# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-11489 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** June 3, 2014 - **Citation:** 79 FR 32050 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015] RIN 1904-AB86 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for some classes of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components and has determined that these standards are technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DATES: The effective date of this rule is August 4, 2014. Compliance with the amended standards established for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers in this final rule is required on June 5, 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 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: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@EE.Doe.Gov Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits A. Benefits and Costs to Customers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers III. General Discussion A. Component Level Standards B. Test Procedures and Metrics 1. Panels 2. Doors 3. Refrigeration C. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement D. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments A. General Rulemaking Issues 1. Trial Standard Levels 2. Rulemaking Timeline B. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Equipment Included in This Rulemaking a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration Systems 2. Equipment Classes a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration Systems 3. Technology Assessment C. Screening Analysis 1. Panels and Doors 2. Refrigeration Systems D. Engineering Analysis 1. Representative Equipment for Analysis a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration 2. Refrigerants 3. Cost Assessment Methodology a. Teardown Analysis b. Cost Model c. Manufacturing Production Cost d. Manufacturing Markup e. Shipping Costs 4. Energy Consumption Model a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration Systems 5. Baseline Specifications a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration 6. Design Options a. Panels and Doors b. Refrigeration E. Markups Analysis F. Energy Use Analysis 1. Sizing Methodology for the Refrigeration System 2. Oversize Factors G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Cost 2. Installation Costs 3. Maintenance and Repair Costs 4. Annual Energy Consumption 5. Energy Prices 6. Energy Price Projections 7. Equipment Lifetime 8. Discount Rates 9. Compliance Date of Standards 10. Base-Case Efficiency Distributions 11. Inputs To Payback Period Analysis 12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period H. Shipments a. Share of Shipments and Stock by Equipment Class 2. Impact of Standards on Shipments I. National Impact Analysis—National Energy Savings and Net Present Value 1. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit J. Customer Subgroup Analysis K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios 3. Discussion of Comments a. Refrigerants b. Installation Contractors c. Small Manufacturers d. Mark Up Scenarios e. Number of Small Businesses L. Emissions Analysis M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 1. Social Cost of Carbon a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions N. Utility Impact Analysis O. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results A. Trial Standard Levels 1. Trial Standard Level Selection Process 2. Trial Standard Level Equations B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Customer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results b. Impacts on Direct Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Small Manufacturer Sub-Group e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Employment Impacts 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 7. Summary of National Economic Impact 8. Other Factors C. Conclusions 1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers 2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that are the focus of this notice. 1 2 (42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain equipment, such as walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “walk-ins” or “WICFs”), shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for the main components of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (walk-ins), refrigeration systems, panels, and doors. These standards are expressed in terms of annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF) for the walk-in refrigeration systems, R-value for walk-in panels, and maximum energy consumption (MEC) for walk-in doors. These standards are shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States once the compliance date listed above is reached. 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1. Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Class descriptor Class Standard level Refrigeration Systems Minimum AWEF (Btu/W-h) * Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.I, <9,000 5.61 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.I, ≥9,000 5.61 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.O, <9,000 7.60 Dedicated Condensing, Medium Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.M.O, ≥9,000 7.60 Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.L.I, <9,000 5.93 × 10 −5 × Q + 2.33 Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.L.I, ≥9,000 3.10 Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.L.O, <9,000 2.30 × 10 −4 × Q + 2.73 Dedicated Condensing, Low Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity DC.L.O, ≥9,000 4.79 Multiplex Condensing, Medium Temperature MC.M 10.89 Multiplex Condensing, Low Temperature MC.L 6.57 Panels Minimum R-value (h-ft2-°F/Btu) Structural Panel, Medium Temperature SP.M 25 Structural Panel, Low Temperature SP.L 32 Floor Panel, Low Temperature FP.L 28 Non-Display Doors Maximum energy consumption (kWh/day) ** Passage Door, Medium Temperature PD.M 0.05 × A nd + 1.7 Passage Door, Low Temperature PD.L 0.14 × A nd + 4.8 Freight Door, Medium Temperature FD.M 0.04 × A nd + 1.9 Freight Door, Low Temperature FD.L 0.12 × A nd + 5.6 Display Doors Maximum Energy Consumption (kWh/day) † Display Door, Medium Temperature DD.M 0.04 × A dd + 0.41 Display Door, Low Temperature DD.L 0.15 × A dd + 0.29 * Q represents the system gross capacity as calculated in AHRI 1250. ** A nd represents the surface area of the non-display door. † A dd represents the surface area of the display door. A. Benefits and Costs to Customers Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of these standards on customers of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period (PBP). The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes for which customers are impacted by the standards. Table I.2—Impacts of the Final Rule's Standards on Customers of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Equipment class Average LCC savings 2013$ Median payback period Years Refrigeration System Class * DC.M.I * 5942 3.5 DC.M.O * 6533 2.2 DC.L.I * 2078 1.6 DC.L.O * 5942 3.5 MC.M 547 3.1 MC.L 362 3.1 Panel Class SP.M SP.L FP.L Non-Display Door Class PD.M PD.L FD.M FD.L Display Door Class DD.M 143 7.3 DD.L 902 5.4 Note: “—” indicates no impact because standards are set at the baseline level. *For dedicated condensing (DC) refrigeration systems, results include all capacity ranges. B. Impact on Manufacturers The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2013) through the end of the analysis period (2046). Using real discount rates of 10.5 percent for panels, 9.4 percent for doors, and 10.4 percent for refrigeration, 3 DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers is $1,291 million in 2012$. Under these standards, DOE expects the industry net present value to change by −4.10 percent to 6.21 percent. Total industry conversion costs are expected to total $33.61 million. DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment to result from these standards. 3 These rates were used to discount future cash flows in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. The discount rates were calculated from SEC filings and then adjusted based on cost of capital feedback collected from walk-in door, panel, and refrigeration manufacturers in MIA interviews. For a detailed explanation of how DOE arrived at these discount rates, refer to chapter 12 of the final rule TSD. C. National Benefits 4 DOE's analyses indicate that these standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2017-2046) amount to 3.149 quadrillion British thermal units (quads). The annual savings in 2030 (0.10 quads) is equivalent to 0.5 percent of total U.S. commercial energy use in 2014. 4 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 2014. The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of these standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers ranges from $3.98 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $9.90 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2016-2047. In addition, these standards are expected to have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of approximately 159.2 million metric tons (Mt) 5 of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 833 thousand tons of methane, 229 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), 254.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), 3.5 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and 0.27 tons of mercury (Hg). 6 Through 2030, the cumulative emissions reductions of CO 2 amount to 61.6 Mt. 5 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO X and Hg are presented in short tons. 6 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 ( AEO 2013 ) Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012. The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal interagency process. 7 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reductions is between $1.2 billion and $16.3 billion. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NO X emissions reductions is $183.5 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $366.1 million at a 3-percent discount rate. 8 7 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf . 8 DOE is investigating the valuation of the other emissions reductions. Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from these standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. Table I.3—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Energy Conservation Standards Category * Present Value Billion 2013$ Discount Rate (percent) Benefits Operating Cost Savings 9.5 7 19.7 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** 1.2 5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** 5.3 3 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** 8.4 2.5 CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** 16.3 3 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** 0.2 7 0.4 3 Total Benefits † 15.0 7 25.4 3 Costs Incremental Installed Costs 5.5 7 9.8 3 Net Benefits Including CO 2 and NO X Reduction Monetized Value † 9.5 7 15.6 3 * This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the equipment purchased in 2017-2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for this final rule. ** The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporates an escalation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. The benefits and costs of these standards, for equipment sold in 2017-2046, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operating the equipment (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV, plus (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. 9 9 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits, using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO 2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments. Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100. Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of these standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO 2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards in this rule is $511 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $879 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $287 million in CO 2 reductions, and $16.93 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $671 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the standards in this rule is $528 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,064 million per year in reduced operating costs, $287 million in CO 2 reductions, and $19.82 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $842 million per year. Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Discount rate Million 2013$/year Primary estimate * Low net benefits estimate * High net benefits estimate * Benefits Operating Cost Savings 7% 879 854 917. 3% 1064 1027 1115. CO 2 Reduction at ($12.08/t case) ** 5% 86 86 86. CO 2 Reduction at ($40.5/t case) ** 3% 287 287 287. CO 2 Reduction at ($62.4/t case) ** 2.5% 420 420 420. CO 2 Reduction at ($119/t case) ** 3% 884 884 884. NO X Reduction at ($2,684/ton) ** 7% 16.93 16.93 16.93. 3% 19.82 19.82 19.82. Total Benefits † 7% plus CO 2 range 981 to 1,780 957 to 1,755 1,020 to 1,818. 7% 1,183 1,158 1,221. 3% plus CO 2 range 1,169 to 1,968 1,133 to 1,931 1,221 to 2,019. 3% 1,371 1,334 1,422. Costs Incremental Equipment Costs 7% 511 501 522. −3% 528 515 541. Net Benefits Total † 7% plus CO 2 range 470 to 1,269 456 to 1,255 498 to 1,296. 7% 671 657 699. 3% plus CO 2 range 641 to 1,440 617 to 1,416 680 to 1,478. 3% 842 818 881. * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers shipped in 2017-2046. These results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2046 from the equipment purchased in 2017-2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the amended standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the final rule. The primary, low, and high estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2013 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected equipment price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.I. ** The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NO X is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis. † Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate, which is the $39.7/t CO 2 reduction case. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2 range,” the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO 2 values. D. Conclusion Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation from the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of this equipment). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 6316(e)) II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. A. Authority Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that are the focus of this notice. 10 11 (42 U.S.C. 6311(1), (20), 6313(f) and 6314(a)(9)) Walk-ins consist of two major pieces—the structural “envelope” within which items are stored and a refrigeration system that cools the air in the envelope's interior. 10 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 11 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1. DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment generally consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For walk-ins, DOE is responsible for the entirety of this program. The DOE test procedures for walk-ins, including those prescribed by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007) (“EISA”), and those established by DOE in a test procedure final rule, currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, section 304. Any new or amended performance standards that DOE prescribes for walk-ins must achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE also plans to adopt those standards that are likely to result in a significant conservation of energy that satisfies both of these requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). Technological feasibility is determined by examining technologies or designs that could be used to improve the efficiency of the covered equipment. DOE considers a design to be technologically feasible if it is in use by the relevant industry or if research has progressed to the development of a working prototype. In ascertaining whether a particular standard is economically justified, DOE considers, to the greatest extent practicable, the following factors: 1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 3. The total projected amount of energy or, as applicable, water savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; 4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and 7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) (I)-(VII) and 6316(a)) DOE does not generally prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. Further, under EPCA's provisions for consumer products, there is a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For purposes of its walk-in analysis, DOE plans to account for these factors. Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as walk-ins has two or more subcategories, in promulgating standards for such equipment, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy than that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class) or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other products within such type (or class) do not have, and which justifies a higher or lower standard. Generally, in determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE typically includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. DOE plans to follow a similar process in the context of this rulemaking. DOE notes that since the inception of the statutory requirements setting standards for walk-ins, Congress has since made one additional amendment to those provisions. That amendment provides that the wall, ceiling, and door insulation requirements detailed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C) do not apply to the given component if the component's manufacturer has demonstrated to the Secretary's satisfaction that “the component reduces energy consumption at least as much” if those specified requirements were to apply to that manufacturer's component. American Energy Manufacturing Technology Corrections Act, Public Law 112-210, Sec. 2 (Dec. 18, 2012) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6)) (AEMTCA). Manufacturers seeking to avail themselves of this provision must “provide to the Secretary all data and technical information necessary to fully evaluate its application.” Id. DOE codified this amendment into its regulations on October 23, 2013, at 78 FR 62988. Since the promulgation of the amendment, one company, HH Technologies, submitted data on May 24, 2013, demonstrating that its RollSeal doors satisfied this new AEMTCA provision. DOE reviewed these data and all other submitted information and concluded that the RollSeal doors at issue satisfied 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(6). Accordingly, DOE issued a determination letter on June 14, 2013, indicating that these doors met Section 6313(f)(6) and that the applicable insulation requirements did not apply to the RollSeal doors HH Technologies identified. Nothing in this rule affects the previous determination regarding HH Technologies. Federal energy conservation requirements generally pre-empt state laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) However, EPCA provides that for walk-ins in particular, any state standard issued before publication of the final rule shall not be pre-empted until the standards established in the final rule take effect. (42 U.S.C. 6316(h)(2)(B)) Where applicable, DOE generally considers standby and off mode energy use for certain covered products or equipment when developing energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). Because the vast majority of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers operate continuously to keep their contents cold at all times, DOE is not proposing standards for standby and off mode energy use. B. Background 1. Current Standards EPCA defines a walk-in cooler and a walk-in freezer as an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures above, and at or below, respectively, 32 °F that can be walked into. The statute also defines walk-in coolers and freezers as having a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, excluding equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) EPCA also provides prescriptive standards for walk-ins manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, which are described below. First, EPCA sets forth general prescriptive standards for walk-ins. Walk-ins must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, for all doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet; walk-ins must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Walk-ins must also contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1). Second, EPCA sets forth new requirements related to electronically commutated motors for use in walk-ins. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a rating of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor unless DOE determined prior to January 1, 2009 that electronically commutated motors are available from only one manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A)) DOE determined by January 1, 2009 that these motors were available from more than one manufacturer; thus, according to EPCA, walk-in evaporator fan motors with a rating of under 1 horsepower and less than 460 volts must be either three-phase motors or electronically commutated motors. DOE documented this determination in the rulemaking docket as docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072. This document can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072 . Additionally, EISA authorized DOE to permit the use of other types of motors as evaporative fan motors—if DOE determines that, on average, those other motor types use no more energy in evaporative fan applications than electronically commutated motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(B)) DOE is unaware of any other motors that would offer performance levels comparable to the electronically commutated motors required by Congress. Accordingly, all evaporator motors rated at under 1 horsepower and under 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors or three-phase motors. Third, EPCA sets forth additional requirements for walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors. Freezer doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for doors and windows for freezers. Cooler doors must have either double-pane glass with treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with treated glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors, EISA also prescribed specific anti-sweat heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively. Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(C)-(D). 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers EPCA directs the Secretary to issue performance-based standards for walk-ins that would apply to equipment manufactured 3 years after the final rule is published, or 5 years if the Secretary determines by rule that a 3-year period is inadequate. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)) DOE initiated the current rulemaking by publishing a notice announcing the availability of its “Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Energy Conservation Standard Framework Document” and a meeting to discuss the document. The notice also solicited comment on the matters raised in the document. 74 FR 411 (Jan 6, 2009). More information on the framework document is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30 . The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for walk-ins and identified various issues to be resolved in conducting this rulemaking. DOE held the framework public meeting on February 4, 2009, in which it: (1) Presented the contents of the framework document; (2) described the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking; (3) sought comments from interested parties on these subjects; and (4) in general, sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the rulemaking. Major issues discussed at the public meeting included: (1) The scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) development of a test procedure and appropriate test metrics; (3) manufacturer and market information, including distribution channels; (4) equipment classes, baseline units, and design options to improve efficiency; and (5) life-cycle costs to consumers, including installation, maintenance, and repair costs, and any consumer subgroups DOE should consider. At the meeting and during the comment period on the framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and resolve issues pertaining to walk-ins relevant to this rulemaking. DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help develop potential energy conservation standards for this equipment. This process culminated in DOE's announcement of another public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the following matters: (1) The equipment classes DOE planned to analyze; (2) the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate standards; (3) the results of the preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and (4) potential standard levels that DOE could consider. 75 FR 17080 (April 5, 2010) (the April 2010 Notice). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform interested parties and enable them to provide comments. Id. (More information about the preliminary TSD is available at: http://www1.eere .energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30 .) Finally, DOE sought views on other relevant issues that participants believed either would impact walk-in standards or that the proposal should address. Id. at 17083. The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook to develop standards for walk-ins and discussed the comments DOE received in response to the framework document. The preliminary TSD also addressed separate standards for the walk-in envelope and the refrigeration system, as well as compliance and enforcement responsibilities and food safety regulatory concerns. The document also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in considering standards for walk-ins, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between the various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary TSD presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for these products up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as follows: • A market and technology assessment addressed the scope of this rulemaking, identified existing and potential new equipment classes for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, characterized the markets for this equipment, and reviewed techniques and approaches for improving its efficiency; • A screening analysis reviewed technology options to improve the efficiency of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, and weighed these options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria; • An engineering analysis estimated the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy efficient walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; • An energy use analysis estimated the annual energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; • A markups analysis converted estimated MSPs derived from the engineering analysis to customer purchase prices; • A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, for individual customers, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, compared to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard; • A payback period analysis estimated the amount of time it would take customers to recover the higher purchase price of more energy efficient equipment through lower operating costs; • A shipments analysis estimated shipments of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers over the time period examined in the analysis; • A national impact analysis (NIA) assessed the national energy savings (NES), and the national NPV of total customer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; and • A manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) assessed the potential effects on manufacturers of amended efficiency standards. The public meeting announced in the April 2010 Notice took place on May 19, 2010. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Interested parties that participated in the public meeting discussed a variety of topics, but the comments centered on the following issues: (1) Separate standards for the refrigeration system and the walk-in envelope; (2) responsibility for compliance; (3) equipment classes; (4) technology options; (5) energy modeling; (6) installation, maintenance, and repair costs; (7) markups and distributions chains; (8) walk-in cooler and freezer shipments; and (9) test procedures. The comments received since publication of the April 2010 Notice, including those received at the May 2010 public meeting, have contributed to DOE's resolution of the issues in this rulemaking as they pertain to walk-ins. This final rule responds to the issues raised by the commenters. (A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.) On September 11, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding (September 2013 NOPR). 78 FR 55781. In the September 2013 NOPR, DOE addressed, in detail, the comments received in earlier stages of rulemaking, and proposed new energy conservation standards for walk-ins. In conjunction with the September 2013 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. Also published on DOE's Web site were the engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis standard spreadsheet; these can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy .gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30. The standards DOE proposed for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are shown in Table II.1. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER03JN14.010 In the September 2013 NOPR, in addition to seeking comments generally on its proposal, DOE identified a number of specific issues on which it was particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties, which were detailed in section VII.E of that notice. 78 FR at 55882-55887 (September 11, 2013) After the publication of the September 2013 NOPR, DOE received written comments on these and other issues. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2013, to hear oral comments on, and solicit information relevant to, the proposed rule. The comments on the NOPR are addressed in this document. III. General Discussion A. Component Level Standards In the NOPR, DOE proposed component-level standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, in order to ensure accurate testing and compliance. Specifically, DOE proposed to regulate separately three main components of a walk-in: Panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. See 78 FR at 55822 (September 11, 2013). DOE received comments from a number of different entities. A list of these entities is included in Table III.1 below. Table III.1—Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR Commenter Acronym Affiliation Comment number (docket reference) Air Conditioning Contractors of America ACCA Trade Association 119 Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHRI Trade Association 083, 114 Alex Milgroom Milgroom Individual 090 American Panel Corporation APC, American Panel Manufacturer 099 Architectural Testing, Inc. AT Manufacturer 111 Arctic Industries, Inc. Arctic Manufacturer 117 Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC (ASAP et al.) Efficiency Organization 113 Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. Bally Manufacturer 102 California Investor Owned Utilities CA IOUs Utility Association 089, 110 Center for the Study of Science Cato Institute Cato, CSS Efficiency Organization 106 Crown Tonka, ThermalRite and International Cold Storage ICS et al. Manufacturer 100 ebm-papst Inc. ebm-papst Component/Material Supplier 092 Hillphoenix Hillphoenix Manufacturer 107 Hussmann Corporation Hussmann Manufacturer 093 Imperial-Brown IB Manufacturer 098 KeepRite Refrigeration KeepRite Manufacturer 105 Lennox International Inc./Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC Lennox Manufacturer 109 Louisville Cooler Louisville Cooler Manufacturer 081 Manitowoc Company Manitowoc Manufacturer 108 National Coil Company NCC Component/Material Supplier 096 National Restaurant Association NRA Consumer Advocate 112 New York State Office of the Attorney General AGNY State Official/Agency 116 Nor-Lake, Inc. Nor-Lake Manufacturer 115 North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers NAFEM Consumer Advocate 118 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and Northwest Power and Conservation Council NEEA, NPCC (NEEA et al.) Efficiency Organization 101 Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concenrned Scientists, Institute for Policy Integrity NRDC, EDC, UCS, IPI (NRDC et al.) Efficiency Organization 094 Robert Kopp Kopp Individual 080 Society of American Florists SAF Consumer Advocate 103 Suzanne Jaworowski Jaworowski Individual 074 The Mercatus Center at George Mason University Mercatus, Mercatus Center Efficiency Organization 091 THERMO-KOOL/Mid-South Industries, Inc. Thermo-Kool Manufacturer 097 U.S. Chamber of Commerce US Chamber of Commerce Regional Agency/Association 095 U.S. Cooler—Division of Craig Industries Inc US Cooler Manufacturer 075, 104 Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC Heatcraft Manufacturer * Honeywell Honeywell Manufacturer * SmithBucklin Corporation SmithBucklin Manufacturer * Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International HARDI Manufacturer * Heat Transfer Products Group HT, Heat Transfer Manufacturer * The Danfoss Group Danfoss Component/Material Supplier * * These commenters were present at the public meeting but did not submit written comments. DOE received several comments supporting its component-based approach to setting standards for walk-ins. Nor-Lake, Kysor, and Louisville Cooler agreed with this approach. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 1, Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 40, and Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p. 1) Bally, IB, and ICS commented that component-level standards were practical. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 1, IB, No. 98 at p. 1, and Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) ACCA notes that component-level standards simplify the compliance burden for assemblers. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 2) US Cooler also agreed with the component approach, noting that the refrigeration industry is well established, and adding that a component-level approach will give US Cooler more flexibility to meet the proposed requirements. (US Cooler, No. 88 at p. 51) ASAP and the CA IOUs agreed with the component performance approach for panels and doors. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 16 and CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 30) DOE received additional comments concerning how WICF component standards could be set. Thermo-Kool commented that while component level standards were feasible, components added to doors such as windows and heater wires, among others, should be regulated separately—it added that doors should be regulated along with wall and ceiling panels. (ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 1) Hillphoenix commented that standards for panels, walls, ceilings, and floors should also include the door panel. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) Bally noted that setting separate standards for windows would eliminate the need for door manufacturers to test the same door twice—i.e. with and without windows. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 5) APC commented that electrical components, such as vision windows, heater wires, relief vents, and temperature alarms, should have separate standards and not be included in the analysis of non-display doors. (APC, No. 99 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that separate standards for the envelope and refrigeration systems would be highly effective because they would reduce the possibility of underperforming envelopes or under-performing refrigeration systems. The CA IOUs remarked that it would have been difficult to enforce a standard that allowed performance trade-offs between the envelope and refrigeration system. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 1) The CA IOUs further commented that separate lighting performance standards for walk-ins would create more clarity for performance requirements of display doors. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 4) In light of the comments received, DOE is finalizing an approach that sets out separate component-level standards for panels, doors, and refrigeration systems of WICFs. DOE recognizes that refrigeration systems may be sold as two other separate components—a unit cooler and a condensing unit—and is addressing this through a separate approach and certification process for this equipment. For more details on this approach, see section III.B.2. B. Test Procedures and Metrics While Congress had initially prescribed certain performance standards and test procedures concerning walk-ins as part of the EISA 2007 amendments, Congress also instructed DOE to develop specific test procedures for walk-in equipment. DOE subsequently established a test procedure for walk-ins. See 76 FR 21580 (April 15, 2011). See also 76 FR 33631 (June 9, 2011) (final technical corrections). Recently, DOE published additional amendments that would, among other things, permit the use of alternative efficiency determination methods when evaluating the energy usage of refrigeration system unit coolers and condenser units. See 79 FR 27387 (May 13, 2014). These amendments have been taken into account when formulating the standards promulgated in this notice. The proposed amendments provide an approach that would base compliance on the ability of component manufacturers to produce components that meet the required standards. This approach is also consistent with the framework established by Congress, which set specific energy efficiency performance requirements on a component-level basis. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) The approach is discussed more fully below. 1. Panels In the test procedure final rule for walk-ins, DOE defines “panel” as a construction component, excluding doors, used to construct the envelope of the walk-in ( i.e., elements that separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior). 76 FR 21580, 21604 (April 15, 2011). DOE explained that panel manufacturers would test their panels to obtain a thermal transmittance metric—known as U-factor, measured in British thermal units (Btus) per hour-per square foot degrees (Fahrenheit) (Btu/h-ft 2 −°F)—and identified three types of panels: display panels, floor panels, and non-floor panels. A display panel is defined as a panel that is entirely or partially comprised of glass, a transparent material, or both, and is used for display purposes. Id. It is considered equivalent to a window and the U-factor is determined by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, “Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors.” 76 FR at 33639. Floor panels are used for walk-in floors, whereas non-floor panels are used for walls and ceilings. The U-factor for floor and non-floor panels accounts for any structural members internal to the panel and the long-term thermal aging of foam. This value is determined by a three-step process. First, both floor and non-floor panels must be tested using ASTM C1363-10, “Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.” The panel's core and edge regions must be used during testing. Second, the panel's core U-factor must be adjusted with a degradation factor to account for foam aging. The degradation factor is determined by EN 13165:2009-02, “Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings—Factory Made Rigid Polyurethane Foam (PUR) Products—Specification,” or EN 13164:2009-02, “Thermal Insulation Products for Buildings—Factory Made Products of Extruded Polystyrene Foam (XPS)—Specification,” as applicable. Third, the edge and modified core U-factors are then combined to produce the panel's overall U-factor. All industry protocols were incorporated by reference most recently in the test procedure final rule correction. 76 FR 33631. In response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE received comments stating that the ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13164, and DIN EN 13165 were significantly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE addressed these comments in a separate notice published on May 13, 2014, which proposed certain simplifications to the current procedure. See 79 FR 27387. Specifically, under this approach, manufacturers would no longer need to use the performance-based test procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels, which include ASTM C1363, DIN EN 13164, and DINE EN 13165 (10 CFR Part 431, Subpart R, Appendix A, sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.2). DOE recognizes that these performance-based procedures for WICF floor and non-floor panels are in addition to the prescriptive requirements established in EPCA for panel insulation R-values and, therefore, may increase the test burden to manufacturers. As DOE is no longer requiring the performance-based procedures which were ultimately used to calculate a U-value of a walk-in panel, the Department reverted to thermal resistance, or R-value, as measured by ASTM C518, as the metric for establishing performance standards for walk-in cooler and freezer panels. Based on the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE finds that using ASTM C518 will provide a sufficient robust method to measure panel energy efficiency while minimizing manufacturer testing burdens. 2. Doors The walk-in test procedure final rule addressed two door types: display and non-display doors. Within the general context of walk-ins, a door consists of the door panel, glass, framing materials, door plug, mullion, and any other elements that form the door or part of its connection to the wall. DOE defines display doors as doors designed for product movement, display, or both, rather than the passage of persons; a non-display door is interpreted to mean any type of door that is not captured by the definition of a display door. See generally 76 FR 33631. The test metric for doors is in terms of energy use, measured in kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day). The energy use accounts for thermal transmittance through the door and the electricity use of any electrical components associated with the door. The thermal transmittance is measured by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, and is converted to energy consumption via conduction losses using an assumed efficiency of the refrigeration system in accordance with the test procedure. See 76 FR at 33636-33637. The electrical energy consumption of the door is calculated by summing each electrical device's individual consumption and accounts for all device controls by applying a “percent time off” value to the appropriate device's energy consumption. For any device that is located on the internal face of the door or inside the door, 75 percent of its power is assumed to contribute to an additional heat load on the compressor. Finally, the total energy consumption of the door is found by combining the conduction load, electrical load, and additional compressor load. DOE received several comments about the proposed metric. NEEA, et al. agreed with the door metric being a combination of the refrigeration load created by the heat loss through the door plus heater draw components associated with the door. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 5) Nor-Lake commented that doors also have a U-value metric like panels and that other energy consuming devices should be considered as an additional load on the refrigeration system. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 2) Bally commented that the metric for doors should be a function of the temperature of the WICF box, the linear periphery dimensions of the door, the thickness of the door and the temperature or humidity conditions that exist on the outside of the door. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) Hillphoenix commented that the energy consumption posed by the perimeter heat on a door is not associated with surface area, but instead the length of the heater wire. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 2) At the public meeting, Kysor commented that the door metric should include the R-value as tested by ASTM C518 and the electrical draw for heater wire, if used. (Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 96) AHRI suggested that the energy metric for door efficiency be expressed as a function of door perimeter length, as opposed to surface area, since the largest heat gain was at the periphery and edges. AHRI pointed out that while the perimeter of a “medium” door was 11% greater than a “small” door, the surface area was 29% greater causing smaller doors to be over penalized. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 5) In response to Nor-Lake's comment, DOE agrees that non-display doors are very similar to panels in that they are both primarily made up of insulation. However, the DOE test procedure adds the additional heat load caused by components like lighting and heater wire to the daily power consumption of these doors. DOE opted for this method because the electrical components, like heater wire, are integrated into the doors. DOE thought this method was more appropriate because the door manufacturers determine which electricity consuming components are integrated into the door. In response to Bally's comment, DOE agrees that the space conditions of a walk-in have an impact on a door's energy consumption. However, the thermal conductance of a cooler or freezer door, a portion of the maximum energy consumption metric, is measured at specific rating conditions to allow for equipment comparisons. These conditions are listed in 10 CFR 431.304 and 10 CFR Subpart R, appendix A. Additionally, DOE expects the thermal transmittance as measured by NFRC 100-2010-E0A1 to capture the energy loss though the periphery of the door because this test method measures the heat transfer through an entire door. DOE appreciates Kysor's comment, but finds that NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, and industry accepted test procedure, more accurately represents the thermal transmittance of the door. DOE agrees with AHRI that the energy consumption of the heater wire is directly related to the amount or length of heater wire used. However, EISA set a precedent by limiting the amount of heater wire per door opening area. Therefore, DOE is setting the standards in terms of door surface area instead of perimeter. DOE also received comments on the door test procedure. Bally remarked at the public meeting that the percent time off for device controls should be a floating value because it would be more practical than a set percent time off. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 148) DOE appreciates Bally's comment and acknowledges that some controls may reduce more energy than other. However, the current test procedure does not measure the effectiveness of the controls. Additionally, DOE is concerned that incorporating additional testing to measure a controls percent time off value would great undue burden on manufacturers. For these reasons the Department is not considering floating percent time off values. 3. Refrigeration The DOE test procedure incorporates an industry test procedure that applies to walk-in refrigeration systems: AHRI 1250 (I-P)-2009, “2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers” (“AHRI 1250-2009”). (10 CFR 431.304) This procedure applies to three different scenarios—(1) unit coolers and condensing units sold together as a matched system, (2) unit coolers and condensing units sold separately, and (3) unit coolers connected to compressor racks or multiplex condensing systems. It also describes methods for measuring the refrigeration capacity, on-cycle electrical energy consumption, off-cycle fan energy, and defrost energy. Standard test conditions, which are different for indoor and outdoor locations and for coolers and freezers, are also specified. The test procedure includes a calculation methodology to compute an annual walk-in energy factor (AWEF), which is the ratio of heat removed from the envelope to the total energy input of the refrigeration system over a year. AWEF is measured in Btu/W-h and measures the efficiency of a refrigeration system. DOE established a metric based on efficiency, rather than energy use, for describing refrigeration system performance, because a refrigeration system's energy use would be expected to increase based on the size of the walk-in and on the heat load that the walk-in produces. An efficiency-based metric would account for this relationship and would simplify the comparison of refrigeration systems to each other. Therefore, DOE is using an energy conservation standard for refrigeration systems that would be presented in terms of AWEF. Several stakeholders commented on the applicability of the test procedure to refrigeration components (i.e., the unit cooler and the condensing unit) sold separately. NEEA, et al. expressed support for the proposed standard's approach of using AHRI 1250 for testing and rating all condensing units. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 3) CA IOUs, on the other hand, asserted that the AHRI 1250 test was inadequate because it requires a unit cooler for testing a dedicated condensing unit, which is a less reliable rating method due to the lack of a viable enforcement mechanism. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 384) CA IOUs recommended modifying the AHRI 1250 test method so that all unit coolers connected to remote condensing units are treated the same, whether they are connected to a dedicated, shared, or multiplex remote condensing unit. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 2) CA IOUs further recommended developing a separate AHRI Standard for the performance rating of WICF refrigeration condensing units, along with TSLs (i.e. Trial Standard Levels) and energy conservation standards specific to refrigeration condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 3) Manitowoc asserted that manufacturers that build only condensing units—but not evaporator coils—could not test the efficiency of the entire refrigeration system. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2) Other stakeholders commented specifically on the metrics established by the test procedure. KeepRite and Bally suggested that the energy efficiency ratio (EER) of the condensing unit and evaporator be used as the refrigeration system metric and basis of performance specifications in place of AWEF. (KeepRite, No. 105 at p. 1; Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) AHRI commented that the use of duty-cycle adjusted EER for condensing units and unit coolers, separately, was a more accurate metric than AWEF and should be the basis for performance specifications, because evaporator assemblies, condensing units, and refrigerants were often specified by contractors, procured from multiple manufacturers, and assembled as custom systems. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 2) Louisville Cooler commented that using a watts-per-hour was a more practical and replicable method of measuring energy use, and AWEF is impacted by variables such as ambient temperature and seasonal changes. (Louisville Cooler, No. 81 at p. 1) NEEA, et al., on the other hand, stated that AWEF was a logical metric to rate cooling system component efficiency in a way that enabled marketplace differentiation and simplified compliance and enforcement. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 2) DOE understands that the test procedure, as originally conceived, required both a unit cooler and a condensing unit to be tested in order to derive an AWEF rating for the system. In light of the issues about enforcement and manufacturer burden raised by the CA IOUs and Manitowoc, DOE has developed a separate approach addressing certification issues for manufacturers who produce and sell condensing units and/or unit coolers as separate products. Under that approach, a manufacturer who sells a unit without a matched condensing unit must rate and certify a refrigeration system containing that unit cooler by testing according to the methodology in AHRI 1250 for unit coolers intended to be used with a parallel rack system (see AHRI 1250, section 7.9). The manufacturer would use the calculation method in this section to determine the system AWEF and certify this AWEF to DOE. Additionally, all unit coolers tested and rated as part of a system under this method must comply with the standards in the multiplex equipment classes. DOE notes that this approach is consistent with the approach recommended by the CA IOUs because the same approach is used for separately-sold unit coolers regardless of what kind of condensing unit they are paired with. A manufacturer who sells a condensing unit separately must rate and certify a refrigeration system containing that condensing unit by conducting the condensing unit portion of the test method (using the standard ratings in section 5.1 of AHRI 1250-2009) but applying nominal values for saturated suction temperature, evaporator fan power, and defrost energy, in order to calculate an AWEF for the refrigeration system basic model containing that condensing unit. These nominal values would be standardized, which means that other similarly situated manufacturers would use these values when calculating the efficiency of a refrigeration system using their particular condensing unit. For complete details on how refrigeration system components must be rated and certified under this approach, see 79 FR 27387 at 27397 (detailing revised approach to be incorporated under 10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)). In response to the comments about the appropriate metrics to use, DOE notes that it is continuing to use AWEF as the metric for WICF refrigeration systems and components, and continues to base its standards on AWEF. DOE believes AWEF is sufficient to capture WICF system and component performance and has not established a different metric, such as EER or watts/hour, for rating refrigeration equipment. In response to Louisville Cooler's comment on the effect of seasonal changes and temperatures, DOE notes that the test procedure established a set of uniform rating conditions that cover multiple ambient temperatures as a proxy for seasonal changes a system exposed to the outdoors may encounter. DOE's standards are based on rating systems under the uniform rating conditions contained in the test procedure, thus maximizing the repeatability of the test. Lennox noted that the test procedure did not contain provisions for multiple unit cooler matches on a single condensing unit. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges this fact but notes that manufacturer installation instructions typically include setup of multiple unit coolers because this setup is commonly used; for instance, by installers who wish to distribute airflow more evenly around a large walk-in. During the test, the system should be set up per the manufacturer's installation instructions. DOE successfully conducted testing of a system with two unit coolers as part of its rulemaking analysis. However, if DOE finds that such instructions are sufficiently unclear to others testing their equipment, DOE may introduce a test procedure addendum or amendment with more specific instructions for setup and testing. Further, some commenters identified types of systems or technologies that would not be covered by the test procedure. Hussmann commented that the AHRI 1250 procedure did not contain test methods for secondary refrigeration systems, such as those utilizing glycol, brine, or CO 2 . (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 2) Danfoss commented that by regulating units in steady-state conditions, the proposed rule automatically excluded adaptive controls, which had tremendous energy savings potential. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 115) ACEEE agreed with Danfoss that the AHRI 1250 procedure lacked the ability to account for controls, and other design options not affecting steady-state energy consumption. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 149) AHRI added that the AHRI 1250 test procedure was likely to be updated in the next three to six months. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3) DOE agrees with Hussmann that the AHRI 1250 procedure does not cover secondary refrigeration systems, and agrees with Danfoss and ACEEE that controls or other options not affecting steady-state energy would also not be covered by AHRI 1250. If a manufacturer believes that the test procedure in its current form does not measure the efficiency of the equipment in a manner representative of its true energy use, the manufacturer may apply for a test procedure waiver. DOE also notes that should the industry develop a test method for WICF units with secondary refrigeration systems or adaptive controls, or update the existing test method so as to include such provisions, DOE will consider adopting it for WICFs. To address AHRI's comment, DOE will also consider adopting test procedure revisions once they are developed. C. Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement In keeping with the requirements of EPCA, DOE proposed a compliance date of three years from the date of publication of the final rule. 78 FR 55830 (September 11, 2013) DOE received a variety of comments regarding this issue. Several stakeholders commented in favor of a three-year period between the final rule and the compliance date. Specifically, ASAP, et al. urged DOE to adopt a compliance date three years after publication of the final rule, since DOE's analysis of manufacturer impacts suggests that conversion costs to meet the proposed standards would be modest. (ASAP, et al., No. 113 at p. 5) Manitowoc stated that once the standard is finalized, three years is a sufficient timeframe for compliance. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 3) ASAP, et al. noted that a compliance date of three years after the publication of the final rule is reasonable and that a later compliance date would result in avoidable loss of energy savings. (ASAP et al., No. 113 at p. 5) Several stakeholders favored a longer period between the final rule and the compliance date. Hussmann stated that DOE should consider the certification process when setting the compliance date and that the compliance date of the proposed standard should be delayed so as to allow for an AEDM to be enforced before the compliance date. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 75, and No. 93 at p. 6) Lennox expressed concern that a three-year compliance timeframe is not adequate. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 7) Nor-Lake requested that DOE extend the compliance date beyond 2017 and noted that a compliance date of April 2017 may not give manufacturers enough time to complete required testing since there are currently no known labs in the U.S. that can perform the DIN EN 13164/13165 tests. Nor-Lake observed that manufacturers that produce panels and refrigeration would be overloaded with having to perform both sets of tests. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at pp. 3-5) Hillphoenix requested additional time for the compliance date and testing to allow for more labs to qualify for testing, because currently none can. (Hillphoenix, No. at p. 69) AHRI recommended that the timeline consider the fact that there is no AHRI or other third-party certification program for these products. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 76) Regarding enforcement, Hussmann commented that it was unclear how DOE intended to enforce the standard for cooling systems, and ACCA suggested that an outline of DOE's intended enforcement policy be included in the final rule. (Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 1; ACCA, No. 119 at p. 2) ACCA further urged that DOE simplify compliance obligations for the assembler, including giving the industry one year after adoption of an enforcement policy to comply with enforcement provisions. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 3) DOE notes that it has since simplified the testing requirements for WICF components—in part by eliminating the requirement to test panels using the ASTM C1363 and DIN EN 13164/13165 tests. For refrigeration systems, DOE established a testing approach for unit coolers and condensing units sold separately and allowed refrigeration systems, unit coolers, and condensing units to be rated using an Alternative Efficiency Determination Method, or AEDM. See 79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014). DOE believes these changes substantially simplify the process for certification, compliance, and enforcement. Therefore, DOE does not believe additional time is needed for compliance beyond three years from the publication of this notice. Since component-level standards were proposed in the NOPR, DOE requested comments on who should be responsible for complying with the regulation. DOE received comments from multiple interested parties in this regard. The CA IOUs stated that DOE found that the contractor is the “manufacturer” and that DOE should therefore provide a path to certification for contractors. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 20) The CA IOUs further commented that manufacturers sell lighting systems specifically designed for cold storage facilities and these could therefore be regulated at the point of manufacture. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 4) ACCA noted that the assembly of WICF component parts is often performed by independent heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC/R) technicians not employed by component part manufacturers. (ACCA, No. 119 at p. 1) US Cooler noted that the proposed standard could significantly impact manufacturers who made individual refrigeration components that were then assembled into complete systems by contractors. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 344) More specifically, US Cooler expressed concern that wholesalers and contractors would not be held to the same level of compliance as component manufacturers, which would put US Cooler at a competitive disadvantage. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 51) American Panel agreed that the standards must also apply to wholesalers, as well as component manufacturers to prevent wholesalers from circumventing the regulation (for instance, by selling cooler panels for freezer applications). (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 2) HARDI stated that holding the wholesaler responsible would limit product availability for replacement and repair. (HARDI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 53) ACEEE stated that the approach chosen should support the goal of legitimate repair parts without abusing the system, where “repair” components are being sold by manufacturers to subvert the law. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 54) Danfoss noted that about 25 percent of WICF refrigeration systems are assembled by contractors and not sold as combined sets, and American Panel noted that 15 percent of systems are unit coolers connected to rack systems, where below 10 percent are dedicated systems matched by a contractor. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 60, and APC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 60) Danfoss further expressed concern that the proposed standard would preclude manufacturers like itself who sold only condensing units, but not complete systems, from being able to sell products into the WICF market. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 343) In general, DOE notes that the term “manufacturer” of a walk-in refers to 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. (See 10 CFR 431.302.) For purposes of certification, DOE will require the manufacturer of the walk-in component to certify compliance with DOE's standards, which are component-based. Namely, the manufacturer of a panel or door that is used in a walk-in must certify compliance. Manufacturers of refrigeration system components—namely, unit coolers and condensing units—that sell those components separately must rate and certify those components, while manufacturers of complete refrigeration systems whose components are not already separately certified must rate and certify those systems, in a manner consistent with DOE's recent final rule, published at 79 FR 27387. This approach will allow manufacturers of one refrigeration component but not the other to sell their products into the WICF market, addressing Danfoss's concern. The manufacturer of the complete walk-in, or the assembler of any component thereof (for example, a person who assembles a walk-in refrigeration system from a separately-sold unit cooler and condensing unit) must use components that are certified to and compliant with DOE's WICF standards. This approach avoids the compliance and certification issues inherent in requiring assemblers or contractors to certify WICF equipment, while maintaining the responsibility of assemblers or contractors to abide by the same standards as WICF components manufacturers, which DOE believes addresses US Cooler's concern about competitive disadvantage. This approach also requires that newly manufactured components comply with the DOE standards, regardless of whether they are being assembled into a new walk-in or being used as a replacement component on an existing walk-in, which addresses ACEEE's concern about the abuse of the “repair” designation. DOE appreciates the statements made by Danfoss and American Panel, and notes that because several paths to “manufacture” are available for walk-in coolers, it has developed its certification requirements accordingly. D. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, which it bases on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although DOE considers technologies that are proprietary, it will not consider efficiency levels that can only be reached through the use of proprietary technologies ( i.e., a unique pathway), as it could allow a single manufacturer to monopolize the market. Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it generally evaluates each of these design options in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv) Section IV.C of this notice discusses the results of the screening analyses for walk-in coolers and freezers. Specifically, it presents the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for walk-ins using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section V.A.2 of this final rule. E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the equipment at issue that are purchased during a 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2017-2046). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. 12 The model forecasts total energy use over the analysis period for each representative equipment class at efficiency levels set by each of the considered TSLs. DOE then compares the energy use at each TSL to the base-case energy use to obtain the NES. The NIA model is described in section IV.I of this notice and in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. 12 In the past, DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased during the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis. The NIA spreadsheet model calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the primary energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ). DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's evaluation of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE's Appliance Standards Program. 13 The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to walk-ins, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the equipment. DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. Although the addition of FFC energy savings in the rulemakings is consistent with the recommendations, the methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC methodology simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons of emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed by the equipment covered in this rulemaking. It is also important to note that the inclusion of FFC savings does not affect DOE's choice of proposed standards. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.I. 13 “Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy- Efficiency Standards,” (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included five recommendations. A copy of the study can be downloaded at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670 . 2. Significance of Savings To adopt more-stringent standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant additional energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B),(v) and 6316(a)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended significant energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for these standards are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA. F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As discussed in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) The following sections generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.K. First, DOE determines its quantitative impacts using an annual cash flow approach. This includes both a short-term assessment (based on the cost and capital requirements associated with new or amended standards during the period between the announcement of a regulation and the compliance date of the regulation) and a long-term assessment (based on the costs and marginal impacts over the 30-year analysis period 14 ). The impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry based on expected future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the potential impacts on different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of new or amended standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for new or amended standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of other DOE regulations and non-DOE regulatory requirements on manufacturers. 14 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for equipment shipped in a 9-year period. For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of the covered product that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including the cost of its installation) and the operating costs (including energy and maintenance and repair costs) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base-case scenario, which reflects likely trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.G. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6316(a)) DOE uses NIA spreadsheet results to project national energy savings. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential energy savings, see section I.A.3 of this notice. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE seeks to develop standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration. DOE has determined that none of the TSLs presented in this final rule would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) During the screening analysis, DOE eliminated from consideration any technology that would adversely impact customer utility. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential impact of amended standards on equipment utility and performance, see section IV.C of this notice and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from setting new or amended standards for a covered product. Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE sought the views of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the amended standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). To assist DOJ in making such a determination, DOE provided DOJ with copies of both the NOPR and NOPR TSD for review. DOJ subsequently determined that the amended standards are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. Accordingly, DOE concludes that this final rule would not be likely to lead to a lessening of competition. f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from new or amended standards are likely to improve the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how new or amended standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity. Energy savings from amended standards for walk-ins are also likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production ( e.g., from power plants). For a discussion of the results of the analyses relating to the potential environmental benefits of the amended standards, see sections IV.L, IV.M and V.B.6 of this notice. DOE reports the expected environmental effects from the amended standards, as well as from each TSL it considered for walk-ins in the emissions analysis contained in chapter 13 of the final rule TSD. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs in chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. g. Other Factors EPCA allows the Secretary, in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) There were no other factors considered for this final rule. 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a), EPCA provides for a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of equipment that meets the new or amended standard level is less than three times the value of the first-year energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the PBP for customers of potential new and amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a). The results of these analyses serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level definitively (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.G.12 of this notice. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments A. General Rulemaking Issues During the October 9, 2013 NOPR public meeting, and in subsequent written comments, stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, including the trial standard levels, the rulemaking timeline, and other subjects. These issues are discussed in this section. 1. Trial Standard Levels In the NOPR, DOE proposed the adoption of TSL 4 as the energy conservation standard for walk-ins, based on analysis showing that this level was both technically and economically feasible. 78 FR 55845 (September 11, 2013) NEEA et al. agreed with DOE's proposal, noting that TSL 4 represented the highest economically justified efficiency level, even though higher efficiencies were technologically feasible. (NEEA et al., No. 101 at p. 4) Reaction to DOE's proposal was somewhat mixed with several parties viewing the proposed standard as sufficiently aggressive for some components but insufficient for other components. Specifically, ASAP opined that DOE's proposed efficiency level was strong, but urged DOE to consider a TSL 4.5, which would combine the envelope components of TSL 4, and the refrigeration components of TSL 5. (ASAP, No. at p. 15) Similarly, the CA IOUs, while agreeing with the proposed TSL for panels, urged DOE to adopt TSL 5 for refrigeration systems, since enhanced condenser coil, improved evaporator fan blades, and improved defrost controls—all of which are refrigeration systems components—offered cost effective options DOE should consider. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 26) On the other hand, some commenters viewed the proposal as infeasible for manufacturers to meet. ThermoKool and US Cooler opined that TSL 2 was adequate. (US Cooler, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 376, ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 5) Lennox International also noted that DOE's AWEF values for TSL 4 were overly aggressive, based on modeling errors. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 1) With regard to the selection of design options at each TSL, Nor-Lake recommended that TSL 4 should consider standard levels requiring panels no thicker than 4 inches for class SP.L, as this was the current panel thickness most common in the industry. Nor-Lake noted that increasing panel thickness greatly increases production time and cost. (Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 2) In response to the comments from stakeholders, DOE reformulated its TSLs. See section V.A for further discussion on the TSLs. 2. Rulemaking Timeline A number of stakeholders commented on DOE's proposed rulemaking timeline. ICS requested that the target date for the final rule be moved beyond April 2014 to allow more opportunity for discussion and the development of a standard, and specifically recommended the final rule date be extended to at least 2016 to resolve all uncertainties in the analysis, using more accurate industry data. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 2 and 6). Lennox recommended a twelve-month delay in finalizing the proposed rule, in order for DOE to address modeling discrepancies and assumption errors in addition to providing separate performance targets for unit coolers and condensing units. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 7) Hillphoenix urged DOE to consider extending the completion date of the final rule, to allow, at minimum, four more opportunities for exchange of information between DOE and manufacturers. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE delay the adoption of energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers in order to rewrite the standards to make them more enforceable, and to develop separate standards for condensing units. (CA IOUs, No. 110 at p. 3) Additionally, Bally commented that the timeline is probably unrealistic due to the need for an additional public meeting. (Bally, No. 102 at p. 3) IB stated that DOE's proposal to have a final rule in place by April 2014 is very ambitious and does not allow enough time to make necessary modifications to the proposed rule. IB requested additional public meetings where the analysis assumptions can be reviewed in depth with manufacturers. (IB, No. 98 at p. 4) NCC stated that the time provided by DOE for manufacturers to evaluate the proposed standard was insufficient. (NCC, No. 96 at p. 2) Thermo-Kool commented that the target date for the final rule should be extended in order to allow manufacturers to fully understand DOE's analysis, and to facilitate more public meetings. (ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 5) Danfoss urged DOE to consider moving forward with the overall rulemaking but to take more time with the condensing unit and unit cooler split, potentially with an SNOPR, and to take separated condensing and cooling units into account. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at pp. 88 and 72) Public comment was also received opposing to extending the schedule. On the industry side, ebm-papst recommended proceeding quickly with the regulation because it raises the bar and spurs development toward a more sustainable refrigeration industry. (ebm-papst, No. 92 at p. 2) Similarly, AGNY commented that the delay in amending efficiency standards for walk-ins has led to inefficient products staying on the market, depriving purchasers of more effective options, and further asserted that delays have cost the nation $2.2 billion in lost savings. (AGNY, No. 116 at p. 2) While DOE appreciates the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the current rulemaking timeline, DOE believes that the recent modifications it has made will permit manufacturers to much more easily address the various requirements that will be established by this rule. For details regarding the separate analysis and certification of refrigeration system components, see 79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014). B. Market and Technology Assessment When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available information ( e.g., manufacturer specification sheets, industry publications) and data submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, and other stakeholders. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) Quantities and types of equipment sold and offered for sale; (2) retail market trends; (3) equipment covered by the rulemaking; (4) equipment classes; (5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory requirements and non-regulatory programs (such as rebate programs and tax credits); and (7) technologies that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment under examination. DOE researched manufacturers of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers and made a particular effort to identify and characterize small business manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment. 1. Equipment Included in This Rulemaking a. Panels and Doors In the NOPR, DOE identified three types of panels used in the walk-in industry: display panels, floor panels, and non-floor panels. Based on its research, DOE determined that display panels, typically found in beer caves (i.e. walk-ins used for the display and storage of beer or other alcoholic beverages often found in a supermarket) make up a small percentage of all panels currently present in the market. Therefore, because of the extremely limited energy savings potential currently projected to result from amending the requirements that these panels must meet, DOE did not propose to set new standards for walk-in display panels. Display panels, however, must still follow all applicable design standards already prescribed by EPCA. See 10 CFR 431.306(b). Additionally, DOE declined to propose standards for walk-in cooler floor panels because DOE determined through manufacturer interviews and market research that the majority of walk-in coolers are made with concrete floors and do not use insulated floor panels. DOE did, however, propose standards for other panels (i.e. door, ceiling and wall). Several stakeholders supported DOE's proposal to not set new standards for display and cooler floor panels. Thermo-Kool and Hillphoenix agreed that display panels and cooler floor panels should be excluded. (Thermo-Kool, No. 97 at p. 2; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3) NEEA stated that it was impractical to regulate or require floors for walk-in coolers. (NEEA, No. 101 at p. 3) American Panel, however, believed that additional energy savings were possible while imposing only a minimal burden on industry if walk-in coolers were required to use insulated floor panels or insulated concrete slabs with thermal breaks instead of requiring panel manufacturers to increase panel thickness. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 10) DOE agrees with American Panel that in theory a walk-in coolers would consume less energy with a insulated floor. However, EPCA directs DOE to adopt performance standards of walk-in and thus the Department cannot require all walk-in coolers to be installed with insulated floors. Additionally, the Department expected that setting an R-value requirement for walk-in cooler floor panels would cause manufactures to stop selling cooler floor panels to avoid the certification burden. American Panel asked if DOE considered freezers built inside a walk-in that are built inside another walk-in. American Panel noted that for cooler-freezer combination units, complicated dividing wall panels were required, which were complicated to manufacture, and would be very expensive, should the walk-in freezer require 5 inch insulation. (American Panel, No. 99 at p. 5) DOE agrees that its analysis does not account for the specific installation scenarios of walk-in panels beyond cooler versus freezer applications. However, the Department reiterates that it is not establishing prescriptive standards so freezer panels would not be required to be a specific thickness—only that they meet a particular thermal resistance value. DOE also identified two types of doors used in the walk-in market, display doors and non-display doors, which are discussed in section VI.2.A. of this NOPR. All types of doors will be subject to the performance standards proposed in this rulemaking. b. Refrigeration Systems Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers In the NOPR, DOE did not include blast freezers in its rulemaking analysis, but proposed to apply the same standards to blast freezer refrigeration systems as to storage freezer refrigeration systems, unless DOE were to find that blast freezer refrigeration systems would have difficulty complying with DOE's standards. DOE requested comments from the public on the inclusion of blast freezers within the scope of the proposed rule. 78 FR at 55799. In response, NEEA, et al., Hussmann, ACEEE, American Panel, the California IOU's, Heatcraft, Bally, Hillphoenix, Lennox, AHRI and Nor-Lake urged DOE to carefully define blast chillers and freezers, and to exclude them from the products covered by the proposed rule, since these were food processing equipment, as opposed to food storage equipment like most other walk-in coolers and freezers. (NEEA, et al., No. 101 at p. 5; Hussmann, No. 93 at p. 7; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 112; APC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 111; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 109; Heatcraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 108; Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 108; Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 109 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3; Nor-Lake, No. 115 at p. 1) APC recommended that in addition to blast freezers, blast chillers should also be excluded from the ambit of the proposed rule for similar reasons. (APC, No. 99 at p. 3) AHRI, on the other hand, suggested that blast coolers and freezers, along with ripening rooms, should be held to different efficiency standards than WICFs. (AHRI, No. 114 at p. 3) After considering the comments received and conducting additional research, DOE agrees with commenters that blast chillers and blast freezers are food processing equipment and place them outside of the definition of a walk-in, which is defined as an “enclosed storage space.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) Additionally, DOE has found that blast chillers and blast freezers have very different energy consumption characteristics from storage coolers and freezers, which would justify their classification as a distinct product. Based on the comments, along with other information reviewed by DOE (e.g. manufacturer brochures and literature) regarding the operation and use of blast chillers and blast freezers. DOE is declining to treat these equipment categories as walk-ins. As a result, these two categories of equipment would not be required to meet the standards that DOE has detailed in this notice. In delineating these equipment, in DOE's view, a blast chiller (or shock chiller) refers to a type of cooling device that is designed specifically to, when fully loaded, cool its contents from 150 °F to 55 °F in less than 90 minutes. Similarly, a blast freezer (or shock freezer) refers to a type of freezer that is designed specifically to, when fully loaded, cool its contents from 150 °F to 32 °F in less than 90 minutes. While DOE believes that the above descriptions should be sufficiently clear to enable manufacturers to readily determine whether a particular device they produce falls under these descriptions, DOE may revise these descriptions in the future through guidance should additional clarification be necessary. Special Application Walk-In Coolers Several commenters suggested that certain walk-in coolers designed for special applications should be excluded from the rulemaking. ebm-papst commented that the proposed standard did not separate low-velocity and low-profile unit coolers. (ebm-papst, No. 92 at p. 4) NCC and KeepRite commented that two-way or low-velocity coolers were designed as food-processing workspaces, and should be excluded from the scope of the proposed rule. (NCC, No. 96 at p. 2; K-RP, No. 105 at p. 2) SAF noted that the floriculture industry had unique requirements with regard to air movement and humidity for walk-in coolers since potted plants and cut flowers had a rapid rate of respiration, and further expressed concern that the proposed standard did not account for the large degree of customization used in the engineering of floral storage units due to the higher humidity and gentle airflow required. (SAF, No. 103 at pp. 3 and 7) Manitowoc commented that grouping packaged refrigeration systems with split systems would make it difficult for packaged systems to meet the proposed standard levels at a reasonable cost, since packaged systems were typically 1 horsepower (hp) or less, and increased efficiency would have a greater cost impact. (Manitowoc, No. 108 at p. 2) Lennox stated that there were no known test laboratories in the U.S. that were certified or fully capable of testing the range of products and application temperatures covered by the proposed rule. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 2) With respect to low-velocity and floral application coolers, DOE agrees that there is a certain category of medium- and low-temperature unit coolers that are characterized by low airflow. In medium-temperature applications, these unit coolers may also be operated at a higher-than-usual temperature difference between the evaporator coil and the air, which contributes to a high humidity environment necessary for some applications. (For more details on temperature difference, see section IV.D.5.b.) Because these products are used for both storage and process applications, DOE cannot categorically exclude them from coverage, although DOE notes that equipment used for process cooling applications is excluded from the WICF standards. Also, DOE has not found evidence that such products would be at a disadvantage by having to satisfy the standards being adopted today, when tested under the rating conditions in the test procedure. In response to Manitowoc's comment, Manitowoc did not provide, nor has DOE found, evidence that packaged systems would have difficulty meeting the proposed standard; DOE notes that for dedicated condensing systems, which would include packaged systems, its standards for smaller systems are lower than those for larger systems and the required efficiency for smaller systems decreases with system size. To address Lennox's concern, if a manufacturer believes that the test procedure in its current form does not measure the efficiency of a model of covered equipment in a manner representative of its true energy use, the manufacturer may apply for a test procedure waiver for that model. High-Temperature Products Hillphoenix commented that the definition of a walk-in cooler as having a maximum temperature of 55 °F was incongruent with the NSF limit of 41 °F as the maximum safe temperature for food. (Hillphoenix, No. 107 at p. 1) ICS, et al., American Panel, IB, Kysor, and ThermoKool suggested that DOE revise its definition of a walk-in cooler to align with the NSF's requirement of food storage at or below 41 °F. (ICS, et al., No. 100 at p. 3; APC, No. 99 at p. 2; IB, No. 98 at p. 1; Kysor, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 40; ThermoKool, No. 97 at p. 1) Hussmann expressed concern that if the standards cover products up to 55 degrees, it may cover some products that have very different energy profiles than traditional [food] storage systems. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 88 at p. 62) Lennox, however, agreed with DOE's proposal to base the definition of freezers vs. coolers on an operating temperature [at or] below and above 32 °F, respectively. (Lennox, No. 109 at p. 5) DOE recognizes that the NSF requires food storage at 41 °F or below. However, DOE is retaining its definition of walk-in coolers and freezers because while the foodservice industry accounts for a large portion of the walk-in cooler market, these units also have applications in other industries, which do not fall within the ambit of the NSF standard. DOE notes that it based its analysis on coolers operating at 35 °F (the AHRI 1250 test procedure rating temperature for coolers), which should not disadvantage products that must comply with the NSF requirement. 2. Equipment Classes In evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for equipment having such a feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of the feature to users. DOE normally establishes different energy conservation standards for different equipment classes based on these criteria. In the NOPR, DOE proposed separate classes for panels, display doors, non-display doors, and refrigeration systems because each component type has a different utility to the consumer and possesses different energy use characteristics. a. Panels and Doors In the NOPR, DOE proposed three equipment classes for walk-in panels: cooler structural panels, freezer structural panels, and freezer floor panels. DOE's proposal was based on the understanding that freezer floor panels and structural panels serve two different utilities. Freezer floor panels, which are panels used to construct the floor of a walk-in freezer, must often support the load of small machines like hand carts and pallet jacks. Structural panels are panels used to construct the ceiling or wall of a walk-in, provide structure for the walk-in. Structural panels are further divided into two more classes based on temperature— i.e., cooler versus freezer panels. Cooler structural panels are rated at an average foam temperature of 55 °F, as required in the test procedure. Freezer structural panels are used in walk-in freezers and rated at an average foam temperature of 20 °F, also a test procedure requirement. See 79 FR at 27412. Walk-in freezer panels must also meet a higher R-value than walk-in cooler panels. See 10 CFR 431.306. For doors, DOE distinguished between two different door types used in walk-ins: display doors and non-display doors. DOE proposed separate classes for display doors and non-display doors to retain consistency with the dual approach laid out by EPCA for these walk-in components. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(C) and (3)) Non-display doors and display doors also serve separate purposes in a walk-in. Display doors contain mainly glass in order to display products or objects located inside the walk-in. Non-display doors function as passage and freight doors and are mainly used to allow people and products to be moved into and out of the walk-in. Because of their different utilities, display and non-display doors are made up of different material. Display doors are made of glass or other transparent material, while non-display doors are made of highly insulative materials like polyurethane. The different materials found in display and non-display doors significantly affect their energy consumption. DOE divided display doors into two equipment classes based on temperature differences: cooler and freezer display doors. Cooler display doors and freezer display doors are exposed to different internal temperature conditions, which affect the total energy consumption of the doors. DOE's test procedure contains an internal rating temperature of 35 °F for walk-in cooler display doors and −10 °F for walk-in freezer display doors. See 76 FR at 21606 and 10 CFR 431.303 DOE also separated non-display doors into two equipment classes, passage and freight doors. Passage doors are typically smaller doors and mostly used as a means of access for people and small machines, like hand carts. Freight [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-11489. Public record. Not legal advice.