedicated condensing unit
is also certified as an outdoor dedicated
condensing unit and, if so, the basic
model number for the outdoor dedicated
condensing unit.
(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13),
starting on June 5, 2017, a certification
report must include the following
product-specific information in addition
to the information listed in paragraphs
(b)(2) and (3) of this section:
(i) For walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer doors: the rated power of each
light, heater wire, and/or other
electricity consuming device associated
with each basic model of display and
non-display door; and whether such
device(s) has a timer, control system, or
other demand-based control reducing
the device’s power consumption.
(5) When certifying compliance to the
AWEF refrigeration standards for WICF
refrigeration systems except those
specified in (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a
certification report must include the
following public product-specific
information in addition to the
information listed in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section: For refrigeration systems
that are low-temperature dedicated
condensing units, low-temperature
matched systems, low-temperature
single-package dedicated systems, or
medium and low-temperature unit
coolers: The refrigeration system AWEF,
net capacity, the configuration tested for
certification (e.g., condensing unit only,
unit cooler only, single-package
dedicated system, or matched-pair), and
if an indoor dedicated condensing unit
is also certified as an outdoor dedicated
condensing unit and, if so, the basic
model number for the outdoor dedicated
condensing unit.
ER28DE16.004</MATH>
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence
limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by
1.05, where:
ER28DE16.003</GPH>
95800
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(i) If the certified net capacity is found
to be valid, the certified net capacity
will be used as the basis for calculating
the AWEF of the basic model.
(ii) If the certified net capacity is
found to be invalid, the average
measured net capacity will serve as the
basis for calculating the annual energy
consumption for the basic model.
(3) Verification of door surface area.
The surface area of a display door or
non-display door basic model will be
measured pursuant to the requirements
of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix
A for each unit tested. The results of the
measurement(s) will be averaged and
compared to the value of the surface
area certified by the manufacturer. The
certified surface area will be considered
valid only if the average measured
surface area is within plus or minus
three percent of the certified surface
area.
(i) If the certified surface area is found
to be valid, the certified surface area
will be used as the basis for calculating
the maximum energy consumption
(kWh/day) of the basic model.
(ii) If the certified surface area is
found to be invalid, the average
measured surface area will serve as the
basis for calculating the maximum
energy consumption (kWh/day) of the
basic model.
(4) For each basic model of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer door, DOE
will calculate the door’s energy
consumption using the power listed on
the nameplate of each electricity
consuming device shipped with the
door. If an electricity consuming device
shipped with a walk-in door does not
have a nameplate or such nameplate
does not list the device’s power, then
DOE will use the device’s ‘‘rated power’’
included in the door’s certification
report.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
6. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
7. Section 431.302 is amended by:
a. Adding in alphabetical order,
definitions for ‘‘Adaptive defrost,’’
‘‘Dedicated condensing unit,’’
‘‘Dedicated condensing refrigeration
system,’’ ‘‘Indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system,’’ ‘‘Matched
condensing unit,’’ ‘‘Matched
refrigeration system,’’ ‘‘Outdoor
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system,’’ ‘‘Refrigerated storage space,’’
‘‘Single-package dedicated system,’’
‘‘Unit cooler,’’ and ‘‘Walk-in process
cooling refrigeration system’’; and
■ b. Revising the definition of
‘‘refrigeration system.’’
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 431.302 Definitions concerning walk-in
coolers and walk-in freezers.
Adaptive defrost means a factoryinstalled defrost control system that
reduces defrost frequency by initiating
defrosts or adjusting the number of
defrosts per day in response to operating
conditions (e.g., moisture levels in the
refrigerated space, measurements that
represent coil frost load) rather than
initiating defrost strictly based on
compressor run time or clock time.
*
*
*
*
*
Dedicated condensing unit means a
positive displacement condensing unit
that is part of a refrigeration system (as
defined in this section) and is an
assembly that
(1) Includes 1 or more compressors, a
condenser, and one refrigeration circuit;
and
(2) Is designed to serve one
refrigerated load.
Dedicated condensing refrigeration
system means one of the following:
(1) A dedicated condensing unit;
(2) A single-package dedicated
system; or
(3) A matched refrigeration system.
*
*
*
*
*
Indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system means a dedicated
condensing refrigeration system
designated by the manufacturer for
indoor use or for which there is no
designation regarding the use location.
*
*
*
*
*
Matched condensing unit means a
dedicated condensing unit that is
distributed in commerce with one or
more unit cooler(s) specified by the
condensing unit manufacturer.
Matched refrigeration system (also
called ‘‘matched-pair’’) means a
refrigeration system including the
matched condensing unit and the one or
more unit coolers with which it is
distributed in commerce.
Outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system means a dedicated
condensing refrigeration system
designated by the manufacturer for
outdoor use.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95801
Refrigerated storage space means a
space held at refrigerated (as defined in
this section) temperatures.
*
*
*
*
*
Refrigeration system means the
mechanism (including all controls and
other components integral to the
system’s operation) used to create the
refrigerated environment in the interior
of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer,
consisting of:
(1) A dedicated condensing
refrigeration system (as defined in this
section); or
(2) A unit cooler.
Single-packaged dedicated system
means a refrigeration system (as defined
in this section) that is a single-package
assembly that includes one or more
compressors, a condenser, a means for
forced circulation of refrigerated air, and
elements by which heat is transferred
from air to refrigerant, without any
element external to the system imposing
resistance to flow of the refrigerated air.
*
*
*
*
*
Unit cooler means an assembly,
including means for forced air
circulation and elements by which heat
is transferred from air to refrigerant,
thus cooling the air, without any
element external to the cooler imposing
air resistance.
*
*
*
*
*
Walk-in process cooling refrigeration
system means a refrigeration system that
is capable of rapidly cooling food or
other substances from one temperature
to another. The basic model of such a
system must satisfy one of the following
three conditions:
(1) Be distributed in commerce with
an insulated enclosure consisting of
panels and door(s) such that the
assembled product has a refrigerating
capacity of at least 100 Btu/h per cubic
foot of enclosed internal volume;
(2) Be a unit cooler having an
evaporator coil that is at least four-andone-half (4.5) feet in height and whose
height is at least one-and-one-half (1.5)
times the width. The height of the
evaporator coil is measured
perpendicular to the tubes and is also
the fin height, while its width is the
finned length parallel to the tubes, as
illustrated in Figure 1; or
(3) Be a dedicated condensing unit
that is distributed in commerce
exclusively with a unit cooler meeting
description (2) or with an evaporator
that is not a unit cooler, i.e., an
evaporator that is not distributed or
installed as part of a package including
one or more fans.
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
8. Section 431.303 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and
adding paragraph (b)(2);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and
(d) as paragraphs (d) and (e),
respectively, and adding paragraph (c);
■ d. Revising the last sentence of newly
redesignated paragraph (d)(1).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
■
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
§ 431.303 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) General. Certain material is
incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Any amendment to
a standard by the standard-setting
organization will not affect the DOE
regulations unless and until amended
by DOE. Material is incorporated as it
exists on the date of the approval. To
enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the U.S.
Department of Energy must publish a
document in the Federal Register and
the material must be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, 202–586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays,
or go to: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/ ], and is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
available from the sources listed below.
It is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or
go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_
register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) * * *
(1) ANSI/AHRI Standard 420–2008
(‘‘AHRI 420–2008’’), ‘‘Performance
Rating of Forced-Circulation FreeDelivery Unit Coolers for Refrigeration,’’
Copyright 2008, IBR approved for
appendix C to subpart R of part 431.
(2) AHRI Standard 1250P (I–P)–2009
(‘‘AHRI 1250–2009’’), ‘‘Standard for
Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers
and Freezers, (including Errata sheet
dated December 2015), copyright 2009,
except Table 15 and Table 16. IBR
approved for appendix C to subpart R of
part 431.
(c) ASHRAE. The American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971
Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or
www.ashrae.org/.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 23.1–
2010, (‘‘ASHRAE 23.1–2010’’),
‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating the
Performance of Positive Displacement
Refrigerant Compressors and
Condensing Units that Operate at
Subcritical Temperatures of the
Refrigerant,’’ ANSI approved January
28, 2010, IBR approved for appendix C
to subpart R of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(d) * * *
(1) * * * IBR approved for appendix
B to subpart R of part 431.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 431.304 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 431.304 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy consumption of
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Determine the energy efficiency
and/or energy consumption of the
specified walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer components by conducting the
appropriate test procedure as follows:
(1) Determine the U-factor,
conduction load, and energy use of
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
display panels by conducting the test
procedure set forth in appendix A to
this subpart.
(2) Determine the energy use of walkin cooler and walk-in freezer display
doors and non-display doors by
conducting the test procedure set forth
in appendix A to this subpart.
(3) Determine the R-value of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer non-display
panels and non-display doors by
conducting the test procedure set forth
in appendix B to this subpart.
(4) Determine the AWEF and net
capacity of walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer refrigeration systems by
conducting the test procedure set forth
in appendix C to this subpart.
■ 10. Section 431.305 is added to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
ER28DE16.006</GPH>
95802
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
§ 431.305 Walk-in cooler and walk-in
freezer labeling requirements.
(a) Panel nameplate—(1) Required
information. The permanent nameplate
of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer
panel for which standards are
prescribed in § 431.306 must be marked
clearly with the following information:
(i) The panel brand or manufacturer;
and
(ii) One of the following statements,
as appropriate:
(A) ‘‘This panel is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler
applications.’’
(B) ‘‘This panel is designed and
certified for use in walk-in freezer
applications.’’
(C) ‘‘This panel is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and
walk-in freezer applications.’’
(2) Display of required information.
All orientation, spacing, type sizes,
typefaces, and line widths to display
this required information must be the
same as or similar to the display of the
other performance data included on the
panel’s permanent nameplate. The
permanent nameplate must be visible
unless the panel is assembled into a
completed walk-in.
(b) Door nameplate—(1) Required
information. The permanent nameplate
of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer
door for which standards are prescribed
in § 431.306 must be marked clearly
with the following information:
(i) The door brand or manufacturer;
and
(ii) One of the following statements,
as appropriate:
(A) ‘‘This door is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler
applications.’’
(B) ‘‘This door is designed and
certified for use in walk-in freezer
applications.’’
(C) ‘‘This door is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and
walk-in freezer applications.’’
(2) Display of required information.
All orientation, spacing, type sizes,
typefaces, and line widths to display
this required information must be the
same as or similar to the display of the
other performance data included on the
door’s permanent nameplate. The
permanent nameplate must be visible
unless the door is assembled into a
completed walk-in.
(c) Refrigeration system nameplate—
(1) Required information. The
permanent nameplate of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer refrigeration
system for which standards are
prescribed in § 431.306 must be marked
clearly with the following information:
(i) The refrigeration system brand or
manufacturer;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
(ii) The refrigeration system model
number;
(iii) The date of manufacture of the
refrigeration system (if the date of
manufacture is embedded in the unit’s
serial number, then the manufacturer of
the refrigeration system must retain any
relevant records to discern the date from
the serial number);
(iv) If the refrigeration system is a
dedicated condensing refrigeration
system, and is not designated for
outdoor use, the statement, ‘‘Indoor use
only’’ (for a matched pair this must
appear on the condensing unit); and
(v) One of the following statements, as
appropriate:
(A) ‘‘This refrigeration system is
designed and certified for use in walkin cooler applications.’’
(B) ‘‘This refrigeration system is
designed and certified for use in walkin freezer applications.’’
(C) ‘‘This refrigeration system is
designed and certified for use in walkin cooler and walk-in freezer
applications.’’
(2) Process cooling refrigeration
systems. The permanent nameplate of a
process cooling refrigeration system (as
defined in § 431.302) must be marked
clearly with the statement, ‘‘This
refrigeration system is designed for use
exclusively in walk-in cooler and walkin freezer process cooling refrigeration
applications.’’
(3) Display of required information.
All orientation, spacing, type sizes,
typefaces, and line widths to display
this required information must be the
same as or similar to the display of the
other performance data included on the
refrigeration system’s permanent
nameplate. The model number must be
in one of the following forms: ‘‘Model
lll’’ or ‘‘Model number lll’’ or
‘‘Model No. lll.’’ The permanent
nameplate must be visible unless the
refrigeration system is assembled into a
completed walk-in.
(d) A manufacturer may not mark the
nameplate of a component with the
required information if the
manufacturer has not submitted a
certification of compliance for the
relevant model.
(e) Disclosure of efficiency
information in marketing materials.
Each catalog that lists the component
and all materials used to market the
component must include:
(1) For panels—The R-value in the
form ‘‘R-valuell.’’
(2) For doors—The energy
consumption in the form ‘‘ECllkWh/
day.’’
(3) For those refrigeration system for
which standards are prescribed—The
AWEF in the form ‘‘AWEF ll.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
95803
(4) The information that must appear
on a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer
component’s permanent nameplate
pursuant to paragraphs (a)–(c) of this
section must also be prominently
displayed in each catalog that lists the
component and all materials used to
market the component.
11. Appendix A to subpart R of part
431 is amended by:
■ a. Removing and reserving sections
3.2 and 3.3;
■ b. Revising section 3.4;
■ c. Redesignating sections 3.5 and 3.6
as sections 3.6 and 3.7.
■ d. Adding section 3.5;
■ e. Revising newly redesignated
section 3.6; and
■ f. Revising Table A.1.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of
the Components of Envelopes of WalkIn Coolers and Walk-In Freezers
*
*
*
*
*
3.2 [Reserved]
3.3 [Reserved]
3.4 Surface area means the area of the
surface of the walk-in component that would
be external to the walk-in cooler or walk-in
freezer as appropriate.
3.5 Rated power means the electricity
consuming device’s power as specified on
the device’s nameplate. If the device does not
have a nameplate or such nameplate does not
list the device’s power, then the rated power
must be read from the device’s product data
sheet.
3.6 Rating conditions means, unless
explicitly stated otherwise, all conditions
shown in Table A.1 of this section.
TABLE A.1—TEMPERATURE
CONDITIONS
Internal Temperatures (cooled space within
the envelope)
Cooler Dry Bulb Temperature.
Freezer Dry Bulb
Temperature.
35 °F
¥10 °F
External Temperatures (space external to
the envelope)
Freezer and Cooler
Dry Bulb Temperatures.
*
*
*
*
75 °F.
*
11. Add appendices B and C to
subpart R of part 431 to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95804
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of R-Value for Envelope
Components of Walk-In Coolers and
Walk-In Freezers
1.0 Scope
This appendix covers the test requirements
used to measure the R-value of non-display
panels and non-display doors of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer.
2.0 Definitions
The definitions contained in § 431.302
apply to this appendix.
3.0 Additional Definitions
3.1 Edge region means a region of the
panel that is wide enough to encompass any
framing members. If the panel contains
framing members (e.g., a wood frame) then
the width of the edge region must be as wide
as any framing member plus an additional 2
in. ± 0.25 in.
4.0 Test Methods, Measurements, and
Calculations
4.1 The R value shall be the 1/K factor
multiplied by the thickness of the panel.
4.2 The K factor shall be based on ASTM
C518 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.303).
4.3 For calculating the R value for
freezers, the K factor of the foam at 20 ± 1
degrees Fahrenheit (average foam
temperature) shall be used. Test results from
a test sample 1 ±0.1-inches in thickness may
be used to determine the R value of panels
with various foam thickness as long as the
foam is of the same final chemical form.
4.4 For calculating the R value for
coolers, the K factor of the foam at 55 ± 1
degrees Fahrenheit (average foam
temperature) shall be used. Test results from
a test sample 1 ± 0.1-inches in thickness may
be used to determine the R value of panels
with various foam thickness as long as the
foam is of the same final chemical form.
4.5 Foam shall be tested after it is
produced in its final chemical form. For foam
produced inside of a panel (‘‘foam-in-place’’),
‘‘final chemical form’’ means the foam is
cured as intended and ready for use as a
finished panel. For foam produced as board
stock (typically polystyrene), ‘‘final chemical
form’’ means after extrusion and ready for
assembly into a panel or after assembly into
a panel. Foam from foam-in-place panels
must not include any structural members or
non-foam materials. Foam produced as board
stock may be tested prior to its incorporation
into a final panel. A test sample 1 ± 0.1inches in thickness must be taken from the
center of a panel and any protective skins or
facers must be removed. A high-speed bandsaw and a meat slicer are two types of
recommended cutting tools. Hot wire cutters
or other heated tools must not be used for
cutting foam test samples. The two surfaces
of the test sample that will contact the hot
plate assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303))
must both maintain ±0.03 inches flatness
tolerance and also maintain parallelism with
respect to one another within ±0.03 inches.
Testing must be completed within 24 hours
of samples being cut for testing.
4.6 Internal non-foam member and/or
edge regions shall not be considered when
testing in accordance with ASTM C518
(incorporated by reference, see § 431.303).
4.7 For panels consisting of two or more
layers of dissimilar insulating materials
(excluding facers or protective skins), test
each material as described in sections 4.1
through 4.6 of this appendix. For a panel
with N layers of insulating material, the
overall R-Value shall be calculated as
follows:
Where:
ki is the k factor of the ith material as
measured by ASTM C518, (incorporated
by reference, see § 431.303);
ti is the thickness of the ith material that
appears in the panel; and
N is the total number of material layers that
appears in the panel.
Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Net Capacity and
AWEF of Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In
Freezer Refrigeration Systems
1.0 Scope
This appendix covers the test requirements
used to determine the net capacity and the
AWEF of the refrigeration system of a walkin cooler or walk-in freezer.
2.0
Definitions
The definitions contained in § 431.302 and
AHRI 1250–2009 (incorporated by reference;
see § 431.303) apply to this appendix. When
definitions in standards incorporated by
reference are in conflict or when they conflict
with this section, the hierarchy of precedence
shall be in the following order: § 431.302,
AHRI 1250–2009, and then either AHRI 420–
2008 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.303) for unit coolers or ASHRAE 23.1–
2010 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.303) for dedicated condensing units.
3.0 Test Methods, Measurements, and
Calculations
Determine the Annual Walk-in Energy
Factor (AWEF) and net capacity of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration
systems by conducting the test procedure set
forth in AHRI 1250–2009 (incorporated by
reference; see § 431.303), with the
modifications to that test procedure provided
in this section. When standards that are
incorporated by reference are in conflict or
when they conflict with this section, the
hierarchy of precedence shall be in the
following order: § 431.302, AHRI 1250–2009,
and then either AHRI 420–2008
(incorporated by reference; see § 431.303) or
ASHRAE 23.1–2010 (incorporated by
reference; see § 431.303).
3.1. General modifications: Test Conditions
and Tolerances.
When conducting testing in accordance
with AHRI 1250–2009 (incorporated by
reference; see § 431.303), the following
modifications must be made.
3.1.1. In Table 1, Instrumentation
Accuracy, refrigerant temperature
measurements shall have a tolerance of ±0.5
F for unit cooler in/out, ±1.0 F for all other
temperature measurements.
3.1.2. In Table 2, Test Operating and Test
Condition Tolerances for Steady-State Test,
electrical power frequency shall have a Test
Condition Tolerance of 1 percent.
3.1.3. In Table 2, the Test Operating
Tolerances and Test Condition Tolerances for
Air Leaving Temperatures shall be deleted.
3.1.4. In Tables 2 through 14, the Test
Condition Outdoor Wet Bulb Temperature
requirement and its associated tolerance
apply only to units with evaporative cooling.
3.1.5. Tables 15 and 16 shall be modified
to read as follows:
TABLE 15—REFRIGERATOR UNIT COOLER
Unit cooler air
entering
relative
humidity, %
Off Cycle Fan
Power.
35
<50
—
—
—
Compressor Off ..
Refrigeration Capacity Suction
A.
35
<50
25
105
9
Compressor On ..
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Saturated
suction temp,
°F
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Liquid inlet
saturation
temp, °F
Sfmt 4700
Liquid inlet
subcooling
temp, °F
Compressor
capacity
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
Test objective
Measure fan
input power
during compressor off
cycle.
Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of
Unit Cooler.
ER28DE16.007</GPH>
Unit cooler air
entering
dry-bulb, °F
Test description
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
95805
TABLE 15—REFRIGERATOR UNIT COOLER—Continued
Test description
Unit cooler air
entering
dry-bulb, °F
Unit cooler air
entering
relative
humidity, %
35
<50
Refrigeration Capacity Suction
B.
Saturated
suction temp,
°F
Liquid inlet
saturation
temp, °F
20
Liquid inlet
subcooling
temp, °F
105
Compressor
capacity
9
Compressor On ..
Test objective
Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of
Unit Cooler.
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a
default superheat value of 6.5 °F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.
TABLE 16—FREEZER UNIT COOLER
Unit cooler air
entering
dry-bulb, °F
Unit cooler air
entering
relative
humidity, %
Off Cycle Fan
Power.
¥10
<50
—
—
Refrigeration Capacity Suction
A.
¥10
<50
¥20
Refrigeration Capacity Suction
B.
¥10
<50
Defrost ................
¥10
Various
Test description
Saturated
suction temp,
°F
Liquid inlet
saturation
temp, °F
Liquid inlet
subcooling
temp, °F
Compressor
capacity
Test objective
—
Compressor Off ..
105
9
Compressor On ..
¥26
105
9
Compressor On ..
—
—
—
Compressor Off ..
Measure fan
input power
during compressor off
cycle.
Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of
Unit Cooler.
Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of
Unit Cooler.
Test according to
Appendix C
Section C11.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a
default superheat value of 6.5 °F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.
3.2. General Modifications: Methods of
Testing
When conducting testing in accordance
with appendix C of AHRI 1250–2009
(incorporated by reference; see § 431.303),
the following modifications must be made.
3.2.1. In appendix C, section C3.1.6, any
refrigerant temperature measurements
upstream and downstream of the unit cooler
may use sheathed sensors immersed in the
flowing refrigerant instead of thermometer
wells.
3.2.2. It is not necessary to perform
composition analysis of refrigerant (appendix
C, section C3.3.6) or refrigerant oil
concentration testing (appendix C, section
C3.4.6).
3.2.3. In appendix C, section C3.4.5, for
verification of sub-cooling downstream of
mass flow meters, only the sight glass and a
temperature sensor located on the tube
surface under the insulation are required.
3.2.4. In appendix C, section C3.5,
regarding unit cooler fan power
measurements, for a given motor winding
configuration, the total power input shall be
measured at the highest nameplate voltage.
For three-phase power, voltage imbalances
shall be no more than 2 percent from phase
to phase.
3.2.5. In the test setup (appendix C, section
C8.3), the liquid line and suction line shall
be constructed of pipes of the manufacturerspecified size. The pipe lines shall be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
insulated with a minimum total thermal
resistance equivalent to 1⁄2-inch thick
insulation having a flat-surface R-Value of 3.7
ft2-°F-hr/Btu per inch or greater. Flow meters
need not be insulated but must not be in
contact with the floor. The lengths of the
connected liquid line and suction line shall
be 25 feet ± 3 inches, not including the
requisite flow meters, each. Of this length, no
more than 15 feet shall be in the conditioned
space. Where there are multiple branches of
piping, the maximum length of piping
applies to each branch individually as
opposed to the total length of the piping.
3.3. Matched systems, single-package
dedicated systems, and unit coolers tested
alone: Use the test method in AHRI 1250–
2009 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.303), appendix C as the method of test
for matched refrigeration systems, singlepackage dedicated systems, or unit coolers
tested alone, with the following
modifications:
3.3.1. For unit coolers tested alone, use test
procedures described in AHRI 1250–2009
(incorporated by reference; see § 431.303) for
testing unit coolers for use in mix-match
system ratings, except that for the test
conditions in Tables 15 and 16, use the
Suction A saturation condition test points
only. Also for unit coolers tested alone, use
the calculations in section 7.9 to determine
AWEF and net capacity described in AHRI
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1250–2009 for unit coolers matched to
parallel rack systems.
3.3.2. In appendix C, section C.13, the
version of AHRI Standard 420 used for test
methods, requirements, and procedures shall
be AHRI 420–2008 (incorporated by
reference; see § 431.303).
3.3.3. Use appendix C, section C10 of AHRI
1250–2009 for off-cycle evaporator fan
testing, with the exception that evaporator
fan controls using periodic stir cycles shall
be adjusted so that the greater of a 50% duty
cycle (rather than a 25% duty cycle) or the
manufacturer default is used for measuring
off-cycle fan energy. For adjustable-speed
controls, the greater of 50% fan speed (rather
than 25% fan speed) or the manufacturer’s
default fan speed shall be used for measuring
off-cycle fan energy. Also, a two-speed or
multi-speed fan control may be used as the
qualifying evaporator fan control. For such a
control, a fan speed no less than 50% of the
speed used in the maximum capacity tests
shall be used for measuring off-cycle fan
energy.
3.3.4. Use appendix C, section C11 of AHRI
1250–2009 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 431.303) for defrost testing. The Frost Load
Condition Defrost Test (C11.1.1) is optional.
3.3.4.1. If the frost load condition defrost
test is performed:
3.3.4.1.1 Operate the unit cooler at the
dry coil conditions as specified in appendix
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
95806
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DF, in W-h and the daily contribution of the
load attributed to defrost QDF in Btu.
3.3.4.1.5 The defrost adequacy
requirements in appendix C, section C11.3
shall apply.
3.3.4.2 If the frost load test is not
performed:
3.3.4.2.1 Operate the unit cooler at the
dry coil conditions as specified in appendix
C, section C11.1 to obtain dry coil defrost
energy, DFd, in W-h.
3.3.4.2.2 The frost load defrost energy,
DFf, in W-h shall be equal to 1.05 multiplied
by the dry coil energy consumption, DFd,
measured using the dry coil condition test in
appendix C, section C11.1.
3.3.4.2.3 The number of defrosts per day
NDF used in subsequent calculations shall be
4.
3.3.4.2.4 Use appendix C, equation C13 in
section C11.3 to calculate the daily average
defrost energy, DF, in W-h.
3.3.4.2.5 The daily contribution of the
load attributed to defrost QDF in Btu shall be
calculated as follows:
Where:
DFd = the defrost energy, in W-h, measured
at the dry coil condition
during on-cycle operation. Do not conduct
the calculations in AHRI 1250–2009, section
7.9.3. Instead, use AHRI 1250–2009, section
7.9.2 to determine the system’s AWEF.
3.3.7.2. When calculating the benefit for
the inclusion of variable-speed evaporator
fans that modulate fan speed in response to
load for the purposes of making
representations of efficiency, use AHRI 1250–
2009, section 7.9.3 to determine the system
AWEF.
For low-temperature systems (freezers),
EFcomp,on = 0.016 × qmix,cd
3.3.5. If a unit has adaptive defrost, use
appendix C, section C11.2 of AHRI 1250–
2009 as follows:
3.3.5.1. When testing to certify to the
energy conservation standards in § 431.306,
do not perform the optional test for adaptive
or demand defrost in appendix C, section
C11.2.
3.3.5.2. When determining the represented
value of the calculated benefit for the
inclusion of adaptive defrost, conduct the
optional test for adaptive or demand defrost
in appendix C, section C11.2 to establish the
maximum time interval allowed between dry
coil defrosts. If this time is greater than 24
hours, set its value to 24 hours. Then,
calculate NDF (the number of defrosts per
day) by averaging the time in hours between
successive defrosts for the dry coil condition
with the time in hours between successive
defrosts for the frosted coil condition, and
dividing 24 by this average time. (The time
between successive defrosts for the frosted
coil condition is found as specified in section
3.3.4 of this appendix C of AHRI 1250–2009:
That is, if the optional frosted coil test was
performed, the time between successive
defrosts for the frosted coil condition is
found by performing the frosted coil test as
specified in section 3.3.4.1 of this appendix;
and if the optional frosted coil test was not
performed, the time between successive
defrosts for the frosted coil condition shall be
set to 4 as specified in section 3.3.4.2. of this
appendix) Use this new value of NDF in
subsequent calculations.
3.3.6. For matched refrigeration systems
and single-package dedicated systems,
calculate the AWEF using the calculations in
AHRI 1250–2009 (incorporated by reference;
see § 431.303), section 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, or 7.7, as
applicable.
3.3.7. For unit coolers tested alone,
calculate the AWEF and net capacity using
the calculations in AHRI 1250–2009,
(incorporated by reference; see § 431.303),
section 7.9. If the unit cooler has variablespeed evaporator fans that vary fan speed in
response to load, then:
3.3.7.1. When testing to certify compliance
with the energy conservation standards in
§ 431.306, fans shall operate at full speed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
3.4. Dedicated condensing units that are not
matched for testing and are not singlepackage dedicated systems
3.4.1. Refer to appendix C, section C.12 of
AHRI 1250–2009 (incorporated by reference;
see § 431.303), for the method of test for
dedicated condensing units. The version of
ASHRAE Standard 23 used for test methods,
requirements, and procedures shall be ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 23.1–2010 (incorporated
by reference; see § 431.303). When applying
this test method, use the applicable test
method modifications listed in sections 3.1
and 3.2 of this appendix. For the test
conditions in AHRI 1250–2009, Tables 11,
12, 13, and 14, use the Suction A condition
test points only.
3.4.2. Calculate the AWEF and net capacity
for dedicated condensing units using the
calculations in AHRI 1250–2009
(incorporated by reference; see § 431.303)
section 7.8. Use the following modifications
to the calculations in lieu of unit cooler test
data:
3.4.2.1. For calculating enthalpy leaving
the unit cooler to calculate gross capacity, (a)
The saturated refrigerant temperature (dew
point) at the unit cooler coil exit, Tevap, shall
be 25 °F for medium-temperature systems
(coolers) and ¥20 °F for low-temperature
systems (freezers), and (b) the refrigerant
temperature at the unit cooler exit shall be
35 °F for medium-temperature systems
(coolers) and ¥14 °F for low-temperature
systems (freezers). For calculating gross
capacity, the measured enthalpy at the
condensing unit exit shall be used as the
enthalpy entering the unit cooler.
3.4.2.2. The on-cycle evaporator fan power
in watts, EFcomp,on, shall be calculated as
follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers),
EFcomp,on = 0.013 × qmix,cd
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Where:
qmix,cd is the gross cooling capacity of the
system in Btu/h, found by a single test
at the Capacity A, Suction A condition
for outdoor units and the Suction A
condition for indoor units.
3.4.2.3. The off-cycle evaporator fan power
in watts, EFcomp,off, shall be calculated as
follows:
EFcomp,off = 0.2 × EFcomp,on
Where:
EF comp,on is the on-cycle evaporator fan
power in watts.
3.4.2.4. The daily defrost energy use in
watt-hours, DF, shall be calculated as
follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers),
DF = 0
For low-temperature systems (freezers), DF
= 8.5 × 10¥3 × qmix,cd1.27 × NDF
Where:
qmix,cd is the gross cooling capacity of the
system in Btu/h, found by a single test
at the Capacity A, Suction A condition
for outdoor units and the Suction A
condition for indoor units, and
NDF is the number of defrosts per day, equal
to 4.
3.4.2.5. The daily defrost heat load
contribution in Btu, QDF, shall be calculated
as follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers),
QDF = 0
For low-temperature systems (freezers),
QDF = 0.95 × DF × 3.412
Where:
DF is the daily defrost energy use in watthours.
3.5 Hot Gas Defrost Refrigeration Systems
For all hot gas defrost refrigeration
systems, remove the hot gas defrost
mechanical components and disconnect all
such components from electrical power.
3.5.1 Hot Gas Defrost Dedicated
Condensing Units Tested Alone: Test these
units as described in section 3.4 of this
appendix for electric defrost dedicated
condensing units that are not matched for
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
ER28DE16.008</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
C, section C11.1 to obtain dry coil defrost
energy, DFd, in W-h.
3.3.4.1.2 Operate the unit cooler at the
frost load conditions as specified in appendix
C, sections C11.1 and C11.1.1 to obtain
frosted coil defrost energy, DFf, in W-h.
3.3.4.1.3 The number of defrosts per day,
NDF, shall be calculated from the time
interval between successive defrosts from the
start of one defrost to the start of the next
defrost at the frost load conditions.
3.3.4.1.4 Use appendix C, equations C13
and C14 in section C11.3 to calculate,
respectively, the daily average defrost energy,
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
testing and are not single-package dedicated
systems.
3.5.2 Hot Gas Defrost Matched Systems,
Single-package Dedicated Systems, and Unit
Coolers Tested Alone: Test these units as
described in section 3.3 of this appendix for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Dec 27, 2016
Jkt 241001
electric defrost matched systems, singlepackage dedicated systems, and unit coolers
tested alone, but do not conduct defrost tests
as described in sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of
this appendix. Calculate daily defrost energy
use as described in section 3.4.2.4 of this
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
95807
appendix. Calculate daily defrost heat
contribution as described in section 3.4.2.5 of
this appendix.
[FR Doc. 2016–29708 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM
28DER2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95758-95807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29708]
[[Page 95757]]
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 249
December 28, 2016
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Walk-in Coolers and
Walk-in Freezers; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 95758]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030]
RIN 1904-AD72
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Walk-in Coolers
and Walk-in Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the test procedure for certain walk-in
cooler and freezer components by improving the procedure's clarity,
updating related certification and enforcement provisions to address
the performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-in cooler
and freezer equipment, and establishing labeling requirements to aid
manufacturers in determining compliance with the relevant standards for
walk-in cooler and freezer applications. The amendments consist of
provisions specific to certain walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration
systems, including product-specific definitions, removal of a
performance credit for hot gas defrost, and a method to accommodate
refrigeration equipment that use adaptive defrost and on-cycle
variable-speed evaporator fan control.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 27, 2017. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for representations starting June 26,
2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on January
27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030. The docket Web page will contain
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Ashey.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
(1) AHRI Standard 420-2008 (``AHRI 420-2008''), ``Performance
Rating of Forced-Circulation Free-Delivery Unit Coolers for
Refrigeration,'' copyright 2008.
(2) AHRI Standard 1250-2009 (``AHRI 1250-2009''), ``Standard for
Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers,'' approved 2009.
(3) ASHRAE Standard 23.1-2010 (``ASHRAE 23.1-2010''), ``Methods of
Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at Subcritical
Temperatures of the Refrigerant,'' ANSI approved January 28, 2010.
(4) ASTM C518-04 (``ASTM C518''), Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus, approved May 1, 2004.
Copies of AHRI Standard 420-2008 and AHRI Standard 1250-2009 may be
purchased from AHRI at 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA
22201, or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
Copies of ASHRAE 23.1-2010 may be purchased from ASHRAE at 1971
Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or by going to www.ashrae.org.
Copies of ASTM C518 may be obtained from the American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959, (610) 832-9500.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Actions in Response to ASRAC Negotiated Terms
1. Definitions
2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure Modifications
B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation of Energy Conservation
Standards
1. Re-Organization and Clarification of the Test Procedure for
Walk-In Refrigeration Systems, Doors, and Panels
2. Representation Requirements
3. Certification and Compliance Requirements
4. Enforcement Provisions
5. Labeling Requirements
C. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
1. Test Burden
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
D. Additional Comments From Interested Parties
1. High Temperature Freezer Applications
2. Unit Cooler With Mounted/Ancillary Components
3. Off-Cycle Unit Cooler Variable-Speed Fan Setting
4. Unit Cooler Capacity Determination in Condensing Unit Only
Test
5. Insulation Aging
6. Laboratory Qualification
7. Variable-Capacity Condensing Unit Test Method
8. Request for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
9. ASRAC Working Group Representation
10. EPCA Prescriptive Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised in Response to the IRFA
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Businesses
Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
1. Description of the Requirements
2. Information Collection Request Title
3. Type of Request
4. Purpose
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, ``walk-ins'' or
``WICFs'') are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to establish and
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(G)) By definition, a walk-in is an enclosed storage space of
less than 3,000 square feet that can be walked into and is refrigerated
to prescribed temperatures based on whether the given unit is a cooler
or a freezer. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6311(20). In simple terms, a
walk-in is an insulated box (or envelope) serviced by a refrigerated
system that feeds cold air to the box's
[[Page 95759]]
interior. DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for
walk-ins are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.306 and 10 CFR 431.304,
respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish test procedures for walk-ins and relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this
equipment.
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163, as
amended (codified as 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program
covering certain industrial equipment, including walk-ins, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ [thinsp]For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S.
Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain
types of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of
the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316 and
6296(d)). Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed
DOE test procedure as the basis for making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or efficiency of such equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6314(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably
designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency,
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)
(detailing criteria for setting test procedures for industrial
equipment).
DOE also generally periodically reviews its test procedures and if
it determines that an amendment is warranted, DOE publishes a proposal
to amend them and offers the public an opportunity to present oral and
written comments on that proposal. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(b))
DOE also generally determines the extent, if any, to which the test
procedure amendment(s) would alter the measured energy efficiency of
any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE has made
this determination through its conducting of a parallel rulemaking
setting standards for certain classes of walk-in refrigeration systems.
B. Background
Section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007), required DOE to establish test
procedures to measure walk-in energy use. On April 15, 2011, DOE
published test procedures for the principal components that make up a
walk-in: panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. DOE took this
component-based testing approach after carefully considering a
significant body of feedback from interested parties that requiring a
single test procedure for an entire walk-in would be impractical
because most walk-ins are assembled on-site with components from
different manufacturers. 76 FR 21580, 21582 (April 15, 2011).
On February 20, 2014, DOE initiated another test procedure
rulemaking for walk-ins to clarify and modify the test procedures
published in April 2011. DOE also proposed to revise the existing
regulations for walk-ins to allow manufacturers, once certain
qualifications are met, to use an alternative efficiency determination
method (``AEDM'') to certify compliance and report ratings. That
effort, which came in the form of a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (``SNOPR''), solicited public comments, data, and
information on the proposed test procedure modifications. 79 FR 9818
(February 20, 2014). DOE published a final rule codifying the AEDM
provisions and amendments to the test procedure for walk-ins on May 13.
2014. 79 FR 27388.
DOE also published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to
establish new performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-
ins on September 11, 2013. (``September 2013 NOPR'') 78 FR 55782. That
NOPR addressed the comments received during earlier stages of the
rulemaking and proposed new energy conservation standards for this
equipment. In conjunction with the September 2013 NOPR, DOE published a
technical support document (``TSD'') to accompany the proposed rule
along with spreadsheets addressing aspects of DOE's engineering
analysis, Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), life cycle
cost (``LCC''), and national impact analysis (``NIA''). See Docket No.
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015. DOE proposed standards for eight dedicated
condensing classes of refrigeration systems, two multiplex condensing
classes of refrigeration systems, three classes of panels, four classes
of non-display doors, and two classes of display doors. (The proposed
refrigeration system standards used the metric ``annual walk-in energy
factor'' (``AWEF''), and the door standards used the metric maximum
energy consumption that incorporates thermal insulating ability and
electrical energy used by the door. The proposed panel standards were
equivalent to those previously established by Congress and use a
measurement of thermal insulation--or ``R-value''--to represent the
energy efficiency of these components.) DOE published a final rule
adopting these new standards on June 3, 2014 (``June 2014 final
rule''). 79 FR 32050. Except for the equipment class standards that
were vacated, as described below, compliance with the standards adopted
in the June 2014 final rule is required starting on June 5, 2017.
After publication of the June 2014 final rule, the Air-
Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') and Lennox
International, Inc. (a manufacturer of walk-in refrigeration systems)
filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent
denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule (79 FR 59090
(October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. Lennox Int'l v. Dep't of Energy, Case No. 14-60535 (5th
Cir.). Other walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers--Rheem
Manufacturing Co. (owner of Heat Transfer Products Group) and Hussmann
Corp.--along with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (a trade
association representing contractors who assemble walk-in refrigeration
systems) intervened on the petitioners' behalf, while the Natural
Resources Defense Council (``NRDC'')--representing itself, the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Texas Ratepayers'
Organization to Save Energy--intervened on behalf of DOE. As a result
of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached that addressed,
among other things, six of the refrigeration system standards--the
standards for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment classes
and both medium- and low-temperature multiplex condensing equipment
classes.
A controlling Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth
[[Page 95760]]
Circuit, issued on August 10, 2015, vacated those six standards. On
November 12, 2015, DOE amended the CFR to reflect this Order. 80 FR
69837. The remaining standards promulgated by the June 2014 final
rule--i.e., the (1) Four standards applicable to dedicated condensing
refrigeration systems operating at medium-temperatures, (2) three
standards applicable to panels, and (3) six standards applicable to
doors--were not vacated and continue to remain subject to the June 5,
2017 compliance date prescribed in the June 2014 final rule. See 79 FR
at 32051-32052 (Table I.1) and 32123-32124 (codified at 10 CFR
431.306(a), (c)-(e)).
To address the vacated standards, DOE established a Working Group
to negotiate proposed energy conservation standards to replace them.
Specifically, on August 5, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to
establish a Working Group for Certain Equipment Classes of
Refrigeration Systems of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers to Negotiate a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Energy Conservation Standards
(``Working Group''). 80 FR 46521. The Working Group was established
under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
(``ASRAC'') in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(``FACA'') and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (``NRA''). (5 U.S.C. App.
2; 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320.) The purpose of the Working Group
was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on proposed standard
levels for the energy efficiency of the affected classes of walk-in
refrigeration systems. The Working Group consisted of 12
representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the
proposed standards and one DOE representative (see Table 1). All of the
meetings were open to the public and broadcast via webinar. Several
people who were not members of the Working Group attended the meetings
and were given the opportunity to comment on the proceedings. Non-
Working Group meeting attendees are listed in Table 2. The Working
Group consulted as appropriate with a range of experts on technical
issues. The Working Group met in-person on 13 days of meetings held
between August 27 and December 15, 2015.
Table 1--Walk-In Refrigeration Systems Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full name Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Armstrong....................... U.S. Department of Energy.
Lane Burt.............................. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mary Dane.............................. Traulsen.
Cyril Fowble........................... Lennox International, Inc.
Sean Gouw.............................. CA Investor-Owned Utilities.
Andrew Haala........................... Hussmann Corp.
Armin Hauer............................ ebm-papst, Inc.
John Koon.............................. Manitowoc Company.
Joanna Mauer........................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Charlie McCrudden...................... Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Louis Starr............................ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Michael Straub......................... Rheem Manufacturing.
Wayne Warner........................... Emerson Climate Technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Other ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Meeting Attendees and Affiliations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full name Affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akash Bhatia........................... Tecumseh Products Company.
Bryan Eisenhower....................... VaCom Technologies.
Dean Groff............................. Danfoss.
Brian Lamberty......................... Unknown.
Michael Layne.......................... Turbo Air.
Jon McHugh............................. McHugh Energy.
Yonghui (Frank) Xu..................... National Coil Company.
Vince Zolli............................ KeepRite Refrigeration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2015, the Working Group reached consensus on, among
other things, a series of energy conservation standards to replace
those that were vacated as a result of the litigation. The Working
Group assembled their recommendations into a single Term Sheet (See
Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56) that was presented to, and
approved by, the ASRAC on December 18, 2015. DOE anticipates adopting
in a separate rulemaking document energy conservation standards
consistent with the Working Group's Term Sheet for those classes of
walk-in refrigeration systems whose standards were vacated. See Docket
No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016 for all background documents on the
negotiated rulemaking.
While the Working Group's focus centered primarily on addressing
the six energy conservation standards for low-temperature dedicated
condensing equipment classes and both medium- and low-temperature
multiplex condensing equipment classes, (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-
STD-0016, No. 1 and 2), the Term Sheet also included recommendations
that DOE consider making certain amendments to the walk-in test
procedure. These recommendations included technical corrections to the
test procedure itself, definitions for certain terms to provide clarity
regarding the applicability of the standards (and, relatedly, the test
procedure), and other changes that the Working Group deemed necessary
in order to implement the agreed-upon refrigeration system
standards.\2\ DOE
[[Page 95761]]
considered the approved Term Sheet, along with other comments received
during the negotiated rulemaking process, and proposed several test
procedure amendments addressing these Term Sheet recommendation in a
NOPR published August 17, 2016 (``August 2016 NOPR''). 81 FR 54926. The
NOPR also included additional proposals to facilitate implementation of
energy conservation standards for WICF components. DOE held a public
meeting to discuss the NOPR on September 12, 2016 and accepted written
comments during a comment period that ended October 17, 2016. DOE
considered these comments when developing this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The recommended changes to the test procedure deal
exclusively with efficiency measurement and certification for the
classes of refrigeration systems that were the subject of the
negotiations. These changes do not affect the test procedures for
the refrigeration system standards that were not vacated. They
specifically address removing test procedure provisions, including
hot gas defrost, and adding requirements that certified efficiency
levels for evaluating standards compliance would not rely on the
current test procedure provisions for adaptive defrost or on-cycle
variable-speed evaporator fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is requiring manufacturers to use the prescribed test procedure
described in this document when making representations regarding the
energy use or efficiency of covered equipment. Manufacturers will have
180 days after the final rule's publication date to ensure that these
representations are based on this test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
The amendments adopted in this final rule will not change the
measured energy use of the classes of refrigeration systems whose
standards were not vacated.\3\ As such, all test procedure amendments
adopted in this final rule are effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register and required for representations regarding the
energy consumption of covered equipment 180 days after publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register. The compliance dates for
labeling requirements are aligned with the corresponding energy
conservation standards compliance dates, i.e., June 2017 for the
standards established by the June 2014 final rule that were not
vacated, and January 2020 for the refrigeration system standards for
unit coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE anticipates adopting performance-based energy
conservation standards for certain classes of refrigeration systems
for walk-ins in a separate rulemaking--those standards would replace
the standards vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order. See Docket
No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to implementing the recommendations detailed in the
Term Sheet developed as part of the ASRAC negotiated rulemaking
meetings, this final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically
review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a). DOE also reviewed
other aspects of the WICF test procedure and ultimately concluded that,
with the exception of the amendments being made in this final rule, no
other changes are needed at this point in time. DOE anticipates that
its next evaluation of this test procedure (and the addressing of any
remaining issues detailed in the Term Sheet that relate to the WICF
test procedure) will occur in a manner consistent with this provision.
(Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #6)
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 431.304, ``Uniform test
method for the measurement of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers,'' and related certification, compliance, and
enforcement provisions of 10 CFR part 429. The amendments fall into two
groups.
The first group consists of test procedure modifications and other
additions to the regulatory text recommended by the Working Group and
listed in the Term Sheet, including the following:
(1) Adding definitions for the terms ``dedicated condensing unit,''
``outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,'' ``indoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration system,'' ``adaptive defrost,''
``process cooling,'' and ``refrigerated storage space.'' DOE also is
adding definitions for ``dedicated condensing refrigeration system,''
``single-package dedicated system,'' ``matched condensing unit,''
``matched refrigeration system,'' and modifying the definition of
``refrigeration system'' to complete a comprehensive structure for
defining all relevant terms discussed in the test procedure.
(2) Removing the method for calculating defrost energy and defrost
heat load of a system with hot gas defrost and establish a method to
test hot gas defrost refrigeration systems to obtain AWEF ratings
equivalent to those of electric defrost refrigeration systems.
(3) Establishing a regulatory approach for refrigeration systems
with adaptive defrost and/or on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fan
control that requires that these features be deactivated when such
units are tested to demonstrate compliance with the standard, while
allowing for representations of their improved performance when using
these features.
The second group of amendments consists of test procedure
modifications and certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions
that, while not part of the Term Sheet, are necessary for implementing
the energy conservation standards. This group of changes includes the
following:
(1) Re-organizing the test procedure provisions in 10 CFR 431.304
to improve clarity, and correct typographical errors in the rule
language.
(2) Clarifying section 3.0 ``Additional Definitions'' in appendix A
to subpart R of part 431.
(3) Modifying the current walk-in certification and reporting
requirements in 10 CFR 429.53 to clarify applicability of walk-in test
procedures to certain equipment classes and add provisions for
reporting additional rating metrics.
(4) Adding walk-in refrigeration systems, panels, and doors to the
list of products and equipment included as part of the enforcement
testing requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.110(e)(2).
(5) Adding product specific enforcement provisions for walk-ins.
(6) Adding labeling requirements for walk-in refrigeration systems,
panels, and doors.
III. Discussion
This final rule stems from the detailed discussions and suggestions
offered by Working Group participants during the walk-in negotiated
rulemaking. These participants, in addition to providing detailed
technical feedback on replacing the vacated standards, also offered
detailed recommendations regarding the walk-in test procedures. These
recommendations were offered as a means to address questions related to
the treatment of certain types of features or components that may be
present in a given walk-in refrigeration system. DOE developed specific
proposals to incorporate the Working Group recommendations into its
test procedures, resulting in the August 2016 NOPR. 81 FR 54926. DOE
received comments from a number of interested parties. A list of these
parties is included in Table 3--Interested Parties Who Commented on the
WICF NOPR. The comments received and DOE's decisions regarding
finalization of the test procedure amendments are discussed in the
sections that follow.
[[Page 95762]]
Table 3--Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. (Docket
Commenter Acronym Affiliation Reference) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.................... Trade Association...... 11, 23
Refrigeration Institute.
American Panel Corporation........... APC, American Panel..... Manufacturer........... 7, 23
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP and NEEA........... Efficiency 19
and Northwest Energy Efficiency Organizations.
Alliance.
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc........ Bally................... Manufacturer........... 22, 23
California Investor Owned Utilities.. CA IOUs................. Utility Association.... 21
CrownTonka........................... CrownTonka.............. Manufacturer........... 23
Dow Chemical Company................. Dow..................... Component/Material 9
Supplier.
Emerson Climate Technologies......... Emerson................. Manufacturer........... *
EPS Industry Alliance................ EPS-IA.................. Trade Association...... 12
Heat Controller Inc.\2\.............. Heat Controller......... Manufacturer........... 23
Hussmann Corporation................. Hussmann................ Manufacturer........... 20, 23
Imperial Brown Inc................... IB...................... Manufacturer........... 23
KeepRite Refrigeration............... KeepRite................ Manufacturer........... 17
KPS Global LLC....................... KPS..................... Manufacturer........... 8
Lennox International, Inc. and Lennox.................. Manufacturer........... 13, 23
Heatcraft Refrigeration Products,
LLC.
Manitowoc Company.................... Manitowoc............... Manufacturer........... 10
National Coil Company................ NCC..................... Component/Material 16, 23
Supplier.
North American Association of Food NAFEM................... Trade Association...... 14
Equipment Manufacturers.
Panasonic Corporation................ Panasonic............... Manufacturer........... *
Rheem Manufacturing Company and Heat Rheem................... Manufacturer........... 18, 23
Transfer Products Group, LLC.
Ron Shebiu........................... Shebiu.................. Individual............. *
U.S. Department of Health and Human DHHS OIG................ Federal Agency/ *
Services, Office of Inspector Association.
General.
The Delfield Company................. Delfield................ Manufacturer........... *
Zero Zone, Inc....................... Zero Zone............... Manufacturer........... 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Comment number 23 indicates the party commented during the public meeting.
2. This commenter is listed as Roxanne Scott in the public meeting transcript.
* These commenters were present at the public meeting but did not make comments at the meeting or submit written
comments.
A. Actions in Response to ASRAC Negotiated Terms
1. Definitions
The Working Group recommended that DOE define the terms ``dedicated
condensing unit,'' ``matched condensing unit,'' and ``outdoor
condensing unit'' (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56,
Recommendation #1); ``adaptive defrost'' (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-
STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #2); and ``process cooling,''
``preparation room refrigeration,'' and ``storage space.'' (Term Sheet
at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #7) DOE sought to
define these terms to more clearly identify the categories of equipment
that are covered and to clarify the application of the test procedures
and standards to these equipment. To this end, DOE proposed definitions
for these terms along with several others, notably, the terms
``dedicated condensing refrigeration system,'' ``outdoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system,'' ``indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system,'' ``matched refrigeration system,'' ``unit
cooler,'' and ``packaged dedicated system.'' These supplemental
definitions were developed to help enhance the clarity of the walk-in
regulatory framework and to assist manufacturers in readily
ascertaining how to classify (and certify for compliance purposes) the
myriad of refrigeration systems they produce. Finally, DOE proposed to
modify the current definition of ``refrigeration system'' to align it
more closely with the terminology being defined. See 81 FR at 54929-
54932. The following sections discuss the proposed definitions and
comments received from stakeholders regarding the proposals. The
precise text for the final definitions, which will all appear in 10 CFR
431.302, is contained in the regulatory text appearing at the end of
this document.
a. Dedicated Condensing Unit and Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration
System
DOE proposed to define the dedicated condensing equipment class to
address three refrigeration system configurations--(1) a dedicated
condensing unit; (2) a packaged dedicated system; and (3) a matched
refrigeration system. DOE proposed defining what a dedicated condensing
refrigeration system is to clarify the scope of this equipment class.
Consistent with Lennox's assertion that single-package refrigeration
systems are a type of dedicated condensing system (Docket No. EERE-
2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE and Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (October
16, 2015), No. 63 at pp. 249-251), DOE proposed to include this
configuration in the proposed definition. DOE also proposed that a
matched condensing system--consisting of a dedicated condensing unit
that is distributed in commerce with one or more specific unit
coolers--would also be treated as a dedicated condensing system.
Finally, DOE also proposed to treat as a dedicated condensing system a
dedicated condensing unit sold separately from any unit cooler. This
proposed clarification underpins DOE's certification approach of
allowing manufacturers to test and rate condensing units separately
when certifying compliance with the dedicated condensing standard,
without having to distribute their condensing
[[Page 95763]]
units in commerce with one or more specific unit coolers. 81 FR at
54929-54930.
DOE's proposed definition for ``dedicated condensing unit''
reflected each of these elements. Under the proposed definition, such a
unit would be a positive displacement condensing unit that is part of a
refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302) and is an assembly
that (1) includes 1 or more compressors, a condenser, and one
refrigeration circuit and (2) is designed to serve one refrigerated
load. The term ``factory-made'' was omitted from the proposed
definition to avoid suggesting that such an assembly is not a
condensing unit (and thus not covered by DOE regulations) if it happens
to be assembled from its subcomponents after shipment from the factory.
Id.
Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and NEEA agreed with the proposed
definition of ``dedicated condensing unit.'' (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; ASAP and NEEA, No. 19
at p. 1)
DOE did not receive any opposing comments regarding its proposed
definition for ``dedicated condensing unit.'' Accordingly, DOE is
adopting this definition as proposed.
Additionally, DOE proposed to define ``dedicated condensing
refrigeration system'' as referring to a (a) dedicated condensing unit,
(b) packaged dedicated system, or (c) matched refrigeration system. 81
FR at 54930.
ASAP and NEEA supported this proposed definition. (ASAP and NEEA,
No. 19 at p. 1) Others, however, challenged the inclusion of packaged
dedicated systems within the proposed definition (e.g., Rheem, No. 18
at p. 1). Comments addressing packaged dedicated systems are addressed
in section III.A.1.b, including DOE's conclusion that these systems,
which are being renamed as ``single-package dedicated systems,'' fall
within the dedicated condensing refrigeration system class. In
finalizing this definition, DOE made no other changes.
b. Single-package Dedicated System
DOE proposed to treat a packaged dedicated system as a type of
dedicated condensing refrigeration system. These systems are factory-
assembled equipment where the components serving the compressor,
condenser, and evaporator functions are ``packaged'' into a single
piece of equipment. The system is then installed as part of a walk-in
application, with the compressor and condenser located on the outside
of the walk-in envelope (i.e., the boxed storage enclosure) and the
evaporator on the inside. Walk-ins that use such a system include a
hole in one of the walls or ceiling of the insulated enclosure into
which the packaged system is mounted. The use of this equipment is
necessarily limited to small-capacity walk-ins due to load-bearing
limitations of the walk-in envelope. DOE proposed to define ``packaged
dedicated systems'' by combining elements of the proposed definition
for ``dedicated condensing unit'' (see section III.A.1.a) and the
definition for ``forced-circulation free-delivery unit cooler (unit
cooler)'' from AHRI-1250-2009. Consequently, DOE proposed to define a
``packaged dedicated system'' as ``a refrigeration system (as defined
in 10 CFR 431.302) that is a single-package assembly that includes one
or more compressors, a condenser, a means for forced circulation of
refrigerated air, and elements by which heat is transferred from air to
refrigerant, without any element external to the system imposing
resistance to flow of the refrigerated air.'' DOE did not include the
term ``factory-made'' in the proposed definition for the same reasons
that the term was omitted from the ``dedicated condensing unit''
definition, as explained earlier. See 81 FR at 54930-54931.
Rheem and American Panel commented that a ``packaged dedicated
system'' leaves the factory as a complete system, with only power
hookup and air inlet and outlet to be configured on-site. Consequently,
they suggested adding the clause ``factory-assembled'' to the
definition for a packaged dedicated system. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 19-21; American Panel, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 22)
Public meeting and written comments submitted to DOE from several
manufacturers and AHRI indicated that there is no viable test procedure
for packaged systems. Commenters requested that DOE clarify how to test
and rate this equipment. The commenters pointed out the necessity of
disassembling the unit to install mass flow meters and to install the
evaporator and condenser sections in separate environmental chambers
when testing packaged systems under the current test procedure. The
commenters suggested that packaged systems should be exempt from the
scope of the WICF standards because there is no test procedure for
them. Further, Rheem, Manitowoc, and AHRI stated that it was their
understanding from the ASRAC Working Group meeting that packaged
systems do not fall within the definition of dedicated condensing unit,
and are not subject to the dedicating condensing class standards.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 16-17; Lennox, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 18; Manitowoc, No. 10 at pp. 3-4;
Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 1-2; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11 at p.
6) The CA IOUs disagreed with manufacturers' claims that AHRI 1250-2009
is not an appropriate test procedure for packaged dedicated system WICF
systems, noting that AHRI 1250-2009 specifically cites ``integrated
single package refrigeration units'' as part of its scope. In addition,
the CA IOUs recommended that DOE change the term, ``packaged dedicated
system,'' to ``single-package dedicated system,'' or ``self-contained
units''. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that the definition for ``refrigeration system'' was
established in the context of walk-ins to include ``(1) [a] packaged
dedicated system where the unit cooler and condensing unit are
integrated into a single piece of equipment'' in the April 15, 2011
final rule establishing test procedures for WICFs. 76 FR at 21605. In
DOE's view, packaged systems are walk-in refrigeration systems and are
subject to the applicable prescriptive standards established by
Congress through EISA 2007 along with the performance standards that
DOE prescribes for these systems.\4\ DOE notes that this view is not
restricted to DOE, as two manufacturers confirmed that a single-package
refrigeration system is a type of dedicated condensing system on two
occasions during the Working Group meetings. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-
STD-0016; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (October 16, 2015), No. 63
at pp. 249-251; Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (December 3, 2015),
No. 57 at p. 157) Thus, DOE does not support the position that these
systems are not considered to be WICF refrigeration systems subject to
WICF standards, including the prescriptive standards mandated by EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ With respect to these prescriptive requirements, DOE notes
that relevant statutory provision does not indicate that the
promulgation of performance standards supplants those standards that
Congress already mandated through its enactment of EISA 2007.
Accordingly, because there is no explicit authority in this instance
for DOE to override a statutorily-prescribed standard, the initial
design requirements established by Congress continue to apply. See
42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)-(5) (detailing prescriptive design requirements
for certain walk-in components and the process by which DOE must
prescribe separate walk-in performance-based standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that section 2.1 of AHRI 1250-2009 describes the scope of
this testing standard as applying ``to mechanical refrigeration
equipment consisting of an integrated single package refrigeration
unit, or separate
[[Page 95764]]
unit cooler and condensing unit sections, where the condensing section
can be located either outdoor or indoor.'' The testing standard further
explains that these controls ``may be integral, or can be provided by a
separate party as long as performance is tested and certified with the
listed mechanical equipment accordingly.'' AHRI 1250-2009, section 2.1.
Further, the possibility that the equipment has one or more design
characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test
procedures does not exempt manufacturers from coverage under the
standards. DOE has established the waiver process to address such
circumstances. See 10 CFR 431.401. While DOE acknowledges stakeholders'
comments that the configurations of certain models of refrigeration
systems may prevent testing according to the prescribed test
procedures, manufacturers may avail themselves of the procedures under
10 CFR 431.401 to obtain a waiver that would enable them to test this
equipment using an alternative test procedure. This process requires,
among other things, that manufacturers include in a petition for waiver
any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the performance of the
equipment in a manner representative of the energy consumption
characteristics of the basic model (10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii)). The
filing of the waiver does not exempt a manufacturer from compliance
with standards or certification requirements. (10 CFR 431.401(a)(2))
In response to comments that ``factory-assembled'' should be part
of the definition for single-package dedicated system, DOE notes that
DOE omitted this clause from several of the definitions to avoid
implying that a piece of equipment that otherwise meets the definition
does not meet it if part of the assembly occurs outside a factory. An
example of this is a refrigeration system that is shipped from the
factory in multiple boxes and then assembled in the field. DOE agrees
that it is likely that nearly all such single-package systems are fully
assembled in a factory. However, DOE believes that any such
refrigeration system that is not fully assembled in a factory, for
example, by having the condenser fan assembly mounted to the unit in
the field, should still be considered a single-package refrigeration
system and regulated under the relevant requirements under the
dedicated condensing refrigeration system equipment class. Hence, DOE
is not adopting the suggested change.
Regarding the CA IOUs' suggestion that the term ``packaged
dedicated system'' be changed to ``single-package dedicated system''
for purposes of DOE's regulatory definitions, DOE surveyed manufacturer
literature, and found that packaged dedicated systems are marketed as
``Packaged Systems'' or ``Packaged Refrigeration Systems''. (Master-
Bilt product specification sheet, No. 32 at p. 7; Lennox product
catalog, No. 31 at p. 190; and Rheem product specification, No. 30)
However, DOE believes that the suggested use of the term ``single-
package dedicated refrigeration system'' would provide further clarity,
indicating more precisely what this equipment is, and would be
consistent with the approach already used for air-conditioning units.
This consistency is significant since walk-in refrigeration systems are
generally very similar in classification and operation to air
conditioning systems. Accordingly, the use of the term ``single-
package'' in the walk-in context would help clarify the categorization
of this equipment and reduce the potential for industry and market
confusion. To reduce the risk of confusion, DOE is adopting the
suggested change from the CA-IOUs and is renaming the ``packaged
dedicated systems'' category as ``single-package dedicated
refrigeration systems.''
c. Matched Condensing Unit and Matched Refrigeration System
DOE proposed to define a ``matched condensing unit'' as ``a
dedicated condensing unit that is distributed in commerce with one or
more unit cooler(s) specified by the condensing unit manufacturer.''
DOE also proposed to define ``matched refrigeration system'' (also
called ``matched-pair'') as ``a refrigeration system including the
matched condensing unit and the one or more unit coolers with which it
is distributed in commerce.'' 81 FR at 54931.
KeepRite supported the proposed definitions for matched condensing
unit and matched refrigeration system. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1) DOE
did not receive any other comments regarding this definition and
therefore is adopting it as proposed.
d. Outdoor and Indoor Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration Systems
DOE has established separate equipment classes for indoor and
outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration systems. See, e.g. 10 CFR
431.306(e) (breaking out dedicated condensing refrigeration system
classes based on whether they are indoor/outdoor units and capacity).
DOE proposed to define an ``outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration
system'' as a system that is encased and capable of maintaining a net
capacity at the 35 [deg]F outdoor temperature condition that is no less
than 65 percent of the net capacity measured at the 95 [deg]F outdoor
temperature condition for a period of no less than one hour. See 81 FR
at 54931. This approach differed from the WICF Term Sheet definition,
which focused on a given unit's ability to operate in a 35 [deg]F
ambient condition--i.e., the unit ``is capable of maintaining the
medium temperature or low temperature DOE test procedure box conditions
(as specified in 10 CFR 431.304) for an extended period at the 35
[deg]F outdoor temperature condition.'' (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-
STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #1) DOE explained that it modified
this part of the definition to clarify the meaning of the phrases
``maintaining the . . . box conditions'' and ``extended period.'' See
81 FR at 54931. DOE also proposed to define an ``indoor dedicated
condensing refrigeration system'' as a system that is not an outdoor
dedicated refrigeration system. See 81 FR at 54932.
Rheem and Lennox commented that 65 percent of net capacity at 95
[deg]F would not be an effective metric for differentiating models.
(Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6) Rheem further indicated
that box load and condensing unit capacity are not the same and that as
ambient temperature is lowered, the condensing unit capacity increases,
which means overall capacity will be higher at a 65 [deg]F ambient
temperature than at a 95 [deg]F ambient temperature. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 24-25) Manitowoc, Rheem, Lennox,
KeepRite and AHRI also suggested that the definition should reference
existing test conditions from the test procedure rather than the
proposed conditions--the use of which, some manufacturers suggested,
has not been supported with substantiating data in the record.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p.
6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7)
AHRI, Manitowoc, Lennox, and Rheem supported the inclusion of ``no
less than one hour'' in the proposed ``outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system'' definition. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7; Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2)
Finally, Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also requested that the term
``packaged dedicated systems'' be removed from both the proposed
definition and the test procedure. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem,
No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7)
[[Page 95765]]
As addressed in section III.A.1.b, DOE considers the renamed
``single-package dedicated systems'' to be part of the dedicated
condensing refrigeration system class, and does not agree with these
commenters' suggestion to remove this category of equipment from the
``outdoor'' definition, since such units can be designed for outdoor
use. Other than the name change for this equipment, which was discussed
earlier in section III.A.1.b, the ``outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system'' definition adopted in this final rule retains
this term.
NCC commented that some condensing units could be used with both
outdoor and indoor applications. (NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 26) Rheem commented that, because the outdoor requirements are
more demanding, units that have passed outdoor certification testing
should be able to apply for indoor certification without retesting.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 27) Heat Controller
noted that often in the field a unit that is marketed and sold as an
indoor unit will be fitted with an aftermarket weather covering and
installed in an outdoor environment by a contractor. Heat Controller
also commented that the manufacturer typically provides performance
characteristics for its units at a range of ambient temperatures and
installers will use these data to verify the unit's performance in an
outdoor environment. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at pp. 28-30) Rheem expressed concern about how DOE would enforce
the regulation in this scenario, where a unit labeled and certified for
indoor use is installed in an outdoor environment. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 30-31)
ASAP and NEEA noted that outdoor units have certain design options
(e.g., floating head pressure control, variable-speed condenser fans,
ambient sub-cooling) that allow them to perform more efficiently in
outdoor environments. They argued that a test procedure that would
permit a ``loophole'' allowing units designed and tested for indoor
conditions to be used for outdoor applications would result in lost
energy savings. ASAP and NEEA advocated creating a definition that
prevents these ``loopholes''. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)
Hussmann noted that, given that some condensing units already in
the market are sold for outdoor applications without an enclosure, the
term ``encased'' should be removed from the proposed ``outdoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration system'' definition. (Hussmann, No.
20 at p. 2) However, in light of the comments discussed above
indicating that indoor units are often installed in outdoor
applications, it is not clear whether this comment suggests that units
designed for outdoor use do not have enclosures or whether it is
confirming that indoor units are installed outdoors.
The CA IOUs commented that indoor units should be labeled for
``indoor use only'' to help contractors, building inspectors, and
building owners verify that the equipment complies with standards. The
CA IOUs also explained that since indoor units have less stringent AWEF
requirements and are not designed to adjust to the wide fluctuations in
outdoor temperature, they are generally less costly to purchase. They
speculated that this price difference could lead to increased energy
consumption, incentivizing customers to buy less efficient, more
affordable indoor units for outdoor applications. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at
p. 4) ASAP and NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider whether labeling
requirements and/or marketing restrictions could help prevent equipment
certified for indoor use from being used in outdoor applications. (ASAP
and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)
DOE notes that the industry comments recommended changing the
definition to more closely adhere to the wording provided in the Term
Sheet, particularly, ``maintaining box conditions'' with respect to the
interior of the walk-in enclosure. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 6-7; Lennox, No. 13 at
p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2) However, the commenters were unable to
offer any clarity in applying the phrase ``maintaining box
temperature''--a central concern raised in DOE's request for comments.
DOE's proposed definition attempted to provide a measurable criterion
to clarify what maintaining box conditions entails. Specifically, DOE
recognized that during a WICF refrigeration system test, the test room
conditioning system would maintain the box conditions if the unit under
test did not. 81 FR at 54931. DOE considered what it would mean for a
refrigeration system to be maintaining box conditions if it is
refrigerating a walk-in under the specified ambient temperature (35
[deg]F), and concluded that the ability to maintain box conditions
would depend on the load on the refrigeration system. If the thermal
load exceeds the capacity of the unit, the unit will not maintain box
conditions. DOE considered that the test procedure temperatures and
specified loads in AHRI 1250-2009 might be a reasonable reference
regarding the typical box thermal load. DOE notes that AHRI developed
the industry test procedure, AHRI 1250, in 2009, with input from a
working group consisting of industry and other stakeholders. Among
other elements of the test procedure, the box load equations were
developed through working group consensus and based on a comprehensive
load analysis incorporating all key elements of the expected heat load.
In developing the equations, that working group assumed a load of 70%
of the capacity at 95 [deg]F for coolers, and 80% of the capacity at 95
[deg]F for freezers based on industry input. DOE used the box load
equations in AHRI 1250-2009 (Equation 3 for medium-temperature and
Equation 7 for low-temperature) in developing the proposed outdoor unit
definition. DOE notes that commenters asserted that DOE provided no
data, but the commenters did not dispute the suggestion that AHRI 1250-
2009 might provide a reasonable indication of box loads, nor did they
provide any alternative suggestion regarding what the box load might be
at 35 [deg]F. Hence, DOE believes that its proposed approach is
appropriate to clarify the meaning of maintaining the box temperature
and does not require additional data to substantiate it.
In response to Rheem's observation that the box load and the
condensing unit capacities are not the same, DOE agrees. DOE considered
that the box load equations specified in the industry standard AHRI
1250-2009 test procedure, which are the basis of the AWEF efficiency
metric, would be a good representation of the relationship between the
box load and the net capacity (in 95 [deg]F test conditions) of a
properly-sized condensing unit. DOE calculated the box load for a walk-
in located in 35 [deg]F ambient outdoor temperature conditions by using
these equations specified in AHRI 1250-2009. For both medium-
temperature and low-temperature units, the calculated box load is
approximately 65% of the net capacity measured in 95 ;[deg]F
conditions. As mentioned above, in order to ``maintain box
conditions'', the capacity must be equal to the box load--hence, DOE
proposed that maintaining the box load in 35 [deg]F ambient conditions
is equivalent to having a capacity in this ambient temperature that is
65% of the capacity in 95 [deg]F conditions. Hence, DOE believes that
the proposed definition is equivalent to both the Term Sheet
recommendation and addressed comments that the definition for indoor/
outdoor dedicated condensing unit
[[Page 95766]]
should include language to ``maintain box conditions.''
However, given the comments provided on the proposed definition,
DOE is concerned that the definition (as proposed) would not be
sufficient to clearly distinguish outdoor units from indoor units. DOE
agrees that unit capacity at 35 [deg]F may exceed the capacity at 95
[deg]F. However, if this is true for an indoor unit, the indoor unit
would be able to maintain box conditions in a 35 [deg]F ambient
temperature, and in this case, the ability to ``maintain box
conditions'' would not distinguish outdoor units from indoor units--
which would undercut its value as a means of distinguishing outdoor
condensing unit from an indoor unit. Regarding Hussmann's comment
regarding enclosures, DOE is not certain whether it meant that true
outdoor units are sometimes sold without enclosures. DOE's research has
not identified any condensing units marketed for outdoor use that do
not have enclosures, but agrees that it is possible for a system
without an enclosure to be marketed for outdoor use. In recognition of
this possibility, DOE's finalized definition does not include this
requirement.
Given all of these considerations, DOE is unconvinced that the
proposed definition, or the alternatives recommended by commenters,
would be sufficient to clearly distinguish outdoor units from indoor
units. Thus, DOE is taking a third approach in this final rule,
allowing the designation of indoor or outdoor to be provided by the
manufacturer. However, in order to help ensure that dedicated
condensing systems are installed and used appropriately, DOE is
adopting the CA IOUs recommendation and will require that dedicated
condensing units not designated for outdoor use will be labeled
``indoor use only''. While DOE does not believe, as suggested by the CA
IOUs, that the indoor system standard is less stringent than the
outdoor system standard (see further discussion regarding this issue
below), DOE does have concerns that refrigeration systems that are not
designed for outdoor use may not operate properly when installed
outdoors, and thus use more energy.
The ``indoor use only'' label will help prevent the use of indoor
units in outdoor applications, for which they are not suited. Further,
DOE will allow a manufacturer to designate a unit for both outdoor and
indoor use, thus acknowledging that condensing units suitable for
outdoor units may be acceptable for use in indoor applications, as
indicated by Rheem. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 27)
Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the definition of an outdoor
dedicated condensing refrigeration system as a dedicated condensing
refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for outdoor use and
is also finalizing the definition of an indoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system as a dedicated condensing refrigeration system
designated by the manufacturer for indoor use or for which there is no
designation regarding the use location.
DOE notes that ``designated'' in these definitions means any form
of representation that the system may be used in the given location--
this includes representations made in brochures, online product
information, technical bulletins, installation instructions, labels,
and other related materials. DOE notes that a dedicated condensing
refrigeration system may be both an outdoor system and an indoor system
according to the DOE definitions--but system cannot avoid
classification by having no designation.
Regarding Rheem's comment that any outdoor dedicated condensing
unit should also be allowed to be certified as an indoor dedicated
condensing unit without additional testing, DOE believes that outdoor
systems should be allowed to be sold as indoor systems if they comply
with both the indoor and outdoor standards. A manufacturer choosing
this approach would need to certify the system both as an indoor and as
an outdoor system. It would also need to test that system at different
requisite conditions related to outdoor and indoor use in accordance
with the applicable test procedure provisions--specifically, tests for
an outdoor unit are conducted at 95 [deg]F, 59 [deg]F, and 35 [deg]F
outdoor temperatures, while the active mode (i.e., while the compressor
is operating) test for an indoor unit is conducted in a 90 [deg]F
environment. (See, e.g., Table 3 of AHRI-1250-2009 for test conditions
for indoor matched-pair dedicated condensing medium-temperature units
and Table 4 for outdoor indoor matched-pair dedicated condensing
medium-temperature units.) DOE notes that the higher AWEF level and the
typically more complicated design of outdoor units (i.e., they are
designed with provisions to maintain elevated condensing temperature
for operating in cooler outdoor temperatures) do not necessarily mean
that the outdoor standard is more stringent. The outdoor AWEF is higher
in part because it is calculated on the basis of many hours of
operation in cool outdoor ambient temperatures. Consequently, this fact
indicates that a given basic model's compliance with an outdoor
dedicated condensing system standard level does not imply compliance
with the corresponding indoor standard--thereby undercutting Rheem's
implied contention that a compliant outdoor system would always comply
with the applicable indoor standard when tested using the indoor test.
Generally, equipment meeting the definition of multiple equipment
classes when operated would have to be tested and certified as each of
these equipment classes to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards. Hence, in the case of outdoor dedicated
condensing units that also meet the indoor definition (because they are
also designated for indoor use), to ensure that no potential loopholes
exist with outdoor units, compliance with both the outdoor and indoor
standard must be adequately demonstrated by testing in accordance with
the applicable test procedure (and sampling plan) or by applying an
AEDM that meets DOE's regulatory requirements.
e. Unit Cooler
In addition to dedicated condensing systems, the definition of
``refrigeration system'' in 10 CFR 431.302 also includes unit coolers
connected to a multiplex condensing system. DOE previously referred to
this class of equipment as ``multiplex condensing,'' abbreviated as
``MC.'' DOE proposed to drop the term ``multiplex condensing'' and
rename this class of equipment as ``unit coolers'' (i.e., ``UC''), in
order to align the term with this equipment's actual use. DOE also
proposed to define unit coolers as ``an assembly, including the means
for forced air circulation and elements by which heat is transferred
from air to refrigerant without any element external to the cooler
imposing air resistance.'' 81 FR at 54954. This definition
intentionally omits the term ``factory-made'' to avoid suggesting that
an assembly that is assembled from its subcomponents after shipment
from the factory is not a unit cooler (and thus not covered by DOE's
regulations).
Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and NEEA supported the proposed
definition. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 7; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 33; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; ASAP
and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 1) Hussmann commented that the proposed
definition could be applied to a condenser, if, the phrase
``transferred from air to refrigerant'' is interpreted as potentially
referring to either heating or cooling the air. (Hussmann, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 32-33)
[[Page 95767]]
In response to Hussmann's concern, DOE is modifying its proposal by
adding ``thus cooling the air'' to the definition of unit cooler to
clarify the direction of heat transfer. DOE believes this clarification
will exclude condenser applications from the definition, since they
heat rather than cool the air that passes through them. Accordingly,
the definition for unit cooler refers to ``an assembly, including means
for forced air circulation and elements by which heat is transferred
from air to refrigerant, thus cooling the air, without any element
external to the cooler imposing air resistance.''
f. Refrigeration System
DOE proposed defining a ``refrigeration system'' as ``the mechanism
(including all controls and other components integral to the system's
operation) used to create the refrigerated environment in the interior
of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting of: (1) A dedicated
condensing refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302); or (2)
A unit cooler.'' 81 FR at 54932.
Rheem, Manitowoc, and KeepRite commented that the use of ``or''
between proposed clauses (1) and (2) in the definition would imply that
a unit cooler would be considered a full refrigeration system, while,
in reality, a unit cooler must be matched with a condensing unit to
function as a full refrigeration system. Manitowoc and KeepRite
recommended replacing ``or'' with ``and'' in the proposed definition.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 34-35; Manitowoc, No.
10 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
DOE initially defined ``refrigeration system'' to set out the scope
of coverage of this equipment in the April 2011 test procedure final
rule for walk-ins. 76 FR at 21596-21597. However, DOE's test procedure
for walk-in refrigeration systems has since been adjusted to permit
manufacturers to certify compliance on a component basis, i.e.,
manufacturers may separately certify their condensing units and unit
coolers, if their equipment is distributed in commerce on this basis.
The ``refrigeration system'' definition was never intended to be a
technical term that implied that the defined item included a complete
refrigeration circuit, including the compressor, condenser, expansion
device, and evaporator.
DOE notes that if the ``or'' is replaced by ``and'' as suggested in
the written comments, the scope of coverage would be reduced to only
pairs including a dedicated condensing system combined with a unit
cooler. However, as mentioned earlier in this discussion, by defining
this term, DOE seeks to clearly set out the scope of regulatory
coverage for this equipment, which could extend to an individual unit
cooler or an individual condensing unit. Therefore, consistent with
this approach, DOE is adopting the proposed definition in this rule.
g. Adaptive Defrost
Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE proposed to define ``adaptive
defrost'' as a defrost control system that reduces defrost frequency by
initiating defrosts or adjusting the number of defrosts per day in
response to operating conditions (e.g., moisture levels in the
refrigerated space, measurements that represent coil frost load) rather
than initiating defrost strictly based on compressor run time or clock
time. See 81 FR at 54932-54934.
KeepRite and Rheem supported the proposed definition. (KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 7; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3) Lennox agreed with DOE's
proposed definition but noted that the proposed definition does not
specifically indicate the unit construction (e.g., presence of a
defrost control) that must be in place to receive the credit. As a
result, Lennox expressed concern that the credit may be applied to
units that are not able to achieve the represented efficiency level and
whose unit rating cannot be verified because adaptive defrost
construction is not physically installed on the unit. Therefore, Lennox
recommended revising the language of the adaptive defrost definition to
indicate that representation of energy use improvements associated with
adaptive defrost can only be applied to equipment that has adaptive
defrost already included with the unit from the factory. (Lennox, No.
13 at p. 7)
As DOE noted in the August 2016 NOPR, this proposed definition is
consistent with the Working Group's agreement that manufacturers should
rate their systems for compliance purposes without the adaptive defrost
credit, but that the test procedure would continue to retain its
current method for calculating the benefit of adaptive defrost to
permit manufacturers to make representations of system efficiency with
this feature included. As indicated in the NOPR, the Working Group
discussed this topic extensively. (See, e.g., manufacturer discussion
expressing concerns that DOE had not adequately defined adaptive
defrost and that the test procedure could permit a manufacturer to
claim the energy efficiency credit for systems with this feature even
if those systems may not necessarily yield the efficiency performance
improvement consistent with the credit provided by the test procedure--
Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript
(September 11, 2015), No. 61 at p. 87; Lennox and Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 138-144.) After settling
on the certification approach for adaptive defrost, the Working Group
agreed on a definition of adaptive defrost without resolving the
question of how DOE would verify that a unit cooler or condensing unit
has adaptive defrost capability. 81 FR at 54933. DOE agrees with
Lennox's assertion that representation of energy use improvement
associated with adaptive defrost should be allowed only for units that
actually have the technology installed on the unit. The requirement
that the manufacturer certify to DOE the improved AWEF of such an
adaptive defrost model suggests that these models are manufactured with
adaptive defrost controls and are shipped from the factory with such
controls already installed, rather than being an option installed after
shipping. For this reason, DOE is including the phrase ``factory-
installed'' in the definition to help ensure that those models with
improved AWEF representations all have adaptive defrost technology
installed. Thus, DOE is modifying the definition consistent with this
approach by defining adaptive defrost as referring to a factory-
installed defrost control system that reduces defrost frequency by
initiating defrosts or adjusting the number of defrosts per day in
response to operating conditions rather than initiating defrost
strictly based on compressor run time or clock time.
h. Process Cooling
Background
EPCA defines a walk-in as ``an enclosed storage space,'' that can
be walked into, which has a total area of less than 3,000 square feet,
but does not include products designed and marketed exclusively for
medical, scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) The use
of the term ``storage space'' in the definition raises questions about
which refrigerated spaces would qualify as a ``storage space'' and
thereby comprise equipment subject to the walk-in standards. DOE has
discussed the scope of this definition throughout its rulemakings to
develop test procedures and energy conservation standards for walk-
ins--most recently, the August 2016 NOPR addressed whether the scope
extends to process cooling equipment such as blast chillers and blast
freezers that can be walked into. 81 FR at 54934-54936.
[[Page 95768]]
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE described the background leading to
the proposal of a definition for walk-in process cooling refrigeration
equipment. 81 FR at 54934. As described in that document, interested
parties requested that DOE clarify the applicability of standards to
this equipment as part of the initial standards rulemaking that DOE
conducted for developing walk-in performance-based standards. The
discussions in that prior rulemaking led DOE to conclude in the June
2014 final rule that equipment used solely for process cooling would
not be required to meet the walk-in standards, but that products used
for ``both process and storage'' applications could not categorically
be excluded from coverage. 79 FR at 32068. The August 2016 NOPR noted
also the October 2014 meeting to clarify aspects of the test procedure,
during which DOE again stated that blast chillers and blast freezers
did not fall within the scope of the energy conservation standards
established for walk-ins in the June 2014 final rule. However, DOE
acknowledged at the time that it did not have a definition for
``process'' cooling in the context of walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE-2011-
BT-TP-0024, Heatcraft and DOE, Public Meeting Transcript (October 22,
2014), No. 0117 at pp. 23, 61- 63) The question of process cooling
arose again during the Walk-in Working Group meetings, during which
meeting participants asked DOE to add definitions to clarify the
meaning of process cooling (See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016:
Manufacturer-submitted material, No. 6 at p. 2; Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript (August 27, 2015), No. 15 at pp. 96-97; AHRI, Public Meeting
Transcript (December 15, 2015), No. 60 at pp. 141-142; and Term Sheet,
No. 56, Recommendation #7)
The August 2016 NOPR explained that DOE considered process cooling
more carefully in light of the Working Group's request to develop
clarifying definitions and concluded that its initial statements in the
2014 final rule that blast chillers and blast freezers are not walk-ins
were in error. DOE observed that, although the EPCA definition refers
to a walk-in as an ``enclosed storage space'', there is no clarity
regarding the meaning of ``storage'' or the minimum duration for an
item to remain in an enclosure to be considered in ``storage''. Hence,
DOE now believes that these categories of equipment, referred to as
``process cooling equipment'' do fall under the EPCA definition for
walk-ins and are, subject to standards. 81 FR at 54934.
The August 2016 NOPR went on to discuss DOE's proposal for defining
a walk-in process cooling refrigeration system. DOE specifically
developed this proposal, acknowledging the different energy use
characteristics of process cooling refrigeration systems as well as
their different equipment attributes (as compared to other walk-in
refrigeration systems), to exclude such equipment from being subject to
walk-in refrigeration system performance standards. (Because DOE now
regards process cooling systems as ``walk-in coolers or freezers,''
they will be subject to the statutory design requirements.) DOE
proposed defining a ``walk-in process cooling refrigeration system'' as
``a refrigeration system that is used exclusively for cooling food or
other substances from one temperature to another.'' 81 FR at 54936. The
proposed definition specified that a process cooling refrigeration
system must either be (1) distributed in commerce with an enclosure
consisting of panels and door(s) such that the assembled product has a
refrigerating capacity of at least 100 Btu/h per cubic foot of enclosed
internal volume or (2) a unit cooler having an evaporator coil that is
at least four-and-one-half (4.5) feet in height and whose height is at
least one-and-one-half (1.5) times the width. This proposed definition
would cover process cooling systems that are distributed in commerce as
part of a complete assembly, process cooling unit coolers that are
distributed separately from the enclosure, and refrigeration systems--
including unit coolers meeting the process cooling definition. 81 FR at
54954.
DOE noted in the NOPR that it proposed to consider process cooling
refrigerated insulated enclosures to be walk-ins that are subject to
the prescriptive statutory requirements for walk-ins. DOE also notes
that its discussion and proposals focused on process cooling
refrigeration systems rather than the panels and doors that make up the
insulated enclosure. Hence, DOE intended the exclusions associated with
the proposals to apply only to refrigeration systems that meet the
process cooling definition, and that the exclusions would be associated
with walk-in refrigeration system performance standards. Id. at 54934-
54936. DOE also provided a table in the public meeting presentation to
clarify its interpretation of the applicability of walk-in standards to
different components of process cooling equipment. (Public Meeting
Presentation, No. 3 at p. 30) This table indicated that the proposed
exclusion for process cooling refrigeration systems would apply to,
among other things, dedicated condensing units that are exclusively
distributed in commerce with unit coolers meeting the unit cooler
portion of the process cooling definition. DOE notes that this
exclusion was not explicit in the proposed definition and is clarifying
it to explicitly include such dedicated condensing units in the
definition.
Importance of Coverage for Process Cooling Equipment
DOE explained in the August 2016 NOPR the reasons it believed that
walk-in process cooling equipment should be considered to be covered
under the walk-in definition. See 81 FR 54934-54936. DOE discusses
comments responding to this position, and DOE's responses to them. DOE
ultimately concludes that this equipment should be covered as walk-in
equipment. In DOE's view, covering this equipment as a class of walk-in
is important in furthering DOE's goals for reducing and limiting energy
use because this equipment represents a growing sector of the
refrigeration industry. Process cooling equipment emerged on the market
relatively recently in 1990 to serve a range of food sales and service
applications. (Master-Bilt Blast Chillers, No. 25 at pp. 2, 3, 10) The
global blast chiller market is expected to grow by an estimated 4.62%
per year from 2016-2020 and North America is expected to remain a
dominant portion of this market.\5\ This growth is the expected result
of increased demand in the food service industry (e.g., restaurants,
bakeries, catering) and meat processing industry and growth in the
frozen food market.\6\ Hence, DOE believes that there will be a robust
market for process cooling equipment to serve this growing market need,
and that there is a large potential growth in energy use associated
with this market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Infinity Research Limited (Technavio), Global Commercial
Blast Chillers Market 2016-2020; Published November 2016; Accessed
November 2016 at www.technavio.com/report/global-miscellaneous-global-commercial-blast-chillers-market-2016-2020.
\6\ Hexa Research, Frozen Food Market Analysis By Product (Ready
Meals, Meat, Seafood, Fruits & Vegetables, Potatoes, Soup) And
Segment Forecasts To 2020; Published November 2014; Accessed
November 2016 at www.hexaresearch.com/research-report/frozen-food-industry/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Cooling Equipment Status as Walk-In Equipment
Many commenters argued that process cooling equipment does not fall
under the walk-in definition. Several of these comments argued that
food is not ``stored'' in this equipment and/or the temperature within
it is not ``held'' at a given temperature for storage purposes.
[[Page 95769]]
AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem, and Hussmann stated that process
refrigeration systems are not used for storage and therefore do not
satisfy the statutory definition for a walk-in as an ``enclosed storage
space.'' (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4)
Similarly, Zero Zone argued that the purpose of process refrigeration
systems conflicts with the dictionary definition of ``storage.'' (Zero
Zone, No. 15 at p. 1) American Panel also explained that product could
be dehydrated and damaged if left in the process cooling equipment for
an extended period of time. In its view, this fact should disqualify
process cooling equipment from being considered as storage space--one
of the key elements of the walk-in definition. (American Panel, No. 7
at p. 1) AHRI added that the Term Sheet included the recommendation
that DOE define process cooling for the purpose of clarifying that
process cooling equipment are not included in the scope of WICFs.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5)
EPCA defines ``walk-in cooler'' and ``walk-in freezer'' as an
enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively,
above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into,
and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) While EPCA does not define the component terms
``storage'' or ``can be walked into'' used in the walk-in definition,
it does expressly exclude certain equipment from the definition (i.e.
equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or
research purposes). (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))
Commenters appear to be arguing that a unit must hold contents for
some minimum time-period to meet the ``storage'' element of the
definition but offered no suggested time period for DOE to consider in
applying this definition. The statutory definition of ``walk-in cooler
and walk-in freezer'' does not indicate a specific timing requirement
or provide further information about when the use of a space
constitutes storage. Further, although dictionary definitions of
``storage'' indicate that the contents be kept for some period of time,
no specific period is provided.\7\ As noted in the NOPR, the Working
Group recommended that DOE define ``storage space''--which suggests
that the term is ambiguous. 81 FR at 54934. DOE acknowledges that the
role of a process cooler or freezer is to chill food rapidly (to
approach the temperature of the cooler or freezer, respectively), and
one could interpret ``storage space'' to mean a space the primary
purpose of which is storage. However, that understanding of ``storage
space'' would be incongruous in the context of walk-in coolers and
freezers. The purpose of such equipment is not simply storage per se,
like a warehouse; it is storage at cold temperatures. Storage at cold
temperatures necessarily encompasses chilling the items to be stored
until they reach the temperature of the storage space, because items
are rarely at exactly the storage temperature when they arrive to a
walk-in cooler or freezer. A process cooler or freezer chills items
more quickly than many walk-ins, but DOE regards that difference as
being a difference in degree, not a fundamental difference in kind that
makes a process cooler ``chilling'' equipment and not ``storage''
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Storage: 1. the act of storing; state or fact of being
stored. 2. capacity or space for storing. 3. a place, as a room or
building, for storing. 4. Computers. memory (def 11). 5. the price
charged for storing goods.'' en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/storage. ``Storage: 1a: space or a place for storing b: an amount
stored c: memory; 2a: the act of storing: the state of being stored;
especially: the safekeeping of goods in a depository (as a
warehouse) b: the price charged for keeping goods in a storehouse.''
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Recommendation #7 from WICF Term Sheet (which
contains the only mention of process cooling in the Term Sheet)
recommended that DOE add ``WICF specific definitions for process
cooling, preparation room refrigeration, and storage space.'' (Docket
EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3) This recommendation
does not state that these categories of equipment are excluded from the
scope of WICFs. In fact, a comment received in response to the initial
2013 notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation standards
stated that process cooling equipment would appear to fall within the
walk-in definition. (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015, Hussmann, No. 93
at pp. 2, 8-9) In re-examining that comment, along with other
information and materials since the publication of the June 2014 rule,
DOE has reconsidered its prior views on process cooling equipment.
As noted in the NOPR, contents are placed in process cooling
equipment for at least a brief period of time to reduce their
temperature. 81 FR at 54934. When asked during the public meeting how
long the products remain in a process cooling system when they are
being cooled, American Panel noted that, although the Food and Drug
Administration and NSF International issue recommended maximum
processing times, there is no industry-specified minimum or maximum
processing duration for blast chillers or blast freezers. (American
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 48) DOE notes that the
2013 FDA Food Code requires that food starting at 135 [deg]F be cooled
to 70 [deg]F within 2 hours and to 41 [deg]F within 6 hours (FDA 2013
Food Code, Chapter 3, Section 501.14(A)), while NSF requires that rapid
pulldown refrigerators and freezers be able to reduce food temperature
from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F in 4-hours. (NSF/ANSI 7-2009, section
10.5.1) These time periods differ significantly and are substantially
longer than the 90-minute pulldown times discussed in the June 2014
final rule. (79 FR at 32068). This observation underscores American
Panel's statement that there is no standard maximum processing time.
Also, while DOE recognizes that product may remain in process cooling
equipment for a short period of time, this fact alone does not
necessarily clarify that the equipment cannot be considered to have a
storage function. The period of time a product can be held in a cooler
or freezer without sustaining some damage can be expected to vary
product by product, depending on a variety of factors including,
whether the product is chilled or frozen, its packaging when inserted
into the equipment (e.g., what type and size container it is in,
whether or not it is covered, etc.), moisture content, size of the
individual food pieces, and other factors. Commenters did not provide
any indication of how long food products can remain in process cooling
equipment after completion of cooldown before they must be removed to
avoid damage--hence, making it difficult to draw clear distinctions
between residence time in this equipment and lengths of time that would
be associated with ``storage.''
Absent a definitive time-period to delineate the use of space as
storage space, DOE considered the design and operation of process
cooling equipment with other equipment falling within the WICF
definition. DOE considers that design and operation are reflective of
the function of equipment (i.e. whether it constitutes storage space)
because these two elements are necessary components in determining the
function or purpose of a given type of equipment.
Manitowoc and AHRI argued that the panels and doors used by process
cooling systems are not the same as those used in other WICF systems
and therefore the WICF prescriptive requirements should not apply.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; AHRI, No.
[[Page 95770]]
11 at p. 5) Manitowoc and AHRI did not clarify how the panels and doors
are different, and provided no indication that process coolers needed
specific utility features that would justify the use of different
efficiency levels or be the basis for relief from the performance
requirements that are already in place. DOE notes that this discussion
of panels and doors did not provide any clarity as to whether process
cooling equipment provides any storage function.
In the context of blast chillers, American Panel noted that while
the panels and doors for this equipment were similar to those used in
other walk-ins, the refrigeration systems used in blast chillers are
designed and used very differently from walk-ins--a fact that, in its
view, necessitated that these (and similar process cooling equipment)
be treated separately from walk-ins. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1)
American Panel did not clarify how the refrigeration systems are
designed differently, in spite of DOE's request for data or information
on the qualities, characteristics, or features specific to the
refrigeration system that would cause a process refrigeration system to
be unable to meet a walk-in refrigeration system standard. See 81 FR at
54950.
American Panel, however, asserted that blast chillers and shock
freezers differ from walk-ins in that they have an on/off switch, they
do not reach a stable condition until the pulldown cycle ends, either
automatically or manually, and they rely on the user to stop and
restart the cycle. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) In its view, all of
these features differed from the operation of walk-ins, which typically
operate continuously and independent of user action, being connected to
power at all times. DOE notes that this description of refrigeration
equipment operation also applies to other walk-in systems. The walk-in
refrigeration system is sized so that its capacity is greater than the
walk-in box load. Equation 1, for example, in AHRI 1250-2009, indicates
that the box load for a walk-in is 70 percent of the net refrigeration
system capacity at the design temperature for conditions outside the
box. Hence, a walk-in refrigeration system does not achieve steady
state operation--it relies on a thermostat to shut the system off at
the desired internal temperature (e.g., 35 [deg]F for a walk-in cooler)
as the refrigeration system is pulling down temperature to what would
be a lower steady-state temperature. As American Panel indicated, a
process cooling system does not reach stable operation until the
pulldown cycle has ended and an automatic control may end the cycle to
transition the system from the pulldown cycle into stable operation.
This ending of the pulldown with an automatic control is the same as a
walk-in system's pulldown cycle ending by a thermostat. Hence, in DOE's
view, American Panel's observations do not provide a clear distinction
between process cooling and other walk-in equipment since the
fundamental operational characteristics remain the same.
American Panel also contended that, because a blast chiller's
operation changes continuously and the equipment exhibits no stable
operating condition, it cannot be tested to a rated AWEF and a test
procedure cannot be applied. (American Panel, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 46-47, 56, 78) American Panel added that, if
the test procedure were to be updated to include blast chiller
performance testing, the food industry would support using NSF's
testing methods for rapid pulldown refrigeration as a starting point.
(American Panel, No. 07 at p. 2) DOE notes first that a performance-
based test procedure requiring steady state operation is not necessary
for process cooling refrigeration systems, because equipment meeting
the definition is excluded from the walk-in refrigeration system
performance standards,\8\ and, hence, a method for measuring AWEF for
such equipment is not needed. However, DOE notes also that a blast
chiller refrigeration system appears to have no steady operating
condition because its capacity is so much larger per insulated box
internal volume than for other walk-ins. Once the products have been
pulled down to the specified temperature, the walls of the box do not
transmit sufficient load to prevent the internal box temperature from
dropping further--i.e. the box does not absorb enough heat to prevent
its interior from becoming colder. If the same refrigeration system
were serving a much larger box, the internal temperature may very well
stabilize to a steady-state operating temperature. Conducting a test to
determine the system's AWEF would require testing the equipment with a
test chamber whose indoor-room conditioning system has enough heating
capacity to balance the refrigeration system's cooling capacity. Hence,
the difference between a process cooling refrigeration system and other
walk-in refrigeration systems is a function of the magnitude of
capacity, rather than any fundamental difference in the operation of
the equipment. While the magnitude of capacity is relevant to how
quickly a unit lowers the temperature of its contents, and may be
instructive as to the duration of storage, it does not inform the
fundamental consideration of whether a unit provides any storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ DOE notes that this exclusion does not apply to condensing
units distributed in commerce individually, because, as discussed
elsewhere in this section, they are indistinguishable from other
walk-in refrigeration systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process cooling equipment such as blast chillers and blast
freezers, despite any asserted differences, have several
characteristics in common with more conventional walk-ins that make
them capable of serving the function of refrigerated product storage.
These characteristics include having an insulated enclosure made of
insulated panels and a door (or doors) sufficiently large that the
enclosure can be walked into, and being cooled with a refrigeration
system consisting of a dedicated condensing unit and a refrigerant
evaporator that operates using forced convection heat transfer (i.e.,
enhanced by air movement created by a fan). The panels and doors are
fabricated with a sheet metal exterior shell around insulation that
serves as a thermal barrier. The panels and/or door also may also have
a multi-pane window to allow viewing of the interior of the enclosure
from the outside. The doors have hinges or another mechanism to allow
opening for access to the enclosure interior, with a latching mechanism
to ensure positive closure when shut. The refrigeration system can
operate to cool the enclosure to refrigerated temperatures. Product can
be placed in the refrigerated enclosure. If the product is not already
at the temperature of the internal refrigerated space, the product's
temperature will drop, approaching the temperature of the interior, due
to transfer of heat to the air within the enclosure; otherwise the
product temperature remains at the average internal temperature until
removed from the enclosure. As discussed above, while some of the
details of the design of such systems differ from other walk-ins, these
equipment generally resemble all walk-ins and are capable of serving
the function of refrigerated product storage.
AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem also asserted that process cooling
equipment is inconsistent with the term ``walk-in'' because a person
cannot walk into a process cooling enclosure during operation. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3)
However, DOE notes that the walk-in definition does not specify when
the equipment can be walked into--it simply states that the equipment
must be one ``that can be walked into.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A))
In interpreting the ``walk-in cooler and freezer'' definition, DOE
also
[[Page 95771]]
considered the terms in the context of EPCA's WICF provisions as a
whole. EPCA establishes a number of prescriptive requirements for
WICFs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) While not dispositive, none of the
prescriptive requirements conflicts with including process cooling
equipment as a class of walk-in. Additionally, Congress has already
spoken to the groups of equipment that are excluded from the walk-in
definition by listing specific equipment (i.e. ones designed and
marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes)
that would be walk-ins. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B)) Process cooling
equipment is not part of this listing, which suggests that Congress did
not contemplate that this equipment would be excluded from being
treated as a class of walk-in equipment.
In consideration of these factors, DOE has determined that process
cooling equipment falls within the EPCA definition of ``walk-in
cooler'' and ``walk-in freezer.'' While products may not be able to be
stored in process cooling equipment on a long-term basis, products are
still stored in process cooling equipment at least for the duration
they are cooled. If Congress had intended to limit the application of
the walk-in definition to include only long-term storage, it could have
done so when crafting the final language of the statute. Congress, in
fact, did not limit what comprises storage space. Moreover, when
comparing the design and function of process cooling equipment with
other WICFs, DOE was unable to determine a distinction with regard to
storage.
AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem, and Hussmann argued that
including process cooling equipment in the definitions of walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer would be inconsistent with DOE's proposed
definition for refrigerated storage space, ``as space held at
refrigerated temperatures'' since process cooling equipment does not
hold a specific temperature but changes the temperature of the
contents. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) DOE
notes that comments submitted by Bally describe process cooling
equipment as operating at ``cold temperatures (min. of 5 [deg]F)'' and
having ``doors [that] must stay condensate free while the air
temperature is at 5 [deg]F.'' (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) These
descriptions suggest control of temperature within the blast chiller is
held at the minimum 5 [deg]F--in other words, the interior is held at a
temperature near 5 [deg]F. This fact suggests that process cooling
equipment can (and do) hold temperatures, contrary to the comments.
Nevertheless, DOE notes that the proposed definition for refrigerated
storage space as ``space held at refrigerated temperatures'' does not
require that the temperature be held at a discrete constant value--
instead, it only requires that the space is held at a temperature
consistent with ``refrigerated,'' i.e., ``held at a temperature at or
below 55 [deg]F''. The spaces within blast chillers and freezers are
held below 55 [deg]F and, thus are consistent with the definition of
``refrigerated storage space.''
NAFEM also weighed in on this issue generally, arguing that blast
chillers should not be considered within the scope of the walk-in
definition because there is no appropriate test procedure for blast
chillers. (NAFEM, No. 14 at p. 1) However, EPCA's walk-in definition
does not stipulate that its scope extends only to equipment for which
there is a test procedure. In fact, EPCA mandated prescriptive
standards for walk-ins that took effect (on January 1, 2009, see 42
U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) before DOE finalized a test procedure on April 15,
2011 for measuring a given unit's energy efficiency. 76 FR 21580.
Similarly, in response to American Panel's comment that a process
cooling refrigeration system is not a walk-in because it cannot be
rated with an AWEF, satisfaction of the separate statutory prescriptive
requirements specified in the statute (e.g. use of certain componentry,
satisfaction of certain thermal insulation thresholds for doors and
panels, and installation of devices to minimize infiltration) have no
direct bearing on the AWEF value of a given refrigeration system.
Hence, the question of whether a given walk-in refrigeration system can
be rated with this metric has no bearing on whether the equipment is a
walk-in.
Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also noted that an ASHRAE Special
Project Committee (``SPC'') has been formed to draft a relevant testing
standard titled, ``Method of Testing for (Rating) Small Commercial
Blast Chillers, Chiller/Freezers, and Freezers.'' They argued that in
light of this work, it is premature to define process cooling systems
while this new industry standard is still under development.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 11 at p.
5) DOE notes that the WICF Working Group, which included Manitowoc and
Rheem, requested that DOE develop a definition for process cooling.
Before the finalization of the WICF Term Sheet on December 15, 2015,
DOE was not aware of any announcement from ASHRAE SPC regarding the
start of its work. Nevertheless, the SPC has not finished its work, and
the commenters did not provide any indication of what equipment
definitions the SPC is considering. Accordingly, DOE has finalized its
definition in the manner proposed, based on the industry input
provided. DOE may consider revising its ``process cooling'' definition
if necessary once the ASHRAE rating method for blast chillers, chiller/
freezers, and freezers is complete.
Finally, DOE notes that the CA IOUs supported treating process
cooling as a subset category of WICF equipment. Further, they supported
requiring process cooling panels, doors, and dedicated condensing units
not sold as part of a ``matched-pair with a unit cooler'' to meet the
2014 final rule WICF standards and the proposed standards under
consideration. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 2)
As described in the NOPR, DOE concluded that while process cooling
enclosures that resemble walk-ins are within the scope of walk-ins, it
proposed to exclude some of the refrigeration systems of these process
cooler walk-ins from the performance-based standards established and in
development for WICF refrigeration systems. 81 FR at 54934-54937. For
the reasons described earlier, DOE has not revised its proposed
approach after review of the comments, and believes that its
definition, as adopted in this rule, satisfies the recommendations of
the Working Group Term Sheet.
Distinguishing Characteristics of Process Cooling Refrigeration Systems
DOE received few comments regarding the distinguishing
characteristics proposed for process cooling refrigeration systems. In
fact, only one of the commenters mentioned any characteristic of the
refrigeration system condensing unit of a process cooling system that
might distinguish it from the equipment serving other walk-ins--Bally
commented that the condensing units are not unique to blast chillers,
except with respect to extra receiver capacity. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1)
However, DOE would not consider a larger receiver to be a sufficient
difference to distinguish these condensing units since using a larger
receiver would not affect steady state energy use as measured by the
test procedure, since the receiver itself does not consume energy and
does not contribute significantly to the heat transfer function of the
condenser. Furthermore, there is a range of refrigerant receiver
capacities used in walk-in refrigeration systems and it is not clear
that there is an appropriate
[[Page 95772]]
receiver capacity threshold that would indicate that a condensing unit
is used for process cooling rather than for other walk-in functions--
neither Bally nor other commenters suggested such a threshold value.
Consequently, DOE would not consider a larger receiver to distinguish
process cooling condensing units. Absent any other clear distinguishing
feature, DOE must conclude that the condensing units used for process
cooling are no different than those used for other walk-ins.
Lennox recommended that the evaporator coil height, width, and
depth be defined on a diagram accompanying the proposed definition to
prevent a misinterpretation of the dimensions. (Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 40) Lennox provided a diagram to illustrate
this in its written comments (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) In reviewing this
diagram, DOE agrees that the dimensions shown in the provided diagram
are consistent with the proposed definition's intent and agrees that a
diagram would be useful to clarify the applicable dimensions.
Accordingly, the final rule incorporates a diagram based on the one
submitted by Lennox to clarify the process cooling definition.
With respect to blast freezers, Bally noted that some of these
equipment use horizontally-oriented evaporator units and some non-
process cooling refrigeration systems chill their contents using a
circular pattern. In its view, because of the absence of any standard
orientation or chilling pattern for process cooling and non-process
cooling refrigeration systems, these design characteristics are not
useful for differentiating process refrigeration systems. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 41-42) DOE notes that a
horizontally-oriented evaporator that is not part of a unit cooler as
defined would not be subject to the unit cooler standards, nor would
it, as a matched pair with a dedicated condensing unit, be subject to
the dedicated condensing unit standards. In order to clarify the
extension of this exclusion to matched pairs including such
evaporators, DOE has modified the process cooling refrigeration system
definition to explicitly list dedicated condensing units that are
distributed in commerce exclusively with evaporators that are not unit
coolers.
Alternatively, Bally suggested that airflow rate may be a good
characteristic for differentiating process refrigeration systems from
other walk-in refrigeration systems. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 44) American Panel expressed concern with the use of a
cooling capacity per enclosed volume rating to differentiate process
cooling equipment because the equipment may be used to process
different quantities or densities of product at different times--a
condition which may prevent a given blast chiller from satisfying a
definition based on cooling capacity per enclosed volume. (American
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 38-39) DOE had
considered airflow rate or air velocity to distinguish process cooling
evaporators, noting that evaporator fan power, velocity, or air flow of
a unit cooler could be atypically high for a number of reasons,
including the use of inefficient fans or motors, long air ``throw''
distance, and other factors. (See 81 FR at 54936) For example, DOE's
investigation of evaporator fan horsepower showed that the horsepower
for process cooling evaporator fans, although generally higher than for
other walk-in evaporators, is not always higher than all such other
walk-in evaporators--a potential overlapping fact that lessens the
value of using horsepower as a clear distinguishing characteristic.
Hence, DOE concluded that there would be too much overlap with other
WICF unit coolers on the basis of these parameters. DOE notes that
Bally's submission did not provide sufficient information or data that
would support the use of a specific air flow rate on which DOE could
rely that would serve as the basis for distinguishing process coolers
from other walk-in refrigeration systems. With respect to American
Panel's concerns, DOE notes that its comments provided no alternative
value of cooling load per volume for DOE to consider that would enable
one to readily distinguish process cooling refrigeration systems from
non-process cooling refrigeration systems. While American Panel seems
to suggest that the capacity of the refrigeration system would depend
on the load inserted into a process cooler, DOE disagrees, because the
capacity cited in the proposed definition is the refrigeration system's
net capacity when determined in a manner consistent with the prescribed
walk-in test conditions--this capacity depends on the refrigeration
system characteristics, not on how much product is being cooled.
Specifically, when testing a condensing unit alone, the test calls for
maintaining certain operating conditions (see, e.g., tables 11 through
14 of AHRI 1250-2009, which specify air and refrigerant entering
conditions and refrigerant exiting subcooling condition, but nothing
about the quantity of product being cooled). No commenters provided
specific suggestions regarding the appropriateness of the proposed 100
Btu/h per cubic foot, i.e., what lower value would be more appropriate.
Additionally, commenters provided no other suggestions regarding more
appropriate distinguishing characteristics to use for process cooling
refrigeration systems, and none provided specific quantified values for
recommended parameters to use in the definition. Hence, DOE is largely
adopting the approach contained in its proposed definition.
However, to address the comments regarding the inconsistency of the
``storage'' aspect of walk-ins with the pulldown of product temperature
in process cooling equipment, DOE will modify the definition to
identify refrigeration systems that are ``capable of rapidly cooling
food or other substances'' rather than systems that are ``used
exclusively'' for this purpose. Also, in order to clarify that the
enclosure that uses these refrigeration systems is insulated, DOE will
insert ``insulated'' before the word ``enclosure'' in the definition.
KPS raised concern regarding the precision of the process cooling
definition, indicating that ``blast chillers'' and ``blast freezers''
are used by customers and manufacturers to describe a range of product
types. (KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) KPS did not, however, elaborate on what
other types of equipment should be addressed (or excluded) by DOE's
proposed definition. DOE is aware, for example, of blast chillers and
freezers that are smaller than walk-ins and that might be considered
``reach-in process cooling equipment,'' i.e., process cooling equipment
which the user reaches into rather than walks into to insert or remove
product. This terminology is consistent with the term ``reach-in'' used
with commercial refrigeration equipment (see, e.g., Reach In
Refrigerator, No. 26) However, DOE is not concerned that such equipment
would be confused with walk-in process cooling equipment, because such
reach-in equipment cannot be walked into.
Other Comments From Manufacturers of Process Cooling Equipment
Bally noted that blast chillers are built in small quantities with
uniquely designed electronically commutated motors (``ECMs'') and
expressed concern with how the proposed regulations would affect the
ECM supply chain. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 42-
43) Bally elaborated in written comments that ECM orders can have up to
15 weeks of lead-time and have to be ordered in small batches. (Bally,
No. 22 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, Bally suggested that the proposed 60-
[[Page 95773]]
day enforcement delay be extended to allow for changes in the
refrigeration equipment industry to meet the new regulations. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 50) Given the 15-week lead-time
indicated in the comment, DOE plans to issue a policy stating that DOE
will exercise its enforcement discretion for 120 days after publication
of the final rule, to allow manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration
systems that are used exclusively in process cooling applications to
comply and to certify compliance with the applicable statutory
standard.
With respect to the proposed definition for process cooling
refrigeration systems, Bally suggested that the definition specify that
the doors used with this equipment be freezer doors. (Bally, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 53) Bally reiterated this comment in
its written submission, indicating that the 5 [deg]F temperature inside
a blast chiller makes it challenging to prevent the formation of
condensation. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) In response, DOE notes that a
walk-in with a 5 [deg]F internal temperature is technically a freezer
(see e.g., the definition for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer, which
states that freezers are refrigerated to temperatures below 32 [deg]F,
42 U.S.C 6311(20)(A)), and hence, the door standards applicable to
freezer doors would apply for such equipment.
Bally also requested that there be no requirement for floor
insulation for process equipment. It noted that tray carts must roll in
and out of the enclosure, which means that they cannot use ramps, and
that building a pit to accommodate the necessary insulation would be
expensive and could pose structural issues. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1)
Consistent with DOE's view, as discussed elsewhere in this discussion,
that the process cooling enclosures discussed by Bally would be
considered to be walk-in freezers, DOE notes that the statutory
prescriptive requirements already require floor insulation of R-28. (42
U.S.C. 6311(f)(1)(D)) Given this requirement, DOE has no discretion
regarding the applicability of the floor insulation requirement, which
is imposed by statute.
i. Preparation Room Refrigeration
DOE proposed defining ``preparation room refrigeration'' as
comprising applications that use ``a unit cooler that is designed for
use in a room occupied by personnel who are preparing food and that is
characterized by low outlet air velocity, evaporator temperature
between 30 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and electric or hot gas
defrost.'' 81 FR at 54937. While DOE proposed to define this type of
refrigeration system for the purpose of enhancing clarity, this
equipment would not be exempt from the applicable standards that were
already prescribed by Congress with respect to walk-ins. DOE requested
comment on any other characteristics of preparation room refrigeration
that would (1) clearly distinguish it from other walk-in refrigeration
systems and (2) otherwise make this equipment unable to meet a given
walk-in refrigeration standard.
Preparation Room Equipment Status as Walk-in Equipment
Commenters addressed whether preparation room equipment falls under
the scope of walk-ins. As mentioned in section III.A.1.h, AHRI noted
that preparation room refrigeration was included in the WICF Term Sheet
in order to exclude this equipment from the scope of walk-ins. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 5) However, as noted in the discussion of that section,
the Term Sheet did not provide any guidance regarding whether
preparation room refrigeration falls within the scope of walk-ins.
(Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3)
AHRI, Lennox, Manitowoc, Hussmann, Rheem, and KeepRite asserted
that preparation rooms fall outside the scope of walk-ins and urged DOE
to exclude them. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 4-5; Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 8-9;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at
p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Commenters provided several reasons why
preparation room equipment should not be considered within the scope of
walk-ins. AHRI stated that ``these systems are not commonly enclosed''
and that they are not for storage. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Other
stakeholders provided variations on the ``not enclosed'' theme,
including, for example, Rheem (``not always an enclosed space''),
Hussmann (``often not enclosed,'' but also discusses the possibility
that they are enclosed, i.e., ``when enclosed, these are rooms where .
. .''), KeepRite and Manitowoc (``not commonly enclosed''), and Lennox
(``are not `enclosed storage spaces'''). (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17
at p. 2; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8)
Regarding the issue of equipment use for food storage, Lennox
commented that preparation rooms are areas where humans occupy the
space to prepare and package food. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) Hussmann
commented that preparation rooms are places where work is being
performed on the product, not places where finalized goods are stored.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) Other commenters, including Manitowoc, AHRI,
KeepRite, and Rheem also stated that preparation rooms are not used for
storage. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3)
Several commenters suggested that DOE consider an alternative
definition: ``An open space or space without a sealed door (as defined
in 10 CFR part 431.302) that separates the interior volume of a unit of
commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment,
designed for use in a room occupied by personnel who are preparing and
packaging food. A preparation room is not designed for storage.''
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Similar definitions of preparation room or
preparation space were suggested by Lennox, Rheem, and Manitowoc.
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at
pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that the WICF Term Sheet recommended that DOE develop a
definition for ``preparation room refrigeration'' to focus on the
refrigeration system, rather than preparation spaces in general.
(Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3) This
approach is reinforced by the agenda for the WICF Working Group
meetings, which included as key issues, (a) proposed energy
conservation standards for six classes of refrigeration systems, and
(b) potential impacts on installers, neither of which addresses
preparation spaces generally. 80 FR at 46523. Hence, DOE's intent in
requesting comment on its definition of preparation room refrigeration
was to solicit information regarding the characteristics of this
equipment that would distinguish it from walk-in refrigeration systems.
Discussion of the proposed characteristics appears below, but DOE notes
that none of the comments received provided information regarding
features that distinguish preparation room refrigeration systems from
walk-in refrigeration systems. The emphasis of the commenters on the
lack of an enclosure or the use of preparation room space for purposes
other than storage does not represent any feature that distinguishes
the refrigeration systems used in these two groups of equipment. As
indicated in the NOPR, DOE had not identified any characteristics of
preparation room refrigeration systems that would distinguish them from
other walk-in refrigeration systems. The definition was primarily
proposed in order to explore the recommendation of
[[Page 95774]]
the WICF Working Group and to solicit information regarding
distinguishing characteristics of this equipment. The definition was
not proposed as the basis for an exclusion. 81 FR at 54937. Comments
regarding the proposed distinguishing characteristics for this
equipment are described in more detail below, but DOE notes that
commenters did not believe the proposed characteristics could be used
as the basis for distinguishing this equipment from other walk-in
refrigeration equipment. Nor, as mentioned, did they provide
alternative characteristics that could be used for this distinction.
With this final rule notice, DOE confirms, based on comments received,
that the initial conclusion was correct that there are no clear
distinguishing characteristics of preparation room refrigeration
systems and other walk-in refrigeration.
Regarding the suggested alternative definitions based on non-
refrigeration system-based characteristics, in DOE's view, these
characteristics play no role in distinguishing those refrigeration
systems used in preparation room applications from non-preparation room
applications, since they describe preparation room space but do not
address the refrigeration systems used for these spaces. Accordingly,
DOE is declining to adopt these suggested changes to the proposed
definition. Comments regarding the proposed distinguishing
characteristics and DOE's responses are discussed in more detail below.
Distinguishing Characteristics of Preparation Room Refrigeration
Systems
DOE received several comments regarding the characteristics it
proposed including as part of the proposed definition of preparation
room refrigeration to distinguish this equipment from non-preparation
room refrigeration systems. AHRI stated that DOE's proposed definition
is unclear and incorrect because the evaporator temperature
specification does not indicate whether it is ambient or suction
temperature, there is no quantified specification for ``low outlet air
velocity,'' and because these systems do not exclusively use electric
or hot gas defrost. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Others made these same
points. Manitowoc indicated that specifying the evaporator temperature
does not clarify whether the temperature is ambient or suction
temperature. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) Rheem and Lennox suggested
that the evaporator temperature in the definition be clarified as the
``saturated suction temperature''. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 57; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58)
Rheem, Manitowoc, Lennox, and KeepRite also commented that preparation
room refrigeration systems may use air defrost, which argues in favor
of not limiting the definition to gas or electric defrost units.
Finally, Rheem, Manitowoc, Lennox, and KeepRite suggested that the
``low air velocity'' cited in the proposed definition should be more
specifically defined. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
58; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 13 at
p. 9; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
AHRI also requested that information related to preparation room
refrigeration systems (beyond its suggested alternative definition) be
removed in the final rule. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 4-5) Manitowoc also
requested that DOE exclude all information related to preparation room
refrigeration from the scope of this rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at
p. 3) Regarding the characteristics of preparation room refrigeration
systems, in light of some of the limitations with the proposed
definition and the absence of any specifications from commenters that
would help with its clarification (e.g., specifying a ``low outlet air
velocity''), DOE is declining to adopt a definition for preparation
room refrigeration at this time. In DOE's view, the alternative
definitions suggested by commenters were insufficient since they failed
to address the refrigeration system itself--i.e., the item which DOE
sought to define. Accordingly, because of the absence of any meaningful
way to distinguish these systems from non-preparation refrigeration
systems, DOE will treat preparation room refrigeration systems as
falling within the scope of walk-in refrigeration systems and being
subject to the standards and reporting requirements that apply. DOE may
revisit this issue in the future if an appropriate definition
distinguishing such equipment can be developed.
j. Storage Space
Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE proposed to define
``refrigerated storage space'' in the context of the current definition
for a walk-in as ``a space held at refrigerated (as defined in 10 CFR
431.302) temperatures.'' 81 FR at 54937.
Hussmann suggested modifying the proposed ``refrigerated storage
space'' definition to reflect WICF room intent, which is to ``maintain
product at a specific temperature for storage purposes.'' 81 FR at
54937. Hussmann argued that making this change would help clarify the
difference between WICF rooms and process rooms, because, in its view,
the term ``maintain'' would specify the presence of a holding area with
the equipment--rather than equipment that imparts any changes on the
products placed inside of it.
While the proposed definition does not delineate a difference
between equipment that is subject to standards and equipment that is
not subject to standards, as discussed earlier in section III.A.1.h of
this final rule, DOE does not interpret the phrase ``held at
temperatures'' to mean that the equipment is held at a constant
temperature. Instead, DOE views this term as referring to a temperature
at or below the 55[emsp14][deg]F specified for ``refrigerated'' as
defined in 10 CFR 431.302. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the
definition as proposed.
2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure Modifications
a. Hot Gas Defrost
Reflecting Recommendation #3 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE-
2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend
the test procedure by removing the method for calculating the defrost
energy and heat load of a system with hot gas defrost. 81 FR at 54937-
54938. With this change, manufacturers of refrigeration systems with
hot gas defrost would be unable to take account of that feature in
testing or rating their systems when using the DOE test procedure. Id.
All commenters agreed with the proposed removal of the hot gas
defrost credit in the test procedure. Rheem and Heat Controller agreed
that the credit should be removed from the efficiency calculation
because it unfairly favored systems using hot gas defrost over
comparable electric defrost systems. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 64; Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at
p. 66) Lennox and KeepRite also agreed with removing the hot gas
defrost credit. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
However, Rheem and the CA IOUs also argued that, because the
proposed approach would fail to quantify the energy used by hot gas
systems during the defrost cycle, thereby eliminating any accounting of
the energy use contribution for defrost in the test procedure
calculations, the proposed change would still unfairly favor hot gas
defrost systems. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 60-
61; CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to ensure that
WICF equipment with hot gas defrost and electric defrost are treated
fairly within the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at
[[Page 95775]]
p. 3) ASAP and NEEA agreed, adding that unit coolers with only hot gas
defrost should be required to meet a performance level equivalent to
unit coolers with improved evaporator fan blades and off-cycle
variable-speed evaporator fans. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 3)
Rheem and Manitowoc asserted their belief that the removal of the
hot gas defrost credit would correspondingly remove the need for
manufacturers to certify the performance of this equipment. (Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 63; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3)
KeepRite also supported the removal of the certification requirements
for these systems. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes
that the requirement to test and certify hot gas defrost walk-in
refrigeration systems was adopted by the May 2014 test procedure final
rule and the June 2014 energy conservation standard final rule--this is
not a new requirement. The Fifth Circuit Order did not strike the
requirement for certification of performance for any refrigeration
systems on or after their standards compliance date. The discussions
during the Working Group meetings did not address relief of testing and
certification requirements for this equipment--hence, these
requirements still stand, regardless of the removal of the hot gas
defrost credit.
DOE notes that the NOPR public meeting attendees briefly discussed
ways to assign an AWEF level to a hot gas defrost refrigeration system
during the public meeting and in a separate meeting between DOE and
industry representatives (Ex Parte Communication of September 29, 2016
Meeting, No. 6). When asked whether there would generally be an
equivalent electric defrost model whose AWEF rating could be used for
any given hot gas defrost model, Rheem noted that most hot gas defrost
models have a comparable electric defrost model. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 62) However, Bally commented that the
individual models sometimes are part of different basic models. Rheem
and Bally added that significant clarification would be needed to
specify how a proxy rating system would work to avoid misinterpreting
the regulation. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 62;
Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 64)
Commenters suggested ways to assign an AWEF value for hot gas
defrost units. AHRI and Hussmann suggested permitting manufacturers to
assign the minimum allowable AWEF to a hot gas refrigeration system.
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) However, commenters
also offered an alternative to this approach, which would allow
manufacturers to assign the AWEF value of an equivalent electric
defrost unit to the hot gas defrost unit. AHRI and multiple
manufacturers suggested, without offering any supporting details or
reasoning, that equivalence in this context be defined as an electric
defrost system within 10 percent of the rated net capacity of the hot
gas defrost unit. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3;
NCC, No. 16 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) ASAP and NEEA agreed that using equivalent
electric defrost units as surrogates for rating hot gas defrost units
would address the concerns with the proposed test procedure. (ASAP and
NEEA, No. 19 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also agreed with this approach, but
presented another alternative: Apply a default defrost energy
consumption value for hot defrost units based on their refrigeration
capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) The CA IOUs offered no further
detail on how to determine this value.\9\ KeepRite suggested that the
hot gas defrost unit should be assigned the AWEF of an equivalent
electric defrost unit and also be part of the same basic model as that
electric defrost unit. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) ASAP, NEEA, the CA
IOUs, and KeepRite did not offer any definition for equivalence. AHRI
and Rheem noted that if being a part of the same basic model were a
requirement of equivalence, the definition for basic model would have
to be altered, because the defrost type affects the equipment's energy
consumption (see definition in 10 CFR 431.302). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ DOE suspects that the CA IOUs may have meant to suggest
using an approach similar to the assignment of electric defrost
energy use and heat load that is used for testing of dedicated
condensing units (see paragraphs 3.4.2.4 and 3.4.2.5 of subpart R,
appendix C of 10 CFR part 431, as finalized in this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also offered a few methods for dealing with cases where
there is no equivalent unit. Manitowoc suggested that, in these cases,
the AWEF value be determined based on interpolation between electric
defrost units with higher and lower capacities--which would create a
weighted average of the AWEFs of the two electric defrost units).
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) Lennox suggested using an AEDM, which would
use a calculated energy contribution for defrost and apply it to the
hot gas defrost unit's calculated performance as if it were an electric
defrost unit. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) AHRI and Rheem argued that the
model should be rated with the minimum AWEF value (as defined in 10 CFR
431.306) in these cases. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6)
Some commenters recommended separate approaches for condensing
units and unit coolers. NCC suggested that a hot gas defrost condensing
unit should be tested as an electric defrost model by first removing
all mechanical components associated with hot gas defrost functions.
(NCC, No. 16 at p. 1) For this approach, the proposed test procedure
would specify standardized values for the electric defrost energy use
and heat addition. See, e.g., 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C,
section 3.4.2.4 as proposed, 81 FR at 54958. For a unit cooler, NCC
recommended using the AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost model,
which it defined as an electric defrost model having a net capacity
within 10 percent of that of the hot gas defrost unit, and that also
belongs to the same basic model group. If an equivalent model is not
available, NCC recommended that the manufacturer petition DOE for a
test procedure waiver. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 2)
Regarding the suggestions that AWEF ratings for hot gas defrost
units not be required, in DOE's view, such an approach would likely
remove any incentive for manufacturers to design and build hot gas
defrost equipment that would maintain steady state efficiency in a
manner consistent with the standards that apply to electric defrost
systems since, under this approach, the unit's design has no influence
on whether it complies with the applicable electric defrost system
standard. Similarly, simply assigning a baseline AWEF value to the unit
fails to impose any requirements on the units' efficiencies, since a
default value would be applied to this equipment, which again would
make compliance unrelated to the unit's design.
Further, while using the AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost
unit to rate hot gas defrost units may have merit, DOE does not have,
and the commenters did not provide, any information demonstrating how
the use of the suggested 10-percent range would impact manufacturer
incentives to use efficient designs. This suggested equivalence
criterion, if adopted, would play little to no role with respect to the
energy use of the unit's components, such as the energy use of a unit
cooler's evaporator fan. A smaller evaporator coil with greater fan
power and more air flow could provide the same net capacity as a larger
coil with less fan power and air flow, but use more fan power to do it.
[[Page 95776]]
In addition, comparing the net capacity of the hot gas defrost unit
with those of electric defrost units to test equivalency implies that
it is understood how to determine that value. As discussed in the
comments, net capacity as measured in the test procedure is not the
same as capacity reported for application ratings. See, e.g., AHRI, No.
0011 at p. 3 (discussing application temperature points). A
manufacturer using the suggested approach could claim an unlikely net
capacity in order to be within 10% of the net capacity of an electric
defrost unit with a high AWEF. Further, a manufacturer could (without
any verification) select the highest AWEF of electric defrost units
within the +/-10 percent range. But since the design of the unit also
has little or no bearing on whether it is compliant with the standards
under this approach, it only shows that a given hot gas defrost unit
has a claimed net capacity within ten percent of the net capacity of a
compliant electric defrost unit.
Regarding the suggested use of an AEDM along with a prescribed
value for the energy consumption from defrost usage, DOE notes that an
AEDM simulates a unit's performance during testing, which requires that
there first be a test procedure that the AEDM would simulate. Because
there is no hot gas defrost test procedure, this approach would also be
unworkable unless a test procedure were first developed and defined. In
short, DOE agrees with Rheem and Bally that significant clarification
would be needed to specify how a proxy rating system would work to
avoid misinterpreting the regulation. For the reasons described
earlier, however, DOE is not convinced that the suggested ``within 10
percent of net capacity'' provides sufficient clarification.
NCC's comment addressed possible approaches for testing hot gas
defrost condensing units and unit coolers. But because coverage also
extends to matched-pair or single-package systems, a hot gas defrost
test approach must also be developed for these system categories.
After considering various possibilities for developing procedures
to test hot gas defrost features, as discussed above, DOE continues to
believe a test that measures the energy benefits of hot-gas defrost is
not warranted at this time. Accordingly, DOE is adopting, in this
respect, an approach consistent with the intent of the one set forth in
the NOPR. Namely, a manufacturer will test a hot gas defrost condensing
unit without measuring the impacts of the hot gas defrost feature, and
that feature will not affect the rated efficiency either positively or
negatively. In that sense, the test procedure for units with hot gas
defrost will be the same as the test procedure for units with electric
defrost.
DOE is clarifying one aspect of the test procedure with respect to
hot gas defrost. DOE recognizes that the hot gas defrost components can
impose pressure drop on the refrigerant lines during the test, which
can reduce performance. This issue was discussed in the WICF Working
Group meetings, where the addition of a pressure drop equivalent to
3[emsp14][deg]F dew point reduction in the suction line was included in
the initial engineering analysis developed for hot gas defrost units to
reflect this issue. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Working Group
Meeting Presentation, Fifth and Sixth Meetings: Engineering Analysis,
No. 26 at p. 34) (The hot gas defrost calculations were subsequently
removed from the engineering analysis because hot gas defrost was not
considered as a design option.) Thus, the presence of hot gas defrost
components would cause the hot gas defrost feature to detract from a
model's rated efficiency. That outcome would be inconsistent with the
approach DOE set forth in the NOPR, the purpose of which was to make
rated efficiencies neutral with respect to the presence of hot gas
defrost. While DOE does not have information to support a general
presumption that hot gas defrost increases efficiency by a particular
amount, it does not believe that hot gas defrost ordinarily decreases
efficiency in operation. Accordingly, DOE will permit a manufacturer to
remove the hot gas defrost components. Thus, incorporating hot gas
defrost in a condensing unit will not cause a decrease in the unit's
rated efficiency under the test procedure.
However, DOE recognizes that simply removing the hot gas defrost
components may not be sufficient to set up a condensing unit for a
test, since removal of a component may leave pipe ends open to the
surroundings. Some of these pipe ends may have to be capped or
connected with each other, and at least two ends represent the suction
inlet and liquid outlet of the condensing unit. Also, some of the hot
gas defrost components may make little impact to the operation of the
system and accompanying measurement--which would encourage a
manufacturer not to remove those components. To ensure that any third
party testing is conducted consistently with manufacturer testing or
its recommendations for testing, information to clarify which
components are removed and the subsequent piping connections may have
to be provided. DOE will consider proposing in a future rulemaking that
certification reporting for hot gas defrost units include as non-public
information a list of the hot-gas-defrost components that must be
removed for the test and instructions for piping connections to allow
proper testing. DOE may also consider allowing any such instructions to
be provided in pdf form as supplementary test information. The
regulations being adopted are generic in nature such that manufacturers
(and other stakeholders that utilize the test procedure) should have
sufficient instruction on how to test all basic models that have hot-
gas defrost components.
Further, DOE is also adopting this approach for testing hot gas
defrost unit coolers, matched-pairs, or single-package refrigeration
systems. For these systems, the hot gas defrost components would also
be removed from the system, and pipes reconnected as required. The
units would be tested measuring steady state performance, but frosting
or defrost tests would not be feasible under this approach and they
would not be run. Using this procedure, the test chambers would have to
be operated with low moisture levels to prevent frost formation during
testing. Performing this test will generally require using test
facilities with conditioning systems that can cool down the indoor room
and remove its moisture before operation of the unit under test can
start to ensure that the test unit does not collect any moisture from
the room. It also requires that infiltration into the indoor room be
minimized. The defrost heat and energy use for the test would be
calculated in the same manner as for an electric defrost condensing
unit tested alone, thus allowing determination of equivalent AWEF. DOE
has adopted this approach for hot gas defrost refrigeration systems in
10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C.
Although some test facilities may not be equipped with conditioning
systems that would allow cooling of the indoor room and removal of
moisture prior to start of the test unit, DOE expects that some
manufacturers will develop performance representations for their hot
gas defrost units using AEDMs, as suggested by some of the comments,
and that there may be limited need for the actual testing of hot gas
defrost unit coolers and matched-pairs under this approach. The AEDMs
would only need to be able to estimate the steady state performance of
the systems in refrigerating mode, since they would, like the test, use
the standardized contributions for hot gas defrost energy input and
heat addition.
[[Page 95777]]
Heat Controller emphasized the need to develop a test method to
quantify the differences between various defrost technologies. (Heat
Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 66) Lennox also
supported the development of a method to determine the AWEF for hot gas
defrost models. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) DOE notes that WICF Term Sheet
Recommendation #6 would involve DOE initiating a future test procedure
rulemaking to adopt test procedure provisions for several items,
including hot gas defrost. Developing and adopting such a test
procedure would enable one to differentiate between technologies. DOE
plans to address this issue in the future.
b. Adaptive Defrost
Consistent with the Recommendation #4 of the WICF Term Sheet
(Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE
proposed to amend the test procedure so that the provisions for
assigning a benefit to adaptive defrost cannot be used to certify
compliance with the energy conservation standard. 81 FR at 54938-54939.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal and is
adopting the proposed amendment.
c. On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator Fan Control
Consistent with Recommendation #4 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket
EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to
amend the test procedure so that unit cooler compliance with the
applicable walk-in refrigeration system standard would be assessed
without using on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans. As part of this
approach, manufacturers would be permitted to make representations of
the energy efficiency or consumption for a unit cooler basic model
using on-cycle variable-speed fans as measured in accordance with the
DOE test procedure, provided that the additional represented value has
been certified to DOE per 10 CFR 429.12.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal and is
adopting it in this final rule.
B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation of Energy Conservation
Standards
1. Re-Organization and Clarification of the Test Procedure for Walk-In
Refrigeration Systems, Doors, and Panels
DOE proposed to re-organize the walk-in test procedure found at 10
CFR 431.304 into three separate appendices, one for each metric
corresponding to the regulated component. DOE proposed to revise
Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431 by designating it as, and retaining
only the procedure for, measuring the energy consumption (in kWh/day)
for walk-in doors. DOE also proposed to create a new Appendix B to
Subpart R of Part 431, which would contain the method of measuring the
R-value, which would apply to walk-in doors and panels. Lastly, DOE
proposed creating a new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431, which
would contain the test method for refrigeration systems. In addition,
DOE proposed to clarify some of the definitions and terminology used in
the test procedure.
Specifically, DOE proposed to revise Appendix A to Subpart R of
Part 431, which contains the procedure for measuring energy consumption
(in kWh/day) for display and non-display doors, by removing the
definitions and references related to walk-in panels. DOE proposed to
(1) remove the definition of ``core region,'' (2) move the definition
of ``edge region'' to the proposed Appendix B, and (3) remove the
prescribed subfloor temperature listed in Table A.1 of Appendix A.
Further, DOE proposed to amend the definition of ``surface area'' by
removing the currently inserted example referencing walk-in panels and
modifying the definition of ``rating condition'' by removing the
discussion of internal walk-in components. 81 FR at 54939. These
amendments were intended to clarify Appendix A and did not
substantively change the DOE test procedure for measuring the energy
consumption of walk-in doors.
To clarify how to calculate door power usage, DOE proposed defining
``rated power'' as the electricity-consuming device's power as
specified on the device's nameplate. If the device does not have a
nameplate or such nameplate does not list the device's power, then the
rated power must be read from the device's product data sheet. See 81
FR at 54939. In addition, DOE proposed that, for each basic model of
walk-in door that has an electricity consuming device(s) for which
rated power is taken from a product data sheet, the walk-in door
manufacturer must retain the product data sheet as part of the test
data underlying the walk-in door's certification report. 81 FR at
54939.
Hussmann expressed concern about how to calculate the rated power
for certain variable-power door components, like variable-resistance
heaters and door-opening devices. In its view, the proposed definition
for rated power, which would require manufacturers to use 100% of a
device's rated power, does not make sense when applied to variable
power devices that have a lower average power. (Hussmann, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 73-74) In sections 4.4.2 and 4.5.2 of
Appendix A to Subpart R to Part 431, DOE's current test procedure
details how to calculate the power usage for each type of electricity
consuming device used in a walk-in door. The procedure includes percent
time off values to account for energy saving features like timers,
control system, or other auto-shut-off system. These values also reduce
the calculated power usage for features that are not constantly
operational, e.g., lighting without controls is assigned a 25% percent
time off. As a result, in DOE's view, the procedure, as modified by the
proposal, would sufficiently account for the lower energy use
conditions identified by Hussmann. Accordingly, DOE is adopting its
proposed definition for rated power. DOE notes that if a manufacturer
believes that the test procedure is unrepresentative of a walk-in door
basic model's energy use, it may avail itself of the test procedure
waiver provisions of 10 CFR 431.401 to obtain approval to use an
alternative test procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of its
equipment.
Additionally, DOE proposed adding a new Appendix B to Subpart R of
Part 431 to improve the clarity of the walk-in test procedure. This
appendix would include the currently prescribed method of measuring the
R-value found in 10 CFR 431.304. Specifically, DOE proposed to move the
provisions found at 10 CFR 431.304(b) and (c) into Appendix B. DOE also
proposed to add the definition of ``edge region'' that was previously
located in Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431 to Appendix B, as this
definition is relevant to the R-value test method.
Dow supported the creation of Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431,
commenting that this change would help highlight the fundamental
differences between doors and panels and clarify how each are treated
in the proposed and future test procedures. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2) In
addition, Dow commented that it understood that the R-value for
insulation used in WICF-related panels and doors must be determined in
accordance with the WICF test procedures in Appendix B to Subpart R of
Section 431 and sought confirmation of the accuracy of this
understanding from DOE. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 3)
DOE did not receive any negative comments regarding the re-
organization of Appendix A and proposed addition
[[Page 95778]]
of a new Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431.
Appendix B to Subpart R of Section 431 as adopted in this final
rule contains the test method for measuring the R-value of insulation.
This test method must be used when determining the R-value for walk-in
panels and doors.
With respect to the proposed amendments regarding Appendices A and
B, Dow supported the inclusion of ASTM C518-04 in the test procedure
but recommend updating the procedure to reference the new version of
this standard, ASTM C518-10. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2) In this rulemaking,
DOE proposed to make only editorial changes to the test procedure for
measuring R-value but may consider Dow's suggestion to reference the
most recent version of ASTM C518 in a future rulemaking.
DOE also proposed to add a new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431
and include the test method for refrigeration systems in this appendix.
Within Appendix C, DOE further organized its discussion of test
procedures in terms of the refrigeration system configuration types--
i.e. matched-pairs, single-package dedicated systems, individually
distributed unit coolers and condensing units. Within Appendix C, DOE
proposed to incorporate the (1) provisions that are currently included
in 10 CFR 431.304, sections (10) through (12), which specify that walk-
in refrigeration systems be tested using AHRI 1250-2009--the test
procedure incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.303--and (2) clarify
and modify certain provisions of the test procedure. One subsection
would contain the general modifications to the test conditions and
tolerances applied to the industry test procedure that were
incorporated into DOE's May 2014 test procedure rule. 79 FR at 27399-
27403. A second subsection would contain proposed modifications to the
method of test and the remaining subsections addressed proposed
modifications specific to the system configuration types. 79 FR at
27398-27399. The NOPR also proposed, and this final rule adopts, adding
to Appendix C the modifications to the test procedure for walk-in
refrigeration systems that are discussed in section III.A.2. See 81 FR
at 54956-54958.
DOE also proposed to correct typographical errors in the regulatory
text contained in the proposed Appendix C. DOE proposed to correct the
saturated suction A and saturated suction B temperatures to be -20
[deg]F and -26 [deg]F, respectively, in the table currently in 10 CFR
431.304(c)(10)(xv). 81 FR at 54939. DOE also proposed correcting an
equation for defrost heat load contribution currently at 10 CFR
431.304(c)(12)(ii). The equation for defrost heat load contribution
currently specifies that this contribution should be divided by 3.412
Btu/W-h, but it should instead be multiplied by 3.412 Btu/W-h. 81 FR at
54939-54940.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to add a
new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431 or its proposal to include the
test method for refrigeration systems in this same appendix. DOE did
not receive any comments in response to its proposal to correct
typographical errors within the test procedure language or equation
that would become part of the proposed Appendix C. Therefore, DOE is
adopting its proposed changes in this final rule.
2. Representation Requirements
DOE proposed to amend the representation requirements for
refrigeration systems to clarify how to apply the test procedure to the
range of possible kinds of refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE
proposed to direct manufacturers of unit coolers, dedicated condensing
units, single-package dedicated systems, and matched refrigeration
systems to the appropriate subsections of Appendix C to Subpart R of
Part 431--the DOE test procedure for refrigeration systems. DOE also
proposed not to require the rating of a matched refrigeration system if
the constituent unit cooler(s) and dedicated condensing unit have been
tested and rated separately. However, if a manufacturer wished to
represent the efficiency of the matched refrigeration system separately
from the efficiency of either constituent component, or if the
manufacturer cannot rate one or both of the constituent components
using the specified method (e.g., if the system has a variable-capacity
condensing unit, thereby preventing the manufacturer from being able to
test the condensing unit individually), the manufacturer must test,
represent, and certify the matched refrigeration system as specified in
this section. A component that is part of a certified matched-pair and
that has not been rated individually cannot be sold individually, nor
can it be sold as part of a different matched-pair (that is, with a
different component matched to it) unless that new matched-pair has
also been tested and certified. DOE did not receive any comments on
these proposed requirements and is adopting them in this final rule.
3. Certification and Compliance Requirements
DOE explained in its proposal that a manufacturer of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer is any person who: (1) Manufactures a
component of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that affects energy
consumption, including, but not limited to, refrigeration, doors,
lights, windows, or walls; or (2) manufactures or assembles the
complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer. 10 CFR 431.302.
Several of the statutory standards, as well as DOE's 2014 standards
and any energy conservation standards that DOE may adopt in its
separate ongoing rulemaking (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016),
apply to specific components of a walk-in. A manufacturer of a walk-in
component (i.e., part 1 of the definition of a manufacturer of a walk-
in cooler or walk-in freezer) is the entity that manufactures,
produces, assembles or imports a walk-in panel, door or refrigeration
system. A manufacturer of a walk-in component is responsible for
ensuring the compliance of the component(s) it manufactures. DOE
requires a manufacturer of a walk-in component to certify the
compliance of the components it manufactures.
A manufacturer of a complete walk-in (i.e., part 2 of the
definition of a manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer) is
the entity that manufactures, produces, assembles or imports a walk-in
cooler or freezer (i.e., an enclosed storage space meeting the
definition of a walk-in cooler or freezer). This includes
``installers'' of complete walk-ins. Although DOE does not require a
manufacturer of a complete walk-in to certify the compliance of the
``box'' as a whole, a manufacturer of a complete walk-in must ensure
that the walk-in, including all of its regulated constituent
components, meets applicable statutory and/or regulatory standards.
After the compliance date of any amended performance-based walk-in
cooler or freezer standard (i.e., either those noted in the concurrent
WICF refrigeration system standards rulemaking or those currently in
the regulation for which compliance is required in 2017), manufacturers
of complete walk-ins may continue to assemble and install walk-ins
using components remaining in inventory that were manufactured before
the compliance date for the amended performance-based component
standards. DOE emphasizes that the components must have been compliant
with all requirements and certified to DOE before the compliance date
of such
[[Page 95779]]
component's amended standard. A more detailed discussion of this will
appear in the related standards final rule. See Docket No. EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0016. If a manufacturer of a complete walk-in also meets part 1
of the definition (i.e., it also manufactures individual components),
then it must certify the compliance of the components it manufactures.
Compliance responsibilities for manufacturers of complete walk-ins are
discussed in more detail later in this section.
Dow stated that the certification and compliance requirement
language regarding doors, walls, ceiling, and floor panels/components
is not clear. It noted that some WICF floors, which are considered
``panels'' under DOE's regulations are not, in fact, separate pre-
assembled panels but are built into the floor of the building in which
the WICF is located. In this case, Dow noted that the floor would be a
component of the WICF but not a ``panel.'' (Dow, No. 9 at p. 1) Dow
also noted that, although WICF panels consist of an assembly of
materials (metal skins, insulation, fasteners, etc.), the text refers
to insulation material alone as a panel, which, in its view, adds
confusion on how to apply the test procedure. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with Dow's comments that a WICF floor may comprise pre-
assembled panels or layer(s) of insulation and/or some other floor
covering material (e.g., concrete). DOE notes that the definition for
``panel'' includes any ``construction component that is not a door and
is 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.'' (10 CFR 431.302) Therefore, a WICF floor built from
layer(s) of insulation and floor-covering material would satisfy the
definition since it contains ``elements that separate the interior
refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior.'' Id.
a. Manufacturers of Walk-In Components
A manufacturer of a walk-in component must ensure that the
component meets the applicable standard. In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE
proposed to modify this current approach (detailed at 10 CFR
429.12(b)(6)) by requiring that for each brand name, a walk-in
manufacturer must submit both the basic model number and the
manufacturer's individual model number(s). When it first established
reporting requirements for walk-ins, DOE explained that it was adopting
a limited approach since it did not have sufficient information at the
time to determine whether reporting individual model numbers for walk-
in components was feasible. See 76 FR 12422, 12466 (March 7, 2011)
(``March 2011 CCE Rule''). DOE noted that it would revisit this issue
in the future. Id. As part of their certification of compliance
responsibilities, manufacturers have routinely submitted both basic
model numbers and individual model numbers for walk-in refrigeration
systems, panels, and doors. These submissions suggest that it is
feasible for manufacturers to certify both basic model numbers and
individual model numbers for each brand. Accordingly, DOE proposed to
require that a walk-in manufacturer include individual model number(s)
as part of its reporting submission.
AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, Zero Zone, NCC, and KeepRite opposed DOE's
proposal to expand the model number reporting requirements. (AHRI, No.
11 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 6; Zero
Zone, No. 15 at p. 2; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem disagreed with DOE's observation that
manufacturers routinely submit both basic and individual model numbers
for WICF systems, noting that this is not the case for all
manufacturers or types of equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3; Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5) AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and
KeepRite also noted that the proposed reporting change will greatly
increase the number of models listed in DOE's Certification Compliance
Management System (``CCMS'') because there may be hundreds of
combinations for a given basic model, and make the database more
difficult for customers to navigate. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3; Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 5-6; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6;
KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Bally commented that DOE also needs to
consider the effect of an increase in door basic models as a result of
the new energy conservation standard going into effect on June 3, 2017.
Once the maximum energy consumption metric becomes effective many
variables such as door area, U-value, and power consumption will impact
door basic models. Separating its models by door area alone, Bally
states that it has 63 different combinations. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1)
NCC asserted that it may have to recertify daily because it
manufactures so many custom products. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 6) Hussmann
and KeepRite commented that the proposed requirement would
significantly increase the complexity of reporting, which would result
in the reporting of hundreds of model numbers. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p.
3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Zero Zone commented that the additional
model number reporting requirements would increase paper work for the
manufacturers without providing any value to customers. (Zero Zone, No.
15 at p. 2)
Lennox argued that the proposed individual model number reporting
requirement would be burdensome unless it was allowed to group its
individual model numbers using the ``wildcard'' digit placeholders it
currently uses when reporting. (Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at pp. 70-71) Hussmann added that allowing placeholder digits
(``wildcards'') for both AWEF-altering and AWEF-agnostic model changes
would simplify the reporting process, allow for a clean transition to
marketing materials, and clarify the rating system for consumers.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3) Rheem and NCC similarly advocated for the
use of placeholder characters (e.g., ``*'') in model numbers to
represent design options that do not materially affect the reported
efficiency performance. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6)
NCC also requested clarification on the use of wildcards for individual
model numbers and basic model numbers. (NCC, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 76-77)
DOE acknowledges that its proposal requiring manufacturers to
report the basic model number and individual model number(s) for each
brand distributed in commerce may result in an increase in reporting
burden. However, as explained in the August 2016 NOPR, DOE believes the
additional burden to be minimal. 81 FR at 54940. DOE disagrees with the
comments from AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem that manufacturers are not
currently reporting individual model numbers. As of October 2016, each
basic model listed in DOE's Compliance Certification Database \10\
lists an individual model number. Examples of certifications that have
both basic model numbers and individual model numbers can be found in
this rulemaking's docket. (See EERE--Compliance Certification Database,
Walk-ln Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration Systems Screenshots, No. 27
at p. 1) Further, as all certifications appearing in DOE's Compliance
Certification Database already include a basic model and individual
model number, DOE does not agree with AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and
KeepRite that the proposed
[[Page 95780]]
reporting change will greatly increase the number of models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as requested by Lennox, Hussmann, and NCC, manufacturers
may use wildcards to represent non-energy consuming features when
certifying individual model numbers. Wildcards may not be used to
represent energy consuming components that would result in a different
representative value, but manufacturers may elect to group those
individual models into one basic model at their discretion. Based on
the comments received from Lennox and Hussmann, DOE understands that
allowing wildcards will simplify the requirement to report individual
models and will alleviate the concerns noted by AHRI, Manitowoc
Foodservice, Rheem, Zero Zone, NCC, KeepRite, Bally, and Hussmann.
Therefore, with the clarifications noted in this paragraph, this rule
will require walk-in component manufacturers to submit both the basic
model number and the manufacturer's individual model number(s).
With respect to the issue of energy-consuming components, Hussmann
questioned whether individual models with design differences that are
small but affect the units' energy consumption (e.g., one model with
full electric heaters and another model with only a drain pan heater)
could be grouped under the same basic model number under the lowest
AWEF rating in the group. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at pp. 71-72) DOE refers Hussmann to the March 2011 CCE Rule where it
established the basic model concept for walk-in coolers and freezers.
That rule explained that the basic model concept permits flexibility in
determining how manufacturers choose to group individual models with
essentially, but not exactly, identical energy efficiency
characteristics. DOE encouraged manufacturers to adopt a reasonable
approach to basic model groupings and to certify as a single basic
model those individual models that possessed only superficial
differences, such as product finishes. The Department clarified that
all models identified in a certification report as being the same basic
model must have the same certified energy efficiency or consumption
rating. Additionally, any individual model that is modified in a manner
resulting in performance that is less efficient (or more consumptive)
than the rated level when tested in accordance with the DOE test
procedures in Parts 430 and 431 and the applicable sampling plans in
Part 429 must be re-rated as a new basic model and certified to DOE.
Certified ratings must be supported by tested values that are at least
as efficient as the rating when the applicable sampling plans in Part
429 are applied. 76 FR at 12429.
DOE also proposed adding reporting requirements for both the
standards promulgated in the June 2014 final rule (with a June 2017
compliance date) and for the standards for certain equipment classes of
walk-in refrigeration systems that will be defined in a separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-
0016).
In addition to the reporting requirements defined in 10 CFR
429.53(b), DOE proposed requiring certification reports to include the
following product-specific information to show compliance with the
amended energy conservation standards:
--Doors: Rated energy consumption, rated surface area in square
feet, the rated power of each light, heater wire, and/or other
electricity consuming device associated with each basic model of
display and non-display door, and whether such device(s) has a timer,
control system, or other demand-based control reducing the device's
power consumption.
--Refrigeration systems: Rated annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF),
rated net capacity, and the configuration tested for certification
(e.g., condensing unit only, unit cooler only, or matched-pair).
ASAP and NEEA supported the proposed expansion of reporting
requirements for doors and other WICF components, and agreed with DOE
that this information is necessary to allow DOE to verify the door's
rated energy consumption. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 3)
KPS commented that the new reporting requirements are burdensome to
WICF OEMs that do not manufacture all door options and other power-
rated accessories or any nonstandard option. In its view, this
information is dynamic and may change with each order. KPS asked if the
WICF OEM can rely on each of the relevant vendors to meet the component
testing requirements and be in compliance with DOE. (KPS, No. 8 at p.
1) A manufacturer of a walk-in component (i.e., the entity that
manufactures, produces, assembles or imports a walk-in panel, door or
refrigeration system) is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the
component(s) it manufactures. A manufacturer of a complete walk-in must
ensure that the walk-in, including all regulated constituent
components, meets applicable statutory and/or regulatory standards.
That is, a manufacturer of a complete walk-in is required to use
components that comply with the applicable standards and have been
certified as compliant, and must ensure the final product satisfies the
statutory design requirements.
Bally suggested that manufacturers of door components (e.g.,
display windows) should be responsible for verifying the U-value of
their products, rather than having the testing burden rest with
refrigeration door manufacturers. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 75) Similarly, as noted earlier, Dow commented that it
understood from the proposal that the insulation supplier is not
responsible for certifying and reporting the R-value of the finished
panels, but is responsible for providing the panel or component
manufacturer with accurate R-value testing results of the insulation
supplier's material. Dow requested that DOE further clarify the role of
the insulation supplier in the certification and compliance process.
(Dow, No. 9 at p. 3)
Walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer manufacturers may rely on test
data developed by other entities that supply sub-assemblies of a walk-
in component (e.g., insulation suppliers or display window suppliers).
However, the manufacturer of a walk-in component (i.e., the entity that
manufactures, produces, assembles or imports a walk-in panel, door or
refrigeration system) is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the
component(s) it manufactures.
DOE's new certification requirements will provide comprehensive,
up-to-date efficiency information about walk-in equipment sold in the
United States at any given time--a necessary predicate to an effective
enforcement program. This rule adopts these new certification
regulations for walk-in doors and refrigeration systems to ensure that
DOE has the information it needs to ensure that regulated products sold
in the United States comply with the law. As discussed in section
III.A.1.d of this final rule, DOE is also requiring indoor dedicated
condensing units to specify if the basic model is also certified as an
outdoor dedicated condensing unit and, if so, the basic model number
for the outdoor dedicated condensing unit.
Hussmann expressed concern regarding how doors from a walk-in
system manufactured before the current standard would be replaced,
suggesting that there may be challenges retrofitting compliant doors to
these older systems. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
111-112) DOE clarifies that all walk-in doors manufactured on or after
June 5, 2017 must comply with applicable energy conservation standards.
10 CFR 431.306(c)-(d) DOE does not provide an exclusion for retrofit or
replacement doors.
[[Page 95781]]
b. Manufacturers of Complete Walk-ins
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE explained that while it does not
require manufacturers of complete walk-ins to submit certification
reports for the complete walk-in itself, a manufacturer of a complete
walk-in must ensure that each walk-in it manufactures meets the various
statutory and regulatory standards. That is, a manufacturer of a
complete walk-in is required to use components that comply with the
applicable standards and to ensure the final product fulfills the
statutory design requirements.
For example, consider an installer deciding which panels to use.
The installer could assemble a compliant walk-in in several ways. The
installer could build a panel, test it, and certify it as the component
manufacturer. The installer could use an uncertified panel with a
claimed compliant R-value and accept responsibility for its compliance.
The installer could use a certified panel with a label that meets DOE
requirements and bear no responsibility for the testing and
certification of the panel. In any of these situations, the installer
must use compliant panels. The only difference between the three
scenarios is that in the third scenario the installer is permitted to
rely upon the representations of the manufacturer of a WICF component
to ensure compliance of the component; if those representations turn
out to be false, the component manufacturer is responsible.
As discussed in more detail in III.B.5 of this final rule, DOE
proposed several labeling provisions to help manufacturers of complete
walk-ins, who are not manufacturers of walk-in components, ensure
compliance with the standards. In addition to the component-based
regulations requiring certification (doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems), walk-ins generally must: have automatic door closers; have
strip doors, spring hinged doors, or some other method of minimizing
infiltration when doors are open; and for all interior lights, use
light sources with an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more. It is the
responsibility of the manufacturer of the complete walk-in to ensure
that the walk-in incorporates these design features.
At the public meeting discussing the proposed test procedure, Bally
remarked that it seems unlikely that an installer could use an
uncertified panel with a claimed compliant R-value because component
manufacturers cannot distribute panels that are uncertified. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 110) DOE clarified that its
proposal covers a scenario where a walk-in is built out of insulated
building materials designed for applications other than walk-in coolers
and freezers. In this scenario, the manufacturer of a complete walk-in
is responsible for the compliance of the walk-in that it assembled and
ensuring that the insulated building materials used to construct the
walk-in meet the applicable R-value standards.
c. Compliance Date
Commenters raised questions regarding the compliance dates for
walk-in refrigeration energy conservation standards and related
refrigeration system reporting requirements.
Hussmann requested that the enforcement date for medium temperature
condensing units be pushed back to align with that of the other WICF
refrigeration systems. Hussmann argued that these systems often share
components and this change would allow manufacturers the flexibility to
work with all equipment classes at one time. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3)
DOE issued an enforcement policy on February 1, 2016, explaining
that DOE will not seek civil penalties or injunctive relief concerning
violations of the four energy conservation standards applicable to
dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium
temperatures detailed at 10 CFR 431.306(e). DOE will not seek civil
penalties or injunctive relief in these cases provided that the
violations relate to the distribution in commerce of WICF refrigeration
system components manufactured prior to January 1, 2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE's enforcement guidance can be found at: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/Enforcement%20Policy%20Statement%20-%20WICF%2002-01-16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox asked that DOE explicitly align the reporting requirements
for medium temperature condensing units with the January 1, 2020
enforcement date (i.e., delay reporting to January 1, 2020). (Lennox,
No. 13 at p. 6) DOE did not waive the certification requirements for
dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium
temperatures that are promulgated at 10 CFR 431.306(e). Accordingly,
manufacturers must certify compliance in a manner consistent with the
applicable compliance date specified in that provision. Only those
models properly certified as compliant with applicable standards will
be posted on DOE's CCMS public database.
4. Enforcement Provisions
a. Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered Equipment and
Certain Low-Volume Covered Products
DOE proposed to include walk-ins to the list of equipment subject
to the enforcement testing sampling plan for covered equipment found in
Appendix B of Subpart C of Part 429. DOE received no comments on this
proposal and is adopting it in this final rule.
b. Equipment-Specific Enforcement Provisions
DOE proposed to add specific enforcement provisions for walk-in
refrigeration systems and doors to 10 CFR 429.134. Specifically, DOE
proposed to clarify which entity or entities are liable for the
distribution of noncompliant units in commerce and how to verify the
refrigeration capacity for walk-in refrigeration systems and surface
area of walk-in doors.
If DOE determines that a basic model of a panel, door, or
refrigeration system for walk-ins fails to meet an applicable energy
conservation standard, then the manufacturer of that basic model is
responsible for that noncompliance. If DOE determines that a complete
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer or any component thereof fails to
meet an applicable energy conservation standard, then the manufacturer
of that complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer is responsible for
the noncompliance with the applicable standard. However, a manufacturer
of a complete walk-in would not be held responsible for the use of
components that were certified and labeled (in accordance with DOE
labeling requirements) as compliant but later found to be noncompliant
with the applicable standards. DOE did not receive any comments on this
aspect of its proposal and is adopting it in this final rule.
DOE also proposed adding an explanation of how DOE verifies the
refrigeration capacity for walk-in refrigeration systems to 10 CFR
429.134. Specifically, DOE proposed that the refrigeration capacity of
the basic model would be measured pursuant to the test requirements of
10 CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The results of the measurement(s)
would be averaged and compared to the value of refrigeration capacity
certified by the manufacturer. Under this approach, the certified
refrigeration capacity would be considered valid only if the average
measured refrigeration capacity is within 5 percent of the certified
refrigeration capacity. If the certified refrigeration capacity is
found to be
[[Page 95782]]
valid, that refrigeration capacity will be used as the basis for
calculating annual energy consumption for the basic model. If the
certified refrigeration capacity is found to be invalid, the average
measured refrigeration capacity will serve as the basis for calculating
annual energy consumption for the basic model. See 81 FR at 54941.
Manitowoc commented in support of the 5 percent tolerance during
enforcement testing. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2) AHRI and Lennox
supported DOE's proposal to verify the net capacity, but suggested that
``within'' be replaced by ``plus or minus'' to provide a slightly wider
range around the net capacity value. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 10)
DOE agrees with Lennox and AHRI that specifying ``plus or minus 5
percent'' clarifies the regulatory text at 10 CFR 429.134(l)(2). In
this rule, DOE will finalize its proposal related to the certified
refrigeration capacity, but will amend it to specify that the certified
net capacity will be considered valid ``only if the average measured
net capacity is within plus or minus five percent of the certified net
capacity.''
Further, DOE proposed to specify how DOE would verify the surface
area for walk-in display doors and non-display doors in 10 CFR 429.134.
The certified surface area would be considered valid only if the
average measured surface area of the door is within 1 percent of the
certified surface area. If the certified surface area is found to be
valid, that surface area value would be used as the basis for
calculating the maximum energy consumption for the basic model. If the
certified surface area is found to be invalid, the average measured
surface area would serve as the basis for calculating maximum energy
consumption for the basic model. See 81 FR at 54941.
Bally commented that in some walk-in applications the door cap
height is reduced by 2-inches to accommodate grout and tile used for
walk-in floors, resulting in a shorter walk-in door. The 1% certified
surface area will mean that for a 78'' door, each \3/4\'' of an inch
will require a new basic model number. Bally asked that DOE consider
allowing these ``shortened doors'' to be measured to the nominal full
door measurements, as compared to the door frame. (Bally, No. 22 at p.
2) DOE understands from the scenario Bally described that a 1%
tolerance on door height is too stringent and would require door
manufacturers to create additional basic models to allow for small
changes in door height. DOE declines to adopt Bally's suggestion to use
a nominal door height because nominal door height is undefined and may
allow for too much size variation. However, DOE is adopting a tolerance
of 3% in this final rule to give door manufacturers more flexibility to
establish basic models. A 3% tolerance allows a 78-inch door to be
adjusted by 2 inches to accommodate features like raised flooring as
specified by Bally. Accordingly, under the provision adopted here,
which aligns with the provision adopted for refrigeration capacity
tolerance, DOE will treat certified surface areas as valid ``only if
the average measured surface area is within plus or minus three percent
of the certified surface area.''
DOE also proposed to specify in 10 CFR 429.134 how it will account
for the rated power (as defined in the proposal) of each electricity
consuming device(s) in calculating the walk-in door energy consumption.
For each basic model of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer door, DOE
would calculate the door's energy consumption using the power listed on
the nameplate of each electricity-consuming device shipped with the
door. If an electricity-consuming device shipped with a walk-in door
does not have a nameplate or such nameplate does not list the device's
power, then DOE would use the device's ``rated power'' included in the
door's certification report. 81 FR at 54941. DOE did not receive any
comments regarding this proposal and is adopting it in this final rule.
5. Labeling Requirements
If the Secretary has prescribed test procedures for any class of
covered equipment, a labeling rule applicable to such class of covered
equipment must be prescribed. See 42 U.S.C. 6315(a). EPCA, however,
also sets out certain criteria that must be met prior to prescribing a
given labeling rule. Specifically, to establish these requirements, DOE
must determine that: (1) Labeling in accordance with Section 6315 is
technologically and economically feasible with respect to any
particular equipment class; (2) significant energy savings will likely
result from such labeling; and (3) labeling in accordance with Section
6315 is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. (42
U.S.C. 6315(h))
If these criteria are met, EPCA specifies certain aspects of
equipment labeling that DOE must consider in any rulemaking
establishing labeling requirements for covered equipment. At a minimum,
such labels must include the energy efficiency of the affected
equipment, as tested under the prescribed DOE test procedure. The
labeling provisions may also consider the addition of other
requirements, including: Directions for the display of the label; a
requirement to display on the label additional information related to
energy efficiency or energy consumption, which may include instructions
for maintenance and repair of the covered equipment, as necessary, to
provide adequate information to purchasers; and requirements that
printed matter displayed or distributed with the equipment at the point
of sale also include the information required to be placed on the
label. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b) and 42 U.S.C. 6315(c))
DOE proposed labeling requirements for walk-ins--specifically, that
certain information be shown on the permanent nameplates of doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems. DOE also proposed to clarify
requirements with respect to the disclosure of efficiency information
in marketing materials and the labeling requirements for process
cooling refrigeration systems. In the following sections, DOE's
specific proposal and comments received regarding its proposed
nameplate requirements are discussed in detail.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6315, DOE also
sought written input from the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC had
no comments regarding DOE's labeling proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. EPCA Criteria To Prescribe a Labeling Rule
DOE reviewed the labeling requirements proposed in the August 2016
NOPR with respect to the three statutory prerequisites addressing the
Secretary's authority to promulgate labeling rules. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h))
The following paragraphs addresses these elements and accounts for the
comments responding to this aspect of DOE's proposal.
Economically Justified and Technologically Feasible
DOE found the proposed labeling recommendations would be
technologically and economically feasible with respect to walk-in
cooler and freezer equipment class. In general, DOE also found that
walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers and display door
manufacturers already include nameplates on their equipment. Typically,
these nameplates include the equipment's model number.\13\ DOE
explained that the inclusion of energy efficiency or energy consumption
information on these labels would be technologically feasible for
refrigeration
[[Page 95783]]
system and display door manufacturers to accomplish without increasing
the size of the label and that the associated costs of doing so would
be negligible. Accordingly, in DOE's view, the proposed labeling
requirement would be economically feasible as well. 81 FR at 54942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Examples of walk-cooler and freezer component labels can be
found in this rulemaking's docket. (See 2016-12-01 Label Examples
for Walk-in Cooler and Freezer Components, No. 28, pp. 1-10.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE explained in the August 2016 NOPR that it was less common for
non-display doors and panels for walk-ins to have nameplates, but that
it was more likely that an entire assembled walk-in may have a single
nameplate. Nonetheless, DOE found that adding a permanent nameplate or
permanent sticker to both walk-in non-display doors and panels would be
technologically feasible, as both types of equipment have adequate
useable surface to apply such labels. DOE estimated that the total cost
of applying labels to non-display doors and panels would be
negligible--less than a tenth of one percent of the average
manufacturer's annual revenue. Accordingly, based on these facts, DOE
found that the proposed labeling requirements would be economically
feasible. 81 FR at 54942.
Several commenters responded to these aspects of DOE's proposal.
Bally commented that the proposed requirements for panel labeling
is not technologically feasible because putting the date of manufacture
on each panel is difficult. Since the labels are usually printed days
or weeks before the actual manufacturing date, the proposed requirement
would force manufacturers to put a second label on the panel printed on
the day or day after manufacture. Further, in its view, labeling is not
technologically feasible because labeling each panel requires the
creation of many unique nameplates for even a small walk-in. (Bally,
No. 22 at p. 2) Regarding these comments, as discussed in section
III.B.5.b of this final rule, DOE is no longer requiring walk-in panel
labels to include the R-value, model number, or date of manufacture.
Therefore, under the approach adopted in this rule, walk-in panels will
not require two labels as Bally suggested. Additionally, DOE is
adopting a requirement to have a generic statement for walk-in panel
labels, which eliminates the need for each panel to have a unique
label.
KPS claimed the amount of information being requested for labels
will increase the size of the label, and that their presence will
disrupt the aesthetics of the panel because the OEM will be required to
place them on each panel or door. (KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) Heat Controller
also commented that, for some small equipment, the increased size of
the label due to the proposed regulation may make it difficult to place
the label according to UL's requirements. (Heat Controller, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 96)
KPS also stated that the label must be dynamic for each unique job,
and the burdens faced by manufacturers come in the form of the cost of
implementing the proposed changes--namely, the cost of the change, the
time to implement the labeling requirement, and the materials used to
make the labels. Marketing collateral changes, required system changes,
and the burden to customers will, in KPS's view, result in a cost
impact much greater than $10,000. (KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) Hussmann noted
that the proposed labeling requirements would require it to develop a
new label format, rewrite labeling software, and purchase new labeling
machines that can handle the increased size of the label. (Hussmann,
No. 20 at p. 2) Bally also expressed concern regarding the economic
implications of the proposed requirements. It noted that describing the
label as a ``nameplate'' implies higher costs than ``label''. (Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 87) American Panel commented
that it is not economically feasible to label each panel because
label(s) would have to be high-grade Mylar/polyester in order to
withstand being power washed and cleaned with harsh chemicals. The
added cost to track and uniquely label each panel would bring no more
benefit than having a single label for an entire walk-in. (American
Panel, No. 7 at p. 1)
With respect to the labeling requirements generally, DOE notes that
the requirements adopted in this rule will align with some of the
labeling information already required by UL (e.g., brand name, model
number, and date of manufacture). To this end, DOE believes that this
alignment will make it less likely that manufacturers will need to
increase the size of the labels that are already applied to walk-in
panels and doors.
Regarding the remaining potential feasibility issues raised by
commenters, DOE notes that the final rule reduces the amount of
information required on component nameplates and the amount of
information required to be disclosed in catalogs and marketing
materials for walk-in panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. In
light of KPS's concerns, the final rule does not require each walk-in
component to have a unique label showing the applicable representative
energy efficiency or energy consumption. Regarding Hussmann's comment
that the proposed labeling requirements will cause manufacturers to
undergo significant retooling, in DOE's view, the reduced requirements
adopted in this rule for all walk-in components will likely reduce the
amount of retooling--if any--that may be required by the rule. See
section III.B.4.b, supra. As to Bally's and American Panel's concerns
on the expenses associated with using permanent nameplate materials,
DOE clarifies that it is using the term ``permanent'' to mean that the
label is not easily removable and will not become detached from the
equipment under everyday wear and tear. As long as walk-in labels meet
the aforementioned specifications, manufacturers may select appropriate
labeling materials at their discretion.
DOE also notes that it considered the cost to manufacturers of
updating their marketing materials to include efficiency information,
brand, model number, and the disclosure statement on each page of the
document that listed the walk-in component. See 81 FR at 54944 and
54945-54946 (discussing potential burden impacts on walk-in
manufacturers, including small manufacturers). Marketing materials
include literature, data sheets, selection software, sales training,
and compliance documentation. In this final rule, DOE reduced the
burden by removing the term ``each page'' from its requirement to
disclosure of efficiency information in catalogs and marketing
materials. Instead, DOE is requiring that all catalogs that list a
regulated walk-in component and all materials used to market the
component prominently display the same information that appears on the
component's permanent nameplate and the applicable efficiency
information. However, this information is not required to be on each
page of such materials.
All of the changes that DOE is adopting in this final rule create
less burdensome labeling requirements than those proposed in the NOPR.
The labeling requirements for panels and doors are designed such that
the labels can be applied across a range of basic models. Also, DOE is
adopting less burdensome information display requirements for product
catalogues. Reflecting the nature of these changes, DOE is estimating
labeling and compliance costs on a per manufacturer basis rather than
on a per model basis. Activities associated with software selection,
sales training and compliance documentation are typically a one-time
expense for each manufacturer and do not scale with the number of
models. Further, product literature templates are generally
standardized templates shared between groups of walk-in components.
Therefore, updates to these materials are
[[Page 95784]]
more accurately scaled by manufacturer than by model. DOE estimated an
investment of $50,000 per manufacturer to produce nameplates and
literature that meet the labeling requirements based on conversations
with manufacturers and published literature.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04n0382/04n-0382-bkg0001-Tab-05-01-vol1.pdf, page 3-
13 (last accessed November 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings
DOE stated in the August 2016 NOPR that the proposed labeling
requirements would likely result in significant energy savings. The
related energy conservation standards are expected to save
approximately 3 quadrillion British thermal units (quads). DOE
explained that requiring labels that include the rated value subject to
the standards will increase consumer awareness of the standards. 81 FR
at 54943. As a result, requiring the labels may increase consumer
demand for more efficient walk-in components, thus leading to
additional savings beyond that calculated for the standards. In
addition, labeling requirements would both help installers, assemblers,
and contractors ensure that they are selecting equipment that the
component manufacturer intended to be used as part of a completed walk-
in, and limit the potential compliance burden faced by these entities.
For example, DOE understands from manufacturer interviews and market
research that insulated metal panels may be used in other types of
applications, such as communications equipment sheds.\15\ Labeling
requirements differentiate walk-in cooler and freezer panels from other
types of insulated metal panels that are not appropriate for use in
walk-ins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Examples of insulated metal panels can be found in this
rulemaking's docket. (See ``Examples of Insulated Panels Used in
Applications Other than WICF'', No. 29, pp. 1-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE also explained that the proposed
labeling requirements are likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions. By including the rated metric on the nameplate
and marketing materials, manufacturers are able to demonstrate to
purchasers that the equipment they are purchasing meets the DOE
standard and is acceptable for use in a walk-in. Additionally,
consumers have the information needed to compare the energy efficiency
performance between different component models, with the assurance that
the ratings were calculated according to a DOE-specified test
procedure. 81 FR at 54943.
AHRI claimed that consumers will not see a label on the equipment
before it is purchased, and that a label will not save energy, increase
demand for more efficient walk-ins, or be used to make purchasing
decisions. In addition, AHRI argued that most walk-ins are built to
order and the labels will not assist customer decision making.
Furthermore, it noted that customers do not want labels visible on
their equipment, which is frequently displayed in a client-facing
business setting. However, AHRI remarked that the ratings in CCMS and
marketing materials may assist customers in purchasing decisions, but
the tangible labels placed on equipment require additional cost without
any consumer benefit. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) Manitowoc and Rheem
agreed that ratings displayed in DOE's CCMS and in marketing materials
may assist customers in purchasing decisions, but argued that labels
would incur cost to manufacturers without any customer benefit.
(Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5) Manitowoc, Rheem,
Zero Zone, and KeepRite also commented that WICF units are usually
built to order, not to sell in a retail setting, and therefore labels
will not assist customers in their buying decisions. (Manitowoc, No. 10
at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 2; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 3)
Bally argued that because the customer purchases the panels before
seeing them, the panel labels have less of an effect on purchasing
decisions than marketing literature. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 86; Bally, No. 22 at p. 3) Bally added that energy savings
will not likely result from the proposed labeling regulation. Bally
commented that while the test procedures for panels and doors include
``short cuts'' that assist manufacturers with testing, they can distort
equipment comparisons. Specifically, regarding door labels, Bally noted
that the rating does not reflect the range of actual uses seen in the
field and the customers' actual energy use will not be accurately
reflected by the energy consumption on the nameplate. Bally contended
that this situation may confuse customers and cause them to misjudge
the requirements of their equipment. Regarding panel labels, Bally
noted that the R-value is not easily converted into cost savings. Bally
also noted that manufacturers (especially of freezers) only certify
that their equipment meet the minimum requirements; therefore,
customers would not be able to make significant judgments from the data
displayed on the label. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3)
In this rule, DOE is adopting labeling requirements that will
likely result in significant energy savings by increasing consumers'
awareness of the standards and helping installers, assemblers, and
contractors ensure that the equipment they select is intended for walk-
in applications. In addition, DOE's labeling requirements are likely to
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. As explained in
section III.B.5.a and section III.B.5.c of this final rule, DOE
modified its labeling requirements to specify that catalogs and
marketing materials for each walk-in component must include each basic
model's representative energy consumption or energy efficiency, as
applicable. As AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, and Bally commented, including
this information in marketing materials is beneficial to customers
making purchasing decisions.
Regarding built-to-order equipment, DOE notes that energy
conservation standards for walk-in components were established, in
part, to address regulatory complications associated with the
customization of walk-ins. Even if a complete walk-in is designed from
a variety of components from different manufacturers, applying labels
on walk-in equipment allows the installer verify that each component is
appropriate for walk-in applications. In addition, including
representative efficiency information in equipment catalogs and
marketing materials allows entities designing walk-ins to compare the
efficiency of walk-in components.
In response to Bally's comment that the test procedure for walk-in
doors distorts energy consumption and is not indicative of energy use
in the field, DOE notes that the specific rating conditions in the test
procedure were established so that measured energy consumption is more
equitable across the market. If a manufacturer believes that the test
procedure is unrepresentative of a basic model's energy use, it may
seek a test procedure waiver in accordance with the requirements in 10
CFR 431.401.
AHRI requested that DOE rescind the labeling proposal because the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6315 have not been met. Specifically, AHRI
commented that labeling will not assist customers in making purchasing
decisions nor will labels save energy by increasing demand for more
efficient walk-ins. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1-2) As explained in the
preceding paragraphs, however, DOE concludes that this final rule meets
the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6315.
[[Page 95785]]
b. Information Disclosed on Permanent Nameplates
DOE proposed that the permanent nameplates of doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems display certain information.
For walk-in doors, DOE proposed that the permanent nameplates of
these components must be clearly marked with the rated energy
consumption, brand name, model number, date of manufacture, and an
application statement that states, ``This door is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer applications.''
Specifically, the energy consumption would need to be identified with
an ``EC_'' immediately preceding the relevant value and the model
number would need to be displayed in one of the following forms:
``Model_'', ``Model number_'', or ``Model No. _''. 81 FR at 54942.
With respect to panels, DOE proposed that the permanent nameplates
of panels for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezers clearly display the
rated R-value, brand name, model number, date of manufacture, and an
application statement that states, ``This panel is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer applications.'' The R-
value would be identified with an ``R-value_'' immediately preceding
the relevant value. The model number would also need to be displayed in
one of the following forms: ``Model_'', ``Model number_'', or ``Model
No. _''. 81 FR at 54954.
For walk-in refrigeration systems that are not manufactured solely
for process cooling applications, DOE proposed that the permanent
nameplates of these components be clearly marked with the AWEF, brand
name, refrigeration system model number, date of manufacture, and an
application statement that states, ``This refrigeration system is
designed and certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.'' The AWEF must be identified with ``AWEF_'' immediately
preceding the relevant value and the model number must be displayed in
one of the following forms: ``Model_'', ``Model number_'', or ``Model
No. _''. 81 FR at 54942. In addition, DOE proposed that the permanent
nameplate of a refrigeration system component that can only be used as
part of a process cooling refrigeration system must be marked clearly
with the brand name, model number, the date of manufacture, and the
statement, ``This refrigeration system is designed only for use in
walk-in cooler and freezer process cooling refrigeration
applications.'' The model number would be displayed in one of the
following forms: ``Model_'', ``Model number_'', or ``Model No. _''. If
a refrigeration system can be used for both process cooling
refrigeration and non-process cooling refrigeration applications, then
the refrigeration system must be clearly marked with its applicable
AWEF, brand name, model number, date of manufacture, and an application
statement that says, ``This refrigeration system is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer applications.'' 81 FR
at 54942.
Finally, for each of these proposed requirements, DOE proposed that
all orientation, spacing, type sizes, typefaces, and line widths used
to display this required information must be the same as or similar to
the display of the other performance data contained on the component's
permanent nameplate. 81 FR at 54942.
DOE received general comments as well as specific concerns on its
labeling proposal. ASAP and NEEA supported the proposed labeling
requirements. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs supported
the adoption of WICF component labeling requirements that would apply
to each WICF component, including labels on each individual panel and
door. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, and Zero Zone
recommended that DOE drop the proposed labeling requirements for WICF
refrigeration systems because labels will not help customers make
purchasing decisions. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1;
Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 20 at
p. 2) Similarly, KeepRite requested that the labeling requirements be
removed for refrigeration equipment and panels. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p.
3) Hussmann requested that there be no additional labeling requirement
and added that it already labels their equipment as required by UL.
(Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) Rheem added that potential labeling
requirements should have been brought up during the ASRAC negotiation.
(Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5)
With respect to the labeling of efficiency information, AHRI
suggested that DOE require efficiency information to be included only
in published materials. AHRI explained that customers will use
marketing materials to compare energy efficiency and ensure ratings
were calculated according to the DOE-specific test procedure. (AHRI,
No. 11 at p. 2) Rheem argued that online resources, including the CCMS
database and manufacturer's literature, are preferable to labels since
these sources of information offer consumers context, meaning and the
opportunity to compare ratings--none of which are possible with the
proposed physical labels. Rheem explained that because WICFs are not
built to be purchased in a retail setting or for head-to-head
comparison--as most WICF equipment is built to order--labels will not
assist customers in making purchasing decisions. Moreover, consumers
would prefer not to have labels on equipment that is for display
purposes. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4-5)
CrownTonka, Bally, and KeepRite expressed concern about labeling
each panel individually. CrownTonka commented that most of their food
customers and local health officials do not want labels on each panel.
(CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 84-85) Bally
commented that requiring labels for each panel model would require
manufacturers to invest in in-house labeling capabilities and may
impact manufacturing process times. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 102-103) Bally also noted that panels qualifying for both
freezer and cooler applications would require two separate R-value
labels for each operating condition. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3) KeepRite
commented that labeling every panel is not necessary, redundant and
wasteful. KeepRite added that the labeling of every panel would not be
aesthetically pleasing and could lead to sanitation issues. (KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 3) American Panel agreed that walk-in components should be
labeled to demonstrate DOE compliance, but saw no value to the customer
having labels on every walk-in insulated panel. American Panel added
that labels are not seen until installation, and some panels are hidden
by floor covering. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) However, the CA IOUs
supported requiring labels on each individual panel and door, noting
that this is common practice for many construction materials (wall
insulation, windows). (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3)
Stakeholders also recommended alternative approaches to reduce the
labeling burden. Manitowoc and KeepRite suggested that, if DOE retains
the labeling requirements, then DOE should allow manufacturers to have
a single label on each walk-in. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 1; KeepRite,
No. 17 at p. 3) KeepRite explained that a majority of panels arrive to
the jobsite on the same truckload. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 3)
CrownTonka noted that it usually provides all floor, wall, and ceiling
panels for a given walk-in; IB noted that, in addition to all panels,
it also usually provides passage doors. Therefore, both manufacturers
suggested
[[Page 95786]]
a labeling system where all of the components they provide for an
initial installation could be covered under a single label, and only
replacement panels ordered later on would be individually labeled.
(CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 97-99; IB, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 99-100) Hussmann commented that since
walk-ins are assembled in the field, labeling each door or panel would
be excessive and it preferred using a single label for the whole WICF.
In addition, Hussmann criticized the proposed labeling statements as
being long and likely to crowd the nameplate. It suggested as an
alternative that a mark indicating compliance, similar to the UL or
ENERGY STAR marks, be used instead. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2)
Other stakeholders commented on the proposed language for inclusion
on all walk-in equipment permanent nameplates--i.e., ``This [equipment
class] is designed and certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.'' Bally commented that while it supported the phrase
concept, it preferred to include only this phrase on equipment labels.
Bally explained that they could easily include the phrase on a UL
sticker, but information like R-value, model number, or date of
manufacturer would require custom label machinery. (Bally, Bally,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 102) Bally and CrownTonka
supported using a set of three generalized labels which could applied
to a range of panel models. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at pp. 105, 101-102; CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at
p. 106) CrownTonka commented that it generally builds and sells panels
with a specific design, i.e. cooler or freezer, in mind. (CrownTonka,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 105) To this end, it suggested
using one of the following phrases to indicate the intended purpose of
WICF doors: ``Walk in (Cooler/Freezer) Door Assembly'' or ``Certified
Walk in (Cooler/Freezer) Door.'' (Bally, No. 22 at pp. 3-4) Similarly,
Rheem and NCC suggested that, given the differences in freezer and
cooler standards, the label's text stating the intended use of the
panel should read, ``This refrigeration system is designed and
certified for use in walk-in cooler or freezer applications.'' (Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 92; NCC, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 91) Lennox recommended changing the required
wording on the nameplate to read, ``This refrigeration system is
designed and certified to DOE requirements for use in walk-in cooler
and freezer applications.'' (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9)
DOE agrees with the suggestion from Bally, CrownTonka, Rheem, and
NCC. Walk-in components may be designed for walk-in cooler
applications, walk-in freezer applications, or both walk-in cooler and
freezer applications. Therefore, DOE finds that the approach suggested
by these manufacturers improves the application statement because it
not only identifies that the component is designed for use in a walk-
in, but also identifies the type of walk-in (cooler, freezer, or both)
for which the component is designed. This additional information would
help installers verify that they are using the appropriate component
for a particular application. Therefore, DOE is modifying its proposed
permanent nameplate requirement by requiring that the permanent
nameplate indicate whether the basic model is designed and certified
for use in (1) walk-in cooler applications, (2) walk-in freezer
applications, or (3) both walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
applications. For example, a walk-in panel designed and certified for
use only in a walk-in cooler must contain on its label the following
statement, ``This panel is designed and certified for use in walk-in
cooler applications.'' Similarly, if a walk-in panel is designed and
certified for both walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer applications,
then it must contain on its label the following statement, ``This panel
is designed and certified for use in walk-in cooler and freezer
applications.'' Although the ``certified'' language on the label
pertains specifically to the certification of compliance to DOE, to
minimize the labeling burden, DOE is adopting Lennox's suggestion of
dropping the proposed inclusion of the language ``to DOE requirements''
to the label.
Regarding the proposed labeling requirements, DOE's intention is to
adopt a limited set of labeling requirements for walk-in components
that would reduce the overall burden on manufacturers, including for
installers who will be relying on these labels when assembling a given
walk-in. For walk-in doors, DOE is requiring that they include a
permanent nameplate marked with the door brand name and, as applicable,
the statement, ``This door is designed and certified for use in [walk-
in cooler, walk-in freezer, or walk-in cooler and freezer]
applications.''
Similarly, to reduce the burden on walk-in panel manufacturers
while preserving information useful for walk-in installers, DOE is
requiring these components to have a permanent nameplate that includes
the brand name and, as applicable, the statement, ``This panel is
designed and certified for use in [walk-in cooler, walk-in freezer, or
walk-in cooler and freezer] applications.''
In DOE's view, the more limited labeling requirements being adopted
in this rule will enable manufacturers to demonstrate that a given
walk-in component complies with the applicable DOE energy conservation
standards, while eliminating the burden of creating a different label
for each basic model. These limited labeling requirements are
generalized and can be applied to a range of basic models in the manner
suggested by Bally and CrownTonka. Further, these limited labeling
requirements reduce manufacturer burden because components designed for
both walk-in cooler and freezer applications would not require two
separate labels, a concern expressed by Bally.
With respect to the concept of using a single label for a completed
walk-in, DOE notes that its regulatory framework for this equipment
relies on the component-based statutory scheme established by Congress.
As a result, applying the single, completed walk-in labeling approach
suggested by Manitowoc, KeepRite, CrownTonka, IB, and Hussmann would be
inconsistent with that Congressionally-enacted scheme and potentially
less effective at ensuring that installers and consumers have reliable
information regarding whether the walk-in components they are using
comply with the applicable standards. The requirements in this final
rule are intended to help manufacturers of a complete walk-in identify
components that comply with the applicable standards and have been
certified as such. In DOE's view, a single label for a complete walk-in
would reduce the utility of the label with respect to complete walk-in
manufacturers (e.g., installers) since it would offer no information
regarding the performance of the walk-in's regulated components.
DOE considers energy efficiency information an important aspect of
walk-in design, advertising and purchasing and is therefore maintaining
the requirement to report such information in catalogs and marketing
materials. This change is consistent with the approach suggested by
AHRI and Rheem. Specifically, DOE is requiring walk-in door
manufacturers to include each basic model's representative energy
consumption in catalogs and marketing materials while walk-in panel
manufacturers would
[[Page 95787]]
include each basic model's representative R-value in their catalogs and
marketing materials.
Regarding door labels, Bally requested that required door labels
should include units of measure that follow the maximum energy
consumption metric, ``kWh/day''. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3) DOE agrees
with Bally that energy consumption information should be listed with
the appropriate units of measure. As explained in the previous
paragraphs, DOE is not requiring walk-in doors to have energy
consumption marked on their nameplates. However, manufacturers must
include the representative energy consumption for each basic model of
walk-in door in equipment catalogs and marketing materials. Per Bally's
suggestion, DOE is adding a requirement that door energy consumption
must be listed with the units of measure, ``kWh/day''.
Lennox, NCC, Heat Controller, CrownTonka, and Bally also commented
that some of the information that the proposal would require on a label
is already included in current markings or is otherwise tracked and
recorded by manufacturers. AHRI, Rheem, and Hussmann commented that
current safety standards require WICF manufacturers to provide the
brand name, date of manufacture, and model number via a label, and that
this information will allow consumers to look up efficiency information
online--which Hussmann asserts is the preferred method to review
information because it provides context, meaning and the opportunity to
compare ratings. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5;
Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) Bally stated that UL labels already placed on
each door include power consumption and the energy consumption labeling
proposed would be redundant and confusing. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3)
Similar to walk-in doors and panels, DOE's intention is to adopt
labeling requirements for walk-in refrigeration systems that are not
overly burdensome to manufacturers and that provide installers with
enough information to assemble walk-ins with compliant components. In
addition, based on the comments from AHRI, Rheem, and Hussmann, DOE
understands that walk-in customers benefit from having brand name, date
of manufacture and model number information included on refrigeration
system labels because this information allows walk-in customers to look
up efficiency information in CCMS or in manufacturer literature. In
light of the comments received from Lennox, NCC, Heat Controller,
CrownTonka, AHRI, Rheem, and Hussmann, DOE finds that refrigeration
systems are already labeled with the brand, date of manufacture, and
model number information, all of which supports the view that it is
technologically feasible for refrigeration systems to be labeled with
this information. Further, manufacturers will have minimal financial
impacts because they do not need to modify equipment nameplates in
order to meet a requirement to label walk-in refrigeration systems with
brand name, date of manufacturer, and model number. This rule requires
walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems (that are not
manufactured solely for process cooling applications) to have a
permanent nameplate marked with the refrigeration system's brand name,
model number, date of manufacture, and the statement, ``This
refrigeration system is designed and certified for use in [walk-in
cooler, walk-in freezer, or walk-in cooler and freezer] applications.''
In addition, DOE is requiring a refrigeration system that is not
designated for outdoor use be labeled with the statement, ``Indoor use
only.'' See section III.A.1.d for more details. The permanent nameplate
of a refrigeration system component that can only be used as part of a
process cooling refrigeration system must be marked clearly with the
statement, ``This refrigeration system is designed for use exclusively
in walk-in cooler and/or freezer process cooling refrigeration
applications.'' DOE is requiring manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration
systems to include each basic model's representative AWEF in catalogs
and marketing materials.
DOE also notes that EPCA generally requires that labels prescribed
by the Secretary must indicate the energy efficiency of the affected
equipment, as tested under the prescribed DOE test procedure. (42
U.S.C. 6315(b)) For walk-in equipment, the labeling requirements
prescribed by the Secretary shall indicate the energy efficiency of the
equipment. See 42 U.S.C. 6315(e). DOE's rule requires that
manufacturers disclose whether a given regulated walk-in component
meets the applicable energy efficiency requirement that applies. In
DOE's view, this approach satisfies the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6315
since it discloses whether a given component meets the prescribed level
of efficiency, while minimizing the associated burden requirements. DOE
notes that the specific requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6315(e) do not
require that a specific value be provided on the label--only that the
label ``indicate the energy efficiency of the equipment.'' In DOE's
view, this final rule's labeling requirement, which would also be
coupled with a requirement that equipment catalogs prominently display
the energy efficiency of regulated components, satisfies this provision
since the label will readily indicate whether a given component
satisfies the prescribed energy efficiency level for that component.
Accordingly, DOE's adopted approach satisfies its legal obligations
while balancing the interests in providing sufficient information to
the public against the potential costs of requiring a label for walk-in
components. DOE notes that manufacturers are free to provide additional
information regarding the performance of their components should they
choose to do so, see section III.B.5.b for additional details.
Given that the disclosure statement represents that the labeled
component is certified as compliant with the applicable energy
conservation standard, if a manufacturer has not certified to DOE that
a component meets applicable standards, the components may not contain
any labels indicating compliance or certification.
DOE also received comments specific to the proposed requirement
that the date of manufacture be included on the label. Lennox commented
that the month and year of manufacture are already included in its UL
markings, while NCC noted that its UL markings indicate the
manufacturing date by quarter and year. (Lennox, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 83; NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at
p. 91) NCC further explained that the exact date of manufacture cannot
be determined when the nameplates are printed; instead they indicate
the date of manufacture by quarter within their serial numbers, as
controlled by the UL safety procedure file. NCC recommended that DOE
allow manufacturers to continue using the formats defined in their
safety procedure files. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 2) CrownTonka commented that
they print serial numbers on each component and use these numbers to
keep records of the manufactured date, intended use and other details.
(CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 92-93) Bally
commented that it currently prints the manufactured date, job number,
and other information on each panel. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 103-104) Lennox added that it found the proposed
manufacturing date labeling requirement unclear regarding the required
format for the date code, and recommended that the manufacturing date
labeling requirement to be represented by the date code, which is
incorporated into the unit serial number. (Lennox, No. 13
[[Page 95788]]
at p. 9) Heat Controller commented that the proposed requirement would
duplicate information that is already embedded in its product serial
numbers, and that its marketing materials already show customers how to
read this information. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at pp. 96-97)
DOE clarifies that if manufacturers typically include model number
information on the label of a walk-in panel, door, or refrigeration
system, then that specific requirement is already satisfied for
purposes of the labeling requirements being adopted in this rule, and
no further action by a manufacturer would be needed. Regarding the
issues raised by Lennox and Heat Controller, DOE agrees that if the
date of manufacture is embedded in the serial number of a given
regulated component, DOE will consider this approach to satisfy the
manufacture date requirement. However, DOE emphasizes that a walk-in
refrigeration system manufacturer is responsible for maintaining
records to discern the date of manufacture from the serial number for
each walk-in refrigeration system. DOE is specifying in its labeling
requirements that if the date of manufacture is embedded in the unit's
serial number, then the manufacturer of the refrigeration system must
retain any relevant records to discern the date from the serial number.
DOE believes that the date of manufacture must reflect the month
and year the unit was manufactured since the compliance date for the
energy conservation standards for walk-in equipment is based on the
date of manufacture. Labeling equipment with the date of manufacture
enables DOE to readily determine whether a given unit is subject to the
walk-in energy conservation standards. Quarterly dates of manufacture
alone contain insufficient information to enable either DOE or the
manufacturer to readily make this determination.
Heat Controller asked if a dedicated condensing unit had to be
labeled with information specific to the dedicated condensing unit or
information related complete refrigeration system installed in a walk-
in under DOE's proposal. Heat Controller explained that they would not
know where a dedicated condensing unit would end up and would not know
the brand or model number under which the complete refrigeration system
was sold. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 94)
DOE clarifies that a dedicated condensing unit distributed in commerce
without a matched unit cooler would only need to be labeled with
information specific to the dedicated condensing unit--e.g., the model
number of the dedicated condensing unit, the date the dedicated
condensing unit was manufactured, etc.
In commenting on the proposed inclusion of the requirement to
identify the ``refrigeration system brand,'' Lennox viewed this
proposal as referring to the original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'')
name and not the brands under which they market their products. It
requested that ``refrigeration system brand'' be changed to
``refrigeration manufacturer name'' instead. Lennox stated that
manufacturer name information is currently represented on all Lennox
WICF equipment nameplates and DOE's proposal would pose no additional
burden if implemented in this manner. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9) DOE
agrees that either the manufacturer name or the brand name must be
displayed on the label for walk-in components. In this rule, DOE is
adopting labeling requirements for walk-in panels, doors, and
refrigeration systems that require either the manufacturer name or
brand name to be displayed on each unit.
CrownTonka requested that DOE clarify the term ``permanent.'' It
added that making labels permanent can require different materials,
different ink, different combinations of systems, with significant
costs. (CrownTonka, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 97-98) DOE
clarifies that it is using the term ``permanent'' to mean that the
label is not easily removable and will not become detached from the
equipment or unreadable through everyday wear and tear.
In the NOPR, DOE also considered a requirement specifying the
location of the permanent nameplates on doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems. The NOPR proposed to require that the permanent
nameplate must be visible at all times, including when the component is
assembled into a complete walk-in.
ASAP and NEEA agreed that labels should be visible because it will
effectively enable utilities and code inspectors to verify the
installation of qualified equipment. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at pp. 3-4)
The CA IOUs suggested that the labels should be placed such that they
would be fully visible if the walk-in were assembled in an ``open air''
environment, with none hidden or covered by any joints. (CA IOUs, No.
21 at p. 3)
Other commenters, however, opposed this proposed requirement.
Manitowoc and Rheem noted that WICF customers do not want visible
labels on their equipment, which are often client-facing. (Manitowoc,
No. 10 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4) Hussmann also commented that the
label should not be fully visible to the customer. Hussmann expressed
concern about requiring a door label that would block view of any
product, but supported using a hinge label that is visible only when
the door is opened. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
89-90) It added that it places labels in discreet but accessible
locations because customers do not want to have visible labels on their
equipment. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) American Panel suggested as an
alternative that walk-in door labels be placed on the door frame with
other product labeling and safety information. (American Panel, No. 7
at p. 1) Bally noted that if labels are affixed in a visible location
they will allow dirt to collect around their periphery and will
interfere with cleaning. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 3)
Heat Controller was concerned that the label visibility
requirements could necessitate the placement of multiple labels on a
single component. Specifically, it asked whether rooftop refrigeration
systems would need a second label in the walk-in envelope that was
visible from ground level. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 95) CrownTonka also asked that the visibility and
permanence requirements of the label be clarified. (CrownTonka, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 97-98)
American Panel commented that floor panels are often installed
beneath a permanent floor covering (e.g., concrete, plastic
treatments), which would render the proposed label unseen and
inaccessible. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
101)
In light of these comments, DOE is electing not to require the
permanent nameplate to be visible at all times, including when the
component is assembled into a complete walk-in. However, the label must
be visible to the entity that purchases the walk-in component. For
example, a panel may have a label on an edge that is not visible when
the panel is assembled into a complete walk-in. However, the contractor
that purchased the panel would be able to see the label prior to
assembly. Additionally, as explained by American Panel, even if a floor
panel is covered by a permanent floor covering like concrete, the floor
panel must have a label that is visible prior to their integration into
a fully assembled walk-in. In response to Heat Controller's comment,
DOE clarifies that refrigeration systems installed on a walk-in roof
would not need a second label that is visible from ground level.
[[Page 95789]]
Lastly, Dow commented that it understood that the NOPR did not
propose to require insulation suppliers to label walk-in panels and
requested that DOE clarify the role, if any, of insulation suppliers in
regards to labeling. (Dow, No. 9 at pp. 2-3) DOE notes that only walk-
in component manufacturers are responsible for labeling their
equipment.
c. Information Disclosed on Marketing Materials
DOE proposed to clarify the requirements for the disclosure of
efficiency information in marketing materials and to require that such
marketing materials prominently display the same information required
to appear on a walk-in component's permanent nameplate.
Lennox supported the reporting requirements to communicate the
rated efficiency and net capacity in their literature for each model,
but stated that reporting the information on each page of product
literature is duplicative, adds no value to individuals reading the
literature and creates an additional burden to manufacturers. Lennox
requested the language be revised to remove the term ``each page'' and
indicate that reporting of this information is required in product
literature. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 10) NCC noted that while many
marketing materials provide performance information at a range of
operating conditions, some marketing materials, such as leaflets, may
not have space available for detailed technical data. (NCC, No. 16 at
p. 3)
In response to these concerns, DOE is modifying its proposal.
Marketing materials must prominently display the same information that
must appear on a walk-in component's permanent nameplate. In addition,
DOE is requiring manufacturers to disclose the R-value of walk-in
panels, the energy consumption for walk-in doors, and the AWEF for
walk-in refrigeration systems in each catalog that lists the component
and all materials used to market the component. However, as suggested
by Lennox, DOE is removing the term ``each page'' from this
requirement. DOE believes that reporting efficiency information on each
page of catalogs and marketing materials may be overly burdensome. DOE
also notes that while this rule does not require that detailed
technical data, like a range of operating conditions, be reported in
all marketing materials, the rule requires that all marketing materials
that list the walk-in component, including leaflets, must disclose the
efficiency of that component.
AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and KeepRite requested that DOE
clarify that net capacity need not be included in marketing materials.
These stakeholders argued that net capacity is not familiar or useful
to consumers and may cause them confusion. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 6-7; NCC, No. 16 at p.
3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) AHRI, Rheem, and KeepRite also asked that
DOE clarify in the final rule that only information on the proposed
label is required in marketing literature. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 6-7; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) NCC commented that
manufacturers should be allowed to publish total capacity data at both
rated and application conditions. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 3) AHRI and
Manitowoc commented that the performance tables used in existing
marketing materials are valuable to customers. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3;
Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2) KeepRite asked that DOE clarify whether the
current marketing methods for ratings (i.e., tables) are allowed in
marketing literature. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)
This rule contains no requirement to include net capacity in
marketing materials. As discussed earlier in section III.B.5.b of this
final rule, DOE elected to limit its labeling requirements for panels,
doors, and refrigeration systems. In addition to the limited
information displayed on walk-in component labels, DOE is requiring
catalogs and marketing materials for doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems to include the representative energy efficiency or energy
consumption for each walk-in component model listed in the literature.
With respect to publishing certain application ratings, manufacturers
may continue to do so. Specifically, manufacturers may publish total
capacity, net capacity, system total power consumption and component
power consumptions. In response to AHRI's, Manitowoc's, and KeepRite's
request to retain the existing performance tables in marketing
literature, DOE agrees that these tables may be retained so long as
that information is consistent with this rule.
NCC also requested that DOE permit manufacturers to publish all
necessary application capacities, even if some of the associated AWEF
values may be below the minimum requirement. In addition, NCC asked
whether accessories that are required for certain applications but may
reduce the measured AWEF values can be listed on a manufacturer's
marketing material with a note stating that it ``may not meet DOE
minimum AWEF requirements,'' or similar language. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 3)
Manufacturers must determine the represented AWEF for each basic model
of walk-in refrigeration system in accordance with DOE's test procedure
(10 CFR 431.306) and sampling requirements (10 CFR 429. 53). All walk-
in refrigeration system basic models, including those basic models sold
with accessories, are required to meet the applicable AWEF standards.
Distribution in commerce of any covered equipment that does not comply
with an applicable energy conservation standard is prohibited.
C. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
In addition to the issues discussed above, DOE examined its other
obligations under EPCA in developing this final rule. These
requirements are addressed in greater detail below.
1. Test Burden
EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be
reasonably designed to produce test results that measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use.
These procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42
U.S.C. 6314(a). DOE has concluded that the adopted amendments satisfy
this requirement. The adopted test procedure amendments generally
represent minor changes to the test procedure that do not affect the
equipment required for testing and either reduce or have no effect on
the time required to conduct the testing.
Section III.A.2.a of this final rule discusses the reasons for
removing the method for addressing the treatment of hot gas defrost--a
credit--from the test procedure. That credit represented the efficiency
improvement of hot gas defrost and applied to any low-temperature
refrigeration system that uses hot gas defrost. The procedure adopted
in this rule will require refrigeration systems with hot gas defrost to
be tested by measuring their steady-state performance with their hot
gas defrost components removed and pipes reconnected according to the
manufacturer's specifications, as discussed in section III.A.2.a of
this document. This step represents a potential increase in test burden
when testing unit coolers, matched pairs, and single-package dedicated
systems with hot gas defrost. The reason for this step, as discussed in
section III.A.2.a of this document, is that the evaporators of such
systems cannot defrost themselves and cannot remove moisture from the
[[Page 95790]]
indoor room of the test facility without collecting frost, which
necessitates testing be conducted in a facility with an indoor room
conditioning system that can cool down the room and remove moisture. To
the extent that a manufacturer without access to such a test facility
must conduct such a test for hot gas defrost equipment, the associated
test burden represents either installing such a conditioning system in
the indoor room of their facility, or contracting such test work to
third party laboratories.
DOE does not have detailed information regarding the test
facilities that manufacturers use to test refrigeration systems, or
whether all manufacturers have their own test facilities. DOE expects,
however, that most of these test facilities have indoor room
conditioning systems to ensure that low-capacity systems, whose
capacity may not exceed the indoor room thermal load and would
therefore not be able to pull the indoor room temperature down to
specified test conditions, could be tested. In support of this
expectation, DOE notes that Figure C1 of appendix C of AHRI 1250-2009
shows a conditioning system in the indoor room of the illustrated test
facility. DOE also expects that some manufacturers will develop
performance representations for their hot gas defrost units using
AEDMs, an approach that limits the need for actual testing of hot gas
defrost unit coolers and matched-pairs. Therefore, DOE does not expect
these increased requirements to add unduly to test burden.
Section III.A.2.b of this final rule discusses DOE's revisions to
the test procedure for refrigeration systems with adaptive defrost.
This final rule does not require manufacturers of refrigeration systems
with adaptive defrost to measure and certify their performance using
this feature. Manufacturers that make representations showing the
benefit of adaptive defrost may continue using the testing and
certification requirements for performance incorporating this feature
since these provisions are not affected by this final rule. Hence, in
DOE's view, there is no added test burden involved with the test
procedure as finalized in this notice.
Section III.A.2.c of this final rule discusses DOE's revisions to
the test procedure for unit coolers with on-cycle variable-speed fan
control. Prior to this final rule, DOE allowed manufacturers to test
the benefit of this feature using the DOE test procedure for unit
coolers. DOE is modifying the test procedure to specify that certified
ratings of systems with this feature shall exclude the credit. This
approach lowers the testing burden for unit coolers with this feature
because manufacturers no longer need to perform this test to obtain
ratings for certification. (Manufacturers may still make
representations of unit cooler efficiency with this feature; in this
case, the testing burden will not change.)
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
In general, when modifying a given test procedure, DOE determines
to what extent, if any, the new test procedure would alter the measured
energy use of covered products. (42 U.S.C 6293(e)(1)). DOE has made
this determination in light of the corresponding standards rulemaking
that it is conducting in parallel with this test procedure rulemaking.
See 81 FR 62980. (That rulemaking addresses potential energy
conservation standards for certain classes of walk-in refrigeration
systems.) DOE has determined that the adopted test procedure amendments
could affect the measured energy use of certain covered products, but
the amendments would only affect aspects related to testing after the
compliance date of the amended energy conservation standards that DOE
is proposing in a separate notice. The test procedure amendments would
not, however, affect the current standards for any walk-in components,
nor would they affect the refrigeration system standards promulgated in
the June 2014 final rule with a compliance date of June 5, 2017 (i.e.,
the standards for medium-temperature, dedicated condensing
refrigeration systems). Instead, the modifications in this rule will
affect only low-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems
and unit coolers. The separate analysis for the standards rulemaking
that DOE is conducting explicitly accounts for the test procedure
changes finalized in this rule. Accordingly, this rule will require no
further changes to the energy conservation standards beyond those which
DOE has already considered in its parallel standards rulemaking
analysis.
D. Additional Comments From Interested Parties
This section discusses additional comments made by interested
parties during this rulemaking that were unrelated to any of DOE's
specific proposals.
1. High Temperature Freezer Applications
Lennox commented that in the current market, high temperature
freezer applications (10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F room temperature) are
served by medium temperature condensing units. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 2)
Lennox, Rheem and AHRI pointed out the challenges that using lower GWP
refrigerants pose for reaching freezer testing conditions with medium
temperature condensing units. Lennox, Rheem and AHRI recommended that
DOE allow manufacturers to publish application ratings below 32 [deg]F
room temperature for medium temperature WICF products without having to
certify this equipment as low temperature refrigeration systems using
the low-temperature test conditions. (Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 2-4; Rheem,
No. 18 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7) Lennox suggested that this ``high
temperature freezer'' application may justifiably represent a third
class of walk-in refrigeration systems (in addition to low-temperature
and medium-temperature), which could require establishing a third set
of test procedure operating conditions and standards. However, Lennox
also highlighted the cost and reporting burden associated with
establishing a new equipment class for the high temperature freezer
application. (Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 2-4) Hussmann requested that
manufacturers be allowed to market and sell medium temperature unit
coolers for applications with interior temperatures less than 32
[deg]F. Although not explicitly stated in the comment, DOE assumes
Hussmann intended this as a request that DOE not require the testing
and certifying of such equipment as low-temperature unit coolers.
Hussmann explained that unit coolers cannot have optimized performance
at both -10 [deg]F and close-to-32 [deg]F test conditions. (Hussmann,
No. 20 at p. 3)
As noted earlier, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking to
address potential energy conservation standards for certain classes of
walk-in refrigeration equipment. In response to that rulemaking
proposal, Lennox submitted additional information on the high
temperature freezer issue. (See docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016,
Lennox, No. 89 at pp. 2-5) In particular, Lennox provided AWEF values
for operation at 10 [deg]F room temperature showing that medium-
temperature condensing units are more efficient than low-temperature
condensing units at 10 [deg]F room temperature. These values also
indicated that medium-temperature condensing units were more efficient
under these conditions than the low-temperature AWEF standard levels
proposed by DOE (which apply for -10 [deg]F rather than 10 [deg]F room
conditions). See 81 FR at 62982 (detailing proposed standard levels for
various walk-in refrigeration equipment classes). Lennox used these
data to argue that DOE's
[[Page 95791]]
interests (i.e. ensuring that the most efficient equipment will be used
in walk-ins) would best be served by allowing use of medium temperature
condensing units in the 10 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F range without additional
testing or certification, because of the medium-temperature units'
better efficiency. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Lennox, No. 89 at
p. 4)
DOE discussed the issues regarding publishing application ratings
in section III.B.2. DOE acknowledges the market need for equipment to
serve the high-temperature freezer market and that medium-temperature
units may have better efficiency than low-temperature units in this
temperature range. However, models that span multiple equipment classes
are to be tested and certified as compliant with the applicable
standard for each equipment class. If these equipment cannot be tested
in a way that properly represents their performance characteristics,
manufacturers have the option of petitioning DOE for test procedure
waivers as described in 10 CFR 431.401. DOE notes the test method of
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers includes
provisions for testing equipment at the lowest application product
temperature. (10 CFR part 431, appendix A to subpart C) While DOE is
not formalizing such an approach in this rule, the manufacturer may
consider such an approach or other applicable test methods when
petitioning for a waiver. DOE may also consider establishing new
equipment classes and developing applicable test methods in future
rulemakings.
2. Unit Cooler With Mounted/Ancillary Components
Lennox recommended that DOE update the test procedure in section
3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C to indicate that any
mounted or ancillary components installed in the refrigerant flow path
upstream of the distributor and downstream of the heat exchanger exit
are to be removed during the test. Lennox noted the 10 [deg]F
temperature differential (``TD'') at the heat exchanger was specified
as the basis for the test procedure \16\ and also used in calculations
to establish the proposed unit cooler (``UC'') AWEF standards. Lennox
indicated the pressure drop of the ancillary components outside of the
heat exchanger was not considered when setting the UC standards. Lennox
commented that the pressure drop results in loss of ability to attain
the 10 [deg]F TD at the heat exchanger. Therefore, the ancillary
components should be removed during testing. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For example, for a freezer unit cooler, section 3.3.1 of 10
CFR 431, subpart R, appendix C as finalized in this notice indicates
that the suction A condition of Table 16 of AHRI 1250-2009 is used
for testing. For this condition, the entering air temperature is -10
[deg]F and the saturated suction temperature is -20 [deg]F,
representing a 10 [deg]F TD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding this issue, DOE notes that the current test conditions
for testing unit coolers includes a 25 [deg]F saturated suction
temperature for medium temperature unit coolers and -20 [deg]F for low-
temperature unit coolers (see 10 CFR 431.304(12)(ii)). These conditions
represent a 10 [deg]F TD relative to the unit cooler air entering dry-
bulb temperatures (see Tables 15 and 16 in 10 CFR 431.304), which is
consistent with AHRI 1250-2009. DOE maintained the same test conditions
in this final rule in section 3.3.1 of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
Appendix C. There is no indication in AHRI 1250-2009, nor in the test
procedure in 10 CFR 431.304, that these conditions apply to the heat
exchanger rather than the suction outlet. For example, Table C2 of
Appendix C of AHRI 1250-2009 lists ``pressure of superheated
refrigerant vapor leaving the Unit Cooler'' as a measured quantity. DOE
asserts that ``leaving the unit cooler'' is not the same as ``within
the heat exchanger.'' The ``leaving the heat exchanger'' location is
underscored by Figure C1 of Appendix C of the test standard, which
shows the pressure measurement in the pipe after it has exited the unit
cooler. AHRI 1250-2009 does not point to locations within the heat
exchanger when referencing the unit cooler exit, focusing instead on
the exit piping. Hence, it is not clear that the test procedure calls
for 10 [deg]F TD within the heat exchanger if there is any appreciable
pressure drop between the heat exchanger and the pipe leaving the unit
cooler.
Regarding Lennox's comment that the proposed UC AWEF standards used
an assumed 10 [deg]F TD at the heat exchanger, DOE's unit cooler energy
modeling in support of its standards proposal did not involve any
assumption regarding the removal of any mounted/ancillary components in
the refrigerant line. The analysis also did not assume that there would
be any significant pressure drop between the heat exchanger's suction
header and the unit cooler outlet. As DOE noted in its standards
proposal, DOE's unit cooler testing indicated that the unit coolers'
measured capacities are lower than the nominal capacities reported in
manufacturer literature. These results suggest that using a unit
cooler's nominal capacity would overestimate both capacity and
efficiency when measured during testing. (September 11, 2015 Public
Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 3 at p. 40)
Rheem suggested that this discrepancy may be due, in part, to the
difference between the test conditions used during testing and those
used when determining the nominal capacity of a unit cooler. (Docket
No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September
11, 2015), No. 61 at pp. 116-117) DOE's standards analysis used
performance modeling of WICF evaporator coils, calibrated with testing
data, to develop an equation that related manufacturer-reported nominal
capacity to the net capacity measured during unit cooler testing.
(September 30, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0016, No. 7 at pp. 55 and 57) The tests conducted were
consistent with AHRI 1250-2009, with the pressures measured in the exit
piping leaving the unit coolers. DOE used this approach, which was
vetted by the WICF Working Group, for determining unit cooler measured
capacity in the subsequent analysis. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016,
various parties, Public Meeting Transcript (October 15, 2015), No. 62
at pp. 205-209)
Moreover, Lennox did not indicate in its submission which ancillary
components should be removed. DOE believes any components that are
necessary for the proper operation of a given unit cooler should remain
part of that equipment when tested. DOE is aware that unit coolers
equipped with hot gas defrost are likely to require additional valves
in the refrigerant line. DOE discusses specific requirements regarding
components installed as part of hot gas defrost units in section
III.A.2.a of this final rule. DOE notes that evaporator pressure
regulators (``EPRs'') are commonly installed with unit coolers in
supermarket refrigeration systems, but not in dedicated condensing
applications. For this reason, DOE believes that it may be acceptable
to remove the EPR during unit cooler testing, but is not formalizing
this approach in the test procedure at this time. DOE is not aware of
any other ancillary components that are likely to be installed as
indicated by the comment. If a manufacturer believes the inclusion of
any ancillary components would make testing non-representative of
average use cycles, it can petition DOE for a waiver in accordance with
the requirements in 10 CFR 431.401.
[[Page 95792]]
3. Off-Cycle Unit Cooler Variable-Speed Fan Setting
Lennox recommended that DOE specify that during the unit cooler
off-cycle fan power test, the controls shall be adjusted to 50% fan
speed/duty cycle only if the controls are adjustable, and that
otherwise the control default parameters shall be used. (Lennox, No. 13
at p. 5)
Lennox's suggestion, if adopted, would potentially allow fans with
fixed two-speed control to use speed below 50% in unit cooler testing.
During one of the Working Group meetings, Rheem stated concern with air
flow distribution at low fan speed. Lennox and Rheem agreed with
selecting 50% as the minimum evaporator fan turn-down for both on-cycle
and off-cycle evaporator fan speed in DOE's engineering analysis
supporting the standard rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016,
Rheem, Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 61
at pp. 135-136) In a subsequent meeting, DOE presented analyses that
used as the lowest speed for variable-speed fan operation 50% of the
fan's maximum speed for both on-cycle and off-cycle in the analysis.
The Working Group raised no objections to this approach. (See public
meeting presentation, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 7 at p. 20;
see also Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), Docket No.
EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 67 at p. 106). Consistent with this
approach, DOE used a 50% lower limit as part of its energy conservation
standard rulemaking analysis. See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, NOPR
Technical Support Document, No. 70, Section 5.5.6.7 pp. 5-34 to 5-35.
The energy conservation standards developed during the related
negotiated rulemaking are based on the use of this 50% limit for
testing. Hence, it would be inconsistent to now allow the use of a
lower fan speed in tests for demonstration of compliance with the
standards. Consequently, consistent with the approach laid out during
the negotiated rulemaking for walk-in standards, DOE is continuing to
use 50% as the lower limit of evaporator fan duty cycle and fan speed.
The procedure allows two- or multi-speed fan controls to use a low (or
intermediate) speed that is no less than 50% of the maximum fan speed.
DOE notes that the test procedure does not prohibit a manufacturer from
offering evaporator fan speed/duty cycle settings that are lower than
50% in the market, but recognizes that such fans would likely require
multi-speed motors. These designs would likely use low-speed settings
for the off-cycle in some installations and intermediate speed settings
for the off-cycle in other installations that require these higher
(intermediate) speeds to ensure more complete air mixing--but off-cycle
for testing would be 50% of full-speed or higher using an intermediate
speed setting.
4. Unit Cooler Capacity Determination in Condensing Unit Only Test
Lennox and Rheem suggested that the WICF test procedure lacks
clarification on the capacity calculation when testing a condensing
unit only. Both commenters suggested using the condensing unit capacity
in the AWEF calculation. Rheem proposed the condensing unit capacity
should be calculated using the enthalpy of the refrigerant leaving the
condensing unit (liquid line), the enthalpy of the refrigerant entering
the condensing unit (suction line), and the measured refrigerant mass
flow rate. (Lennox, No. 13 at p.11; Rheem, No. 18 at p.7)
DOE notes the saturated refrigerant temperatures at the unit cooler
coil exit for the purposes of calculating the enthalpy leaving the unit
cooler are provided in section 3.4.2.1 of the proposed 10 CFR 431
Subpart R, Appendix C (and also 10 CFR 431.304(12)(ii) of the current
test procedure), and are 25 [deg]F for medium temperature and -20
[deg]F for low temperature. Section 3.4.1 indicates that the suction
dew point conditions at the condensing unit are the ``suction A''
conditions provided in AHRI 1250-2009, Tables 11 through 14--these are
23 [deg]F for medium temperature and -22 [deg]F for low temperature.
Hence, the pressure drop in the suction line is assumed to be
equivalent to a 2 [deg]F reduction in dew point temperature.
However, the unit cooler refrigerant exit temperature or superheat,
neither of which were provided in the test procedure, is also required
to calculate the unit cooler leaving enthalpy. The test procedure
requires testing with a suction temperature entering the unit cooler
(i.e., return gas temperature) equal to 41 [deg]F for medium
temperature and 5 [deg]F for low temperature (see, e.g., Tables 11 and
13 of AHRI 1250-2009). DOE notes that the exit temperature for a
medium-temperature unit cooler could not be 41 [deg]F, because the
temperature of the air that the refrigerant is cooling is taken to be
35 [deg]F. Likewise, the exit temperature for a low-temperature unit
cooler could not be 5 [deg]F, because the entering air temperature for
a low-temperature unit cooler is taken to be -10 [deg]F. By assuming
that the refrigerant temperature leaving the unit cooler is 41 [deg]F
for medium temperature and 5 [deg]F for low temperature, the approach
proposed by Lennox and Rheem would take credit for refrigeration
capacity that could not have been delivered by the unit cooler. DOE
does not believe this is appropriate.
Instead, DOE considered the approach recommended by the WICF
Working Group, which DOE applied in its walk-in standards engineering
analysis. During the Working Group meetings, DOE presented the use of a
6.5 [deg]F unit cooler exit superheat assumption for calculating unit
cooler capacity of low temperature dedicated condensing unit tested
alone. See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE and Hussmann, Public
Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 135. DOE
developed a spreadsheet-based engineering model that calculates the
performance of different WICF equipment designs and summarizes cost
versus efficiency relationships for the classes covered in the energy
conservation standard rulemaking. DOE made a draft version of the
spreadsheet available to the Working Group members and the general
public. See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 32. DOE implemented
integer superheat values in the engineering spreadsheet to avoid
refrigerant property calculation errors. A caucus of manufacturers
later submitted their notes after reviewing the DOE-provided draft
engineering spreadsheet. There was no disagreement on the selection of
unit cooler superheat values as part of condensing unit calculations.
See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 45) Consistent with the superheat
values given in the engineering spreadsheet presented to the Working
Group, DOE is adopting the same values (6 [deg]F for low temperature,
10 [deg]F to medium temperature) in this final rule for low temperature
and medium temperature condensing units tested alone. DOE adds the
prescribed superheat values to section 3.4.2.1 for purposes of
calculating enthalpy leaving the unit cooler as part of the calculating
gross capacity. DOE notes that the recommendations made by Lennox and
Rheem for the conditions representing enthalpy at the unit cooler inlet
are consistent with the engineering analysis as discussed by the WICF
Working Group, for which unit cooler inlet enthalpy equals to
condensing unit outlet enthalpy (i.e., 0 [deg]F liquid line
subcooling), (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE and Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 133-134;
see also October 15, 2015 Public Meeting Presentation, slide 42,
available in
[[Page 95793]]
Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 26 at p. 42), which is equivalent
to the subcooling that would be present at the exit of a typical
condensing unit during a test.
5. Insulation Aging
EPCA defines the R-value as the 1/K factor multiplied by the
thickness of the panel, and that the K factor shall be tested based on
ASTM test procedure C518-2004. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)). (The K factor
represents the thermal conductivity.) EPCA, however, does not specify
when the R-value should be determined. As was first discussed in the
2010 NOPR and later in the 2010 SNOPR, the R-value of polyurethane and
extruded polystyrene (``XPS'') insulation products can significantly
decrease with time. 75 FR 185, 192-195 (January 4, 2010) and 75 FR
55067, 55075-55081 (September 9, 2010). To address this concern, two
European testing standards DIN EN 13164:2009 and DIN EN 13165:2009 were
included in the 2011 Test Procedure final rule in order to take foam
aging into consideration when determining an R-value for these
insulation types. 76 FR at 21585 (April 15, 2011). However, as
discussed in its 2014 final rule addressing the use of AEDMs and
certain test procedure issues with respect to walk-ins, DOE received a
number of negative comments regarding this aspect of the WICF panel
test procedure. See 79 FR 27388. The comments largely presented two
concerns: Test burden and the availability of laboratories to conduct
these tests. In these comments, multiple manufacturers suggested that
no independent laboratories were capable of conducting DIN EN 13164/
13165 tests. Several industry comments suggested that the cost of these
tests could be excessive, particularly given the limited availability
of independent test laboratories to perform these specific tests. See
section III.D. of the 2014 AEDM and Test Procedure SNOPR for a full
comment summary, 79 FR at 9835-9837. In response to the concerns
highlighted in these comments, DOE ultimately removed the portions of
the test procedure referencing DIN EN 13164/13165. 79 FR at 27405.
This issue resurfaced in the comments of EPS-IA in response to the
August 2016 NOPR. EPS-IA reiterated that the R-value of XPS products
reduces significantly from the time of production (``fresh'') to when
it's assembled in panels (weeks or months later). Further, EPS-IA noted
that panel manufacturers often accelerate the aging process by shaping
or milling the XPS product during panel assembly. (EPS-IA, No. 12 at p.
2) EPS-IA argued that existing regulations allow manufacturers to
report, and assemblers to rely upon, the ``fresh'' R-value, which is
significantly higher than the actual R-value of the XPS in an assembled
panel. (EPS-IA, No. 12 at p. 1) EPS-IA suggested that DOE modify the
regulation to require the reporting of a stable, long-term R-value, or
alternatively to define ``fresh'' and implement controls to ensure
manufacturers are incorporating ``fresh'' insulation into the panels.
EPS-IA also suggested that DOE adopt existing FTC R-value regulations,
rather than craft its own test methodology, and noted that requiring
panel manufacturers to label each unit will not address the issue.
(EPS-IA, No. 12 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with EPS-IA's observation that insulation, including
those types used in walk-in applications, may exhibit aging. However,
in this test procedure, DOE proposed editorial changes to the test
procedure for measuring R-value for walk-in cooler and freezer panels.
While the test procedure does not account for insulation aging at this
time, the Department may consider alternate test methods--such as those
suggested by EPS-IA--for addressing insulation aging in a future energy
conservation standard and test procedure rulemakings.
6. Laboratory Qualification
DOE received written comments on the capability of test
laboratories performing enforcement testing. AHRI and Manitowoc
recommended that DOE ensure that laboratories demonstrate repeatability
on a regular basis in order to justify the results from an enforcement
test. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2) NCC noted that
DOE should pre-qualify laboratories on testing of WICF refrigeration
systems where enforcement tests for this equipment would be performed.
(NCC, No. 16 at p. 6)
DOE requires enforcement testing to be conducted at laboratories
accredited to the International Organization for Standardization
(``ISO'')/International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC''),
``General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories.'' In addition, when conducting enforcement testing, DOE
requires the specific DOE test procedure to be on the test laboratory's
scope of accreditation. 10 CFR 429.110(a)(3) DOE may consider
additional criteria for test laboratories conducting walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer testing in a separate rulemaking that could apply
equally to both test laboratories used by manufacturers and those used
by DOE for enforcement.
7. Variable-Capacity Condensing Unit Test Method
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE begin to address the issues with
testing variable-capacity condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 4-
5)
DOE is aware that ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 210 (SPC 210)
has established a Working Group to address test methods issues
regarding variable- and multiple-capacity condensing units. The SPC 210
Working Group includes members representing walk-in refrigeration
system and compressor manufacturers who are familiar with the design,
operation and testing of variable- and multiple-capacity compressors
and condensing units. DOE believes it is appropriate to permit ASHRAE
SPC 210 to continue with its developmental work in defining an
appropriate test method for this equipment. Allowing these industry
experts to analyze and develop the parameters of an approach to address
this equipment will help ensure that the fundamental issues associated
with testing this equipment are sufficiently vetted and addressed. Once
that development work has completed and a test method has been
developed, DOE will examine that method and may then consider its
incorporation into the applicable regulations in a future rulemaking.
8. Request for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AHRI and Manitowoc recommended that DOE publish a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'') as the next stage of this
rulemaking. The written comments argued that many of the NOPR proposals
did not originate from the ASRAC negotiation, and that many of the
proposals do not provide a clear way forward for implementation. The
comments also indicated DOE has the necessary time available to issue
an SNOPR. (AHRI, No 11 at p.7; Manitowoc, No 10 at p.3)
DOE has the authority to propose amendments to its regulations that
are necessary in order to properly administer standards and test
procedure requirements. DOE notes the ASRAC negotiations had a limited
scope that did not address many topics proposed in the NOPR. The
proposals not originating from the negotiations are clearly identified
in the NOPR and this final rule, and DOE believes that stakeholders had
ample time to voice concerns and suggest alternative approaches. DOE
has received numerous comments to its NOPR and
[[Page 95794]]
has considered these comments carefully in modifying its approach and
finalizing the proposed amendments. DOE notes that AHRI and Manitowoc
did not provide any detail as to which of the proposals in the NOPR
would require an SNOPR. For these reasons, DOE has finalized this
rulemaking without publishing a SNOPR.
9. ASRAC Working Group Representation
KPS commented that the ASRAC Working Group had little
representation from WICF OEMs. KPS also suggested adding more WICF OEMs
to the Working Group. (KPS, No. 8 at p.1)
Prior to the Working Group meetings, on August 5, 2015, DOE
published a notice of intent to establish a Working Group for Certain
Equipment Classes of Refrigeration Systems of Walk-in Coolers and
Freezers to Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Energy
Conservation Standards. 80 FR 46521. DOE notes that the agenda for the
WICF Working Group meetings included as key issues (a) proposed energy
conservation standards for six classes of refrigeration systems and (b)
potential impacts on installers. See id. at 46523. These issues focused
on refrigeration systems and installers. As discussed in section I.B,
the Working Group consisted of 12 representatives of parties having a
defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards and one DOE
representative. These members included six representatives of WICF
refrigeration system manufacturers (Traulsen, Lennox, Hussmann,
Manitowoc, Rheem, and Emerson). In addition, a representative of the
Air Conditioning Contractors of America represented walk-in installers.
Other members other than DOE represented efficiency advocacy groups and
utilities. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56 at p. 4) Hence, DOE
believes that the representation was appropriate for the scope of the
Working Group.
10. EPCA Prescriptive Requirements
During the public meeting, AHRI asked for clarification as to
whether the EPCA prescriptive requirements are still needed with the
minimum energy efficiency standard DOE established. (AHRI, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23, at p. 14)
DOE notes it is not within DOE's authority to waive the
statutorily-prescribed prescriptive design requirements set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA does not specify an expiration date for
these requirements and there is no indication in the statute that the
performance-based standards would supplant the already-enacted
prescriptive requirements. Hence, these prescriptive requirements
continue to remain in effect.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
test procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that
when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being
required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice
of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (``FRFA''). As required by Executive Order 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE has prepared the following FRFA for the
equipment that are the subject of this rulemaking.
For manufacturers of walk-in equipment, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. 65 FR 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544
(September 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'')
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards. Walk-in equipment is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as
a small business for this category. Based on this threshold, DOE
presents the following FRFA analysis:
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163, as amended
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain
industrial equipment, including walk-ins, the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
In general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain
types of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of
the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316 and
6296). Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE
test procedure as the basis for making representations to the public
regarding the energy use or efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d))
2. Significant Issues Raised in Response to the IRFA
DOE did not receive written comments that specifically addressed
impacts on small businesses or that were provided in response to the
IRFA.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Businesses Regulated
DOE used available public information to identify potential small
manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade association
membership directories (including those from AHRI \17\ and NAFEM \18\),
public databases (e.g., the SBA Database \19\), individual company Web
sites, and market research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet reports \20\
and Hoovers reports \21\) to create a list of companies that
manufacture or sell equipment covered by this rulemaking. During the
2014 rulemaking, DOE also asked
[[Page 95795]]
stakeholders and industry representatives if they were aware of any
other small manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at DOE
public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly available data and contacted
select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they
met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of covered
walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. DOE screened out companies that
do not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/pages/home.aspx.
\18\ See www.nafem.org/find-members/MemberDirectory.aspx.
\19\ See https://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
\20\ See www.dnb.com/.
\21\ See www.hoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified forty-seven panel manufacturers, of which forty-two
are the small businesses.
DOE identified forty-nine walk-in door manufacturers. Forty-five of
those produce solid doors and four produce display doors. Of the forty-
five solid door manufacturers, forty-two produce panels as their
primary business and are considered in the category of panel
manufacturers in this preamble. The remaining three solid door
manufacturers are all considered small businesses. Of the four display
door manufacturers, two are considered small businesses. Therefore, of
the seven manufacturers that exclusively produce walk-in doors (three
producing solid doors and four producing display doors), DOE determined
that five are small businesses.
DOE identified ten walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers that
produce equipment for one or more of the equipment classes analyzed in
this proposal. All ten are domestic companies and three of the ten
manufacturers are small businesses.
Lastly, DOE looked at manufacturers that assemble the complete
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer (e.g., an installer). Walk-in
installation work is a subset of the highly fragmented heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (``HVACR'') industry.
DOE was unable to identify any company that exclusively operated as an
assembler of WICFs. In general, WICF assemblers offer walk-in
installation as part of a broader refrigeration offering and/or broader
heating and cooling offering.
DOE estimates that 3,400 to 14,100 companies offer walk-in
contractor services. This is a subset of the roughly 87,000 plumbing,
heating, and air-conditioning contractor establishments in the United
Stated.\22\ Key activities for these companies include the installation
of residential HVAC, commercial HVAC, commercial refrigeration, and
industrial refrigeration systems. Of these, DOE estimates the majority
are small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Census Bureau. Industry Snapshot
thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/2012/snapshot.hrml?NAICS=238220. (Last accessed July 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Panel manufacturers have had to comply with standards for their
panels' R-value (a measure of the insulating value) since 2009. In a
previous test procedure rule, published in May 2014, DOE established a
sampling plan and certification reporting requirements for walk-in
panels. 79 FR 27388 (May 13, 2014). DOE is not establishing any new
testing, certification, compliance, or reporting requirements for
panels in this final rule. However, DOE is adopting labeling
requirements for walk-in panels, and DOE is establishing that
manufacturers include rating information on marketing materials for
panels. For further discussion of the labeling requirements, see
section III.B.5. As discussed in that section, the cost of updating
marketing materials could be up to $50,000 per manufacturer. DOE
calculated that the cost of updating marketing materials for a small
manufacturer would be less than one percent of annual revenues; thus,
this requirement would not have a significant impact on small
manufacturers.
This final rule establishes new certification requirements for door
manufacturers and refrigeration system manufacturers to use when
certifying their basic models to DOE. Door manufacturers must certify
that they meet the June 2014 standards, which have a compliance date of
June 5, 2017. Manufacturers of refrigeration systems for which
standards were promulgated in the June 2014 final rule, and which were
not subsequently remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit's court order, must also certify that those refrigeration
systems meet the June 2014 standards, which have a compliance date of
June 5, 2017. DOE is conducting a separate energy conservation
standards rulemaking for those refrigeration system classes whose
standards were remanded. On the compliance date for those standards,
manufacturers will have to certify that those refrigeration systems
meet the relevant standards using the certification requirements in
this rule.
In general, DOE modified the data elements walk-in door
manufacturers and walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers will be
required to submit as part of a certification report indicating that
all basic models distributed in commerce in the U.S. comply with the
applicable standards using DOE's test procedures. These data elements
include product-specific certification data describing the efficiency
and characteristics of the basic model. The certification reports are
submitted for each basic model, either when the requirements go into
effect (for models already in distribution), or prior to when the
manufacturer begins distribution of a particular basic model, and
annually thereafter. Reports must be updated when a new model is
introduced or a change affecting energy efficiency or use is made to an
existing model resulting in a change in the certified rating. (10 CFR
429.12(a))
DOE currently requires manufacturers or their party representatives
to prepare and submit certification reports using DOE's electronic Web-
based tool, the Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS''),
which is the only mechanism for submitting certification reports to
DOE. CCMS currently has product-specific templates that manufacturers
must use when submitting certification data to DOE. See
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms/templates. This final rule does not change
the requirement that manufacturers submit certification reports
electronically. DOE believes the availability of electronic filing
through the CCMS system reduces reporting burdens, streamlines the
process, and provides the Department with needed information in a
standardized, more accessible form. This electronic filing system also
ensures that submitted reports are recorded in a permanent, systematic
way.
DOE is also requiring manufacturers to label their doors with the
door brand name and an application statement. DOE is requiring
manufacturers to label their refrigeration systems with the brand,
model number, date of manufacture, an application statement and if
applicable specify if the systems is for indoor use only. For further
discussion of the labeling requirements, see section III.B.5. As
discussed in that section, the cost of updating marketing materials
could be up to $50,000 per manufacturer.
DOE added clarifications that the entity responsible for testing,
rating, and certifying is the WICF component manufacturer. Thus, WICF
manufacturers that exclusively assemble the complete WICF and who use
components that are certified and labelled as compliant with applicable
standards, do not bear any testing and certification burdens. DOE is
also establishing labeling requirements and revising the certification
requirements
[[Page 95796]]
on WICF component manufacturers in this final rule. These requirements
will reduce any burden on WICF manufacturers that manufacture or
assemble the complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer by allowing
them to more easily identify compliant WICF components for assembly.
This does not change the compliance requirements for these WICF
manufacturers and installers; however, DOE believes labeling will help
WICF assemblers comply with the regulations. In conclusion, DOE does
not believe that small WICF manufacturers that assemble complete WICFs
will see an increased burden from this rulemaking.
5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
This section considers alternatives to the final rule. DOE has
tried to minimize the reporting burden as much as possible by: (1)
Accepting electronic submissions; (2) providing preformatted templates
that lay out the certification and compliance requirements for each
product; and (3) allowing manufacturers to group individual models into
basic models for the purposes of certification to reduce the number of
discrete models reported to the Department. DOE has also made efforts
to address the concerns of small businesses by expanding the ability of
manufacturers to use alternative efficiency determination methods
(``AEDMs'') in lieu of conducting tests requiring testing equipment.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
1. Description of the Requirements
In this rule, DOE is expanding the information that manufacturers
and importers of covered walk-in equipment would need to submit to the
Department to certify that the equipment they are distributing in
commerce in the U.S. complies with the applicable energy conservation
standards. Further, this rule requires manufacturers to disclose
performance information as part of the proposed labeling requirements
for walk-in panels, doors, and refrigeration systems.
2. Information Collection Request Title
Certification Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a
Test Procedure Waiver, Recordkeeping for Consumer Products and
Commercial/Industrial Equipment Subject to Energy or Water Conservation
Standards, and Label and Marketing Material Information Disclosure.
3. Type of Request
Revision and Expansion of an Existing Collection.
4. Purpose
Manufacturers of the covered equipment addressed in this rule are
already required to certify to DOE that their equipment complies with
applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their equipment according to the applicable DOE
test procedures for the given equipment type, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures, or use AEDMs (as applicable) to
develop the certified ratings of the basic models. The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification proposals is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the PRA.
Manufacturers are required to certify: (1) New basic models before
distribution in commerce; (2) existing basic models, whose certified
ratings remain valid, annually; (3) existing basic models, whose
designs have been altered resulting in a change in rating that is more
consumptive or less efficient, at the time the design change is made;
and (4) previously certified basic models that have been discontinued,
annually. Respondents may submit reports to the Department at any time
during the year using DOE's online system.
Amendments to the existing walk-in standards are expected to result
in slight changes to the information that DOE is collecting for walk-
ins. Specifically, DOE is requiring that, in addition to information
currently required for certification reports, door manufacturers report
the door energy use as determined by the DOE test procedure, the rated
power of each light, heater wire and/or other electricity consuming
device and whether such device(s) has a control system. Refrigeration
system manufacturers will need to report the Annual Walk-in Efficiency
Factor (``AWEF''), net capacity as determined by the DOE test
procedure, the configuration test for certification, and whether indoor
dedicated condensing units are also certified as outdoor dedicated
condensing units. Manufacturers will have to re-submit certification
reports for basic models that they distribute in commerce starting on
the compliance date of the amended standards.
In addition, DOE is requiring manufacturers of walk-in components
to disclose their rated energy use or efficiency, in all component
catalogs and marketing materials. For further discussion of the
information disclosure requirements, see section III.B.5. As discussed
in that section, the cost of initially updating marketing materials
could be up to $50,000 per manufacturer.
Regarding the additional certification requirements, DOE estimates
that the slight change in certification requirements would not result
in additional burden because walk-in component manufacturers are
already required to annually certify compliance with the existing
standards.
DOE estimates the burden for this rule as follows:
(1) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 63 (47 panel
manufacturers, 7 door manufacturers, and 10 refrigeration system
manufacturers).
(2) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 1,216 (188 for
panels, 28 door, 1000 for refrigeration systems).
(3) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,216 (1 hour for
applying and creating label and updating marketing materials).
(4) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden:
$91,200.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for walk-in
coolers and walk-in freezers. DOE has determined that this rule falls
into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will
not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is
covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D,
which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing
rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule.
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to
[[Page 95797]]
ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and an opportunity for timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy
[[Page 95798]]
Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section
32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards
on competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers adopted in this final rule incorporates testing
methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial
standards: ASTM C518-14, ``Standard Test Method for Thermal Steady-
State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus''; AHRI Standard 1250-2009 ``Standard for Performance Rating
of Walk-ins''; AHRI 420-2008, ``Performance Rating of Forced-
Circulation Free Delivery Unit Coolers for Refrigeration''; and ASHRAE
23.1-2010, ``Methods of Testing for Performance Rating Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate
at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant''. DOE has evaluated
these standards and was unable to conclude whether they fully comply
with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether they
were developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the ASTM C518-04
test method titled ``Standard Test Method for Thermal Steady-State
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus.'' This reference standard is the method by which thermal
conductivity (the ``K factor'') of a walk-in panel is measured and its
use is mandated by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A))
Copies of ASTM C518-04 may be obtained from the American Society
for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959, by phone at (610) 832-9500, or by going to www.astm.org.
Also, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard published by
AHRI, titled ``Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-ins,'' AHRI
Standard 1250-2009. AHRI Standard 1250-2009 establishes definitions,
test requirements, rating requirements, minimum data requirements for
published ratings, operating requirements, marking and nameplate data,
and conformance conditions for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
This testing standard applies to mechanical refrigeration equipment
that consists of an integrated, single-package refrigeration unit, or
as separate unit cooler and condensing unit components, where the
condensing unit can be located either indoors or outdoors. Controls can
be integral or can be added by a separate party, as long as their
performance is tested and certified with the listed mechanical
equipment.
Copies of AHRI Standard 1250-2009 may be purchased from AHRI at
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, or by going to
www.ahrinet.org.
DOE also incorporates by reference AHRI 420-2008, titled
``Performance Rating of Forced-Circulation Free Delivery Unit Coolers
for Refrigeration.'' AHRI 420-2008 establishes the following elements
for forced-circulation free-delivery unit coolers for refrigeration:
Definitions, test requirements, rating requirements, minimum data
requirements for published ratings, marketing and nameplate data, and
conformance conditions. The standard applies to factory-made, forced-
circulation, free-delivery unit coolers, as defined in Section 3 of
this standard, operating with a volatile refrigerant fed by either
direct expansion or liquid overfeed at wet conditions, dry conditions,
or both.
Copies of AHRI 420-2008 may be purchased from AHRI at 2111 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, or by going to
www.ahrinet.org.
Finally, DOE also incorporates by reference ASHRAE Standard 23.1-
2010, entitled ``Methods of Testing for Performance Rating Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate
at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant.'' ASHRAE 23.1-2010
provides testing methods for rating the thermodynamic performance of
positive displacement refrigerant compressors and condensing units that
operate at subcritical temperatures of the refrigerant. This standard
applies to all of the refrigerants listed in ASHRAE Standard 34,
``Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants,'' that fall
within the scope of positive displacement refrigerant compressors and
condensing units that operate at subcritical temperatures of the
refrigerant, which either (a) do not have liquid injection or (b)
incorporate liquid injection that is achieved by compressor motor
power.
Copies of ASHRAE 23.1-2010 may be purchased from ASHRAE at 1971
Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or by going to www.ashrae.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 429.12 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.12 General requirements applicable to certification reports.
* * * * *
[[Page 95799]]
(b) * * *
(6) For each brand, the basic model number and the manufacturer's
individual model number(s) in that basic model with the following
exceptions: For external power supplies that are certified based on
design families, the design family model number and the individual
manufacturer's model numbers covered by that design family must be
submitted for each brand. For distribution transformers, the basic
model number or kVA grouping model number (depending on the
certification method) for each brand must be submitted. For commercial
HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment, an individual manufacturer model
number may be identified as a ``private model number'' if it meets the
requirements of Sec. 429.7(b).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 429.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 429.53 Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
(a) Determination of represented value. (1) The requirements of
Sec. 429.11 apply to walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; and
(2) For each basic model of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
refrigeration system, the annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF) must be
determined either by testing, in accordance with Sec. 431.304 of this
chapter and the provisions of this section, or by application of an
AEDM that meets the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of
this section.
(i) Applicable test procedure. If the AWEF is determined by
testing, refer to the following for the appropriate test procedure to
use:
(A) Unit cooler test procedure. For unit coolers tested alone, use
the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C. Follow
the general testing provisions in appendix C, sections 3.1 and 3.2, and
the equipment-specific provisions in appendix C, section 3.3.
(B) Dedicated condensing unit test procedure. For dedicated
condensing units tested alone, use the test procedure in 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendix C. Follow the general testing provisions in
appendix C, sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the product-specific provisions
in appendix C, section 3.4. Outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration
systems that are also designated for use in indoor applications must be
tested and certified as both an outdoor dedicated condensing
refrigeration system and indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration
system.
(C) Single-Package dedicated system test procedure. For single-
package dedicated systems, use the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, appendix C. Follow the general testing provisions in
appendix C, sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the product-specific provisions
in appendix C, section 3.3.
(D) Matched refrigeration system test procedure. For matched
refrigeration systems, use the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart R, appendix C. Follow the general testing provisions in
appendix C, sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the product-specific provisions
in appendix C, section 3.3. It is not necessary to rate a matched
refrigeration system if the constituent unit cooler(s) and dedicated
condensing unit have been tested and rated as specified paragraphs
(a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, respectively. However, if a
manufacturer wishes to represent the efficiency of the matched
refrigeration system as distinct from the efficiency of either
constituent component, or if the manufacturer cannot rate one or both
of the constituent components using the specified method, the
manufacturer must test and certify the matched refrigeration system as
specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D).
(ii) Units to be tested. (A) If the represented value for a given
refrigeration system basic model is determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 apply; and
(B) For each basic model, a sample of sufficient size shall be
randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value of
AWEF or other measure of energy efficiency of a basic model for which
consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the
lower of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.000
And x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample, or,
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.001
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
appendix A to subpart B).
(C) The represented value of net capacity shall be the average of
the capacities measured for the sample selected.
(iii) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the
provisions of this section, a represented value of AWEF for a basic
model of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer refrigeration system may
be determined through the application of an AEDM, where:
(A) Any represented value of AWEF or other measure of energy
efficiency of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher
values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
(B) The represented value of net capacity must be the net capacity
simulated by the AEDM.
(3) For each basic model of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
panel, display door, and non-display door, the R-value and/or energy
consumption must be determined by testing, in accordance with Sec.
431.304 of this chapter and the provisions of this section.
(i) Applicable test procedure. Refer to the following for the
appropriate test procedure:
(A) Display door test procedure. For determining the energy
consumption and rated surface area in square feet, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A.
(B) Non-display door test procedure. For determining the energy
consumption and rated surface area in square feet, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A. For determining
the R-value, use the test procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix B.
(C) Panel test procedure. For determining the R-value, use the test
procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix B.
(ii) Units to be tested. (A) The general requirements of Sec.
429.11 apply; and
(B) For each basic model, a sample of sufficient size shall be
randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of door energy consumption or other
measure of energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.002
And x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample, or,
[[Page 95800]]
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.003
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
appendix A to subpart B).
(2) Any represented R-value or other measure of energy efficiency
of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be
less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.004
And x~ is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample, or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.005
And x~ is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t 0.95 is the statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degree of freedom (from
appendix A to subpart B).
(b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of Sec. 429.12
apply to manufacturers of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer panels,
doors, and refrigeration systems, and;
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must
include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For doors: The door type, R-value of the door insulation, and a
declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable
design requirements. In addition, for those walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers with transparent reach-in doors and windows, the glass type of
the doors and windows (e.g., double-pane with heat reflective
treatment, triple-pane glass with gas fill), and the power draw of the
antisweat heater in watts per square foot of door opening must also be
included.
(ii) For walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer panels: The R-value of
the insulation.
(iii) For walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems:
The installed motor's functional purpose (i.e., evaporator fan motor or
condenser fan motor), its rated horsepower, and a declaration that the
manufacturer has incorporated the applicable walk-in-specific design
requirements into the motor.
(3) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), starting on June 5, 2017, a
certification report must include the following public product-specific
information in addition to the information listed in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section:
(i) For walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors: The door energy
consumption and rated surface area in square feet.
(ii) For refrigeration systems that are medium-temperature
dedicated condensing units, medium-temperature single-package dedicated
systems, or medium-temperature matched systems: The refrigeration
system AWEF, net capacity, the configuration tested for certification
(e.g., condensing unit only, unit cooler only, single-package dedicated
system, or matched-pair), and if an indoor dedicated condensing unit is
also certified as an outdoor dedicated condensing unit and, if so, the
basic model number for the outdoor dedicated condensing unit.
(4) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), starting on June 5, 2017, a
certification report must include the following product-specific
information in addition to the information listed in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section:
(i) For walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors: the rated power
of each light, heater wire, and/or other electricity consuming device
associated with each basic model of display and non-display door; and
whether such device(s) has a timer, control system, or other demand-
based control reducing the device's power consumption.
(5) When certifying compliance to the AWEF refrigeration standards
for WICF refrigeration systems except those specified in (b)(3)(ii) of
this section, a certification report must include the following public
product-specific information in addition to the information listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section: For refrigeration systems that are
low-temperature dedicated condensing units, low-temperature matched
systems, low-temperature single-package dedicated systems, or medium
and low-temperature unit coolers: The refrigeration system AWEF, net
capacity, the configuration tested for certification (e.g., condensing
unit only, unit cooler only, single-package dedicated system, or
matched-pair), and if an indoor dedicated condensing unit is also
certified as an outdoor dedicated condensing unit and, if so, the basic
model number for the outdoor dedicated condensing unit.
0
4. Section 429.110 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.110 Enforcement testing.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For automatic commercial ice makers; commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; refrigerated bottled or canned
vending machines; commercial air conditioners and heat pumps;
commercial packaged boilers; commercial warm air furnaces; commercial
water heating equipment; and walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
refrigeration systems, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more
than four units and follow the sampling plans in appendix B of this
subpart (Sampling Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered Equipment and
Certain Low-Volume Covered Products).
* * * * *
0
5. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (q) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(q) Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (1) If DOE determines
that a basic model of a panel, door, or refrigeration system for walk-
in coolers or walk-in freezers fails to meet an applicable energy
conservation standard, then the manufacturer of that basic model is
responsible for the noncompliance. If DOE determines that a complete
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer or component thereof fails to meet an
applicable energy conservation standard, then the manufacturer of that
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer is responsible for the noncompliance
with the applicable standard, except that the manufacturer of a
complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer is not responsible for the
use of components that were certified and labeled (in accordance with
DOE labeling requirements) as compliant by another party and later
found to be noncompliant with the applicable standard(s).
(2) Verification of refrigeration system net capacity. The net
capacity of the refrigeration system basic model will be measured
pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix C for each unit tested. The results of the measurement(s) will
be averaged and compared to the value of net capacity certified by the
manufacturer. The certified net capacity will be considered valid only
if the average measured net capacity is within plus or minus five
percent of the certified net capacity.
[[Page 95801]]
(i) If the certified net capacity is found to be valid, the
certified net capacity will be used as the basis for calculating the
AWEF of the basic model.
(ii) If the certified net capacity is found to be invalid, the
average measured net capacity will serve as the basis for calculating
the annual energy consumption for the basic model.
(3) Verification of door surface area. The surface area of a
display door or non-display door basic model will be measured pursuant
to the requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A for each
unit tested. The results of the measurement(s) will be averaged and
compared to the value of the surface area certified by the
manufacturer. The certified surface area will be considered valid only
if the average measured surface area is within plus or minus three
percent of the certified surface area.
(i) If the certified surface area is found to be valid, the
certified surface area will be used as the basis for calculating the
maximum energy consumption (kWh/day) of the basic model.
(ii) If the certified surface area is found to be invalid, the
average measured surface area will serve as the basis for calculating
the maximum energy consumption (kWh/day) of the basic model.
(4) For each basic model of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
door, DOE will calculate the door's energy consumption using the power
listed on the nameplate of each electricity consuming device shipped
with the door. If an electricity consuming device shipped with a walk-
in door does not have a nameplate or such nameplate does not list the
device's power, then DOE will use the device's ``rated power'' included
in the door's certification report.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
6. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
7. Section 431.302 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Adaptive defrost,''
``Dedicated condensing unit,'' ``Dedicated condensing refrigeration
system,'' ``Indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,''
``Matched condensing unit,'' ``Matched refrigeration system,''
``Outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,'' ``Refrigerated
storage space,'' ``Single-package dedicated system,'' ``Unit cooler,''
and ``Walk-in process cooling refrigeration system''; and
0
b. Revising the definition of ``refrigeration system.''
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 431.302 Definitions concerning walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers.
Adaptive defrost means a factory-installed defrost control system
that reduces defrost frequency by initiating defrosts or adjusting the
number of defrosts per day in response to operating conditions (e.g.,
moisture levels in the refrigerated space, measurements that represent
coil frost load) rather than initiating defrost strictly based on
compressor run time or clock time.
* * * * *
Dedicated condensing unit means a positive displacement condensing
unit that is part of a refrigeration system (as defined in this
section) and is an assembly that
(1) Includes 1 or more compressors, a condenser, and one
refrigeration circuit; and
(2) Is designed to serve one refrigerated load.
Dedicated condensing refrigeration system means one of the
following:
(1) A dedicated condensing unit;
(2) A single-package dedicated system; or
(3) A matched refrigeration system.
* * * * *
Indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system means a dedicated
condensing refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for
indoor use or for which there is no designation regarding the use
location.
* * * * *
Matched condensing unit means a dedicated condensing unit that is
distributed in commerce with one or more unit cooler(s) specified by
the condensing unit manufacturer.
Matched refrigeration system (also called ``matched-pair'') means a
refrigeration system including the matched condensing unit and the one
or more unit coolers with which it is distributed in commerce.
Outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system means a dedicated
condensing refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for
outdoor use.
* * * * *
Refrigerated storage space means a space held at refrigerated (as
defined in this section) temperatures.
* * * * *
Refrigeration system means the mechanism (including all controls
and other components integral to the system's operation) used to create
the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in cooler or
walk-in freezer, consisting of:
(1) A dedicated condensing refrigeration system (as defined in this
section); or
(2) A unit cooler.
Single-packaged dedicated system means a refrigeration system (as
defined in this section) that is a single-package assembly that
includes one or more compressors, a condenser, a means for forced
circulation of refrigerated air, and elements by which heat is
transferred from air to refrigerant, without any element external to
the system imposing resistance to flow of the refrigerated air.
* * * * *
Unit cooler means an assembly, including means for forced air
circulation and elements by which heat is transferred from air to
refrigerant, thus cooling the air, without any element external to the
cooler imposing air resistance.
* * * * *
Walk-in process cooling refrigeration system means a refrigeration
system that is capable of rapidly cooling food or other substances from
one temperature to another. The basic model of such a system must
satisfy one of the following three conditions:
(1) Be distributed in commerce with an insulated enclosure
consisting of panels and door(s) such that the assembled product has a
refrigerating capacity of at least 100 Btu/h per cubic foot of enclosed
internal volume;
(2) Be a unit cooler having an evaporator coil that is at least
four-and-one-half (4.5) feet in height and whose height is at least
one-and-one-half (1.5) times the width. The height of the evaporator
coil is measured perpendicular to the tubes and is also the fin height,
while its width is the finned length parallel to the tubes, as
illustrated in Figure 1; or
(3) Be a dedicated condensing unit that is distributed in commerce
exclusively with a unit cooler meeting description (2) or with an
evaporator that is not a unit cooler, i.e., an evaporator that is not
distributed or installed as part of a package including one or more
fans.
[[Page 95802]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.006
0
8. Section 431.303 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e),
respectively, and adding paragraph (c);
0
d. Revising the last sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (d)(1).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 431.303 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) General. Certain material is incorporated by reference into
this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any amendment to a standard by
the standard-setting organization will not affect the DOE regulations
unless and until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists
on the date of the approval. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy must publish a
document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to
the public. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, 202-586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, or go to: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ ], and is available
from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030 or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) * * *
(1) ANSI/AHRI Standard 420-2008 (``AHRI 420-2008''), ``Performance
Rating of Forced-Circulation Free-Delivery Unit Coolers for
Refrigeration,'' Copyright 2008, IBR approved for appendix C to subpart
R of part 431.
(2) AHRI Standard 1250P (I-P)-2009 (``AHRI 1250-2009''), ``Standard
for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers, (including
Errata sheet dated December 2015), copyright 2009, except Table 15 and
Table 16. IBR approved for appendix C to subpart R of part 431.
(c) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA
30329, or www.ashrae.org/.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 23.1-2010, (``ASHRAE 23.1-2010''),
``Methods of Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate
at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant,'' ANSI approved January
28, 2010, IBR approved for appendix C to subpart R of part 431.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) * * *
(1) * * * IBR approved for appendix B to subpart R of part 431.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 431.304 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 431.304 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
* * * * *
(b) Determine the energy efficiency and/or energy consumption of
the specified walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components by
conducting the appropriate test procedure as follows:
(1) Determine the U-factor, conduction load, and energy use of
walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer display panels by conducting the
test procedure set forth in appendix A to this subpart.
(2) Determine the energy use of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
display doors and non-display doors by conducting the test procedure
set forth in appendix A to this subpart.
(3) Determine the R-value of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
non-display panels and non-display doors by conducting the test
procedure set forth in appendix B to this subpart.
(4) Determine the AWEF and net capacity of walk-in cooler and walk-
in freezer refrigeration systems by conducting the test procedure set
forth in appendix C to this subpart.
0
10. Section 431.305 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 95803]]
Sec. 431.305 Walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer labeling
requirements.
(a) Panel nameplate--(1) Required information. The permanent
nameplate of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer panel for which
standards are prescribed in Sec. 431.306 must be marked clearly with
the following information:
(i) The panel brand or manufacturer; and
(ii) One of the following statements, as appropriate:
(A) ``This panel is designed and certified for use in walk-in
cooler applications.''
(B) ``This panel is designed and certified for use in walk-in
freezer applications.''
(C) ``This panel is designed and certified for use in walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer applications.''
(2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type
sizes, typefaces, and line widths to display this required information
must be the same as or similar to the display of the other performance
data included on the panel's permanent nameplate. The permanent
nameplate must be visible unless the panel is assembled into a
completed walk-in.
(b) Door nameplate--(1) Required information. The permanent
nameplate of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer door for which
standards are prescribed in Sec. 431.306 must be marked clearly with
the following information:
(i) The door brand or manufacturer; and
(ii) One of the following statements, as appropriate:
(A) ``This door is designed and certified for use in walk-in cooler
applications.''
(B) ``This door is designed and certified for use in walk-in
freezer applications.''
(C) ``This door is designed and certified for use in walk-in cooler
and walk-in freezer applications.''
(2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type
sizes, typefaces, and line widths to display this required information
must be the same as or similar to the display of the other performance
data included on the door's permanent nameplate. The permanent
nameplate must be visible unless the door is assembled into a completed
walk-in.
(c) Refrigeration system nameplate--(1) Required information. The
permanent nameplate of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer
refrigeration system for which standards are prescribed in Sec.
431.306 must be marked clearly with the following information:
(i) The refrigeration system brand or manufacturer;
(ii) The refrigeration system model number;
(iii) The date of manufacture of the refrigeration system (if the
date of manufacture is embedded in the unit's serial number, then the
manufacturer of the refrigeration system must retain any relevant
records to discern the date from the serial number);
(iv) If the refrigeration system is a dedicated condensing
refrigeration system, and is not designated for outdoor use, the
statement, ``Indoor use only'' (for a matched pair this must appear on
the condensing unit); and
(v) One of the following statements, as appropriate:
(A) ``This refrigeration system is designed and certified for use
in walk-in cooler applications.''
(B) ``This refrigeration system is designed and certified for use
in walk-in freezer applications.''
(C) ``This refrigeration system is designed and certified for use
in walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer applications.''
(2) Process cooling refrigeration systems. The permanent nameplate
of a process cooling refrigeration system (as defined in Sec. 431.302)
must be marked clearly with the statement, ``This refrigeration system
is designed for use exclusively in walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer
process cooling refrigeration applications.''
(3) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type
sizes, typefaces, and line widths to display this required information
must be the same as or similar to the display of the other performance
data included on the refrigeration system's permanent nameplate. The
model number must be in one of the following forms: ``Model ___'' or
``Model number ___'' or ``Model No. ___.'' The permanent nameplate must
be visible unless the refrigeration system is assembled into a
completed walk-in.
(d) A manufacturer may not mark the nameplate of a component with
the required information if the manufacturer has not submitted a
certification of compliance for the relevant model.
(e) Disclosure of efficiency information in marketing materials.
Each catalog that lists the component and all materials used to market
the component must include:
(1) For panels--The R-value in the form ``R-value__.''
(2) For doors--The energy consumption in the form ``EC__kWh/day.''
(3) For those refrigeration system for which standards are
prescribed--The AWEF in the form ``AWEF __.''
(4) The information that must appear on a walk-in cooler or walk-in
freezer component's permanent nameplate pursuant to paragraphs (a)-(c)
of this section must also be prominently displayed in each catalog that
lists the component and all materials used to market the component.
0
11. Appendix A to subpart R of part 431 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving sections 3.2 and 3.3;
0
b. Revising section 3.4;
0
c. Redesignating sections 3.5 and 3.6 as sections 3.6 and 3.7.
0
d. Adding section 3.5;
0
e. Revising newly redesignated section 3.6; and
0
f. Revising Table A.1.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of
Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers
* * * * *
3.2 [Reserved]
3.3 [Reserved]
3.4 Surface area means the area of the surface of the walk-in
component that would be external to the walk-in cooler or walk-in
freezer as appropriate.
3.5 Rated power means the electricity consuming device's power
as specified on the device's nameplate. If the device does not have
a nameplate or such nameplate does not list the device's power, then
the rated power must be read from the device's product data sheet.
3.6 Rating conditions means, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
all conditions shown in Table A.1 of this section.
Table A.1--Temperature Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Temperatures (cooled space within the envelope)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooler Dry Bulb Temperature............... 35 [deg]F
Freezer Dry Bulb Temperature.............. -10 [deg]F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Temperatures (space external to the envelope)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freezer and Cooler Dry Bulb Temperatures.. 75 [deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
11. Add appendices B and C to subpart R of part 431 to read as follows:
[[Page 95804]]
Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of R-Value for Envelope Components of Walk-In Coolers and
Walk-In Freezers
1.0 Scope
This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the
R-value of non-display panels and non-display doors of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer.
2.0 Definitions
The definitions contained in Sec. 431.302 apply to this
appendix.
3.0 Additional Definitions
3.1 Edge region means a region of the panel that is wide enough
to encompass any framing members. If the panel contains framing
members (e.g., a wood frame) then the width of the edge region must
be as wide as any framing member plus an additional 2 in. 0.25 in.
4.0 Test Methods, Measurements, and Calculations
4.1 The R value shall be the 1/K factor multiplied by the
thickness of the panel.
4.2 The K factor shall be based on ASTM C518 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 431.303).
4.3 For calculating the R value for freezers, the K factor of
the foam at 20 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam
temperature) shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1 0.1-inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value
of panels with various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the
same final chemical form.
4.4 For calculating the R value for coolers, the K factor of the
foam at 55 1 degrees Fahrenheit (average foam
temperature) shall be used. Test results from a test sample 1 0.1-inches in thickness may be used to determine the R value
of panels with various foam thickness as long as the foam is of the
same final chemical form.
4.5 Foam shall be tested after it is produced in its final
chemical form. For foam produced inside of a panel (``foam-in-
place''), ``final chemical form'' means the foam is cured as
intended and ready for use as a finished panel. For foam produced as
board stock (typically polystyrene), ``final chemical form'' means
after extrusion and ready for assembly into a panel or after
assembly into a panel. Foam from foam-in-place panels must not
include any structural members or non-foam materials. Foam produced
as board stock may be tested prior to its incorporation into a final
panel. A test sample 1 0.1-inches in thickness must be
taken from the center of a panel and any protective skins or facers
must be removed. A high-speed band-saw and a meat slicer are two
types of recommended cutting tools. Hot wire cutters or other heated
tools must not be used for cutting foam test samples. The two
surfaces of the test sample that will contact the hot plate
assemblies (as defined in ASTM C518 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.303)) must both maintain 0.03 inches flatness
tolerance and also maintain parallelism with respect to one another
within 0.03 inches. Testing must be completed within 24
hours of samples being cut for testing.
4.6 Internal non-foam member and/or edge regions shall not be
considered when testing in accordance with ASTM C518 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 431.303).
4.7 For panels consisting of two or more layers of dissimilar
insulating materials (excluding facers or protective skins), test
each material as described in sections 4.1 through 4.6 of this
appendix. For a panel with N layers of insulating material, the
overall R-Value shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.007
Where:
ki is the k factor of the ith material as measured by
ASTM C518, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.303);
ti is the thickness of the ith material that appears in
the panel; and
N is the total number of material layers that appears in the panel.
Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In
Freezer Refrigeration Systems
1.0 Scope
This appendix covers the test requirements used to determine the
net capacity and the AWEF of the refrigeration system of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer.
2.0 Definitions
The definitions contained in Sec. 431.302 and AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303) apply to this
appendix. When definitions in standards incorporated by reference
are in conflict or when they conflict with this section, the
hierarchy of precedence shall be in the following order: Sec.
431.302, AHRI 1250-2009, and then either AHRI 420-2008 (incorporated
by reference; see Sec. 431.303) for unit coolers or ASHRAE 23.1-
2010 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303) for dedicated
condensing units.
3.0 Test Methods, Measurements, and Calculations
Determine the Annual Walk-in Energy Factor (AWEF) and net
capacity of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems
by conducting the test procedure set forth in AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), with the
modifications to that test procedure provided in this section. When
standards that are incorporated by reference are in conflict or when
they conflict with this section, the hierarchy of precedence shall
be in the following order: Sec. 431.302, AHRI 1250-2009, and then
either AHRI 420-2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303)
or ASHRAE 23.1-2010 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303).
3.1. General modifications: Test Conditions and Tolerances.
When conducting testing in accordance with AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), the following
modifications must be made.
3.1.1. In Table 1, Instrumentation Accuracy, refrigerant
temperature measurements shall have a tolerance of 0.5 F
for unit cooler in/out, 1.0 F for all other temperature
measurements.
3.1.2. In Table 2, Test Operating and Test Condition Tolerances
for Steady-State Test, electrical power frequency shall have a Test
Condition Tolerance of 1 percent.
3.1.3. In Table 2, the Test Operating Tolerances and Test
Condition Tolerances for Air Leaving Temperatures shall be deleted.
3.1.4. In Tables 2 through 14, the Test Condition Outdoor Wet
Bulb Temperature requirement and its associated tolerance apply only
to units with evaporative cooling.
3.1.5. Tables 15 and 16 shall be modified to read as follows:
Table 15--Refrigerator Unit Cooler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit cooler Unit cooler
air entering air entering Saturated Liquid inlet Liquid inlet Compressor
Test description dry-bulb, relative suction temp, saturation subcooling capacity Test objective
[deg]F humidity, % [deg]F temp, [deg]F temp, [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Cycle Fan Power............. 35 <50 -- -- -- Compressor Off.... Measure fan input
power during
compressor off
cycle.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction A 35 <50 25 105 9 Compressor On..... Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of Unit
Cooler.
[[Page 95805]]
Refrigeration Capacity Suction B 35 <50 20 105 9 Compressor On..... Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of Unit
Cooler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a default
superheat value of 6.5 [deg]F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.
Table 16--Freezer Unit Cooler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit cooler Unit cooler
air entering air entering Saturated Liquid inlet Liquid inlet Compressor
Test description dry-bulb, relative suction temp, saturation subcooling capacity Test objective
[deg]F humidity, % [deg]F temp, [deg]F temp, [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Cycle Fan Power............. -10 <50 -- -- -- Compressor Off.... Measure fan input
power during
compressor off
cycle.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction A -10 <50 -20 105 9 Compressor On..... Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of Unit
Cooler.
Refrigeration Capacity Suction B -10 <50 -26 105 9 Compressor On..... Determine Net
Refrigeration
Capacity of Unit
Cooler.
Defrost......................... -10 Various -- -- -- Compressor Off.... Test according to
Appendix C
Section C11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Superheat to be set according to equipment specification in equipment or installation manual. If no superheat specification is given, a default
superheat value of 6.5 [deg]F shall be used. The superheat setting used in the test shall be reported as part of the standard rating.
3.2. General Modifications: Methods of Testing
When conducting testing in accordance with appendix C of AHRI
1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), the
following modifications must be made.
3.2.1. In appendix C, section C3.1.6, any refrigerant
temperature measurements upstream and downstream of the unit cooler
may use sheathed sensors immersed in the flowing refrigerant instead
of thermometer wells.
3.2.2. It is not necessary to perform composition analysis of
refrigerant (appendix C, section C3.3.6) or refrigerant oil
concentration testing (appendix C, section C3.4.6).
3.2.3. In appendix C, section C3.4.5, for verification of sub-
cooling downstream of mass flow meters, only the sight glass and a
temperature sensor located on the tube surface under the insulation
are required.
3.2.4. In appendix C, section C3.5, regarding unit cooler fan
power measurements, for a given motor winding configuration, the
total power input shall be measured at the highest nameplate
voltage. For three-phase power, voltage imbalances shall be no more
than 2 percent from phase to phase.
3.2.5. In the test setup (appendix C, section C8.3), the liquid
line and suction line shall be constructed of pipes of the
manufacturer-specified size. The pipe lines shall be insulated with
a minimum total thermal resistance equivalent to \1/2\-inch thick
insulation having a flat-surface R-Value of 3.7 ft\2\-[deg]F-hr/Btu
per inch or greater. Flow meters need not be insulated but must not
be in contact with the floor. The lengths of the connected liquid
line and suction line shall be 25 feet 3 inches, not
including the requisite flow meters, each. Of this length, no more
than 15 feet shall be in the conditioned space. Where there are
multiple branches of piping, the maximum length of piping applies to
each branch individually as opposed to the total length of the
piping.
3.3. Matched systems, single-package dedicated systems, and unit
coolers tested alone: Use the test method in AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), appendix C as the
method of test for matched refrigeration systems, single-package
dedicated systems, or unit coolers tested alone, with the following
modifications:
3.3.1. For unit coolers tested alone, use test procedures
described in AHRI 1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
431.303) for testing unit coolers for use in mix-match system
ratings, except that for the test conditions in Tables 15 and 16,
use the Suction A saturation condition test points only. Also for
unit coolers tested alone, use the calculations in section 7.9 to
determine AWEF and net capacity described in AHRI 1250-2009 for unit
coolers matched to parallel rack systems.
3.3.2. In appendix C, section C.13, the version of AHRI Standard
420 used for test methods, requirements, and procedures shall be
AHRI 420-2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303).
3.3.3. Use appendix C, section C10 of AHRI 1250-2009 for off-
cycle evaporator fan testing, with the exception that evaporator fan
controls using periodic stir cycles shall be adjusted so that the
greater of a 50% duty cycle (rather than a 25% duty cycle) or the
manufacturer default is used for measuring off-cycle fan energy. For
adjustable-speed controls, the greater of 50% fan speed (rather than
25% fan speed) or the manufacturer's default fan speed shall be used
for measuring off-cycle fan energy. Also, a two-speed or multi-speed
fan control may be used as the qualifying evaporator fan control.
For such a control, a fan speed no less than 50% of the speed used
in the maximum capacity tests shall be used for measuring off-cycle
fan energy.
3.3.4. Use appendix C, section C11 of AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.303) for defrost testing.
The Frost Load Condition Defrost Test (C11.1.1) is optional.
3.3.4.1. If the frost load condition defrost test is performed:
3.3.4.1.1 Operate the unit cooler at the dry coil conditions as
specified in appendix
[[Page 95806]]
C, section C11.1 to obtain dry coil defrost energy, DFd,
in W-h.
3.3.4.1.2 Operate the unit cooler at the frost load conditions
as specified in appendix C, sections C11.1 and C11.1.1 to obtain
frosted coil defrost energy, DFf, in W-h.
3.3.4.1.3 The number of defrosts per day, NDF, shall
be calculated from the time interval between successive defrosts
from the start of one defrost to the start of the next defrost at
the frost load conditions.
3.3.4.1.4 Use appendix C, equations C13 and C14 in section C11.3
to calculate, respectively, the daily average defrost energy, DF, in
W-h and the daily contribution of the load attributed to defrost
QDF in Btu.
3.3.4.1.5 The defrost adequacy requirements in appendix C,
section C11.3 shall apply.
3.3.4.2 If the frost load test is not performed:
3.3.4.2.1 Operate the unit cooler at the dry coil conditions as
specified in appendix C, section C11.1 to obtain dry coil defrost
energy, DFd, in W-h.
3.3.4.2.2 The frost load defrost energy, DFf, in W-h
shall be equal to 1.05 multiplied by the dry coil energy
consumption, DFd, measured using the dry coil condition
test in appendix C, section C11.1.
3.3.4.2.3 The number of defrosts per day NDF used in
subsequent calculations shall be 4.
3.3.4.2.4 Use appendix C, equation C13 in section C11.3 to
calculate the daily average defrost energy, DF, in W-h.
3.3.4.2.5 The daily contribution of the load attributed to
defrost QDF in Btu shall be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE16.008
Where:
DFd = the defrost energy, in W-h, measured at the dry
coil condition
3.3.5. If a unit has adaptive defrost, use appendix C, section
C11.2 of AHRI 1250-2009 as follows:
3.3.5.1. When testing to certify to the energy conservation
standards in Sec. 431.306, do not perform the optional test for
adaptive or demand defrost in appendix C, section C11.2.
3.3.5.2. When determining the represented value of the
calculated benefit for the inclusion of adaptive defrost, conduct
the optional test for adaptive or demand defrost in appendix C,
section C11.2 to establish the maximum time interval allowed between
dry coil defrosts. If this time is greater than 24 hours, set its
value to 24 hours. Then, calculate NDF (the number of
defrosts per day) by averaging the time in hours between successive
defrosts for the dry coil condition with the time in hours between
successive defrosts for the frosted coil condition, and dividing 24
by this average time. (The time between successive defrosts for the
frosted coil condition is found as specified in section 3.3.4 of
this appendix C of AHRI 1250-2009: That is, if the optional frosted
coil test was performed, the time between successive defrosts for
the frosted coil condition is found by performing the frosted coil
test as specified in section 3.3.4.1 of this appendix; and if the
optional frosted coil test was not performed, the time between
successive defrosts for the frosted coil condition shall be set to 4
as specified in section 3.3.4.2. of this appendix) Use this new
value of NDF in subsequent calculations.
3.3.6. For matched refrigeration systems and single-package
dedicated systems, calculate the AWEF using the calculations in AHRI
1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), section
7.4, 7.5, 7.6, or 7.7, as applicable.
3.3.7. For unit coolers tested alone, calculate the AWEF and net
capacity using the calculations in AHRI 1250-2009, (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 431.303), section 7.9. If the unit cooler has
variable-speed evaporator fans that vary fan speed in response to
load, then:
3.3.7.1. When testing to certify compliance with the energy
conservation standards in Sec. 431.306, fans shall operate at full
speed during on-cycle operation. Do not conduct the calculations in
AHRI 1250-2009, section 7.9.3. Instead, use AHRI 1250-2009, section
7.9.2 to determine the system's AWEF.
3.3.7.2. When calculating the benefit for the inclusion of
variable-speed evaporator fans that modulate fan speed in response
to load for the purposes of making representations of efficiency,
use AHRI 1250-2009, section 7.9.3 to determine the system AWEF.
3.4. Dedicated condensing units that are not matched for testing and
are not single-package dedicated systems
3.4.1. Refer to appendix C, section C.12 of AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303), for the method of
test for dedicated condensing units. The version of ASHRAE Standard
23 used for test methods, requirements, and procedures shall be
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 23.1-2010 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
431.303). When applying this test method, use the applicable test
method modifications listed in sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this
appendix. For the test conditions in AHRI 1250-2009, Tables 11, 12,
13, and 14, use the Suction A condition test points only.
3.4.2. Calculate the AWEF and net capacity for dedicated
condensing units using the calculations in AHRI 1250-2009
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.303) section 7.8. Use the
following modifications to the calculations in lieu of unit cooler
test data:
3.4.2.1. For calculating enthalpy leaving the unit cooler to
calculate gross capacity, (a) The saturated refrigerant temperature
(dew point) at the unit cooler coil exit, Tevap, shall be
25 [deg]F for medium-temperature systems (coolers) and -20 [deg]F
for low-temperature systems (freezers), and (b) the refrigerant
temperature at the unit cooler exit shall be 35 [deg]F for medium-
temperature systems (coolers) and -14 [deg]F for low-temperature
systems (freezers). For calculating gross capacity, the measured
enthalpy at the condensing unit exit shall be used as the enthalpy
entering the unit cooler.
3.4.2.2. The on-cycle evaporator fan power in watts,
EFcomp,on, shall be calculated as follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers), EFcomp,on =
0.013 x qmix,cd
For low-temperature systems (freezers), EFcomp,on =
0.016 x qmix,cd
Where:
qmix,cd is the gross cooling capacity of the system in
Btu/h, found by a single test at the Capacity A, Suction A condition
for outdoor units and the Suction A condition for indoor units.
3.4.2.3. The off-cycle evaporator fan power in watts,
EFcomp,off, shall be calculated as follows:
EFcomp,off = 0.2 x EFcomp,on
Where:
EF comp,on is the on-cycle evaporator fan power in watts.
3.4.2.4. The daily defrost energy use in watt-hours, DF, shall
be calculated as follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers), DF = 0
For low-temperature systems (freezers), DF = 8.5 x
10-3 x qmix,cd\1.27\ x NDF
Where:
qmix,cd is the gross cooling capacity of the system in
Btu/h, found by a single test at the Capacity A, Suction A condition
for outdoor units and the Suction A condition for indoor units, and
NDF is the number of defrosts per day, equal to 4.
3.4.2.5. The daily defrost heat load contribution in Btu,
QDF, shall be calculated as follows:
For medium-temperature systems (coolers), QDF = 0
For low-temperature systems (freezers), QDF = 0.95 x
DF x 3.412
Where:
DF is the daily defrost energy use in watt-hours.
3.5 Hot Gas Defrost Refrigeration Systems
For all hot gas defrost refrigeration systems, remove the hot
gas defrost mechanical components and disconnect all such components
from electrical power.
3.5.1 Hot Gas Defrost Dedicated Condensing Units Tested Alone:
Test these units as described in section 3.4 of this appendix for
electric defrost dedicated condensing units that are not matched for
[[Page 95807]]
testing and are not single-package dedicated systems.
3.5.2 Hot Gas Defrost Matched Systems, Single-package Dedicated
Systems, and Unit Coolers Tested Alone: Test these units as
described in section 3.3 of this appendix for electric defrost
matched systems, single-package dedicated systems, and unit coolers
tested alone, but do not conduct defrost tests as described in
sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of this appendix. Calculate daily defrost
energy use as described in section 3.4.2.4 of this appendix.
Calculate daily defrost heat contribution as described in section
3.4.2.5 of this appendix.
[FR Doc. 2016-29708 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
