Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers

Federal RegisterDec 28, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030]

RIN 1904-AD72

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the test procedure for certain walk-in cooler and freezer components by improving the procedure's clarity, updating related certification and enforcement provisions to address the performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-in cooler and freezer equipment, and establishing labeling requirements to aid manufacturers in determining compliance with the relevant standards for walk-in cooler and freezer applications. The amendments consist of provisions specific to certain walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems, including product-specific definitions, removal of a performance credit for hot gas defrost, and a method to accommodate refrigeration equipment that use adaptive defrost and on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fan control.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is January 27, 2017. The final rule changes will be mandatory for representations starting June 26, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on January 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030

. The docket Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

Ashey.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:

(2) AHRI Standard 1250-2009 (“AHRI 1250-2009”), “Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers,” approved 2009.

(3) ASHRAE Standard 23.1-2010 (“ASHRAE 23.1-2010”), “Methods of Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant,” ANSI approved January 28, 2010.

(4) ASTM C518-04 (“ASTM C518”), Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus, approved May 1, 2004.

Copies of AHRI Standard 420-2008 and AHRI Standard 1250-2009 may be purchased from AHRI at 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, or by going to

www.ahrinet.org

Copies of ASHRAE 23.1-2010 may be purchased from ASHRAE at 1971 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or by going to

www.ashrae.org

Copies of ASTM C518 may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-9500.

For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Actions in Response to ASRAC Negotiated Terms

1. Definitions

2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure Modifications

B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation of Energy Conservation Standards

1. Re-Organization and Clarification of the Test Procedure for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems, Doors, and Panels

2. Representation Requirements

3. Certification and Compliance Requirements

4. Enforcement Provisions

5. Labeling Requirements

C. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use

D. Additional Comments From Interested Parties

1. High Temperature Freezer Applications

2. Unit Cooler With Mounted/Ancillary Components

3. Off-Cycle Unit Cooler Variable-Speed Fan Setting

4. Unit Cooler Capacity Determination in Condensing Unit Only Test

5. Insulation Aging

6. Laboratory Qualification

7. Variable-Capacity Condensing Unit Test Method

8. Request for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

9. ASRAC Working Group Representation

10. EPCA Prescriptive Requirements

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

2. Significant Issues Raised in Response to the IRFA

3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Businesses Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

1. Description of the Requirements

2. Information Collection Request Title

3. Type of Request

4. Purpose

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “walk-ins” or “WICFs”) are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) By definition, a walk-in is an enclosed storage space of less than 3,000 square feet that can be walked into and is refrigerated to prescribed temperatures based on whether the given unit is a cooler or a freezer. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6311(20). In simple terms, a walk-in is an insulated box (or envelope) serviced by a refrigerated system that feeds cold air to the box's

interior. DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for walk-ins are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.306 and 10 CFR 431.304, respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for walk-ins and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163, as amended (codified as 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, including walk-ins, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

In general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316 and 6296(d)). Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) (detailing criteria for setting test procedures for industrial equipment).

DOE also generally periodically reviews its test procedures and if it determines that an amendment is warranted, DOE publishes a proposal to amend them and offers the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on that proposal. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) DOE also generally determines the extent, if any, to which the test procedure amendment(s) would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) For purposes of this rulemaking, DOE has made this determination through its conducting of a parallel rulemaking setting standards for certain classes of walk-in refrigeration systems.

B. Background

Section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007), required DOE to establish test procedures to measure walk-in energy use. On April 15, 2011, DOE published test procedures for the principal components that make up a walk-in: panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. DOE took this component-based testing approach after carefully considering a significant body of feedback from interested parties that requiring a single test procedure for an entire walk-in would be impractical because most walk-ins are assembled on-site with components from different manufacturers. 76 FR 21580, 21582 (April 15, 2011).

On February 20, 2014, DOE initiated another test procedure rulemaking for walk-ins to clarify and modify the test procedures published in April 2011. DOE also proposed to revise the existing regulations for walk-ins to allow manufacturers, once certain qualifications are met, to use an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to certify compliance and report ratings. That effort, which came in the form of a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNOPR”), solicited public comments, data, and information on the proposed test procedure modifications. 79 FR 9818 (February 20, 2014). DOE published a final rule codifying the AEDM provisions and amendments to the test procedure for walk-ins on May 13. 2014. 79 FR 27388.

DOE also published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) to establish new performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-ins on September 11, 2013. (“September 2013 NOPR”) 78 FR 55782. That NOPR addressed the comments received during earlier stages of the rulemaking and proposed new energy conservation standards for this equipment. In conjunction with the September 2013 NOPR, DOE published a technical support document (“TSD”) to accompany the proposed rule along with spreadsheets addressing aspects of DOE's engineering analysis, Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), life cycle cost (“LCC”), and national impact analysis (“NIA”). See Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015. DOE proposed standards for eight dedicated condensing classes of refrigeration systems, two multiplex condensing classes of refrigeration systems, three classes of panels, four classes of non-display doors, and two classes of display doors. (The proposed refrigeration system standards used the metric “annual walk-in energy factor” (“AWEF”), and the door standards used the metric maximum energy consumption that incorporates thermal insulating ability and electrical energy used by the door. The proposed panel standards were equivalent to those previously established by Congress and use a measurement of thermal insulation—or “R-value”—to represent the energy efficiency of these components.) DOE published a final rule adopting these new standards on June 3, 2014 (“June 2014 final rule”). 79 FR 32050. Except for the equipment class standards that were vacated, as described below, compliance with the standards adopted in the June 2014 final rule is required starting on June 5, 2017.

After publication of the June 2014 final rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) and Lennox International, Inc. (a manufacturer of walk-in refrigeration systems) filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Lennox Int'l

Dep't of Energy,

Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). Other walk-in refrigeration system manufacturers—Rheem Manufacturing Co. (owner of Heat Transfer Products Group) and Hussmann Corp.—along with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (a trade association representing contractors who assemble walk-in refrigeration systems) intervened on the petitioners' behalf, while the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”)—representing itself, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Texas Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy—intervened on behalf of DOE. As a result of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached that addressed, among other things, six of the refrigeration system standards—the standards for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment classes and both medium- and low-temperature multiplex condensing equipment classes.

A controlling Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, issued on August 10, 2015, vacated those six standards. On November 12, 2015, DOE amended the CFR to reflect this Order. 80 FR 69837. The remaining standards promulgated by the June 2014 final rule—

i.e.,

the (1) Four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium-temperatures, (2) three standards applicable to panels, and (3) six standards applicable to doors—were not vacated and continue to remain subject to the June 5, 2017 compliance date prescribed in the June 2014 final rule. See 79 FR at 32051-32052 (Table I.1) and 32123-32124 (codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a), (c)-(e)).

To address the vacated standards, DOE established a Working Group to negotiate proposed energy conservation standards to replace them. Specifically, on August 5, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a Working Group for Certain Equipment Classes of Refrigeration Systems of Walk-in Coolers and Freezers to Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Energy Conservation Standards (“Working Group”). 80 FR 46521. The Working Group was established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (“NRA”). (5 U.S.C. App. 2; 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320.) The purpose of the Working Group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on proposed standard levels for the energy efficiency of the affected classes of walk-in refrigeration systems. The Working Group consisted of 12 representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards and one DOE representative (see Table 1). All of the meetings were open to the public and broadcast via webinar. Several people who were not members of the Working Group attended the meetings and were given the opportunity to comment on the proceedings. Non-Working Group meeting attendees are listed in Table 2. The Working Group consulted as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. The Working Group met in-person on 13 days of meetings held between August 27 and December 15, 2015.

Table 1—Walk-In Refrigeration Systems Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group

Full name

Affiliation

Ashley Armstrong

U.S. Department of Energy.

Lane Burt

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mary Dane

Traulsen.

Cyril Fowble

Lennox International, Inc.

Sean Gouw

CA Investor-Owned Utilities.

Andrew Haala

Hussmann Corp.

Armin Hauer

ebm-papst, Inc.

John Koon

Manitowoc Company.

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

Charlie McCrudden

Air Conditioning Contractors of America.

Louis Starr

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Michael Straub

Rheem Manufacturing.

Wayne Warner

Emerson Climate Technologies.

Table 2—Other ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Meeting Attendees and Affiliations

Full name

Affiliation

Akash Bhatia

Tecumseh Products Company.

Bryan Eisenhower

VaCom Technologies.

Dean Groff

Danfoss.

Brian Lamberty

Unknown.

Michael Layne

Turbo Air.

Jon McHugh

McHugh Energy.

Yonghui (Frank) Xu

National Coil Company.

Vince Zolli

KeepRite Refrigeration.

On December 15, 2015, the Working Group reached consensus on, among other things, a series of energy conservation standards to replace those that were vacated as a result of the litigation. The Working Group assembled their recommendations into a single Term Sheet (See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56) that was presented to, and approved by, the ASRAC on December 18, 2015. DOE anticipates adopting in a separate rulemaking document energy conservation standards consistent with the Working Group's Term Sheet for those classes of walk-in refrigeration systems whose standards were vacated. See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016 for all background documents on the negotiated rulemaking.

While the Working Group's focus centered primarily on addressing the six energy conservation standards for low-temperature dedicated condensing equipment classes and both medium- and low-temperature multiplex condensing equipment classes, (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 1 and 2), the Term Sheet also included recommendations that DOE consider making certain amendments to the walk-in test procedure. These recommendations included technical corrections to the test procedure itself, definitions for certain terms to provide clarity regarding the applicability of the standards (and, relatedly, the test procedure), and other changes that the Working Group deemed necessary in order to implement the agreed-upon refrigeration system standards.

DOE

considered the approved Term Sheet, along with other comments received during the negotiated rulemaking process, and proposed several test procedure amendments addressing these Term Sheet recommendation in a NOPR published August 17, 2016 (“August 2016 NOPR”). 81 FR 54926. The NOPR also included additional proposals to facilitate implementation of energy conservation standards for WICF components. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the NOPR on September 12, 2016 and accepted written comments during a comment period that ended October 17, 2016. DOE considered these comments when developing this final rule.

The recommended changes to the test procedure deal exclusively with efficiency measurement and certification for the classes of refrigeration systems that were the subject of the negotiations. These changes do not affect the test procedures for the refrigeration system standards that were not vacated. They specifically address removing test procedure provisions, including hot gas defrost, and adding requirements that certified efficiency levels for evaluating standards compliance would not rely on the current test procedure provisions for

adaptive defrost or on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans.

DOE is requiring manufacturers to use the prescribed test procedure described in this document when making representations regarding the energy use or efficiency of covered equipment. Manufacturers will have 180 days after the final rule's publication date to ensure that these representations are based on this test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

The amendments adopted in this final rule will not change the measured energy use of the classes of refrigeration systems whose standards were not vacated.

As such, all test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule are effective 30 days after publication in the

Federal Register

and required for representations regarding the energy consumption of covered equipment 180 days after publication of this final rule in the

Federal Register

. The compliance dates for labeling requirements are aligned with the corresponding energy conservation standards compliance dates,

i.e.,

June 2017 for the standards established by the June 2014 final rule that were not vacated, and January 2020 for the refrigeration system standards for unit coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing units.

DOE anticipates adopting performance-based energy conservation standards for certain classes of refrigeration systems for walk-ins in a separate rulemaking—those standards would replace the standards vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order. See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016.

In addition to implementing the recommendations detailed in the Term Sheet developed as part of the ASRAC negotiated rulemaking meetings, this final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a). DOE also reviewed other aspects of the WICF test procedure and ultimately concluded that, with the exception of the amendments being made in this final rule, no other changes are needed at this point in time. DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure (and the addressing of any remaining issues detailed in the Term Sheet that relate to the WICF test procedure) will occur in a manner consistent with this provision. (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #6)

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 431.304, “Uniform test method for the measurement of energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers,” and related certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions of 10 CFR part 429. The amendments fall into two groups.

The first group consists of test procedure modifications and other additions to the regulatory text recommended by the Working Group and listed in the Term Sheet, including the following:

(1) Adding definitions for the terms “dedicated condensing unit,” “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “adaptive defrost,” “process cooling,” and “refrigerated storage space.” DOE also is adding definitions for “dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “single-package dedicated system,” “matched condensing unit,” “matched refrigeration system,” and modifying the definition of “refrigeration system” to complete a comprehensive structure for defining all relevant terms discussed in the test procedure.

(2) Removing the method for calculating defrost energy and defrost heat load of a system with hot gas defrost and establish a method to test hot gas defrost refrigeration systems to obtain AWEF ratings equivalent to those of electric defrost refrigeration systems.

(3) Establishing a regulatory approach for refrigeration systems with adaptive defrost and/or on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fan control that requires that these features be deactivated when such units are tested to demonstrate compliance with the standard, while allowing for representations of their improved performance when using these features.

The second group of amendments consists of test procedure modifications and certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions that, while not part of the Term Sheet, are necessary for implementing the energy conservation standards. This group of changes includes the following:

(1) Re-organizing the test procedure provisions in 10 CFR 431.304 to improve clarity, and correct typographical errors in the rule language.

(2) Clarifying section 3.0 “Additional Definitions” in appendix A to subpart R of part 431.

(3) Modifying the current walk-in certification and reporting requirements in 10 CFR 429.53 to clarify applicability of walk-in test procedures to certain equipment classes and add provisions for reporting additional rating metrics.

(4) Adding walk-in refrigeration systems, panels, and doors to the list of products and equipment included as part of the enforcement testing requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.110(e)(2).

(5) Adding product specific enforcement provisions for walk-ins.

(6) Adding labeling requirements for walk-in refrigeration systems, panels, and doors.

III. Discussion

This final rule stems from the detailed discussions and suggestions offered by Working Group participants during the walk-in negotiated rulemaking. These participants, in addition to providing detailed technical feedback on replacing the vacated standards, also offered detailed recommendations regarding the walk-in test procedures. These recommendations were offered as a means to address questions related to the treatment of certain types of features or components that may be present in a given walk-in refrigeration system. DOE developed specific proposals to incorporate the Working Group recommendations into its test procedures, resulting in the August 2016 NOPR. 81 FR 54926. DOE received comments from a number of interested parties. A list of these parties is included in Table 3—Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR. The comments received and DOE's decisions regarding finalization of the test procedure amendments are discussed in the sections that follow.

Table 3—Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR

Commenter

Acronym

Affiliation

Comment No.

(Docket Reference)

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association

11, 23

American Panel Corporation

APC, American Panel

Manufacturer

7, 23

Appliance Standards Awareness Project and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

ASAP and NEEA

Efficiency Organizations

Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc.

Bally

Manufacturer

22, 23

California Investor Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utility Association

CrownTonka

Manufacturer

Dow Chemical Company

Dow

Component/Material Supplier

Emerson Climate Technologies

Emerson

Manufacturer

EPS Industry Alliance

EPS-IA

Trade Association

Heat Controller Inc.

Heat Controller

Manufacturer

Hussmann Corporation

Hussmann

Manufacturer

20, 23

Imperial Brown Inc.

Manufacturer

KeepRite Refrigeration

KeepRite

Manufacturer

KPS Global LLC

KPS

Manufacturer

Lennox International, Inc. and Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC

Lennox

Manufacturer

13, 23

Manitowoc Company

Manitowoc

Manufacturer

National Coil Company

NCC

Component/Material Supplier

16, 23

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

NAFEM

Trade Association

Panasonic Corporation

Panasonic

Manufacturer

Rheem Manufacturing Company and Heat Transfer Products Group, LLC

Rheem

Manufacturer

18, 23

Ron Shebiu

Shebiu

Individual

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General

DHHS OIG

Federal Agency/Association

The Delfield Company

Delfield

Manufacturer

Zero Zone, Inc.

Zero Zone

Manufacturer

Notes:

1. Comment number 23 indicates the party commented during the public meeting.

2. This commenter is listed as Roxanne Scott in the public meeting transcript.

* These commenters were present at the public meeting but did not make comments at the meeting or submit written comments.

A. Actions in Response to ASRAC Negotiated Terms

1. Definitions

The Working Group recommended that DOE define the terms “dedicated condensing unit,” “matched condensing unit,” and “outdoor condensing unit” (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #1); “adaptive defrost” (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #2); and “process cooling,” “preparation room refrigeration,” and “storage space.” (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #7) DOE sought to define these terms to more clearly identify the categories of equipment that are covered and to clarify the application of the test procedures and standards to these equipment. To this end, DOE proposed definitions for these terms along with several others, notably, the terms “dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system,” “matched refrigeration system,” “unit cooler,” and “packaged dedicated system.” These supplemental definitions were developed to help enhance the clarity of the walk-in regulatory framework and to assist manufacturers in readily ascertaining how to classify (and certify for compliance purposes) the myriad of refrigeration systems they produce. Finally, DOE proposed to modify the current definition of “refrigeration system” to align it more closely with the terminology being defined. See 81 FR at 54929-54932. The following sections discuss the proposed definitions and comments received from stakeholders regarding the proposals. The precise text for the final definitions, which will all appear in 10 CFR 431.302, is contained in the regulatory text appearing at the end of this document.

a. Dedicated Condensing Unit and Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration System

DOE proposed to define the dedicated condensing equipment class to address three refrigeration system configurations—(1) a dedicated condensing unit; (2) a packaged dedicated system; and (3) a matched refrigeration system. DOE proposed defining what a dedicated condensing refrigeration system is to clarify the scope of this equipment class. Consistent with Lennox's assertion that single-package refrigeration systems are a type of dedicated condensing system (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, DOE and Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (October 16, 2015), No. 63 at pp. 249-251), DOE proposed to include this configuration in the proposed definition. DOE also proposed that a matched condensing system—consisting of a dedicated condensing unit that is distributed in commerce with one or more specific unit coolers—would also be treated as a dedicated condensing system. Finally, DOE also proposed to treat as a dedicated condensing system a dedicated condensing unit sold separately from any unit cooler. This proposed clarification underpins DOE's certification approach of allowing manufacturers to test and rate condensing units separately when certifying compliance with the dedicated condensing standard, without having to distribute their condensing

units in commerce with one or more specific unit coolers. 81 FR at 54929-54930.

DOE's proposed definition for “dedicated condensing unit” reflected each of these elements. Under the proposed definition, such a unit would be a positive displacement condensing unit that is part of a refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302) and is an assembly that (1) includes 1 or more compressors, a condenser, and one refrigeration circuit and (2) is designed to serve one refrigerated load. The term “factory-made” was omitted from the proposed definition to avoid suggesting that such an assembly is not a condensing unit (and thus not covered by DOE regulations) if it happens to be assembled from its subcomponents after shipment from the factory.

Id.

Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and NEEA agreed with the proposed definition of “dedicated condensing unit.” (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 1)

DOE did not receive any opposing comments regarding its proposed definition for “dedicated condensing unit.” Accordingly, DOE is adopting this definition as proposed.

Additionally, DOE proposed to define “dedicated condensing refrigeration system” as referring to a (a) dedicated condensing unit, (b) packaged dedicated system, or (c) matched refrigeration system. 81 FR at 54930.

ASAP and NEEA supported this proposed definition. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 1) Others, however, challenged the inclusion of packaged dedicated systems within the proposed definition (

e.g.,

Rheem, No. 18 at p. 1). Comments addressing packaged dedicated systems are addressed in section III.A.1.b, including DOE's conclusion that these systems, which are being renamed as “single-package dedicated systems,” fall within the dedicated condensing refrigeration system class. In finalizing this definition, DOE made no other changes.

b. Single-package Dedicated System

DOE proposed to treat a packaged dedicated system as a type of dedicated condensing refrigeration system. These systems are factory-assembled equipment where the components serving the compressor, condenser, and evaporator functions are “packaged” into a single piece of equipment. The system is then installed as part of a walk-in application, with the compressor and condenser located on the outside of the walk-in envelope (

i.e.,

the boxed storage enclosure) and the evaporator on the inside. Walk-ins that use such a system include a hole in one of the walls or ceiling of the insulated enclosure into which the packaged system is mounted. The use of this equipment is necessarily limited to small-capacity walk-ins due to load-bearing limitations of the walk-in envelope. DOE proposed to define “packaged dedicated systems” by combining elements of the proposed definition for “dedicated condensing unit” (see section III.A.1.a) and the definition for “forced-circulation free-delivery unit cooler (unit cooler)” from AHRI-1250-2009. Consequently, DOE proposed to define a “packaged dedicated system” as “a refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302) that is a single-package assembly that includes one or more compressors, a condenser, a means for forced circulation of refrigerated air, and elements by which heat is transferred from air to refrigerant, without any element external to the system imposing resistance to flow of the refrigerated air.” DOE did not include the term “factory-made” in the proposed definition for the same reasons that the term was omitted from the “dedicated condensing unit” definition, as explained earlier. See 81 FR at 54930-54931.

Rheem and American Panel commented that a “packaged dedicated system” leaves the factory as a complete system, with only power hookup and air inlet and outlet to be configured on-site. Consequently, they suggested adding the clause “factory-assembled” to the definition for a packaged dedicated system. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 19-21; American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 22)

Public meeting and written comments submitted to DOE from several manufacturers and AHRI indicated that there is no viable test procedure for packaged systems. Commenters requested that DOE clarify how to test and rate this equipment. The commenters pointed out the necessity of disassembling the unit to install mass flow meters and to install the evaporator and condenser sections in separate environmental chambers when testing packaged systems under the current test procedure. The commenters suggested that packaged systems should be exempt from the scope of the WICF standards because there is no test procedure for them. Further, Rheem, Manitowoc, and AHRI stated that it was their understanding from the ASRAC Working Group meeting that packaged systems do not fall within the definition of dedicated condensing unit, and are not subject to the dedicating condensing class standards. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 16-17; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 18; Manitowoc, No. 10 at pp. 3-4; Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 1-2; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6) The CA IOUs disagreed with manufacturers' claims that AHRI 1250-2009 is not an appropriate test procedure for packaged dedicated system WICF systems, noting that AHRI 1250-2009 specifically cites “integrated single package refrigeration units” as part of its scope. In addition, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE change the term, “packaged dedicated system,” to “single-package dedicated system,” or “self-contained units”. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at pp. 2-3)

DOE notes that the definition for “refrigeration system” was established in the context of walk-ins to include “(1) [a] packaged dedicated system where the unit cooler and condensing unit are integrated into a single piece of equipment” in the April 15, 2011 final rule establishing test procedures for WICFs. 76 FR at 21605. In DOE's view, packaged systems are walk-in refrigeration systems and are subject to the applicable prescriptive standards established by Congress through EISA 2007 along with the performance standards that DOE prescribes for these systems.

DOE notes that this view is not restricted to DOE, as two manufacturers confirmed that a single-package refrigeration system is a type of dedicated condensing system on two occasions during the Working Group meetings. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (October 16, 2015), No. 63 at pp. 249-251; Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (December 3, 2015), No. 57 at p. 157) Thus, DOE does not support the position that these systems are not considered to be WICF refrigeration systems subject to WICF standards, including the prescriptive standards mandated by EPCA.

With respect to these prescriptive requirements, DOE notes that relevant statutory provision does not indicate that the promulgation of performance standards supplants those standards that Congress already mandated through its enactment of EISA 2007. Accordingly, because there is no explicit authority in this instance for DOE to override a statutorily-prescribed standard, the initial design requirements established by Congress continue to apply. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)-(5) (detailing prescriptive design requirements for certain walk-in components and the process by which DOE must prescribe separate walk-in performance-based standards).

DOE notes that section 2.1 of AHRI 1250-2009 describes the scope of this testing standard as applying “to mechanical refrigeration equipment consisting of an integrated single package refrigeration unit, or separate

unit cooler and condensing unit sections, where the condensing section can be located either outdoor or indoor.” The testing standard further explains that these controls “may be integral, or can be provided by a separate party as long as performance is tested and certified with the listed mechanical equipment accordingly.” AHRI 1250-2009, section 2.1.

Further, the possibility that the equipment has one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures does not exempt manufacturers from coverage under the standards. DOE has established the waiver process to address such circumstances. See 10 CFR 431.401. While DOE acknowledges stakeholders' comments that the configurations of certain models of refrigeration systems may prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures, manufacturers may avail themselves of the procedures under 10 CFR 431.401 to obtain a waiver that would enable them to test this equipment using an alternative test procedure. This process requires, among other things, that manufacturers include in a petition for waiver any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the performance of the equipment in a manner representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the basic model (10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii)). The filing of the waiver does not exempt a manufacturer from compliance with standards or certification requirements. (10 CFR 431.401(a)(2))

In response to comments that “factory-assembled” should be part of the definition for single-package dedicated system, DOE notes that DOE omitted this clause from several of the definitions to avoid implying that a piece of equipment that otherwise meets the definition does not meet it if part of the assembly occurs outside a factory. An example of this is a refrigeration system that is shipped from the factory in multiple boxes and then assembled in the field. DOE agrees that it is likely that nearly all such single-package systems are fully assembled in a factory. However, DOE believes that any such refrigeration system that is not fully assembled in a factory, for example, by having the condenser fan assembly mounted to the unit in the field, should still be considered a single-package refrigeration system and regulated under the relevant requirements under the dedicated condensing refrigeration system equipment class. Hence, DOE is not adopting the suggested change.

Regarding the CA IOUs' suggestion that the term “packaged dedicated system” be changed to “single-package dedicated system” for purposes of DOE's regulatory definitions, DOE surveyed manufacturer literature, and found that packaged dedicated systems are marketed as “Packaged Systems” or “Packaged Refrigeration Systems”. (Master-Bilt product specification sheet, No. 32 at p. 7; Lennox product catalog, No. 31 at p. 190; and Rheem product specification, No. 30) However, DOE believes that the suggested use of the term “single-package dedicated refrigeration system” would provide further clarity, indicating more precisely what this equipment is, and would be consistent with the approach already used for air-conditioning units. This consistency is significant since walk-in refrigeration systems are generally very similar in classification and operation to air conditioning systems. Accordingly, the use of the term “single-package” in the walk-in context would help clarify the categorization of this equipment and reduce the potential for industry and market confusion. To reduce the risk of confusion, DOE is adopting the suggested change from the CA-IOUs and is renaming the “packaged dedicated systems” category as “single-package dedicated refrigeration systems.”

c. Matched Condensing Unit and Matched Refrigeration System

DOE proposed to define a “matched condensing unit” as “a dedicated condensing unit that is distributed in commerce with one or more unit cooler(s) specified by the condensing unit manufacturer.” DOE also proposed to define “matched refrigeration system” (also called “matched-pair”) as “a refrigeration system including the matched condensing unit and the one or more unit coolers with which it is distributed in commerce.” 81 FR at 54931.

KeepRite supported the proposed definitions for matched condensing unit and matched refrigeration system. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding this definition and therefore is adopting it as proposed.

d. Outdoor and Indoor Dedicated Condensing Refrigeration Systems

DOE has established separate equipment classes for indoor and outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration systems. See,

e.g.

10 CFR 431.306(e) (breaking out dedicated condensing refrigeration system classes based on whether they are indoor/outdoor units and capacity). DOE proposed to define an “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system” as a system that is encased and capable of maintaining a net capacity at the 35 °F outdoor temperature condition that is no less than 65 percent of the net capacity measured at the 95 °F outdoor temperature condition for a period of no less than one hour. See 81 FR at 54931. This approach differed from the WICF Term Sheet definition, which focused on a given unit's ability to operate in a 35 °F ambient condition—

i.e.,

the unit “is capable of maintaining the medium temperature or low temperature DOE test procedure box conditions (as specified in 10 CFR 431.304) for an extended period at the 35 °F outdoor temperature condition.” (Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, Recommendation #1) DOE explained that it modified this part of the definition to clarify the meaning of the phrases “maintaining the . . . box conditions” and “extended period.” See 81 FR at 54931. DOE also proposed to define an “indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system” as a system that is not an outdoor dedicated refrigeration system. See 81 FR at 54932.

Rheem and Lennox commented that 65 percent of net capacity at 95 °F would not be an effective metric for differentiating models. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6) Rheem further indicated that box load and condensing unit capacity are not the same and that as ambient temperature is lowered, the condensing unit capacity increases, which means overall capacity will be higher at a 65 °F ambient temperature than at a 95 °F ambient temperature. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 24-25) Manitowoc, Rheem, Lennox, KeepRite and AHRI also suggested that the definition should reference existing test conditions from the test procedure rather than the proposed conditions—the use of which, some manufacturers suggested, has not been supported with substantiating data in the record. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7)

AHRI, Manitowoc, Lennox, and Rheem supported the inclusion of “no less than one hour” in the proposed “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system” definition. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2)

Finally, Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also requested that the term “packaged dedicated systems” be removed from both the proposed definition and the test procedure. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 7)

As addressed in section III.A.1.b, DOE considers the renamed “single-package dedicated systems” to be part of the dedicated condensing refrigeration system class, and does not agree with these commenters' suggestion to remove this category of equipment from the “outdoor” definition, since such units can be designed for outdoor use. Other than the name change for this equipment, which was discussed earlier in section III.A.1.b, the “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system” definition adopted in this final rule retains this term.

NCC commented that some condensing units could be used with both outdoor and indoor applications. (NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 26) Rheem commented that, because the outdoor requirements are more demanding, units that have passed outdoor certification testing should be able to apply for indoor certification without retesting. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 27) Heat Controller noted that often in the field a unit that is marketed and sold as an indoor unit will be fitted with an aftermarket weather covering and installed in an outdoor environment by a contractor. Heat Controller also commented that the manufacturer typically provides performance characteristics for its units at a range of ambient temperatures and installers will use these data to verify the unit's performance in an outdoor environment. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 28-30) Rheem expressed concern about how DOE would enforce the regulation in this scenario, where a unit labeled and certified for indoor use is installed in an outdoor environment. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 30-31)

ASAP and NEEA noted that outdoor units have certain design options (

e.g.,

floating head pressure control, variable-speed condenser fans, ambient sub-cooling) that allow them to perform more efficiently in outdoor environments. They argued that a test procedure that would permit a “loophole” allowing units designed and tested for indoor conditions to be used for outdoor applications would result in lost energy savings. ASAP and NEEA advocated creating a definition that prevents these “loopholes”. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)

Hussmann noted that, given that some condensing units already in the market are sold for outdoor applications without an enclosure, the term “encased” should be removed from the proposed “outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system” definition. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 2) However, in light of the comments discussed above indicating that indoor units are often installed in outdoor applications, it is not clear whether this comment suggests that units designed for outdoor use do not have enclosures or whether it is confirming that indoor units are installed outdoors.

The CA IOUs commented that indoor units should be labeled for “indoor use only” to help contractors, building inspectors, and building owners verify that the equipment complies with standards. The CA IOUs also explained that since indoor units have less stringent AWEF requirements and are not designed to adjust to the wide fluctuations in outdoor temperature, they are generally less costly to purchase. They speculated that this price difference could lead to increased energy consumption, incentivizing customers to buy less efficient, more affordable indoor units for outdoor applications. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 4) ASAP and NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider whether labeling requirements and/or marketing restrictions could help prevent equipment certified for indoor use from being used in outdoor applications. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 2)

DOE notes that the industry comments recommended changing the definition to more closely adhere to the wording provided in the Term Sheet, particularly, “maintaining box conditions” with respect to the interior of the walk-in enclosure. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 6-7; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2) However, the commenters were unable to offer any clarity in applying the phrase “maintaining box temperature”—a central concern raised in DOE's request for comments. DOE's proposed definition attempted to provide a measurable criterion to clarify what maintaining box conditions entails. Specifically, DOE recognized that during a WICF refrigeration system test, the test room conditioning system would maintain the box conditions if the unit under test did not. 81 FR at 54931. DOE considered what it would mean for a refrigeration system to be maintaining box conditions if it is refrigerating a walk-in under the specified ambient temperature (35 °F), and concluded that the ability to maintain box conditions would depend on the load on the refrigeration system. If the thermal load exceeds the capacity of the unit, the unit will not maintain box conditions. DOE considered that the test procedure temperatures and specified loads in AHRI 1250-2009 might be a reasonable reference regarding the typical box thermal load. DOE notes that AHRI developed the industry test procedure, AHRI 1250, in 2009, with input from a working group consisting of industry and other stakeholders. Among other elements of the test procedure, the box load equations were developed through working group consensus and based on a comprehensive load analysis incorporating all key elements of the expected heat load. In developing the equations, that working group assumed a load of 70% of the capacity at 95 °F for coolers, and 80% of the capacity at 95 °F for freezers based on industry input. DOE used the box load equations in AHRI 1250-2009 (Equation 3 for medium-temperature and Equation 7 for low-temperature) in developing the proposed outdoor unit definition. DOE notes that commenters asserted that DOE provided no data, but the commenters did not dispute the suggestion that AHRI 1250-2009 might provide a reasonable indication of box loads, nor did they provide any alternative suggestion regarding what the box load might be at 35 °F. Hence, DOE believes that its proposed approach is appropriate to clarify the meaning of maintaining the box temperature and does not require additional data to substantiate it.

In response to Rheem's observation that the box load and the condensing unit capacities are not the same, DOE agrees. DOE considered that the box load equations specified in the industry standard AHRI 1250-2009 test procedure, which are the basis of the AWEF efficiency metric, would be a good representation of the relationship between the box load and the net capacity (in 95 °F test conditions) of a properly-sized condensing unit. DOE calculated the box load for a walk-in located in 35 °F ambient outdoor temperature conditions by using these equations specified in AHRI 1250-2009. For both medium-temperature and low-temperature units, the calculated box load is approximately 65% of the net capacity measured in 95 ;°F conditions. As mentioned above, in order to “maintain box conditions”, the capacity must be equal to the box load—hence, DOE proposed that maintaining the box load in 35 °F ambient conditions is equivalent to having a capacity in this ambient temperature that is 65% of the capacity in 95 °F conditions. Hence, DOE believes that the proposed definition is equivalent to both the Term Sheet recommendation and addressed comments that the definition for indoor/outdoor dedicated condensing unit

should include language to “maintain box conditions.”

However, given the comments provided on the proposed definition, DOE is concerned that the definition (as proposed) would not be sufficient to clearly distinguish outdoor units from indoor units. DOE agrees that unit capacity at 35 °F may exceed the capacity at 95 °F. However, if this is true for an indoor unit, the indoor unit would be able to maintain box conditions in a 35 °F ambient temperature, and in this case, the ability to “maintain box conditions” would not distinguish outdoor units from indoor units—which would undercut its value as a means of distinguishing outdoor condensing unit from an indoor unit. Regarding Hussmann's comment regarding enclosures, DOE is not certain whether it meant that true outdoor units are sometimes sold without enclosures. DOE's research has not identified any condensing units marketed for outdoor use that do not have enclosures, but agrees that it is possible for a system without an enclosure to be marketed for outdoor use. In recognition of this possibility, DOE's finalized definition does not include this requirement.

Given all of these considerations, DOE is unconvinced that the proposed definition, or the alternatives recommended by commenters, would be sufficient to clearly distinguish outdoor units from indoor units. Thus, DOE is taking a third approach in this final rule, allowing the designation of indoor or outdoor to be provided by the manufacturer. However, in order to help ensure that dedicated condensing systems are installed and used appropriately, DOE is adopting the CA IOUs recommendation and will require that dedicated condensing units not designated for outdoor use will be labeled “indoor use only”. While DOE does not believe, as suggested by the CA IOUs, that the indoor system standard is less stringent than the outdoor system standard (see further discussion regarding this issue below), DOE does have concerns that refrigeration systems that are not designed for outdoor use may not operate properly when installed outdoors, and thus use more energy.

The “indoor use only” label will help prevent the use of indoor units in outdoor applications, for which they are not suited. Further, DOE will allow a manufacturer to designate a unit for both outdoor and indoor use, thus acknowledging that condensing units suitable for outdoor units may be acceptable for use in indoor applications, as indicated by Rheem. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 27)

Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the definition of an outdoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system as a dedicated condensing refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for outdoor use and is also finalizing the definition of an indoor dedicated condensing refrigeration system as a dedicated condensing refrigeration system designated by the manufacturer for indoor use or for which there is no designation regarding the use location.

DOE notes that “designated” in these definitions means any form of representation that the system may be used in the given location—this includes representations made in brochures, online product information, technical bulletins, installation instructions, labels, and other related materials. DOE notes that a dedicated condensing refrigeration system may be both an outdoor system and an indoor system according to the DOE definitions—but system cannot avoid classification by having no designation.

Regarding Rheem's comment that any outdoor dedicated condensing unit should also be allowed to be certified as an indoor dedicated condensing unit without additional testing, DOE believes that outdoor systems should be allowed to be sold as indoor systems if they comply with both the indoor and outdoor standards. A manufacturer choosing this approach would need to certify the system both as an indoor and as an outdoor system. It would also need to test that system at different requisite conditions related to outdoor and indoor use in accordance with the applicable test procedure provisions—specifically, tests for an outdoor unit are conducted at 95 °F, 59 °F, and 35 °F outdoor temperatures, while the active mode (

i.e.,

while the compressor is operating) test for an indoor unit is conducted in a 90 °F environment. (See,

e.g.,

Table 3 of AHRI-1250-2009 for test conditions for indoor matched-pair dedicated condensing medium-temperature units and Table 4 for outdoor indoor matched-pair dedicated condensing medium-temperature units.) DOE notes that the higher AWEF level and the typically more complicated design of outdoor units (

i.e.,

they are designed with provisions to maintain elevated condensing temperature for operating in cooler outdoor temperatures) do not necessarily mean that the outdoor standard is more stringent. The outdoor AWEF is higher in part because it is calculated on the basis of many hours of operation in cool outdoor ambient temperatures. Consequently, this fact indicates that a given basic model's compliance with an outdoor dedicated condensing system standard level does not imply compliance with the corresponding indoor standard—thereby undercutting Rheem's implied contention that a compliant outdoor system would always comply with the applicable indoor standard when tested using the indoor test. Generally, equipment meeting the definition of multiple equipment classes when operated would have to be tested and certified as each of these equipment classes to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. Hence, in the case of outdoor dedicated condensing units that also meet the indoor definition (because they are also designated for indoor use), to ensure that no potential loopholes exist with outdoor units, compliance with both the outdoor and indoor standard must be adequately demonstrated by testing in accordance with the applicable test procedure (and sampling plan) or by applying an AEDM that meets DOE's regulatory requirements.

e. Unit Cooler

In addition to dedicated condensing systems, the definition of “refrigeration system” in 10 CFR 431.302 also includes unit coolers connected to a multiplex condensing system. DOE previously referred to this class of equipment as “multiplex condensing,” abbreviated as “MC.” DOE proposed to drop the term “multiplex condensing” and rename this class of equipment as “unit coolers” (

i.e.,

“UC”), in order to align the term with this equipment's actual use. DOE also proposed to define unit coolers as “an assembly, including the means for forced air circulation and elements by which heat is transferred from air to refrigerant without any element external to the cooler imposing air resistance.” 81 FR at 54954. This definition intentionally omits the term “factory-made” to avoid suggesting that an assembly that is assembled from its subcomponents after shipment from the factory is not a unit cooler (and thus not covered by DOE's regulations).

Lennox, KeepRite, Rheem, ASAP and NEEA supported the proposed definition. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 7; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 1; Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 33; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 1) Hussmann commented that the proposed definition could be applied to a condenser, if, the phrase “transferred from air to refrigerant” is interpreted as potentially referring to either heating or cooling the air. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 32-33)

In response to Hussmann's concern, DOE is modifying its proposal by adding “thus cooling the air” to the definition of unit cooler to clarify the direction of heat transfer. DOE believes this clarification will exclude condenser applications from the definition, since they heat rather than cool the air that passes through them. Accordingly, the definition for unit cooler refers to “an assembly, including means for forced air circulation and elements by which heat is transferred from air to refrigerant, thus cooling the air, without any element external to the cooler imposing air resistance.”

f. Refrigeration System

DOE proposed defining a “refrigeration system” as “the mechanism (including all controls and other components integral to the system's operation) used to create the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in cooler or freezer, consisting of: (1) A dedicated condensing refrigeration system (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302); or (2) A unit cooler.” 81 FR at 54932.

Rheem, Manitowoc, and KeepRite commented that the use of “or” between proposed clauses (1) and (2) in the definition would imply that a unit cooler would be considered a full refrigeration system, while, in reality, a unit cooler must be matched with a condensing unit to function as a full refrigeration system. Manitowoc and KeepRite recommended replacing “or” with “and” in the proposed definition. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 34-35; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)

DOE initially defined “refrigeration system” to set out the scope of coverage of this equipment in the April 2011 test procedure final rule for walk-ins. 76 FR at 21596-21597. However, DOE's test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems has since been adjusted to permit manufacturers to certify compliance on a component basis,

i.e.,

manufacturers may separately certify their condensing units and unit coolers, if their equipment is distributed in commerce on this basis. The “refrigeration system” definition was never intended to be a technical term that implied that the defined item included a complete refrigeration circuit, including the compressor, condenser, expansion device, and evaporator.

DOE notes that if the “or” is replaced by “and” as suggested in the written comments, the scope of coverage would be reduced to only pairs including a dedicated condensing system combined with a unit cooler. However, as mentioned earlier in this discussion, by defining this term, DOE seeks to clearly set out the scope of regulatory coverage for this equipment, which could extend to an individual unit cooler or an individual condensing unit. Therefore, consistent with this approach, DOE is adopting the proposed definition in this rule.

g. Adaptive Defrost

Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE proposed to define “adaptive defrost” as a defrost control system that reduces defrost frequency by initiating defrosts or adjusting the number of defrosts per day in response to operating conditions (

e.g.,

moisture levels in the refrigerated space, measurements that represent coil frost load) rather than initiating defrost strictly based on compressor run time or clock time. See 81 FR at 54932-54934.

KeepRite and Rheem supported the proposed definition. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 7; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3) Lennox agreed with DOE's proposed definition but noted that the proposed definition does not specifically indicate the unit construction (

e.g.,

presence of a defrost control) that must be in place to receive the credit. As a result, Lennox expressed concern that the credit may be applied to units that are not able to achieve the represented efficiency level and whose unit rating cannot be verified because adaptive defrost construction is not physically installed on the unit. Therefore, Lennox recommended revising the language of the adaptive defrost definition to indicate that representation of energy use improvements associated with adaptive defrost can only be applied to equipment that has adaptive defrost already included with the unit from the factory. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 7)

As DOE noted in the August 2016 NOPR, this proposed definition is consistent with the Working Group's agreement that manufacturers should rate their systems for compliance purposes without the adaptive defrost credit, but that the test procedure would continue to retain its current method for calculating the benefit of adaptive defrost to permit manufacturers to make representations of system efficiency with this feature included. As indicated in the NOPR, the Working Group discussed this topic extensively. (See,

e.g.,

manufacturer discussion expressing concerns that DOE had not adequately defined adaptive defrost and that the test procedure could permit a manufacturer to claim the energy efficiency credit for systems with this feature even if those systems may not necessarily yield the efficiency performance improvement consistent with the credit provided by the test procedure—Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (September 11, 2015), No. 61 at p. 87; Lennox and Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript (September 30, 2015), No. 67 at pp. 138-144.) After settling on the certification approach for adaptive defrost, the Working Group agreed on a definition of adaptive defrost without resolving the question of how DOE would verify that a unit cooler or condensing unit has adaptive defrost capability. 81 FR at 54933. DOE agrees with Lennox's assertion that representation of energy use improvement associated with adaptive defrost should be allowed only for units that actually have the technology installed on the unit. The requirement that the manufacturer certify to DOE the improved AWEF of such an adaptive defrost model suggests that these models are manufactured with adaptive defrost controls and are shipped from the factory with such controls already installed, rather than being an option installed after shipping. For this reason, DOE is including the phrase “factory-installed” in the definition to help ensure that those models with improved AWEF representations all have adaptive defrost technology installed. Thus, DOE is modifying the definition consistent with this approach by defining adaptive defrost as referring to a

factory-installed

defrost control system that reduces defrost frequency by initiating defrosts or adjusting the number of defrosts per day in response to operating conditions rather than initiating defrost strictly based on compressor run time or clock time.

h. Process Cooling

Background

EPCA defines a walk-in as “an enclosed storage space,” that can be walked into, which has a total area of less than 3,000 square feet, but does not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) The use of the term “storage space” in the definition raises questions about which refrigerated spaces would qualify as a “storage space” and thereby comprise equipment subject to the walk-in standards. DOE has discussed the scope of this definition throughout its rulemakings to develop test procedures and energy conservation standards for walk-ins—most recently, the August 2016 NOPR addressed whether the scope extends to process cooling equipment such as blast chillers and blast freezers that can be walked into. 81 FR at 54934-54936.

In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE described the background leading to the proposal of a definition for walk-in process cooling refrigeration equipment. 81 FR at 54934. As described in that document, interested parties requested that DOE clarify the applicability of standards to this equipment as part of the initial standards rulemaking that DOE conducted for developing walk-in performance-based standards. The discussions in that prior rulemaking led DOE to conclude in the June 2014 final rule that equipment used solely for process cooling would not be required to meet the walk-in standards, but that products used for “both process and storage” applications could not categorically be excluded from coverage. 79 FR at 32068. The August 2016 NOPR noted also the October 2014 meeting to clarify aspects of the test procedure, during which DOE again stated that blast chillers and blast freezers did not fall within the scope of the energy conservation standards established for walk-ins in the June 2014 final rule. However, DOE acknowledged at the time that it did not have a definition for “process” cooling in the context of walk-ins. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, Heatcraft and DOE, Public Meeting Transcript (October 22, 2014), No. 0117 at pp. 23, 61- 63) The question of process cooling arose again during the Walk-in Working Group meetings, during which meeting participants asked DOE to add definitions to clarify the meaning of process cooling (See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016: Manufacturer-submitted material, No. 6 at p. 2; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript (August 27, 2015), No. 15 at pp. 96-97; AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript (December 15, 2015), No. 60 at pp. 141-142; and Term Sheet, No. 56, Recommendation #7)

The August 2016 NOPR explained that DOE considered process cooling more carefully in light of the Working Group's request to develop clarifying definitions and concluded that its initial statements in the 2014 final rule that blast chillers and blast freezers are not walk-ins were in error. DOE observed that, although the EPCA definition refers to a walk-in as an “enclosed storage space”, there is no clarity regarding the meaning of “storage” or the minimum duration for an item to remain in an enclosure to be considered in “storage”. Hence, DOE now believes that these categories of equipment, referred to as “process cooling equipment” do fall under the EPCA definition for walk-ins and are, subject to standards. 81 FR at 54934.

The August 2016 NOPR went on to discuss DOE's proposal for defining a walk-in process cooling refrigeration system. DOE specifically developed this proposal, acknowledging the different energy use characteristics of process cooling refrigeration systems as well as their different equipment attributes (as compared to other walk-in refrigeration systems), to exclude such equipment from being subject to walk-in refrigeration system performance standards. (Because DOE now regards process cooling systems as “walk-in coolers or freezers,” they will be subject to the statutory design requirements.) DOE proposed defining a “walk-in process cooling refrigeration system” as “a refrigeration system that is used exclusively for cooling food or other substances from one temperature to another.” 81 FR at 54936. The proposed definition specified that a process cooling refrigeration system must either be (1) distributed in commerce with an enclosure consisting of panels and door(s) such that the assembled product has a refrigerating capacity of at least 100 Btu/h per cubic foot of enclosed internal volume or (2) a unit cooler having an evaporator coil that is at least four-and-one-half (4.5) feet in height and whose height is at least one-and-one-half (1.5) times the width. This proposed definition would cover process cooling systems that are distributed in commerce as part of a complete assembly, process cooling unit coolers that are distributed separately from the enclosure, and refrigeration systems—including unit coolers meeting the process cooling definition. 81 FR at 54954.

DOE noted in the NOPR that it proposed to consider process cooling refrigerated insulated enclosures to be walk-ins that are subject to the prescriptive statutory requirements for walk-ins. DOE also notes that its discussion and proposals focused on process cooling refrigeration systems rather than the panels and doors that make up the insulated enclosure. Hence, DOE intended the exclusions associated with the proposals to apply only to refrigeration systems that meet the process cooling definition, and that the exclusions would be associated with walk-in refrigeration system performance standards. Id. at 54934-54936. DOE also provided a table in the public meeting presentation to clarify its interpretation of the applicability of walk-in standards to different components of process cooling equipment. (Public Meeting Presentation, No. 3 at p. 30) This table indicated that the proposed exclusion for process cooling refrigeration systems would apply to, among other things, dedicated condensing units that are exclusively distributed in commerce with unit coolers meeting the unit cooler portion of the process cooling definition. DOE notes that this exclusion was not explicit in the proposed definition and is clarifying it to explicitly include such dedicated condensing units in the definition.

Importance of Coverage for Process Cooling Equipment

DOE explained in the August 2016 NOPR the reasons it believed that walk-in process cooling equipment should be considered to be covered under the walk-in definition. See 81 FR 54934-54936. DOE discusses comments responding to this position, and DOE's responses to them. DOE ultimately concludes that this equipment should be covered as walk-in equipment. In DOE's view, covering this equipment as a class of walk-in is important in furthering DOE's goals for reducing and limiting energy use because this equipment represents a growing sector of the refrigeration industry. Process cooling equipment emerged on the market relatively recently in 1990 to serve a range of food sales and service applications. (Master-Bilt Blast Chillers, No. 25 at pp. 2, 3, 10) The global blast chiller market is expected to grow by an estimated 4.62% per year from 2016-2020 and North America is expected to remain a dominant portion of this market.

This growth is the expected result of increased demand in the food service industry (

e.g.,

restaurants, bakeries, catering) and meat processing industry and growth in the frozen food market.

Hence, DOE believes that there will be a robust market for process cooling equipment to serve this growing market need, and that there is a large potential growth in energy use associated with this market.

Infinity Research Limited (Technavio), Global Commercial Blast Chillers Market 2016-2020; Published November 2016; Accessed November 2016 at

www.technavio.com/report/global-miscellaneous-global-commercial-blast-chillers-market-2016-2020.

Hexa Research, Frozen Food Market Analysis By Product (Ready Meals, Meat, Seafood, Fruits & Vegetables, Potatoes, Soup) And Segment Forecasts To 2020; Published November 2014; Accessed November 2016 at

www.hexaresearch.com/research-report/frozen-food-industry/.

Process Cooling Equipment Status as Walk-In Equipment

Many commenters argued that process cooling equipment does not fall under the walk-in definition. Several of these comments argued that food is not “stored” in this equipment and/or the temperature within it is not “held” at a given temperature for storage purposes.

AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem, and Hussmann stated that process refrigeration systems are not used for storage and therefore do not satisfy the statutory definition for a walk-in as an “enclosed storage space.” (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) Similarly, Zero Zone argued that the purpose of process refrigeration systems conflicts with the dictionary definition of “storage.” (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 1) American Panel also explained that product could be dehydrated and damaged if left in the process cooling equipment for an extended period of time. In its view, this fact should disqualify process cooling equipment from being considered as storage space—one of the key elements of the walk-in definition. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) AHRI added that the Term Sheet included the recommendation that DOE define process cooling for the purpose of clarifying that process cooling equipment are not included in the scope of WICFs. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5)

EPCA defines “walk-in cooler” and “walk-in freezer” as an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) While EPCA does not define the component terms “storage” or “can be walked into” used in the walk-in definition, it does expressly exclude certain equipment from the definition (

i.e.

equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes). (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))

Commenters appear to be arguing that a unit must hold contents for some minimum time-period to meet the “storage” element of the definition but offered no suggested time period for DOE to consider in applying this definition. The statutory definition of “walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer” does not indicate a specific timing requirement or provide further information about when the use of a space constitutes storage. Further, although dictionary definitions of “storage” indicate that the contents be kept for some period of time, no specific period is provided.

As noted in the NOPR, the Working Group recommended that DOE define “storage space”—which suggests that the term is ambiguous. 81 FR at 54934. DOE acknowledges that the role of a process cooler or freezer is to chill food rapidly (to approach the temperature of the cooler or freezer, respectively), and one could interpret “storage space” to mean a space the primary purpose of which is storage. However, that understanding of “storage space” would be incongruous in the context of walk-in coolers and freezers. The purpose of such equipment is not simply storage

per se,

like a warehouse; it is storage at cold temperatures. Storage at cold temperatures necessarily encompasses chilling the items to be stored until they reach the temperature of the storage space, because items are rarely at exactly the storage temperature when they arrive to a walk-in cooler or freezer. A process cooler or freezer chills items more quickly than many walk-ins, but DOE regards that difference as being a difference in degree, not a fundamental difference in kind that makes a process cooler “chilling” equipment and not “storage” equipment.

“Storage: 1. the act of storing; state or fact of being stored. 2. capacity or space for storing. 3. a place, as a room or building, for storing. 4. Computers. memory (def 11). 5. the price charged for storing goods.”

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/storage.

“Storage: 1a: space or a place for storing b: an amount stored c: memory; 2a: the act of storing: the state of being stored; especially: the safekeeping of goods in a depository (as a warehouse) b: the price charged for keeping goods in a storehouse.”

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/storage.

DOE notes that Recommendation #7 from WICF Term Sheet (which contains the only mention of process cooling in the Term Sheet) recommended that DOE add “WICF specific definitions for process cooling, preparation room refrigeration, and storage space.” (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3) This recommendation does not state that these categories of equipment are excluded from the scope of WICFs. In fact, a comment received in response to the initial 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation standards stated that process cooling equipment would appear to fall within the walk-in definition. (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015, Hussmann, No. 93 at pp. 2, 8-9) In re-examining that comment, along with other information and materials since the publication of the June 2014 rule, DOE has reconsidered its prior views on process cooling equipment.

As noted in the NOPR, contents are placed in process cooling equipment for at least a brief period of time to reduce their temperature. 81 FR at 54934. When asked during the public meeting how long the products remain in a process cooling system when they are being cooled, American Panel noted that, although the Food and Drug Administration and NSF International issue recommended maximum processing times, there is no industry-specified minimum or maximum processing duration for blast chillers or blast freezers. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 48) DOE notes that the 2013 FDA Food Code requires that food starting at 135 °F be cooled to 70 °F within 2 hours and to 41 °F within 6 hours (FDA 2013 Food Code, Chapter 3, Section 501.14(A)), while NSF requires that rapid pulldown refrigerators and freezers be able to reduce food temperature from 135 °F to 40 °F in 4-hours. (NSF/ANSI 7-2009, section 10.5.1) These time periods differ significantly and are substantially longer than the 90-minute pulldown times discussed in the June 2014 final rule. (79 FR at 32068). This observation underscores American Panel's statement that there is no standard maximum processing time. Also, while DOE recognizes that product may remain in process cooling equipment for a short period of time, this fact alone does not necessarily clarify that the equipment cannot be considered to have a storage function. The period of time a product can be held in a cooler or freezer without sustaining some damage can be expected to vary product by product, depending on a variety of factors including, whether the product is chilled or frozen, its packaging when inserted into the equipment (

e.g.,

what type and size container it is in, whether or not it is covered, etc.), moisture content, size of the individual food pieces, and other factors. Commenters did not provide any indication of how long food products can remain in process cooling equipment after completion of cooldown before they must be removed to avoid damage—hence, making it difficult to draw clear distinctions between residence time in this equipment and lengths of time that would be associated with “storage.”

Absent a definitive time-period to delineate the use of space as storage space, DOE considered the design and operation of process cooling equipment with other equipment falling within the WICF definition. DOE considers that design and operation are reflective of the function of equipment (

i.e.

whether it constitutes storage space) because these two elements are necessary components in determining the function or purpose of a given type of equipment.

Manitowoc and AHRI argued that the panels and doors used by process cooling systems are not the same as those used in other WICF systems and therefore the WICF prescriptive requirements should not apply. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; AHRI, No.

11 at p. 5) Manitowoc and AHRI did not clarify how the panels and doors are different, and provided no indication that process coolers needed specific utility features that would justify the use of different efficiency levels or be the basis for relief from the performance requirements that are already in place. DOE notes that this discussion of panels and doors did not provide any clarity as to whether process cooling equipment provides any storage function.

In the context of blast chillers, American Panel noted that while the panels and doors for this equipment were similar to those used in other walk-ins, the refrigeration systems used in blast chillers are designed and used very differently from walk-ins—a fact that, in its view, necessitated that these (and similar process cooling equipment) be treated separately from walk-ins. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) American Panel did not clarify how the refrigeration systems are designed differently, in spite of DOE's request for data or information on the qualities, characteristics, or features specific to the refrigeration system that would cause a process refrigeration system to be unable to meet a walk-in refrigeration system standard. See 81 FR at 54950.

American Panel, however, asserted that blast chillers and shock freezers differ from walk-ins in that they have an on/off switch, they do not reach a stable condition until the pulldown cycle ends, either automatically or manually, and they rely on the user to stop and restart the cycle. (American Panel, No. 7 at p. 1) In its view, all of these features differed from the operation of walk-ins, which typically operate continuously and independent of user action, being connected to power at all times. DOE notes that this description of refrigeration equipment operation also applies to other walk-in systems. The walk-in refrigeration system is sized so that its capacity is greater than the walk-in box load. Equation 1, for example, in AHRI 1250-2009, indicates that the box load for a walk-in is 70 percent of the net refrigeration system capacity at the design temperature for conditions outside the box. Hence, a walk-in refrigeration system does not achieve steady state operation—it relies on a thermostat to shut the system off at the desired internal temperature (

e.g.,

35 °F for a walk-in cooler) as the refrigeration system is pulling down temperature to what would be a lower steady-state temperature. As American Panel indicated, a process cooling system does not reach stable operation until the pulldown cycle has ended and an automatic control may end the cycle to transition the system from the pulldown cycle into stable operation. This ending of the pulldown with an automatic control is the same as a walk-in system's pulldown cycle ending by a thermostat. Hence, in DOE's view, American Panel's observations do not provide a clear distinction between process cooling and other walk-in equipment since the fundamental operational characteristics remain the same.

American Panel also contended that, because a blast chiller's operation changes continuously and the equipment exhibits no stable operating condition, it cannot be tested to a rated AWEF and a test procedure cannot be applied. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 46-47, 56, 78) American Panel added that, if the test procedure were to be updated to include blast chiller performance testing, the food industry would support using NSF's testing methods for rapid pulldown refrigeration as a starting point. (American Panel, No. 07 at p. 2) DOE notes first that a performance-based test procedure requiring steady state operation is not necessary for process cooling refrigeration systems, because equipment meeting the definition is excluded from the walk-in refrigeration system performance standards,

and, hence, a method for measuring AWEF for such equipment is not needed. However, DOE notes also that a blast chiller refrigeration system appears to have no steady operating condition because its capacity is so much larger per insulated box internal volume than for other walk-ins. Once the products have been pulled down to the specified temperature, the walls of the box do not transmit sufficient load to prevent the internal box temperature from dropping further—

i.e.

the box does not absorb enough heat to prevent its interior from becoming colder. If the same refrigeration system were serving a much larger box, the internal temperature may very well stabilize to a steady-state operating temperature. Conducting a test to determine the system's AWEF would require testing the equipment with a test chamber whose indoor-room conditioning system has enough heating capacity to balance the refrigeration system's cooling capacity. Hence, the difference between a process cooling refrigeration system and other walk-in refrigeration systems is a function of the magnitude of capacity, rather than any fundamental difference in the operation of the equipment. While the magnitude of capacity is relevant to how quickly a unit lowers the temperature of its contents, and may be instructive as to the duration of storage, it does not inform the fundamental consideration of whether a unit provides any storage.

DOE notes that this exclusion does not apply to condensing units distributed in commerce individually, because, as discussed elsewhere in this section, they are indistinguishable from other walk-in refrigeration systems.

Process cooling equipment such as blast chillers and blast freezers, despite any asserted differences, have several characteristics in common with more conventional walk-ins that make them capable of serving the function of refrigerated product storage. These characteristics include having an insulated enclosure made of insulated panels and a door (or doors) sufficiently large that the enclosure can be walked into, and being cooled with a refrigeration system consisting of a dedicated condensing unit and a refrigerant evaporator that operates using forced convection heat transfer (

i.e.,

enhanced by air movement created by a fan). The panels and doors are fabricated with a sheet metal exterior shell around insulation that serves as a thermal barrier. The panels and/or door also may also have a multi-pane window to allow viewing of the interior of the enclosure from the outside. The doors have hinges or another mechanism to allow opening for access to the enclosure interior, with a latching mechanism to ensure positive closure when shut. The refrigeration system can operate to cool the enclosure to refrigerated temperatures. Product can be placed in the refrigerated enclosure. If the product is not already at the temperature of the internal refrigerated space, the product's temperature will drop, approaching the temperature of the interior, due to transfer of heat to the air within the enclosure; otherwise the product temperature remains at the average internal temperature until removed from the enclosure. As discussed above, while some of the details of the design of such systems differ from other walk-ins, these equipment generally resemble all walk-ins and are capable of serving the function of refrigerated product storage.

AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem also asserted that process cooling equipment is inconsistent with the term “walk-in” because a person cannot walk into a process cooling enclosure during operation. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3) However, DOE notes that the walk-in definition does not specify when the equipment can be walked into—it simply states that the equipment must be one “that can be walked into.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A))

In interpreting the “walk-in cooler and freezer” definition, DOE also

considered the terms in the context of EPCA's WICF provisions as a whole. EPCA establishes a number of prescriptive requirements for WICFs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) While not dispositive, none of the prescriptive requirements conflicts with including process cooling equipment as a class of walk-in. Additionally, Congress has already spoken to the groups of equipment that are excluded from the walk-in definition by listing specific equipment (

i.e.

ones designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes) that would be walk-ins. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B)) Process cooling equipment is not part of this listing, which suggests that Congress did not contemplate that this equipment would be excluded from being treated as a class of walk-in equipment.

In consideration of these factors, DOE has determined that process cooling equipment falls within the EPCA definition of “walk-in cooler” and “walk-in freezer.” While products may not be able to be stored in process cooling equipment on a long-term basis, products are still stored in process cooling equipment at least for the duration they are cooled. If Congress had intended to limit the application of the walk-in definition to include only long-term storage, it could have done so when crafting the final language of the statute. Congress, in fact, did not limit what comprises storage space. Moreover, when comparing the design and function of process cooling equipment with other WICFs, DOE was unable to determine a distinction with regard to storage.

AHRI, Manitowoc, KeepRite, Rheem, and Hussmann argued that including process cooling equipment in the definitions of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer would be inconsistent with DOE's proposed definition for refrigerated storage space, “as space held at refrigerated temperatures” since process cooling equipment does not hold a specific temperature but changes the temperature of the contents. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) DOE notes that comments submitted by Bally describe process cooling equipment as operating at “cold temperatures (min. of 5 °F)” and having “doors [that] must stay condensate free while the air temperature is at 5 °F.” (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) These descriptions suggest control of temperature within the blast chiller is held at the minimum 5 °F—in other words, the interior is held at a temperature near 5 °F. This fact suggests that process cooling equipment can (and do) hold temperatures, contrary to the comments. Nevertheless, DOE notes that the proposed definition for refrigerated storage space as “space held at refrigerated temperatures” does not require that the temperature be held at a discrete constant value—instead, it only requires that the space is held at a temperature consistent with “refrigerated,”

i.e.,

“held at a temperature at or below 55 °F”. The spaces within blast chillers and freezers are held below 55 °F and, thus are consistent with the definition of “refrigerated storage space.”

NAFEM also weighed in on this issue generally, arguing that blast chillers should not be considered within the scope of the walk-in definition because there is no appropriate test procedure for blast chillers. (NAFEM, No. 14 at p. 1) However, EPCA's walk-in definition does not stipulate that its scope extends only to equipment for which there is a test procedure. In fact, EPCA mandated prescriptive standards for walk-ins that took effect (on January 1, 2009, see 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)) before DOE finalized a test procedure on April 15, 2011 for measuring a given unit's energy efficiency. 76 FR 21580. Similarly, in response to American Panel's comment that a process cooling refrigeration system is not a walk-in because it cannot be rated with an AWEF, satisfaction of the separate statutory prescriptive requirements specified in the statute (

e.g.

use of certain componentry, satisfaction of certain thermal insulation thresholds for doors and panels, and installation of devices to minimize infiltration) have no direct bearing on the AWEF value of a given refrigeration system. Hence, the question of whether a given walk-in refrigeration system can be rated with this metric has no bearing on whether the equipment is a walk-in.

Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also noted that an ASHRAE Special Project Committee (“SPC”) has been formed to draft a relevant testing standard titled, “Method of Testing for (Rating) Small Commercial Blast Chillers, Chiller/Freezers, and Freezers.” They argued that in light of this work, it is premature to define process cooling systems while this new industry standard is still under development. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5) DOE notes that the WICF Working Group, which included Manitowoc and Rheem, requested that DOE develop a definition for process cooling. Before the finalization of the WICF Term Sheet on December 15, 2015, DOE was not aware of any announcement from ASHRAE SPC regarding the start of its work. Nevertheless, the SPC has not finished its work, and the commenters did not provide any indication of what equipment definitions the SPC is considering. Accordingly, DOE has finalized its definition in the manner proposed, based on the industry input provided. DOE may consider revising its “process cooling” definition if necessary once the ASHRAE rating method for blast chillers, chiller/freezers, and freezers is complete.

Finally, DOE notes that the CA IOUs supported treating process cooling as a subset category of WICF equipment. Further, they supported requiring process cooling panels, doors, and dedicated condensing units not sold as part of a “matched-pair with a unit cooler” to meet the 2014 final rule WICF standards and the proposed standards under consideration. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 2)

As described in the NOPR, DOE concluded that while process cooling enclosures that resemble walk-ins are within the scope of walk-ins, it proposed to exclude some of the refrigeration systems of these process cooler walk-ins from the performance-based standards established and in development for WICF refrigeration systems. 81 FR at 54934-54937. For the reasons described earlier, DOE has not revised its proposed approach after review of the comments, and believes that its definition, as adopted in this rule, satisfies the recommendations of the Working Group Term Sheet.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Process Cooling Refrigeration Systems

DOE received few comments regarding the distinguishing characteristics proposed for process cooling refrigeration systems. In fact, only one of the commenters mentioned any characteristic of the refrigeration system condensing unit of a process cooling system that might distinguish it from the equipment serving other walk-ins—Bally commented that the condensing units are not unique to blast chillers, except with respect to extra receiver capacity. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) However, DOE would not consider a larger receiver to be a sufficient difference to distinguish these condensing units since using a larger receiver would not affect steady state energy use as measured by the test procedure, since the receiver itself does not consume energy and does not contribute significantly to the heat transfer function of the condenser. Furthermore, there is a range of refrigerant receiver capacities used in walk-in refrigeration systems and it is not clear that there is an appropriate

receiver capacity threshold that would indicate that a condensing unit is used for process cooling rather than for other walk-in functions—neither Bally nor other commenters suggested such a threshold value. Consequently, DOE would not consider a larger receiver to distinguish process cooling condensing units. Absent any other clear distinguishing feature, DOE must conclude that the condensing units used for process cooling are no different than those used for other walk-ins.

Lennox recommended that the evaporator coil height, width, and depth be defined on a diagram accompanying the proposed definition to prevent a misinterpretation of the dimensions. (Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 40) Lennox provided a diagram to illustrate this in its written comments (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) In reviewing this diagram, DOE agrees that the dimensions shown in the provided diagram are consistent with the proposed definition's intent and agrees that a diagram would be useful to clarify the applicable dimensions. Accordingly, the final rule incorporates a diagram based on the one submitted by Lennox to clarify the process cooling definition.

With respect to blast freezers, Bally noted that some of these equipment use horizontally-oriented evaporator units and some non-process cooling refrigeration systems chill their contents using a circular pattern. In its view, because of the absence of any standard orientation or chilling pattern for process cooling and non-process cooling refrigeration systems, these design characteristics are not useful for differentiating process refrigeration systems. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 41-42) DOE notes that a horizontally-oriented evaporator that is not part of a unit cooler as defined would not be subject to the unit cooler standards, nor would it, as a matched pair with a dedicated condensing unit, be subject to the dedicated condensing unit standards. In order to clarify the extension of this exclusion to matched pairs including such evaporators, DOE has modified the process cooling refrigeration system definition to explicitly list dedicated condensing units that are distributed in commerce exclusively with evaporators that are not unit coolers.

Alternatively, Bally suggested that airflow rate may be a good characteristic for differentiating process refrigeration systems from other walk-in refrigeration systems. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 44) American Panel expressed concern with the use of a cooling capacity per enclosed volume rating to differentiate process cooling equipment because the equipment may be used to process different quantities or densities of product at different times—a condition which may prevent a given blast chiller from satisfying a definition based on cooling capacity per enclosed volume. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 38-39) DOE had considered airflow rate or air velocity to distinguish process cooling evaporators, noting that evaporator fan power, velocity, or air flow of a unit cooler could be atypically high for a number of reasons, including the use of inefficient fans or motors, long air “throw” distance, and other factors. (See 81 FR at 54936) For example, DOE's investigation of evaporator fan horsepower showed that the horsepower for process cooling evaporator fans, although generally higher than for other walk-in evaporators, is not always higher than all such other walk-in evaporators—a potential overlapping fact that lessens the value of using horsepower as a clear distinguishing characteristic. Hence, DOE concluded that there would be too much overlap with other WICF unit coolers on the basis of these parameters. DOE notes that Bally's submission did not provide sufficient information or data that would support the use of a specific air flow rate on which DOE could rely that would serve as the basis for distinguishing process coolers from other walk-in refrigeration systems. With respect to American Panel's concerns, DOE notes that its comments provided no alternative value of cooling load per volume for DOE to consider that would enable one to readily distinguish process cooling refrigeration systems from non-process cooling refrigeration systems. While American Panel seems to suggest that the capacity of the refrigeration system would depend on the load inserted into a process cooler, DOE disagrees, because the capacity cited in the proposed definition is the refrigeration system's net capacity when determined in a manner consistent with the prescribed walk-in test conditions—this capacity depends on the refrigeration system characteristics, not on how much product is being cooled. Specifically, when testing a condensing unit alone, the test calls for maintaining certain operating conditions (see,

e.g.,

tables 11 through 14 of AHRI 1250-2009, which specify air and refrigerant entering conditions and refrigerant exiting subcooling condition, but nothing about the quantity of product being cooled). No commenters provided specific suggestions regarding the appropriateness of the proposed 100 Btu/h per cubic foot,

i.e.,

what lower value would be more appropriate. Additionally, commenters provided no other suggestions regarding more appropriate distinguishing characteristics to use for process cooling refrigeration systems, and none provided specific quantified values for recommended parameters to use in the definition. Hence, DOE is largely adopting the approach contained in its proposed definition.

However, to address the comments regarding the inconsistency of the “storage” aspect of walk-ins with the pulldown of product temperature in process cooling equipment, DOE will modify the definition to identify refrigeration systems that are “capable of rapidly cooling food or other substances” rather than systems that are “used exclusively” for this purpose. Also, in order to clarify that the enclosure that uses these refrigeration systems is insulated, DOE will insert “insulated” before the word “enclosure” in the definition.

KPS raised concern regarding the precision of the process cooling definition, indicating that “blast chillers” and “blast freezers” are used by customers and manufacturers to describe a range of product types. (KPS, No. 8 at p. 1) KPS did not, however, elaborate on what other types of equipment should be addressed (or excluded) by DOE's proposed definition. DOE is aware, for example, of blast chillers and freezers that are smaller than walk-ins and that might be considered “reach-in process cooling equipment,”

i.e.,

process cooling equipment which the user reaches into rather than walks into to insert or remove product. This terminology is consistent with the term “reach-in” used with commercial refrigeration equipment (see,

e.g.,

Reach In Refrigerator, No. 26) However, DOE is not concerned that such equipment would be confused with walk-in process cooling equipment, because such reach-in equipment cannot be walked into.

Other Comments From Manufacturers of Process Cooling Equipment

Bally noted that blast chillers are built in small quantities with uniquely designed electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”) and expressed concern with how the proposed regulations would affect the ECM supply chain. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 42-43) Bally elaborated in written comments that ECM orders can have up to 15 weeks of lead-time and have to be ordered in small batches. (Bally, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, Bally suggested that the proposed 60-

day enforcement delay be extended to allow for changes in the refrigeration equipment industry to meet the new regulations. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 50) Given the 15-week lead-time indicated in the comment, DOE plans to issue a policy stating that DOE will exercise its enforcement discretion for 120 days after publication of the final rule, to allow manufacturers of walk-in refrigeration systems that are used exclusively in process cooling applications to comply and to certify compliance with the applicable statutory standard.

With respect to the proposed definition for process cooling refrigeration systems, Bally suggested that the definition specify that the doors used with this equipment be freezer doors. (Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 53) Bally reiterated this comment in its written submission, indicating that the 5 °F temperature inside a blast chiller makes it challenging to prevent the formation of condensation. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) In response, DOE notes that a walk-in with a 5 °F internal temperature is technically a freezer (see

e.g.,

the definition for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer, which states that freezers are refrigerated to temperatures below 32 °F, 42 U.S.C 6311(20)(A)), and hence, the door standards applicable to freezer doors would apply for such equipment.

Bally also requested that there be no requirement for floor insulation for process equipment. It noted that tray carts must roll in and out of the enclosure, which means that they cannot use ramps, and that building a pit to accommodate the necessary insulation would be expensive and could pose structural issues. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) Consistent with DOE's view, as discussed elsewhere in this discussion, that the process cooling enclosures discussed by Bally would be considered to be walk-in freezers, DOE notes that the statutory prescriptive requirements already require floor insulation of R-28. (42 U.S.C. 6311(f)(1)(D)) Given this requirement, DOE has no discretion regarding the applicability of the floor insulation requirement, which is imposed by statute.

i. Preparation Room Refrigeration

DOE proposed defining “preparation room refrigeration” as comprising applications that use “a unit cooler that is designed for use in a room occupied by personnel who are preparing food and that is characterized by low outlet air velocity, evaporator temperature between 30 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and electric or hot gas defrost.” 81 FR at 54937. While DOE proposed to define this type of refrigeration system for the purpose of enhancing clarity, this equipment would not be exempt from the applicable standards that were already prescribed by Congress with respect to walk-ins. DOE requested comment on any other characteristics of preparation room refrigeration that would (1) clearly distinguish it from other walk-in refrigeration systems

and

(2) otherwise make this equipment unable to meet a given walk-in refrigeration standard.

Preparation Room Equipment Status as Walk-in Equipment

Commenters addressed whether preparation room equipment falls under the scope of walk-ins. As mentioned in section III.A.1.h, AHRI noted that preparation room refrigeration was included in the WICF Term Sheet in order to exclude this equipment from the scope of walk-ins. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5) However, as noted in the discussion of that section, the Term Sheet did not provide any guidance regarding whether preparation room refrigeration falls within the scope of walk-ins. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3)

AHRI, Lennox, Manitowoc, Hussmann, Rheem, and KeepRite asserted that preparation rooms fall outside the scope of walk-ins and urged DOE to exclude them. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 4-5; Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 8-9; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Commenters provided several reasons why preparation room equipment should not be considered within the scope of walk-ins. AHRI stated that “these systems are not commonly enclosed” and that they are not for storage. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Other stakeholders provided variations on the “not enclosed” theme, including, for example, Rheem (“not always an enclosed space”), Hussmann (“often not enclosed,” but also discusses the possibility that they are enclosed,

i.e.,

“when enclosed, these are rooms where . . .”), KeepRite and Manitowoc (“not commonly enclosed”), and Lennox (“are not `enclosed storage spaces'”). (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8)

Regarding the issue of equipment use for food storage, Lennox commented that preparation rooms are areas where humans occupy the space to prepare and package food. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) Hussmann commented that preparation rooms are places where work is being performed on the product, not places where finalized goods are stored. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) Other commenters, including Manitowoc, AHRI, KeepRite, and Rheem also stated that preparation rooms are not used for storage. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3)

Several commenters suggested that DOE consider an alternative definition: “An open space or space without a sealed door (as defined in 10 CFR part 431.302) that separates the interior volume of a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment, designed for use in a room occupied by personnel who are preparing and packaging food. A preparation room is not designed for storage.” (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Similar definitions of preparation room or preparation space were suggested by Lennox, Rheem, and Manitowoc. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at pp. 2-3)

DOE notes that the WICF Term Sheet recommended that DOE develop a definition for “preparation room refrigeration” to focus on the refrigeration system, rather than preparation spaces in general. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 3) This approach is reinforced by the agenda for the WICF Working Group meetings, which included as key issues, (a) proposed energy conservation standards for six classes of refrigeration systems, and (b) potential impacts on installers, neither of which addresses preparation spaces generally. 80 FR at 46523. Hence, DOE's intent in requesting comment on its definition of preparation room refrigeration was to solicit information regarding the characteristics of this equipment that would distinguish it from walk-in refrigeration systems. Discussion of the proposed characteristics appears below, but DOE notes that none of the comments received provided information regarding features that distinguish preparation room refrigeration systems from walk-in refrigeration systems. The emphasis of the commenters on the lack of an enclosure or the use of preparation room space for purposes other than storage does not represent any feature that distinguishes the refrigeration systems used in these two groups of equipment. As indicated in the NOPR, DOE had not identified any characteristics of preparation room refrigeration systems that would distinguish them from other walk-in refrigeration systems. The definition was primarily proposed in order to explore the recommendation of

the WICF Working Group and to solicit information regarding distinguishing characteristics of this equipment. The definition was not proposed as the basis for an exclusion. 81 FR at 54937. Comments regarding the proposed distinguishing characteristics for this equipment are described in more detail below, but DOE notes that commenters did not believe the proposed characteristics could be used as the basis for distinguishing this equipment from other walk-in refrigeration equipment. Nor, as mentioned, did they provide alternative characteristics that could be used for this distinction. With this final rule notice, DOE confirms, based on comments received, that the initial conclusion was correct that there are no clear distinguishing characteristics of preparation room refrigeration systems and other walk-in refrigeration.

Regarding the suggested alternative definitions based on non-refrigeration system-based characteristics, in DOE's view, these characteristics play no role in distinguishing those refrigeration systems used in preparation room applications from non-preparation room applications, since they describe preparation room space but do not address the refrigeration systems used for these spaces. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt these suggested changes to the proposed definition. Comments regarding the proposed distinguishing characteristics and DOE's responses are discussed in more detail below.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Preparation Room Refrigeration Systems

DOE received several comments regarding the characteristics it proposed including as part of the proposed definition of preparation room refrigeration to distinguish this equipment from non-preparation room refrigeration systems. AHRI stated that DOE's proposed definition is unclear and incorrect because the evaporator temperature specification does not indicate whether it is ambient or suction temperature, there is no quantified specification for “low outlet air velocity,” and because these systems do not exclusively use electric or hot gas defrost. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) Others made these same points. Manitowoc indicated that specifying the evaporator temperature does not clarify whether the temperature is ambient or suction temperature. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) Rheem and Lennox suggested that the evaporator temperature in the definition be clarified as the “saturated suction temperature”. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 57; Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58) Rheem, Manitowoc, Lennox, and KeepRite also commented that preparation room refrigeration systems may use air defrost, which argues in favor of not limiting the definition to gas or electric defrost units. Finally, Rheem, Manitowoc, Lennox, and KeepRite suggested that the “low air velocity” cited in the proposed definition should be more specifically defined. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 58; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)

AHRI also requested that information related to preparation room refrigeration systems (beyond its suggested alternative definition) be removed in the final rule. (AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 4-5) Manitowoc also requested that DOE exclude all information related to preparation room refrigeration from the scope of this rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) Regarding the characteristics of preparation room refrigeration systems, in light of some of the limitations with the proposed definition and the absence of any specifications from commenters that would help with its clarification (

e.g.,

specifying a “low outlet air velocity”), DOE is declining to adopt a definition for preparation room refrigeration at this time. In DOE's view, the alternative definitions suggested by commenters were insufficient since they failed to address the refrigeration system itself—

i.e.,

the item which DOE sought to define. Accordingly, because of the absence of any meaningful way to distinguish these systems from non-preparation refrigeration systems, DOE will treat preparation room refrigeration systems as falling within the scope of walk-in refrigeration systems and being subject to the standards and reporting requirements that apply. DOE may revisit this issue in the future if an appropriate definition distinguishing such equipment can be developed.

j. Storage Space

Consistent with the Term Sheet, DOE proposed to define “refrigerated storage space” in the context of the current definition for a walk-in as “a space held at refrigerated (as defined in 10 CFR 431.302) temperatures.” 81 FR at 54937.

Hussmann suggested modifying the proposed “refrigerated storage space” definition to reflect WICF room intent, which is to “maintain product at a specific temperature for storage purposes.” 81 FR at 54937. Hussmann argued that making this change would help clarify the difference between WICF rooms and process rooms, because, in its view, the term “maintain” would specify the presence of a holding area with the equipment—rather than equipment that imparts any changes on the products placed inside of it.

While the proposed definition does not delineate a difference between equipment that is subject to standards and equipment that is not subject to standards, as discussed earlier in section III.A.1.h of this final rule, DOE does not interpret the phrase “held at temperatures” to mean that the equipment is held at a constant temperature. Instead, DOE views this term as referring to a temperature at or below the 55 °F specified for “refrigerated” as defined in 10 CFR 431.302. Accordingly, DOE is finalizing the definition as proposed.

2. Refrigeration System Test Procedure Modifications

a. Hot Gas Defrost

Reflecting Recommendation #3 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend the test procedure by removing the method for calculating the defrost energy and heat load of a system with hot gas defrost. 81 FR at 54937-54938. With this change, manufacturers of refrigeration systems with hot gas defrost would be unable to take account of that feature in testing or rating their systems when using the DOE test procedure. Id.

All commenters agreed with the proposed removal of the hot gas defrost credit in the test procedure. Rheem and Heat Controller agreed that the credit should be removed from the efficiency calculation because it unfairly favored systems using hot gas defrost over comparable electric defrost systems. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 64; Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 66) Lennox and KeepRite also agreed with removing the hot gas defrost credit. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 9; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2)

However, Rheem and the CA IOUs also argued that, because the proposed approach would fail to quantify the energy used by hot gas systems during the defrost cycle, thereby eliminating any accounting of the energy use contribution for defrost in the test procedure calculations, the proposed change would still unfairly favor hot gas defrost systems. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 60-61; CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to ensure that WICF equipment with hot gas defrost and electric defrost are treated fairly within the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at

p. 3) ASAP and NEEA agreed, adding that unit coolers with only hot gas defrost should be required to meet a performance level equivalent to unit coolers with improved evaporator fan blades and off-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 3)

Rheem and Manitowoc asserted their belief that the removal of the hot gas defrost credit would correspondingly remove the need for manufacturers to certify the performance of this equipment. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 63; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) KeepRite also supported the removal of the certification requirements for these systems. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that the requirement to test and certify hot gas defrost walk-in refrigeration systems was adopted by the May 2014 test procedure final rule and the June 2014 energy conservation standard final rule—this is not a new requirement. The Fifth Circuit Order did not strike the requirement for certification of performance for any refrigeration systems on or after their standards compliance date. The discussions during the Working Group meetings did not address relief of testing and certification requirements for this equipment—hence, these requirements still stand, regardless of the removal of the hot gas defrost credit.

DOE notes that the NOPR public meeting attendees briefly discussed ways to assign an AWEF level to a hot gas defrost refrigeration system during the public meeting and in a separate meeting between DOE and industry representatives (Ex Parte Communication of September 29, 2016 Meeting, No. 6). When asked whether there would generally be an equivalent electric defrost model whose AWEF rating could be used for any given hot gas defrost model, Rheem noted that most hot gas defrost models have a comparable electric defrost model. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 62) However, Bally commented that the individual models sometimes are part of different basic models. Rheem and Bally added that significant clarification would be needed to specify how a proxy rating system would work to avoid misinterpreting the regulation. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 62; Bally, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 64)

Commenters suggested ways to assign an AWEF value for hot gas defrost units. AHRI and Hussmann suggested permitting manufacturers to assign the minimum allowable AWEF to a hot gas refrigeration system. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) However, commenters also offered an alternative to this approach, which would allow manufacturers to assign the AWEF value of an equivalent electric defrost unit to the hot gas defrost unit. AHRI and multiple manufacturers suggested, without offering any supporting details or reasoning, that equivalence in this context be defined as an electric defrost system within 10 percent of the rated net capacity of the hot gas defrost unit. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3; NCC, No. 16 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 4) ASAP and NEEA agreed that using equivalent electric defrost units as surrogates for rating hot gas defrost units would address the concerns with the proposed test procedure. (ASAP and NEEA, No. 19 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also agreed with this approach, but presented another alternative: Apply a default defrost energy consumption value for hot defrost units based on their refrigeration capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 3) The CA IOUs offered no further detail on how to determine this value.

KeepRite suggested that the hot gas defrost unit should be assigned the AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost unit and also be part of the same basic model as that electric defrost unit. (KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) ASAP, NEEA, the CA IOUs, and KeepRite did not offer any definition for equivalence. AHRI and Rheem noted that if being a part of the same basic model were a requirement of equivalence, the definition for basic model would have to be altered, because the defrost type affects the equipment's energy consumption (see definition in 10 CFR 431.302). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2)

DOE suspects that the CA IOUs may have meant to suggest using an approach similar to the assignment of electric defrost energy use and heat load that is used for testing of dedicated condensing units (see paragraphs 3.4.2.4 and 3.4.2.5 of subpart R, appendix C of 10 CFR part 431, as finalized in this document).

Commenters also offered a few methods for dealing with cases where there is no equivalent unit. Manitowoc suggested that, in these cases, the AWEF value be determined based on interpolation between electric defrost units with higher and lower capacities—which would create a weighted average of the AWEFs of the two electric defrost units). (Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 3) Lennox suggested using an AEDM, which would use a calculated energy contribution for defrost and apply it to the hot gas defrost unit's calculated performance as if it were an electric defrost unit. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) AHRI and Rheem argued that the model should be rated with the minimum AWEF value (as defined in 10 CFR 431.306) in these cases. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 11 at p. 6)

Some commenters recommended separate approaches for condensing units and unit coolers. NCC suggested that a hot gas defrost condensing unit should be tested as an electric defrost model by first removing all mechanical components associated with hot gas defrost functions. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 1) For this approach, the proposed test procedure would specify standardized values for the electric defrost energy use and heat addition. See,

e.g.,

10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, section 3.4.2.4 as proposed, 81 FR at 54958. For a unit cooler, NCC recommended using the AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost model, which it defined as an electric defrost model having a net capacity within 10 percent of that of the hot gas defrost unit, and that also belongs to the same basic model group. If an equivalent model is not available, NCC recommended that the manufacturer petition DOE for a test procedure waiver. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 2)

Regarding the suggestions that AWEF ratings for hot gas defrost units not be required, in DOE's view, such an approach would likely remove any incentive for manufacturers to design and build hot gas defrost equipment that would maintain steady state efficiency in a manner consistent with the standards that apply to electric defrost systems since, under this approach, the unit's design has no influence on whether it complies with the applicable electric defrost system standard. Similarly, simply assigning a baseline AWEF value to the unit fails to impose any requirements on the units' efficiencies, since a default value would be applied to this equipment, which again would make compliance unrelated to the unit's design.

Further, while using the AWEF of an equivalent electric defrost unit to rate hot gas defrost units may have merit, DOE does not have, and the commenters did not provide, any information demonstrating how the use of the suggested 10-percent range would impact manufacturer incentives to use efficient designs. This suggested equivalence criterion, if adopted, would play little to no role with respect to the energy use of the unit's components, such as the energy use of a unit cooler's evaporator fan. A smaller evaporator coil with greater fan power and more air flow could provide the same net capacity as a larger coil with less fan power and air flow, but use more fan power to do it.

In addition, comparing the net capacity of the hot gas defrost unit with those of electric defrost units to test equivalency implies that it is understood how to determine that value. As discussed in the comments, net capacity as measured in the test procedure is not the same as capacity reported for application ratings. See,

e.g.,

AHRI, No. 0011 at p. 3 (discussing application temperature points). A manufacturer using the suggested approach could claim an unlikely net capacity in order to be within 10% of the net capacity of an electric defrost unit with a high AWEF. Further, a manufacturer could (without any verification) select the highest AWEF of electric defrost units within the +/−10 percent range. But since the design of the unit also has little or no bearing on whether it is compliant with the standards under this approach, it only shows that a given hot gas defrost unit has a claimed net capacity within ten percent of the net capacity of a compliant electric defrost unit.

Regarding the suggested use of an AEDM along with a prescribed value for the energy consumption from defrost usage, DOE notes that an AEDM simulates a unit's performance during testing, which requires that there first be a test procedure that the AEDM would simulate. Because there is no hot gas defrost test procedure, this approach would also be unworkable unless a test procedure were first developed and defined. In short, DOE agrees with Rheem and Bally that significant clarification would be needed to specify how a proxy rating system would work to avoid misinterpreting the regulation. For the reasons described earlier, however, DOE is not convinced that the suggested “within 10 percent of net capacity” provides sufficient clarification.

NCC's comment addressed possible approaches for testing hot gas defrost condensing units and unit coolers. But because coverage also extends to matched-pair or single-package systems, a hot gas defrost test approach must also be developed for these system categories.

After considering various possibilities for developing procedures to test hot gas defrost features, as discussed above, DOE continues to believe a test that measures the energy benefits of hot-gas defrost is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, DOE is adopting, in this respect, an approach consistent with the intent of the one set forth in the NOPR. Namely, a manufacturer will test a hot gas defrost condensing unit without measuring the impacts of the hot gas defrost feature, and that feature will not affect the rated efficiency either positively or negatively. In that sense, the test procedure for units with hot gas defrost will be the same as the test procedure for units with electric defrost.

DOE is clarifying one aspect of the test procedure with respect to hot gas defrost. DOE recognizes that the hot gas defrost components can impose pressure drop on the refrigerant lines during the test, which can reduce performance. This issue was discussed in the WICF Working Group meetings, where the addition of a pressure drop equivalent to 3 °F dew point reduction in the suction line was included in the initial engineering analysis developed for hot gas defrost units to reflect this issue. (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Working Group Meeting Presentation, Fifth and Sixth Meetings: Engineering Analysis, No. 26 at p. 34) (The hot gas defrost calculations were subsequently removed from the engineering analysis because hot gas defrost was not considered as a design option.) Thus, the presence of hot gas defrost components would cause the hot gas defrost feature to detract from a model's rated efficiency. That outcome would be inconsistent with the approach DOE set forth in the NOPR, the purpose of which was to make rated efficiencies neutral with respect to the presence of hot gas defrost. While DOE does not have information to support a general presumption that hot gas defrost increases efficiency by a particular amount, it does not believe that hot gas defrost ordinarily decreases efficiency in operation. Accordingly, DOE will permit a manufacturer to remove the hot gas defrost components. Thus, incorporating hot gas defrost in a condensing unit will not cause a decrease in the unit's rated efficiency under the test procedure.

However, DOE recognizes that simply removing the hot gas defrost components may not be sufficient to set up a condensing unit for a test, since removal of a component may leave pipe ends open to the surroundings. Some of these pipe ends may have to be capped or connected with each other, and at least two ends represent the suction inlet and liquid outlet of the condensing unit. Also, some of the hot gas defrost components may make little impact to the operation of the system and accompanying measurement—which would encourage a manufacturer not to remove those components. To ensure that any third party testing is conducted consistently with manufacturer testing or its recommendations for testing, information to clarify which components are removed and the subsequent piping connections may have to be provided. DOE will consider proposing in a future rulemaking that certification reporting for hot gas defrost units include as non-public information a list of the hot-gas-defrost components that must be removed for the test and instructions for piping connections to allow proper testing. DOE may also consider allowing any such instructions to be provided in pdf form as supplementary test information. The regulations being adopted are generic in nature such that manufacturers (and other stakeholders that utilize the test procedure) should have sufficient instruction on how to test all basic models that have hot-gas defrost components.

Further, DOE is also adopting this approach for testing hot gas defrost unit coolers, matched-pairs, or single-package refrigeration systems. For these systems, the hot gas defrost components would also be removed from the system, and pipes reconnected as required. The units would be tested measuring steady state performance, but frosting or defrost tests would not be feasible under this approach and they would not be run. Using this procedure, the test chambers would have to be operated with low moisture levels to prevent frost formation during testing. Performing this test will generally require using test facilities with conditioning systems that can cool down the indoor room and remove its moisture before operation of the unit under test can start to ensure that the test unit does not collect any moisture from the room. It also requires that infiltration into the indoor room be minimized. The defrost heat and energy use for the test would be calculated in the same manner as for an electric defrost condensing unit tested alone, thus allowing determination of equivalent AWEF. DOE has adopted this approach for hot gas defrost refrigeration systems in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C.

Although some test facilities may not be equipped with conditioning systems that would allow cooling of the indoor room and removal of moisture prior to start of the test unit, DOE expects that some manufacturers will develop performance representations for their hot gas defrost units using AEDMs, as suggested by some of the comments, and that there may be limited need for the actual testing of hot gas defrost unit coolers and matched-pairs under this approach. The AEDMs would only need to be able to estimate the steady state performance of the systems in refrigerating mode, since they would, like the test, use the standardized contributions for hot gas defrost energy input and heat addition.

Heat Controller emphasized the need to develop a test method to quantify the differences between various defrost technologies. (Heat Controller, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 66) Lennox also supported the development of a method to determine the AWEF for hot gas defrost models. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) DOE notes that WICF Term Sheet Recommendation #6 would involve DOE initiating a future test procedure rulemaking to adopt test procedure provisions for several items, including hot gas defrost. Developing and adopting such a test procedure would enable one to differentiate between technologies. DOE plans to address this issue in the future.

b. Adaptive Defrost

Consistent with the Recommendation #4 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend the test procedure so that the provisions for assigning a benefit to adaptive defrost cannot be used to certify compliance with the energy conservation standard. 81 FR at 54938-54939.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal and is adopting the proposed amendment.

c. On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator Fan Control

Consistent with Recommendation #4 of the WICF Term Sheet (Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet, No. 56 at p. 2), DOE proposed to amend the test procedure so that unit cooler compliance with the applicable walk-in refrigeration system standard would be assessed without using on-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans. As part of this approach, manufacturers would be permitted to make representations of the energy efficiency or consumption for a unit cooler basic model using on-cycle variable-speed fans as measured in accordance with the DOE test procedure, provided that the additional represented value has been certified to DOE per 10 CFR 429.12.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal and is adopting it in this final rule.

B. Actions To Facilitate Implementation of Energy Conservation Standards

1. Re-Organization and Clarification of the Test Procedure for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems, Doors, and Panels

DOE proposed to re-organize the walk-in test procedure found at 10 CFR 431.304 into three separate appendices, one for each metric corresponding to the regulated component. DOE proposed to revise Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431 by designating it as, and retaining only the procedure for, measuring the energy consumption (in kWh/day) for walk-in doors. DOE also proposed to create a new Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431, which would contain the method of measuring the R-value, which would apply to walk-in doors and panels. Lastly, DOE proposed creating a new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431, which would contain the test method for refrigeration systems. In addition, DOE proposed to clarify some of the definitions and terminology used in the test procedure.

Specifically, DOE proposed to revise Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431, which contains the procedure for measuring energy consumption (in kWh/day) for display and non-display doors, by removing the definitions and references related to walk-in panels. DOE proposed to (1) remove the definition of “core region,” (2) move the definition of “edge region” to the proposed Appendix B, and (3) remove the prescribed subfloor temperature listed in Table A.1 of Appendix A. Further, DOE proposed to amend the definition of “surface area” by removing the currently inserted example referencing walk-in panels and modifying the definition of “rating condition” by removing the discussion of internal walk-in components. 81 FR at 54939. These amendments were intended to clarify Appendix A and did not substantively change the DOE test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of walk-in doors.

To clarify how to calculate door power usage, DOE proposed defining “rated power” as the electricity-consuming device's power as specified on the device's nameplate. If the device does not have a nameplate or such nameplate does not list the device's power, then the rated power must be read from the device's product data sheet. See 81 FR at 54939. In addition, DOE proposed that, for each basic model of walk-in door that has an electricity consuming device(s) for which rated power is taken from a product data sheet, the walk-in door manufacturer must retain the product data sheet as part of the test data underlying the walk-in door's certification report. 81 FR at 54939.

Hussmann expressed concern about how to calculate the rated power for certain variable-power door components, like variable-resistance heaters and door-opening devices. In its view, the proposed definition for rated power, which would require manufacturers to use 100% of a device's rated power, does not make sense when applied to variable power devices that have a lower average power. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 73-74) In sections 4.4.2 and 4.5.2 of Appendix A to Subpart R to Part 431, DOE's current test procedure details how to calculate the power usage for each type of electricity consuming device used in a walk-in door. The procedure includes percent time off values to account for energy saving features like timers, control system, or other auto-shut-off system. These values also reduce the calculated power usage for features that are not constantly operational,

e.g.,

lighting without controls is assigned a 25% percent time off. As a result, in DOE's view, the procedure, as modified by the proposal, would sufficiently account for the lower energy use conditions identified by Hussmann. Accordingly, DOE is adopting its proposed definition for rated power. DOE notes that if a manufacturer believes that the test procedure is unrepresentative of a walk-in door basic model's energy use, it may avail itself of the test procedure waiver provisions of 10 CFR 431.401 to obtain approval to use an alternative test procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of its equipment.

Additionally, DOE proposed adding a new Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431 to improve the clarity of the walk-in test procedure. This appendix would include the currently prescribed method of measuring the R-value found in 10 CFR 431.304. Specifically, DOE proposed to move the provisions found at 10 CFR 431.304(b) and (c) into Appendix B. DOE also proposed to add the definition of “edge region” that was previously located in Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431 to Appendix B, as this definition is relevant to the R-value test method.

Dow supported the creation of Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431, commenting that this change would help highlight the fundamental differences between doors and panels and clarify how each are treated in the proposed and future test procedures. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2) In addition, Dow commented that it understood that the R-value for insulation used in WICF-related panels and doors must be determined in accordance with the WICF test procedures in Appendix B to Subpart R of Section 431 and sought confirmation of the accuracy of this understanding from DOE. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 3)

DOE did not receive any negative comments regarding the re-organization of Appendix A and proposed addition

of a new Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 431.

Appendix B to Subpart R of Section 431 as adopted in this final rule contains the test method for measuring the R-value of insulation. This test method must be used when determining the R-value for walk-in panels and doors.

With respect to the proposed amendments regarding Appendices A and B, Dow supported the inclusion of ASTM C518-04 in the test procedure but recommend updating the procedure to reference the new version of this standard, ASTM C518-10. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2) In this rulemaking, DOE proposed to make only editorial changes to the test procedure for measuring R-value but may consider Dow's suggestion to reference the most recent version of ASTM C518 in a future rulemaking.

DOE also proposed to add a new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431 and include the test method for refrigeration systems in this appendix. Within Appendix C, DOE further organized its discussion of test procedures in terms of the refrigeration system configuration types—

i.e.

matched-pairs, single-package dedicated systems, individually distributed unit coolers and condensing units. Within Appendix C, DOE proposed to incorporate the (1) provisions that are currently included in 10 CFR 431.304, sections (10) through (12), which specify that walk-in refrigeration systems be tested using AHRI 1250-2009—the test procedure incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.303—and (2) clarify and modify certain provisions of the test procedure. One subsection would contain the general modifications to the test conditions and tolerances applied to the industry test procedure that were incorporated into DOE's May 2014 test procedure rule. 79 FR at 27399-27403. A second subsection would contain proposed modifications to the method of test and the remaining subsections addressed proposed modifications specific to the system configuration types. 79 FR at 27398-27399. The NOPR also proposed, and this final rule adopts, adding to Appendix C the modifications to the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems that are discussed in section III.A.2. See 81 FR at 54956-54958.

DOE also proposed to correct typographical errors in the regulatory text contained in the proposed Appendix C. DOE proposed to correct the saturated suction A and saturated suction B temperatures to be −20 °F and −26 °F, respectively, in the table currently in 10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)(xv). 81 FR at 54939. DOE also proposed correcting an equation for defrost heat load contribution currently at 10 CFR 431.304(c)(12)(ii). The equation for defrost heat load contribution currently specifies that this contribution should be divided by 3.412 Btu/W-h, but it should instead be multiplied by 3.412 Btu/W-h. 81 FR at 54939-54940.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to add a new Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431 or its proposal to include the test method for refrigeration systems in this same appendix. DOE did not receive any comments in response to its proposal to correct typographical errors within the test procedure language or equation that would become part of the proposed Appendix C. Therefore, DOE is adopting its proposed changes in this final rule.

2. Representation Requirements

DOE proposed to amend the representation requirements for refrigeration systems to clarify how to apply the test procedure to the range of possible kinds of refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE proposed to direct manufacturers of unit coolers, dedicated condensing units, single-package dedicated systems, and matched refrigeration systems to the appropriate subsections of Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431—the DOE test procedure for refrigeration systems. DOE also proposed not to require the rating of a matched refrigeration system if the constituent unit cooler(s) and dedicated condensing unit have been tested and rated separately. However, if a manufacturer wished to represent the efficiency of the matched refrigeration system separately from the efficiency of either constituent component, or if the manufacturer cannot rate one or both of the constituent components using the specified method (

e.g.,

if the system has a variable-capacity condensing unit, thereby preventing the manufacturer from being able to test the condensing unit individually), the manufacturer must test, represent, and certify the matched refrigeration system as specified in this section. A component that is part of a certified matched-pair and that has not been rated individually cannot be sold individually, nor can it be sold as part of a different matched-pair (that is, with a different component matched to it) unless that new matched-pair has also been tested and certified. DOE did not receive any comments on these proposed requirements and is adopting them in this final rule.

3. Certification and Compliance Requirements

DOE explained in its proposal that a manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer is any person who: (1) Manufactures a component of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that affects energy consumption, including, but not limited to, refrigeration, doors, lights, windows, or walls; or (2) manufactures or assembles the complete walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer. 10 CFR 431.302.

Several of the statutory standards, as well as DOE's 2014 standards and any energy conservation standards that DOE may adopt in its separate ongoing rulemaking (see Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016), apply to specific components of a walk-in. A manufacturer of a walk-in component (

i.e.,

part 1 of the definition of a manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer) is the entity that manufactures, produces, assembles or imports a walk-in panel, door or refrigeration system. A manufacturer of a walk-in component is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the component(s) it manufactures. DOE requires a manufacturer of a walk-in component to certify the compliance of the components it manufactures.

A manufacturer of a complete walk-in (

i.e.,

part 2 of the definition of a manufacturer of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer) is the entity that manufactures, produces, assembles or imports a walk-in cooler or freezer (

i.e.,

an enclosed storage space meeting the definition of a walk-in cooler or freezer). This includes “installers” of complete walk-ins. Although DOE does not require a manufacturer of a complete walk-in to certify the compliance of the “box” as a whole, a manufacturer of a complete walk-in must ensure that the walk-in, including all of its regulated constituent components, meets applicable statutory and/or regulatory standards. After the compliance date of any amended performance-based walk-in cooler or freezer standard (

i.e.,

either those noted in the concurrent WICF refrigeration system standards rulemaking or those currently in the regulation for which compliance is required in 2017), manufacturers of complete walk-ins may continue to assemble and install walk-ins using components remaining in inventory that were manufactured before the compliance date for the amended performance-based component standards. DOE emphasizes that the components must have been compliant with all requirements and certified to DOE before the compliance date of such

component's amended standard. A more detailed discussion of this will appear in the related standards final rule. See Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016. If a manufacturer of a complete walk-in also meets part 1 of the definition (

i.e.,

it also manufactures individual components), then it must certify the compliance of the components it manufactures. Compliance responsibilities for manufacturers of complete walk-ins are discussed in more detail later in this section.

Dow stated that the certification and compliance requirement language regarding doors, walls, ceiling, and floor panels/components is not clear. It noted that some WICF floors, which are considered “panels” under DOE's regulations are not, in fact, separate pre-assembled panels but are built into the floor of the building in which the WICF is located. In this case, Dow noted that the floor would be a component of the WICF but not a “panel.” (Dow, No. 9 at p. 1) Dow also noted that, although WICF panels consist of an assembly of materials (metal skins, insulation, fasteners, etc.), the text refers to insulation material alone as a panel, which, in its view, adds confusion on how to apply the test procedure. (Dow, No. 9 at p. 2)

DOE agrees with Dow's comments that a WICF floor may comprise pre-assembled panels or layer(s) of insulation and/or some other floor covering material (

e.g.,

concrete). DOE notes that the definition for “panel” includes any “construction component that is not a door and is used to construct the envelope of the walk-in,

i.e.,

elements that separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior.” (10 CFR 431.302) Therefore, a WICF floor built from layer(s) of insulation and floor-covering material would satisfy the definition since it contains “elements that separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the exterior.” Id.

a. Manufacturers of Walk-In Components

A manufacturer of a walk-in component must ensure that the component meets the applicable standard. In the August 2016 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify this current approach (detailed at 10 CFR 429.12(b)(6)) by requiring that for each brand name, a walk-in manufacturer must submit both the basic model number and the manufacturer's individual model number(s). When it first established reporting requirements for walk-ins, DOE explained that it was adopting a limited approach since it did not have sufficient information at the time to determine whether reporting individual model numbers for walk-in components was feasible. See 76 FR 12422, 12466 (March 7, 2011) (“March 2011 CCE Rule”). DOE noted that it would revisit this issue in the future.

Id.

As part of their certification of compliance responsibilities, manufacturers have routinely submitted both basic model numbers and individual model numbers for walk-in refrigeration systems, panels, and doors. These submissions suggest that it is feasible for manufacturers to certify both basic model numbers and individual model numbers for each brand. Accordingly, DOE proposed to require that a walk-in manufacturer include individual model number(s) as part of its reporting submission.

AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, Zero Zone, NCC, and KeepRite opposed DOE's proposal to expand the model number reporting requirements. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 6; Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 2; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem disagreed with DOE's observation that manufacturers routinely submit both basic and individual model numbers for WICF systems, noting that this is not the case for all manufacturers or types of equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5) AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and KeepRite also noted that the proposed reporting change will greatly increase the number of models listed in DOE's Certification Compliance Management System (“CCMS”) because there may be hundreds of combinations for a given basic model, and make the database more difficult for customers to navigate. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 18 at pp. 5-6; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Bally commented that DOE also needs to consider the effect of an increase in door basic models as a result of the new energy conservation standard going into effect on June 3, 2017. Once the maximum energy consumption metric becomes effective many variables such as door area, U-value, and power consumption will impact door basic models. Separating its models by door area alone, Bally states that it has 63 different combinations. (Bally, No. 22 at p. 1) NCC asserted that it may have to recertify daily because it manufactures so many custom products. (NCC, No. 16 at p. 6) Hussmann and KeepRite commented that the proposed requirement would significantly increase the complexity of reporting, which would result in the reporting of hundreds of model numbers. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3; KeepRite, No. 17 at p. 2) Zero Zone commented that the additional model number reporting requirements would increase paper work for the manufacturers without providing any value to customers. (Zero Zone, No. 15 at p. 2)

Lennox argued that the proposed individual model number reporting requirement would be burdensome unless it was allowed to group its individual model numbers using the “wildcard” digit placeholders it currently uses when reporting. (Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 70-71) Hussmann added that allowing placeholder digits (“wildcards”) for both AWEF-altering and AWEF-agnostic model changes would simplify the reporting process, allow for a clean transition to marketing materials, and clarify the rating system for consumers. (Hussmann, No. 20 at p. 3) Rheem and NCC similarly advocated for the use of placeholder characters (

e.g.,

“*”) in model numbers to represent design options that do not materially affect the reported efficiency performance. (Rheem, No. 18 at p. 5; NCC, No. 16 at p. 6) NCC also requested clarification on the use of wildcards for individual model numbers and basic model numbers. (NCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 76-77)

DOE acknowledges that its proposal requiring manufacturers to report the basic model number and individual model number(s) for each brand distributed in commerce may result in an increase in reporting burden. However, as explained in the August 2016 NOPR, DOE believes the additional burden to be minimal. 81 FR at 54940. DOE disagrees with the comments from AHRI, Manitowoc, and Rheem that manufacturers are not currently reporting individual model numbers. As of October 2016, each basic model listed in DOE's Compliance Certification Database

lists an individual model number. Examples of certifications that have both basic model numbers and individual model numbers can be found in this rulemaking's docket. (See EERE—Compliance Certification Database, Walk-ln Coolers and Freezers Refrigeration Systems Screenshots, No. 27 at p. 1) Further, as all certifications appearing in DOE's Compliance Certification Database already include a basic model and individual model number, DOE does not agree with AHRI, Manitowoc, Rheem, NCC, and KeepRite that the proposed

reporting change will greatly increase the number of models.

DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at:

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*

However, as requested by Lennox, Hussmann, and NCC, manufacturers may use wildcards to represent non-energy consuming features when certifying individual model numbers. Wildcards may not be used to represent energy consuming components that would result in a different representative value, but manufacturers may elect to group those individual models into one basic model at their discretion. Based on the comments received from Lennox and Hussmann, DOE understands that allowing wildcards will simplify the requirement to report individual models and will alleviate the concerns noted by AHRI, Manitowoc Foodservice, Rheem, Zero Zone, NCC, KeepRite, Bally, and Hussmann. Therefore, with the clarifications no

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.