Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration Systems

Federal RegisterJul 10, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016]

RIN 1904-AD59

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration Systems

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. This final rule details a series of energy conservation standards pertaining to certain discrete classes of refrigeration systems used in this equipment. These standards, which are consistent with recommendations presented by a working group that included refrigeration system manufacturers, installers, and energy efficiency advocates, have been determined to result in the significant conservation of energy and achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is September 8, 2017. Compliance with the standards established for WICF refrigeration systems in this final rule is required on and after July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56.

The docket web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:

WICF2015STD0016@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

walk-in_coolers_and_walk-in_freezers@ee.doe.gov.

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

michael.kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

III. General Discussion

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Test Procedure

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

F. Compliance Date of Standards

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. General Rulemaking Issues

1. Proposed Standard Levels

2. Test Procedure

a. Process Cooling

b. Preparation Room Refrigeration Systems

c. Single-Package Dedicated System

d. Hot Gas Defrost

e. High-Temperature Freezers

3. Rulemaking Timeline

4. ASRAC Working Group Representation

B. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

2. Technology Options

C. Screening Analysis

1. Technologies Having No Effect on Rated Energy Consumption

2. Adaptive Defrost and On-Cycle Variable-Speed Evaporator Fans

3. Screened-Out Technologies

4. Remaining Technologies

D. Engineering Analysis

1. Component-Based Analysis

2. Refrigerants

3. As-Tested Versus Field-Representative Performance Analysis

4. Representative Equipment for Analysis

5. Manufacturer Production Cost and Manufacturer Sales Price

6. Component and System Efficiency Model

a. Unit Coolers (Formerly Termed the “Multiplex Condensing” Class)

b. Condensing Units/Dedicated Condensing Class

c. Field-Representative Paired Dedicated Condensing Systems

d. Analysis Adjustment

7. Baseline Specifications

8. Design Options

a. Higher Efficiency Compressors

b. Improved Condenser Coil

c. Floating Head Pressure

9. Cost-Efficiency Curves

10. Engineering Efficiency Levels

E. Markups Analysis

F. Energy Use Analysis

1. Oversize Factors

2. Net Capacity Adjustment Factors

3. Temperature Adjustment Factors

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. System Boundaries

a. Field-Paired

b. Condensing Unit-Only

c. Unit Cooler Only

d. System Boundary and Equipment Class Weights

2. Equipment Cost

3. Installation Cost

4. Annual Energy Use

5. Energy Pricing and Projections

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Equipment Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

10. Payback Period (PBP) Analysis

H. Shipments Analysis

I. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

J. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Definition of Manufacturer

2. Overview

3. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipment Scenarios

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs

d. Testing and Labeling Costs

e. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

4. Discussion of Comments

L. Emissions Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

3. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants

N. Utility Impact Analysis

O. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Impacts on Direct Employment

b. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

c. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

e. Impact on Manufacturers of Complete Walk-Ins

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Summary of National Economic Impacts

D. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for WICF Refrigeration System Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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 on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements, Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

Title III, Part C

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.

The Act, and its numerous amendments, reaches a variety of products and equipment that the Department of Energy (“DOE”) must treat as covered products and equipment (and thus that are subject to regulation). Among the types of covered equipment that DOE must regulate are walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (collectively, “WICFs” or “walk-ins”). Included within this regulatory scope are the refrigeration systems used in this equipment, such as low-temperature dedicated condensing systems and both medium- and low-temperature unit coolers,

the subjects of this rulemaking.

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

In previous proceedings, most notably the June 2014 final rule, DOE used the terminology “multiplex condensing” (abbreviated “MC”) to refer to the class of equipment represented by a unit cooler, which for purposes of testing and certification is rated as though it would be connected to a multiplex condensing system. In a separate test procedure rulemaking, DOE has changed the terminology to better reflect the equipment itself, which consists of a unit cooler sold without a condensing unit, and which can ultimately be used in either a multiplex condensing or dedicated condensing application. Accordingly, in this document, DOE has changed the class name from “multiplex condensing” to “unit cooler” and the class abbreviation from “MC” to “UC.”

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 6295(o)(3)(B))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting energy conservation standards for the following classes of WICF refrigeration systems: Low-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems and both medium- and low-temperature unit coolers. These standards that will be in addition to the standards that DOE has already promulgated for medium-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems. See 10 CFR 431.306(e) as amended by 80 FR 69837 (November 12, 2015). The adopted standards, which are expressed in terms of an annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”), are shown in Table I-1. AWEF is an annualized refrigeration efficiency metric that expresses the ratio of the heat load that a system can reject (in Btus) to the energy required to reject that load (in watt-hours). These standards apply to all applicable WICF refrigeration systems listed in Table I-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the compliance date specified at the beginning of this document and in the regulatory text that follows this discussion.

Table I-1—Energy Conservation Standards for WICF Refrigeration Systems

Equipment class

Minimum AWEF

(Btu/W-h) *

Dedicated Condensing System—Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity (q

net

) of:

<6,500 Btu/h

9.091 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 1.81.

≥6,500 Btu/h

2.40.

Dedicated Condensing System—Low, Outdoor with a Net Capacity (q

net

) of:

<6,500 Btu/h

6.522 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 2.73.

≥6,500 Btu/h

3.15.

Unit Cooler—Medium

9.00.

Unit Cooler—Low with a Net Capacity (q

net

) of:

<15,500 Btu/h

1.575 × 10

−

× q

net

+ 3.91.

≥15,500 Btu/h

4.15.

* Where q

net

is net capacity as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and certified in accordance with 10 CFR part 429.

In various places in this document, DOE will use the following acronyms to denote the equipment classes of walk-in refrigeration systems that are subject to this rulemaking:

—DC.L.I. (dedicated condensing, low-temperature, indoor unit)

—DC.L.O (dedicated condensing, low-temperature, outdoor unit)

—UC.L. (unit cooler, low-temperature)

—UC.M. (unit cooler, medium-temperature)

For reference, DOE will use the following acronyms to denote the two equipment classes of walk-in refrigeration systems which are not subject to this rulemaking but for which standards were established in the previous WICF rulemaking:

—DC.M.I (dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, indoor unit)

—DC.M.O (dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, outdoor unit)

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of the considered WICF refrigeration systems (

i.e.,

medium- and low-temperature unit coolers and dedicated condensing low-temperature systems), as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

DOE's analysis demonstrates that the projected average LCC savings are positive for all considered equipment classes, and the projected PBP is less than the average lifetime of the considered WICF refrigeration systems, which is estimated to be 11 years (see section IV.F).

The average LCC savings are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of standards (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to baseline equipment (see section IV.CD.7)

Table I-2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of WICF Refrigeration Systems

[TSL 3]

Equipment class

Application

Design path

Average

life-cycle

cost savings

(2015$)

Simple

payback

period

(years)

DC.L.I

Dedicated, Indoor

Condensing Unit Only *

1,272

1.5

Dedicated, Indoor

Field—Paired **

1,397

1.5

Dedicated, Indoor

Unit Cooler Only †

135

4.8

DC.L.O

Dedicated, Outdoor

Condensing Unit Only

2,839

1.2

Dedicated, Outdoor

Field—Paired

3,294

1.4

Dedicated, Outdoor

Unit Cooler Only

288

4.5

UC.L

Multiplex

Unit Cooler Only

$74

7.6

UC.M

Dedicated, Indoor

Unit Cooler Only

1.4

UC.M

Dedicated, Outdoor

Unit Cooler Only

1.8

UC.M

Multiplex

Unit Cooler Only

3.0

Note:

DOE separately considers the impacts of unit cooler standards when the unit cooler is combined in an application with dedicated condensing equipment versus multiplex condensing equipment. In addition to low-temperatures unit coolers and dedicated condensing equipment DOE is examining the impacts of unit coolers that are combined with medium-temperature dedicated condensing equipment (DC.M.I and DC.M.O). DOE is not establishing standards for the latter, as they are covered by the June 2014 final rule and were not vacated by the Fifth Circuit order discussed below.

* Condensing Unit Only (CU-Only): This analysis evaluates standard levels applied to a condensing unit for a scenario in which a new condensing unit is installed to replace a failed condensing unit, but the existing baseline unit cooler is not replaced. See section IV.G.1.b for more details.

** Field-Paired (FP): This analysis evaluates a scenario in which both a new condensing unit and a new unit cooler are installed as paired equipment in the field. See section IV.G.1.a for more details.

† Unit Cooler Only (UC-Only): This analysis evaluates standard levels applied to a unit cooler for a scenario in which a new unit cooler is installed to replace a failed unit cooler, but the existing baseline condensing unit (or multiplex system) is not replaced. See section IV.G.1.c for more details.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2016-2049). Using a real discount rate of 10.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of WICF refrigeration systems in the case without amended standards is $97.9 million in 2015$. Under the adopted standards, DOE expects the change in INPV to range from −14.6 percent to −6.3 percent, which is approximately −$14.3 million to −$6.1 million. In order to bring products into compliance with standards, DOE expects the industry to incur total conversion costs of $18.7 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2015 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2016 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without adopting the standards, the lifetime energy savings for the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2020-2049), amount to 0.9 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 24 percent relative to the energy use of these

products in the case without standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems ranges from $1.4 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.2 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for the considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in 2020-2049.

In addition, the adopted standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 46 million metric tons (Mt)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 36 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 58 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 218 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.7 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.1 tons of mercury (Hg).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 7.4 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 783 thousand homes.

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2016

(

AEO2016

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the end of February 2016. See section IV.L fur further discussion of

AEO2016

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

The value of the CO

reduction is calculated using a range of values per metric ton (t) of CO

(otherwise known as the “social cost of CO

,” or “SC-CO

”) developed by a Federal interagency working group.

The derivation of the SC-CO2 values is discussed in section IV.M.1. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SC-CO

values, DOE estimates that the present value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $0.3 billion and $4.5 billion, with a value of $1.5 billion using the central SC-CO

case represented by $47.4/metric ton (t) in 2020.

United States Government—Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon.

Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

May 2013. Revised July 2015.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf.

DOE also calculated the value of the reduction in emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, using values for the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”) recently developed by the interagency working group.

See section IV.L.2 for a description of the methodology and the values used for DOE's analysis. The estimated present value of the methane emissions reduction is between $0.1 billion and $0.6 billion, with a value of $0.2 billion using the central SC-CH

case, and the estimated present value of the SC-N

O emissions reduction is between $0.002 billion and $0.02 billion, with a value of $0.01 billion using the central SC-N

O case. In this rule, DOE uses the term “greenhouse gases” (“GHGs”) to refer to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

United States Government—Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf.

DOE also estimates the present value of the NO

emissions reduction to be $0.10 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.04 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is still investigating appropriate valuation of the reduction in other emissions, and therefore did not include any such values for those emissions in the analysis for this final rule. Because the inclusion of such values would only increase the already positive net benefit of the new standards, however, it would not affect the outcome of this rulemaking.

DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.

See section IV.L.3 for further discussion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation against it concludes. Chamber of Commerce, et al.

EPA, et al., Order in Pending Case, 577 U.S. _ , 136 S.Ct. 999_ (2016). However, the benefit-per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan. To be conservative,

DOE is primarily using a lower national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.

2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

Table I-3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the adopted standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems.

Table I-3—Selected Categories of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for the Considered WICF Refrigeration Systems

[TSL 3] *

Category

Present value

(billion 2015$)

Discount rate

(percent)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1.7

3.8

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) **

0.4

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) **

1.7

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) **

2.7

2.5

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) **

5.1

Reduction †

0.0

0.1

Total Benefits ‡

3.5

5.6

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs

0.3

0.6

Total Net Benefits

Including GHG and NO

Reduction Monetized Value ‡

3.1

5.0

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with considered WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the products shipped in 2020-2049. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the adopted standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur domestically.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

, SC-CH

, and SC-N

O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. See section IV.L.1 for more details.

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.

) See section IV.M.3 for further discussion.

To be conservative,

DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the electricity generation sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.

2009). If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of the adopted standards, for the considered WICF refrigeration systems sold in 2020-2049, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increases in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and NO

emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2016, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2016. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of GHG reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I-3. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of the considered WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. The benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere, the SC-CO

values for CO

emissions in future years reflect impacts that continue through 2300. The CO

reduction is a benefit that accrues globally. DOE maintains that consideration of global benefits is appropriate because of the global nature of the climate change problem.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards are shown in Table I-4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than GHG reductions (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate),

the estimated cost of the adopted standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems is $34 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $169 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $95 million in GHG reductions, and $4.2 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $234 million per year.

DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate because these values are considered as the “central” estimates by the interagency group.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the adopted standards for the considered WICF refrigeration systems is $36 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $213 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $95 million in GHG reductions, and $5.8 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $279 million per year.

Table I-4—Selected Categories of Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (TSL 3) for Considered WICF Refrigeration Systems

Discount rate

(percent)

Primary

estimate

Low-net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

Million 2015$/year

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

169.3

213.4

158.4

196.9

183.0.

233.9.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) **

29.8

27.2

32.4.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) **

95.3

86.7

104.0.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) **

2.5

137.7

125.1

150.4.

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) **

285.8

259.8

311.9.

Reduction †

4.2

5.8

3.9

5.3

10.1.

14.3.

Total Benefits ††

7 plus GHG range

203 to 459

190 to 422

225 to 505.

269

249

297.

3 plus GHG range

249 to 505

229 to 462

281 to 560.

314

289

352.

Costs

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs

33.

34.

Net Benefits

Total ††

7 plus GHG range

169 to 425

154 to 386

192 to 472.

234

213

264.

3 plus GHG range

213 to 469

192 to 424

247 to 526.

279

251

318.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with the considered WICF refrigeration systems shipped in 2020-2049. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the WICF refrigeration systems purchased from 2020-2049. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the adopted standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices and real GDP from the

AEO2016

No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect constant prices in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.G. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. The equipment price projection is described in section IV.G.2 of this document and chapter 8 of the final rule technical support document (TSD). In addition, DOE used estimates for equipment efficiency distribution in its analysis based on national data supplied by industry. Purchases of higher efficiency equipment are a result of many different factors unique to each consumer including boiler heating loads, installation costs, site environmental consideration, and others. For each consumer, all other factors being the same, it would be anticipated that higher efficiency purchases in the baseline would correlate positively with higher energy prices. To the extent that this occurs, it would be expected to result in some lowering of the consumer operating cost savings from those calculated in this rule.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

SC-CH

, and SC-N

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.

) See section IV.M.3 for further discussion. For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NO

emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski

et al.

2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.

†† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus GHG range” and “3% plus GHG range,” the operating cost and NO

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of social cost values.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the Nation of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of these products). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as

some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for WICF refrigeration systems.

A. Authority

Title III, Part C of EPCA, as amended, includes the refrigeration systems used in walk-ins that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) EPCA, as amended, prescribed certain prescriptive energy conservation standards for these equipment (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to establish performance-based energy conservation standards and to later determine whether those standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A), (5)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), which applies to walk-ins through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r) and 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d), 6295(s) and 6316(a)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)) The DOE test procedures for WICF refrigeration systems appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) § 431.304.

DOE has recently published a final rule (“December 2016 TP final rule”) amending the test procedures applicable to the equipment classes addressed in this final rule, 81 FR 95758 (December 28, 2016). The standards established in this rulemaking were evaluated using those concurrently amended test procedures. While DOE typically finalizes its test procedures for a given regulated product or equipment prior to proposing new or amended energy conservation standards for that product or equipment, see 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, Appendix A, sec. 7(c) (“Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” or “Process Rule”), DOE did not do so in this instance. As part of the negotiated rulemaking that led to the Term Sheet setting out the standards that DOE is adopting, Working Group members recommended (with ASRAC's approval) that DOE modify its test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems. The test procedure changes at issue clarify the scope of equipment classes covered by the regulations, modify the test procedure to ensure that it avoids measuring efficiency benefits for technology options deemed by the Working Group to be inappropriate for consideration under the standards rulemaking, and simplify the structure of the current test procedure as presented in the CFR. Separate from the changes affecting the test procedure itself, DOE's test procedure rule also finalized an approach establishing labeling requirements to mitigate the regulatory burden on installers of walk-ins. Specifically, the test procedure explained that walk-in installers are not required to submit certification reports for the complete walk-in. Additionally, an installer that uses certified components with labels that meets DOE's requirements bears no responsibility for the testing and certification of those walk-in components. The installer is permitted to rely upon the representations of the manufacturer of a WICF component to ensure compliance of the component; if those representations turn out to be false, the component manufacturer is responsible. See Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030.

In DOE's view, all of these amendments to the test procedure rule have been consistent with the approach agreed upon by the various parties who participated in the negotiated rulemaking. On July 29, 2016, well before the publication of the energy conservation standard NOPR on September 13, 2016 (81 FR 62979), DOE publicly issued a pre-publication version of the test procedure NOPR, which immediately made it available for all members of the public, including participating stakeholders, to review. As a result, all members of the Working Group and other interested parties had an ample opportunity to review the proposed procedure and evaluate the proposed WICF energy conservation standards against the backdrop of the proposed test procedures, which are consistent with the final test procedures. Thus, DOE concludes that publishing a final version of the test procedure rule—which adopts the limited changes to method for measuring a refrigeration system's AWEF that were proposed in the NOPR—prior to the publication of the standards proposal was not necessary. Accordingly, consistent with section 14 of the Process Rule, DOE has concluded that its deviation from the Process Rule is appropriate here.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including WICF refrigeration systems. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(3)(B) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including WICF refrigeration systems, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after proposing the standard and receiving comments on it, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing

by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6316(a))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a))

This is equivalent to stating that the rebuttable presumption of a standard is justified if the simple payback to the consumer, as calculated under the applicable test procedures, of the purchased equipment is equal to, or less than 3 years.

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a) through (c) and 6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a).

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) In the case of WICFs, DOE is continuing to apply this approach to provide analytical consistency when evaluating energy conservation standards for this equipment. See generally, 42 U.S.C. 6316(a).

B. Background

A walk-in is an enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures above, and at or below, respectively, 32 °F 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)) By definition, equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes are excluded. See id.

EPCA also provides prescriptive standards for walk-ins manufactured starting on January 1, 2009. First, walk-ins must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, for all doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet and must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Additionally, they must also contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower (“hp”) and less than 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).

Second, walk-ins have requirements related to electronically commutated motors used in them. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a rating of under 1 hp and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor unless DOE determined prior to January 1, 2009 that electronically commutated motors are available from only one manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A)) Consistent with this requirement, DOE eventually determined that more than one manufacturer offered these motors for sale, which effectively made electronically commutated motors a required design standard for use with evaporative fan motors rated at under 1 hp and under 460 volts. DOE documented this determination in the rulemaking docket as docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072. This document can be found at

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015-0072

. Additionally, DOE may permit the use of other types of motors as evaporative fan motors—if DOE determines that, on average, those other motor types use no more energy in evaporative fan applications than electronically commutated motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(B)) DOE is unaware of any other motors that would offer performance levels comparable to the electronically commutated motors required by Congress. Accordingly, all evaporator motors rated at under 1 hp and under 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors or three-phase motors.

Third, EPCA requires that walk-in freezers with transparent reach-in doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for doors and windows. Cooler doors must have either double-pane glass with

treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with treated glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors, EISA 2007 also prescribed specific anti-sweat heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively. Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).

EPCA also directed the Secretary to issue performance-based standards for walk-ins that would apply to equipment manufactured three (3) years after the final rule is published, or five (5) years if the Secretary determines by rule that a 3-year period is inadequate. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)) In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (June 2014 final rule), DOE prescribed performance-based standards for walk-ins manufactured on or after June 5, 2017. 79 FR 32050. These standards applied to a walk-in's main components: Refrigeration systems, panels, and doors. The standards were expressed in terms of AWEF for the walk-in refrigeration systems, R-value for walk-in panels, and maximum energy consumption for walk-in doors. The standards are shown in Table II-1 and Table II-2.

Table II-1—Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems Set Forth in 2014 Rule

Class descriptor

Class

Standard level

min. AWEF

(Btu/W-h) *

Dedicated Condensing, Medium—Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.I, <9,000

5.61

Dedicated Condensing, Medium—Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.I, ≥9,000

5.61

Dedicated Condensing, Medium—Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.O, <9,000

7.60

Dedicated Condensing, Medium—Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.M.O, ≥9,000

7.60

Dedicated Condensing, Low-Temperature, Indoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.I, <9,000

5.93 × 10-5 ×

+ 2.33

Dedicated Condensing, Low-Temperature, Indoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.I, ≥9,000

3.10

Dedicated Condensing, Low-Temperature, Outdoor System, <9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.O, <9,000

2.30 × 10-4 ×

+ 2.73

Dedicated Condensing, Low-Temperature, Outdoor System, ≥9,000 Btu/h Capacity

DC.L.O, ≥9,000

4.79

Multiplex Condensing, Medium—Temperature **

MC.M

10.89

Multiplex Condensing, Low-Temperature **

MC.L

6.57

* These standards were expressed in terms of

, which represents the system gross capacity as calculated in AHRI 1250.

** DOE used this terminology to refer to these equipment classes in the June 2014 final rule. In this rule, DOE has changed “multiplex condensing” to “unit cooler” and the abbreviation “MC” to “UC,” consistent with the separate test procedure rulemaking conducted by DOE.

Table II-2—Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Panels and Doors Set Forth in 2014 Rule

Class descriptor

Class

Standard level

Panels

Min. R-value

(h-ft2-°F/Btu)

Structural Panel, Medium-Temperature

SP.M

Structural Panel, Low-Temperature

SP.L

Floor Panel, Low-Temperature

FP.L

Non-display doors

Max. energy consumption

(kWh/day) †

Passage Door, Medium-Temperature

PD.M

0.05 × And + 1.7

Passage Door, Low-Temperature

PD.L

0.14 × And + 4.8

Freight Door, Medium-Temperature

FD.M

0.04 × And + 1.9

Freight Door, Low-Temperature

FD.L

0.12 × And + 5.6

Display doors

Max. energy consumption

(kWh/day) ††

Display Door, Medium-Temperature

DD.M

0.04 × Add + 0.41

Display Door, Low-Temperature

DD.L

0.15 × Add + 0.29

† And represents the surface area of the non-display door.

†† Add represents the surface area of the display door.

After publication of the June 2014 final Rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) and Lennox International, Inc. (“Lennox”) (a manufacturer of WICF refrigeration systems) filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule 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 WICF refrigeration system manufacturers—Rheem Manufacturing Co., Heat Transfer Products Group (a subsidiary of Rheem Manufacturing Co.), and Hussmann Corp.—along with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (“ACCA”) (a trade association representing contractors who install WICF refrigeration systems) intervened on the petitioners' behalf. The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), 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 to address, among other things, six of the refrigeration system standards—each of which is addressed in this document.

The “six” standards established in the 2014 final rule and vacated by the Fifth Circuit court order have become “seven” standards due to the split of one of the equipment classes based on capacity. Specifically, the “multiplex condensing, low-temperature” class (see 79 FR 32050, 32124 (June 3, 2014)) has become two classes of “unit cooler, low-temperature,”, one with capacity (q

net

) less than 15,500 Btu/h, and the other with capacity greater or equal to 15,500 Btu/h (see Table I-1).

A controlling court order from the Fifth Circuit, which was issued on August 10, 2015, vacated those six standards. These vacated standards related to (1) the two energy conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (re-named as “unit coolers” for purposes of this rule) operating at medium and low temperatures and (2) the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. See 79 FR at 32124 (June 3, 2014). The thirteen other standards established in the June 2014 final rule and shown in Table II-1 and Table II-2 (that is, the four standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures; the three standards applicable to panels; and the six standards applicable to doors) were not vacated and remain subject to the June 5, 2017 compliance date prescribed by the June 2014 final rule.

To help clarify the applicability of these standards, DOE is also modifying the organization of its regulations to specify the compliance date of these existing standards and the standards finalized in this rule. To aid in readability, DOE is replacing the existing table at 10 CFR 431.306(e) with a new table that incorporates both the refrigeration system standards established in this rule and the existing refrigeration system standards and clarifies the compliance dates for both sets of standards.

DOE has issued an enforcement policy with respect to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium temperatures. See

www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/walk-coolerwalk-freezer-refrigeration-systems-enforcement-policy

In addition, DOE notes that the existing standard for all capacities of dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, indoor refrigeration systems requires that these equipment classes meet a minimum AWEF of 5.61 Btu/W-h. Likewise, all capacities of dedicated condensing, medium-temperature, outdoor refrigeration systems must meet a minimum AWEF of 7.60 Btu/W-h. Rather than listing multiple ranges of capacity for both indoor and outdoor classes, DOE has modified the organization of these standards by grouping these classes into two line items, each showing the standard for the relevant full capacity range.

After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE established a working group to negotiate energy conservation standards to replace the six vacated standards. Specifically, on August 5, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a WICF 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 standard levels for the energy efficiency of the affected classes of WICF refrigeration systems. The Working Group was to consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the standards, and the group would consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.

Ultimately, the Working Group consisted of 12 members and one DOE representative (see Table II-3). (See Appendix A, List of Members and Affiliates, Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group Ground Rules, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 5 at p. 5.) The Working Group met in-person during 13 days of meetings held August 27, September 11, September 30, October 1, October 15, October 16, November 3, November 4, November 20, December 3, December 4, December 14, and December 15, 2015.

Table II-3—ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Working Group Members and Affiliations

Member

Affiliation

Abbreviation

Ashley Armstrong

U.S. Department of Energy

DOE.

Lane Burt

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC.

Mary Dane

Traulsen

Traulsen.

Cyril Fowble

Lennox International, Inc. (Heatcraft)

Lennox.

Sean Gouw

California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs.

Andrew Haala

Hussmann Corp

Hussmann.

Armin Hauer

ebm-papst, Inc

ebm-papst.

John Koon

Manitowoc Company

Manitowoc.

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP.

Charlie McCrudden

Air Conditioning Contractors of America

ACCA.

Louis Starr

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA.

Michael Straub

Rheem Manufacturing (Heat Transfer Products Group)

Rheem.

Wayne Warner

Emerson Climate Technologies

Emerson.

All of the meetings were open to the public and were also 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 II-4.

Table II-4—Other ASRAC Walk-In Coolers and Freezers Meeting Attendees and Affiliations

Attendee

Affiliation

Abbreviation

Akash Bhatia

Tecumseh Products Company

Tecumseh.

Bryan Eisenhower

VaCom Technologies

VaCom.

Dean Groff

Danfoss

Danfoss.

Brian Lamberty

Unknown

Brian Lamberty.

Michael Layne

Turbo Air

Turbo Air.

Jon McHugh

McHugh Energy

McHugh Energy.

Yonghui (Frank) Xu

National Coil Company

National Coil.

Vince Zolli

Keeprite Refrigeration

Keeprite.

To facilitate the negotiations, DOE provided analytical support, including detailed analyses and presentations. These materials are available in the relevant rulemaking docket (

www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016

). The analyses and presentations, developed with direct input from the Working Group members, included preliminary versions of many of the analyses discussed in this final rule, including a market and technology assessment; screening analysis; engineering analysis; energy use analysis; markups analysis; life cycle cost and payback period analysis; shipments analysis; and national impact analysis.

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 its recommendations into a single term sheet (See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 52) that was presented to, and approved by the ASRAC on December 18, 2015. DOE considered the approved term sheet, along with other comments received during the negotiated rulemaking process, in developing energy conservation standards in this document. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 13, 2016. (September 2016 NOPR) 81 FR 62979. A public meeting to discuss DOE's proposal was held on September 29, 2016.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this rule after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. DOE received comments from a number of different entities. A list of these entities is included in Table III-1. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

Table III-1—Interested Parties Who Commented on the WICF NOPR

Name

Acronym

Type

Comment No.

(docket reference)

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

AHRI

Trade Association

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASAP

Energy Efficiency Advocates

* 79

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

ASAP, NRDC and NEEA (ASAP et al.)

Energy Efficiency Advocates

California Investor Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utility Association

Cato Institute

Cato

Think Tank

CoilPod LLC

CoilPod

Component/Material Supplier

Eric Andrews

Andrews

Individual

Hussmann Corporation

Hussmann

Manufacturer

Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists

Joint Advocates

Energy Efficiency Advocates

Lennox International Inc. and Heatcraft Refrigeration Products, LLC

Lennox

Manufacturer

Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc

Manitowoc

Manufacturer

Rheem Manufacturing Company and Heat Transfer Products Group, LLC

Rheem

Manufacturer

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Brick Industry Association, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, National Association of Manufacturers, National Lime Association, National Mining Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, and the Portland Cement Association

USCC et al

Business Federation

Weiss Instruments, Inc

Weiss

Component/Material Supplier

Zero Zone

Manufacturer

* Comment number 79 indicates the party commented during the public meeting.

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, capacity, or other performance-related features that would justify different standards. In determining whether a performance-related feature would justify applying a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a))

As previously noted in section II.B, a court order vacated the portions of the June 2014 final rule relating to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (

i.e.,

unit coolers) operating at medium and low temperatures and dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. Therefore, this rulemaking focuses on standards related to these refrigeration system classes. More information relating to the scope of coverage is described in section IV.B.1 of this final rule.

B. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE”s adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293 and 6314) Manufacturers must use the test procedures prescribed under these provisions to certify compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their covered product or equipment.

EPCA, as modified by EISA 2007, required DOE to develop a performance-based test procedure to measure the energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6213(a)(9)(B)(i)) On April 15, 2011, DOE published test procedures for the principal components that make up a walk-in: The panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. DOE took this component-based testing approach based on 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).

DOE's current energy conservation standards for WICF refrigeration systems are expressed in terms of AWEF (

see

10 CFR 431.304(c)(10)). AWEF is an annualized refrigeration efficiency metric that expresses the ratio of the heat load that a system can reject (in Btus) to the energy required to reject that load (in watt-hours). The existing DOE test procedure for determining the AWEF of walk-in refrigeration systems is located at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R. The current DOE test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems was originally established by an April 15, 2011 final rule, which incorporates by reference the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1250-2009,

2009 Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.

76 FR 21580, 21605-21612.

On May 13, 2014, DOE updated its test procedures for WICFs in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

(May 2014 test procedure final rule). 79 FR 27388. That rule allowed WICF refrigeration system manufacturers to use an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to rate and certify their basic models by using the projected energy efficiency level derived from these simulation models in lieu of testing. It also adopted testing methods to enable an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to readily test and rate its unit cooler or condensing unit individually rather than as part of matched pairs. Under this approach, a manufacturer who distributes a unit cooler as a separate component must rate that unit cooler as though it were to be connected to a multiplex system. The unit cooler must comply with any applicable unit cooler standard that DOE may establish. Similarly, a manufacturer distributing a condensing unit as a separate component must use fixed values for the suction (inlet) conditions and certain nominal values for unit cooler fan and defrost energy, in lieu of actual unit cooler test data, when calculating AWEF. (10 CFR 431.304(c)(12)(ii))

DOE notes that, although that final rule established the approach for rating individual components of dedicated condensing systems, it still allowed for matched-pair ratings of these systems. This approach addressed the testing of dedicated condensing systems with multiple capacity stages and/or variable-capacity, since the current test procedure of AHRI 1250-2009 does not have a provision for testing individual condensing units with such features. An OEM would have to use matched-pair testing to rate multiple- or variable-capacity systems, but can choose matched-pair or individual-component rating for single-capacity dedicated condensing systems.

The May 2014 test procedure final rule also introduced several clarifications and additions to the AHRI test procedure for WICF refrigeration systems. These changes can be found in 10 CFR 431.304.

The Working Group, in addition to making recommendations regarding standards, also recommended that DOE consider making certain amendments to the test procedure to support the recommended replacement refrigeration system standards. See Term Sheet at EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, No. 56, recommendation #6 and #7. Consistent with these test procedure-related recommendations, DOE published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking on August 17, 2016 (“August 2016 TP NOPR”). 81 FR 54926. A public meeting was held on September 12, 2016. DOE published a test procedure final rule on December 28, 2016. 81 FR 95758. All documents and information pertaining to the test procedure rulemaking can be found in docket EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030. The standard levels discussed in this document were evaluated using that revised test procedure.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties.

DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i)

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv) Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.C of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for WICF refrigeration systems, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those forming the basis of the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule technical support document (“TSD”).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE adopts a standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6316(a)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for WICF refrigeration systems using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.D.10 of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to covered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the standards (2020-2049).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of considered WICF refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for the equipment at issue would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation standards.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential standards for considered WICF refrigeration systems at issue. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.I.2 of this document.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in

Natural Resources Defense Council

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that are not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all the TSLs considered in this rulemaking, including the adopted standards, are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA (

i.e.,

42 U.S.C. 6295).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII) and 6316(a)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) industry net present value (“INPV”), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be

affected disproportionately by a national standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6316(a)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii) and 6316(a)) To assist the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards for WICF refrigeration systems are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation (as applicable) in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) ) (and as applied to WICFs through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), which is applied to WICFs through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary

determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule.

F. Compliance Date of Standards

Under EPCA, performance-based standards for WICFs, including the initial establishment of those standards, have a statutorily prescribed lead time starting on the applicable final rule's publication date and ending three (3) years later. Starting on that later date, WICF manufacturers must comply with the relevant energy conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)-(5). DOE may extend the lead time to as long as five (5) years if the Secretary determines, by rule, that the default 3-year period is inadequate. (See id.)

As discussed in section III.B, DOE developed test procedures for the principal components that make up walk-ins: The panels, doors, and refrigeration systems. DOE developed test procedures for walk-in refrigeration systems that express their efficiency in terms of AWEF. 76 FR 21580 (April 15, 2011). The June 2014 final rule established DOE's energy conservation standards for walk-in refrigeration systems based on AWEF—these standards, established for low-temperature and medium-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems and for low-temperature and medium-temperature unit coolers (then called multiplex condensing systems), had a compliance date of June 5, 2017. 79 FR at 32124 (June 3, 2014). As discussed in section II.B, the standards for several of these categories of refrigeration systems were vacated. However, the standards for medium-temperature dedicated condensing systems remain in place, and their compliance date remains as June 5, 2017.

In the September 2016 NOPR, DOE projected that that this final rule would publish in the second half of 2016, and that it would hence establish a compliance date in the second half of 2019 for the new refrigeration system standards that DOE is adopting—DOE did not anticipate extending the standards lead time beyond three years. 81 FR at 62992 (Sept. 13, 2016).

DOE updated its enforcement policy for walk-in refrigeration systems on February 1, 2016, indicating that it would not exercise its enforcement authority in regard to energy conservation standards associated with medium-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems for any such equipment manufactured prior to January 1, 2020.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/Enforcement%20Policy%20Statement%20-%20WICF%2002-01-16.pdf.

Manitowoc, Hussmann, Lennox, Rheem, and AHRI requested that manufacturers not be required to submit certification reports for WICF equipment covered in this rule and medium-temperature dedicated condensing classes until the projected January 2020 enforcement date. They argued that requiring manufacturers to certify refrigeration systems covered by the June 2014 final Rule on June 5, 2017, despite the fact that enforcement would not occur until 2020, would confuse customers and place unneeded burden on manufacturers. Zero Zone also argued that requiring certification before enforcement begins will cause confusion for manufacturers and customers and will not allow the Department to verify the certification data. (Manitowoc, No. 82 at p. 1; Hussmann, No. 83 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 89 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 91 at pp. 1-2; AHRI, No. 90 at pp. 1-2; Zero Zone, No. 88 at p. 1)

As discussed in the test procedure final rule, DOE has not changed the date for certifying the compliance of equipment covered by the June 2014 standards that have not been vacated,

i.e.,

those applicable to doors and medium-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems. 81 FR at 95759-95760 (December 28, 2016). The compliance date for the WICF equipment covered in this rule,

i.e.,

classes of low-temperature dedicated condensing refrigeration systems and all classes of unit coolers, is three years from today's date.

Weiss asked for clarification regarding how DOE's proposal would address the installation of walk-ins by local contractors who buy components from wholesalers and assemble the walk-in on-site. (Weiss, No. 85 at p. 1).

Lennox commented there is ambiguity whether refrigeration system components assembled into a complete walk-in must be compliant on the date of manufacture of the refrigeration component or when the final WICF is actually assembled. Lennox noted that component manufacturers would need to leave time to sell components in inventory in advance of a compliance deadline, but WICF installers would also need to leave time both to purchase WICF components and install such components in advance of the compliance deadline. Lennox stated that additional burden is placed on WICF component manufacturers to compress timelines by several months or more if assemblers of complete walk-ins are required to use WICF components that are compliant at the time of assembly. (Lennox No. 89 at pp. 7-8) AHRI and Rheem also commented that additional burden is placed on component manufacturers as a result of a shortened compliance period if the requirement remains for installers to use components that are compliant at the time of the complete walk-in assembly. (AHRI No. 90 at p. 3; Rheem No. 91 at p. 3)

Lennox, AHRI and Rheem requested that DOE allow an unlimited sell through period for components manufactured prior to the compliance date of the amended standard. AHRI stated that most products subject to energy conservation standards have unlimited sell through periods for products manufactured before the effective date of an amended standard.

Id.

As discussed in the test procedure final rule, 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.

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. The component manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the component(s) it manufactures. DOE also requires that the component manufacturer certify the compliance of the components it manufactures, prior to distribution in commerce. 81 FR at 95778 (December 28, 2016). A walk-in component manufacturer must comply with the applicable energy conservation standards based on the date the component is produced. For example, beginning on June 5, 2017 walk-in door manufacturers must produce doors that comply with the applicable energy consumption standard. Imported components must comply with the applicable energy conservation standards based on the date of importation.

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. DOE explained that while it does not require manufacturers of complete walk-ins to submit certification reports for the complete walk-in itself, a manufacturer of a complete walk-in must ensure that each walk-in it manufactures meets the various statutory and regulatory standards. That is, a manufacturer of a complete walk-in is required to use components that comply with the applicable standards and to ensure the final product fulfills the statutory design requirements. See the test procedure final rule for additional discussion on how a manufacturer of a complete walk-in demonstrates compliance. 81 FR at 95781 (December 28, 2016).

DOE explained several ways a manufacturer of a complete walk-in could assemble a compliant walk-in. The manufacturer of a complete walk-in could make one or more of the components (

e.g.

, a walk-in door), test it, and certify it as the component manufacturer. In this instance the manufacturer of the complete walk-in is also the component manufacturer, and the component must meet the relevant energy conservation standard based on the date the component is produced.

Alternatively, the manufacturer of the complete walk-in could use an uncertified component and accept responsibility for its compliance. In this scenario, the date of installation is the date of manufacture. For example, if walk-in is assembled with a door designed for non-walk-in applications, then the door becomes a walk-in component on the walk-in assembly date, and must meet the relevant energy conservation standard based on the date of assembly.

Lastly, the manufacturer of the complete walk-in could use a certified component with a label that meets DOE's requirements, as it is not the manufacturer of the component, and bear no responsibility for the testing and certification of the component. In this case, the component must meet the relevant energy conservation standard based on the date the certified component was manufactured. As long as a manufacturer of a complete walk-in (

e.g.,

installers) uses compliant, certified components that are labeled in accordance with DOE's requirements, then it can assemble a complete walk-in using those components after the effective date of new or amended standards. For example, an installer may use walk-in doors manufactured prior to June 5, 2017 to assemble a walk-in after the compliance date as long as the door was certified as compliant with the standards in effect on the date the door was produced.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to the considered WICF refrigeration systems. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking at

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/30

. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the

Annual Energy Outlook

2016 (“

AEO2106”

) from the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. General Rulemaking Issues

During the September 29, 2016 NOPR public meeting, and in subsequent written comments, stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, including the trial standard levels, the rulemaking timeline, and other subjects. These issues are discussed in this section.

1. Proposed Standard Levels

DOE proposed to adopt TSL 3 as the energy conservation standard for the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. DOE's NOPR analysis showed that this level is both technologically feasible and economically justified. 81 FR at 63021 (September 13, 2016). TSL 3 represents the maximum technologically feasible level and corresponds to the energy conservation standard level that the Working Group unanimously recommended that DOE adopt. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, Term Sheet: Recommendation #5 (December 15, 2015), No. 56 at pp. 2-3).

The CA IOUs and ASAP et al. supported the proposed standard levels DOE presented in the NOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 80, at pp. 1-2; ASAP et al., No. 84, at p. 1)

Lennox supported the provisions laid out in the ASRAC Term Sheet, including the recommended standards levels contained therein, which were the result of a negotiated rulemaking. It also commented on the NOPR's consumer impact results, noting that while most equipment classes have positive or minimal negative consumer impacts, for certain equipment classes, the consumer impact is negative for a “large percentage of consumers.” (Lennox, No. 89 at p. 7) For example, Lennox noted that 42 percent of consumers had a net cost impact for low temperature unit coolers (UC.L) attached to low temperature multiplex condensing systems (MC.L). Lennox clarified that it does not generally support energy conservation standards that result in such a large portion of consumers experiencing a net cost impact. (Lennox, No. 89 at pp. 6-7)

In general, DOE seeks to avoid adopting standards resulting in large numbers of consumers experiencing net costs. DOE notes that Lennox supports the proposed standard levels, with which WICF Working Group negotiators (including Lennox) had agreed, as documented in the ASRAC Working Group Term Sheet. For the reasons discussed later in this document, DOE is adopting the same standard levels that it proposed as the energy conservation standard for the equipment under consideration in this final rule. See section VI for further discussion on the TSLs, economic justification and energy savings.

Eric Andrews agreed that the economic analysis supported the regulation on the basis of the purchase of new equipment, but expressed concern regarding the up-front cost that the consumer would incur to update existing equipment to the standard level. He commented that “a credit” should be made available to defray such costs. He observed further that the market for used equipment was not addressed in the analysis. (Andrews, No. 76 at p. 1) The comment seems to be made based on the assumption that all installed equipment must be upgraded to the standard level. In response, DOE notes that the adopted standard levels will apply only to new equipment manufactured after the compliance date of the standard. See section III.F for additional discussion regarding the compliance date.

2. Test Procedure

a. 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 TP 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 (August 17, 2016).

In the August 2016 TP NOPR, DOE described the background leading to the proposal of a definition for walk-in process cooling refrigeration equipment. 81 FR at 54934 (August 17, 2016). 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 (June 3, 2014). The August 2016 TP 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. 117 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 TP 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 June 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 (August 17, 2016).

The August 2016 TP 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 (August 17, 2016). 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 that include unit coolers meeting the process cooling definition. 81 FR at 54954 (August 17, 2016).

DOE noted in the August 2016 TP 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 test procedure NOPR public meeting presentation to clarify its interpretation of the applicability of walk-in standards to different components of process cooling equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 noted in the test procedure final rule that this exclusion was not explicit in the proposed definition and was clarifying it to explicitly include such dedicated condensing units in the definition. 81 FR at 95768 (December 28, 2016).

Importance of Coverage for Process Cooling Equipment

DOE explained in the August 2016 TP 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 at 54934-54936 (August 17, 2016). In the test procedure final rule, DOE ultimately concluded that this equipment should be covered as walk-in equipment. 81 FR at 95771 (December, 28, 2016). In DOE's view, covering this equipment as a class of walk-ins 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 in response to the August 2016 TP NOPR 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.” (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030; 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.” (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5)

Commenters reiterated many of these statements in response to the September 2016 NOPR. Hussmann, Zero Zone, Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI argued that process cooling refrigeration systems do not fit the EPCA definition of a WICF “enclosed storage space.” (42 U.S.C. 6311 (20)). Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also stated that the inclusion of these equipment was not discussed in the ASRAC negotiations and requested that process cooling refrigeration systems be removed from the scope of the WICF test procedure and be specifically excluded from the WICF energy conservation standard and the EPCA prescriptive requirements. (Hussmann, No. 83 at p. 2; Zero Zone, No. 88 at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 82 at pp. 1-2; Rheem, No. 91 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 90 at p. 2)

Conversely, the CA IOUs supported classifying process cooling equipment as WICF equipment, which would require the refrigeration systems, panels, and doors of process cooling equipment to meet the prescriptive standards set by EISA 2007. Further, they supported applying the June 2014 final rule WICF standards and the proposed standards to process cooling panels, doors, and dedicated condensing units not sold as part of a “matched pair” with a unit cooler. (CA IOUs, No. 80 at p. 2) (The R-value requirements for panels and doors are carry-overs from EISA 2007.)

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 August 2016 TP NOPR, the Working Group recommended that DOE define “storage space”—which suggests that the term is ambiguous. 81 FR at 54934 (August 17, 2016). 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.” (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 final rule, DOE has reconsidered its prior views on process cooling equipment.

As noted in the August 2016 TP NOPR, contents are placed in process

cooling equipment for at least a brief period of time to reduce their temperature. 81 FR at 54934 (August 17, 2016). 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 have recommended maximum processing times, there is no industry-specified minimum or maximum processing duration for blast chillers or blast freezers. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 (June 3, 2014)). 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 in response to the August 2016 TP NOPR 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 (August 17, 2016).

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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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.” (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 June 2014 final rule WICF standards and the proposed standards under consideration. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, CA IOUs, No. 21 at p. 2)

As described in the August 2016 TP 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 (August 17, 2016). 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 the December 2016 TP final 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, Lennox, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 40) Lennox provided a diagram to illustrate this in its written comments (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, Lennox, No. 13 at p. 8) In reviewing this diagram, DOE agreed 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 test procedure final rule incorporates a diagram based on the one submitted by Lennox to clarify the process cooling definition. 81 FR at 95772 (December 28, 2016).

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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. 81 FR at 95772 (December 28, 2016).

Alternatively, Bally suggested that airflow rate may be a good characteristic for differentiating process refrigeration systems from other walk-in refrigeration systems. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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 (August 17, 2016)) 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. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0030, 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.,

Double Door Refrigerator, No. 93) 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.

Impact on Refrigeration System Energy Conservation Standards

As discussed above, process cooling refrigeration systems generally are not subject to the energy conservation system standards that are the subject of this final rule notice. DOE explicitly established the process cooling refrigeration system definition in acknowledgement that the energy use of these systems may not be adequately represented by the AWEF metric used to represent the efficiency of other walk-in refrigeration systems. Consequently, this equipment has little bearing on the analysis conducted for this rulemaking or the efficiency levels considered as potential standard levels. Nevertheless, walk-in process cooling equipment is subject to other standards, notably the EPCA prescriptive design standards and the standards for panels and doors as prescribed by the June 2014 final rule.

b. Preparation Room Refrigeration Systems

Hussmann, Zero Zone, Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI argued that preparation room refrigeration systems do not fit the EPCA definition of a WICF “enclosed storage space.” (42 U.S.C. 6311 (20)). Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI also stated that the inclusion of these equipment was not discussed in the ASRAC negotiations and requested that preparation room refrigeration systems be removed from the scope of the WICF test procedure and be specifically excluded from the WICF energy conservation standard and the EPCA prescriptive requirements. (Hussmann, No. 83 at p. 2; Zero Zone, No. 88 at p. 1 Manitowoc, No. 82 at pp. 1-2; Rheem, No. 91 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 90 at p. 2) Stakeholders expressed similar comments in response to the August 2016 TP NOPR. DOE responded to these comments in the December 2016 TP final rule, providing extensive discussion supporting its position, and concluding that preparation room refrigeration systems are indistinguishable from other walk-in refrigeration systems, and hence are subject to the walk-in refrigeration system energy conservation standards. 81 FR at 95773-95774 (December 28, 2016).

c. Single-Package Dedicated System

The CA IOUs agreed that AHRI 1250-2009 is an appropriate test procedure for “packaged dedicated systems” and suggested the term “packaged dedicated system” be changed to “single-package dedicated system” or “self-contained units,” in order to improve clarity and align regulatory and industry language. (CA IOUs, No. 80 at pp. 2-3)

Conversely, Manitowoc, Rheem, and AHRI argued that packaged dedicated units be excluded from the scope of the WICF test procedure and specifically excluded from EPCA's prescriptive design requirements and energy conservation standards because their proposed inclusion was neither discussed in the ASRAC negotiations nor a part of the Term Sheet approved by the Working Group. (Manitowoc, No. 82 at pp. 1-2; Rheem, No. 91 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 90 at p. 2)

DOE notes that section 2.1 of AHRI 1250-2009 states that the scope of this testing standard “applies to mechanical refrigeration equipment consisting of an

integrated single package refrigeration unit

[emphasis added], or separate unit cooler and condensing unit sections, where the condensing section can be located either outdoor or indoor.” AHRI 1250-2009, section 2.1.

DOE agreed that the suggested use of the term “single-package dedicated refrigeration system” would provide further clarity, indicating much more precisely what this equipment is, and is consistent with the approach used for air-conditioning units. DOE adopted the suggested term from the CA-IOUs in its December 2016 TP final rule. 81 FR at 95764 (December 28, 2016).

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 its April 15, 2011 final rule establishing test procedures for WICFs. 73 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). Also, DOE notes that the Term Sheet included no indication that these systems are excluded. (Term Sheet, No. 56) Thus, DOE disagrees 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 the 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).

d. Hot Gas Defrost

Lennox agreed with the removal of the hot gas defrost credit from the test procedure, and recommended that, as a replacement for this removal, that DOE adopt an approach where hot gas defrost models would be assigned the AWEF value of an equivalent electric defrost model. Lennox defined an equivalent electric defrost model as one within +/− 10% of the net capacity of the rated hot gas model. If an equivalent electric defrost model is not available, Lennox recommended that an AEDM could be used to determine a hot gas model's AWEF rating. (Lennox, No. 89 at pp. 5-6) DOE also received numerous comments regarding the treatment of hot gas defrost units in response to the test procedure NOPR, several of which recommended similar or identical approaches. DOE discussed these comments and responded to them in the test procedure final rule, establishing an approach that includes testing such units as if they are electric defrost units, using standardized energy and defrost thermal load contributions in the AWEF calculations. 81 FR at 95774-95777 (December 28, 2016).

e. High-Temperature Freezers

Lennox requested that DOE allow manufacturers to publish application ratings of medium temperature condensing units to cover the high temperature freezer application range (room temperature of 10 °F to 32 °F) and allow sale for that use. Due to the limitations of low-GWP refrigerants approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA's”) Significant New Alternatives Policy (“SNAP”), Lennox noted that only medium temperature condensing units are able to operate in this range and thus preventing manufacturers from selling these units for this application would violate EPCA's mandate that a new standard shall not result in the unavailability of any product type, features, sizes, capacities and volumes (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)). Further, it suggested that such a limitation would lessen “the utility or performance” of this equipment (as contemplated under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) because in today's marketplace, manufacturers publish application data for medium temperature condensing units covering this application range. Lennox also argued that creating a new equipment class or allowing test procedure waivers for these cases will add to manufacturer burden (

i.e.,

additional testing, certification, and marketing costs) without passing any benefit along to customers or improving energy efficiency performance. Finally, Lennox provided test data for 12 medium temperature and 11 low temperature condensing units showing that the medium temperature units actually achieve a higher AWEF value than the low temperature units when operating at the 10 °F test condition. In its view, allowing manufacturers to market and sell their medium temperature units for this application range may actually result in better energy efficiency performance. (Lennox, No. 89 at pp. 2-5)

As explained in the test procedure final rule, DOE requires that equipment that is distributed in commerce consistent with the definitions for multiple equipment classes must be certified for all such classes. 81 FR 95791 (December 28, 2016). Lennox's assertions regarding the potential lessening of utility or performance or the unavailability of any product type, features, sizes, capacities and volumes are undercut by the available data, which show that all of the equipment performance projections—including those provided in Lennox's comments—exceed the minimum AWEF standard proposed by DOE by a large margin (

i.e.,

have a higher energy efficiency performance than the proposed standard). (Lennox, No. 89 at p. 4) Hence, the proposed (and final) standard's stringency will not make these equipment unavailable or reduce their utility.

3. Rulemaking Timeline

DOE issued the test procedure final rule on December 2, 2016. DOE issued the energy conservation standard NOPR on August 30, 2016 and published it on September 13, 2016. 81 FR 62980. The comment period for the energy conservation standard NOPR closed on November 14, 2016.

AHRI, Hussmann and Zero Zone commented on DOE's timeline in conducting concurrent test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016, AHRI, No. 90, at pp. 2-3; Hussmann, No. 83, at p. 2; Zero Zone, No. 88, at p. 1) Hussmann stated that overlapping NOPRs and comment review periods are not adequate. Zero Zone suggested that DOE should not finalize energy conservation standard levels until the test procedure is finalized. AHRI expressed concern that the concurrent rulemakings present a challenge to stakeholders commenting on both proposals. AHRI indicated its view that DOE's proposal is different from the Working Group Term Sheet. Further, AHRI reiterated its requests that DOE's test procedure should exclude “packaged units,” “process refrigeration systems” and “preparation room refrigeration systems” and amend the proposed standards to specifically exclude these equipment from coverage under those standards.

As described in Section II.A, the negotiated rulemaking that led to the Term Sheet setting out the standards that DOE is adopting in this final rule also produced recommendations (with ASRAC's approval) that DOE modify its test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems. The test procedure changes at issue specifically address the Term Sheet recommendations,

i.e.,

that DOE amend the test procedure to clarify the scope of equipment classes covered by the regulations, (Term Sheet Recommendations #1 and #7, No. 56 at pp. 1-3), and remove from the test procedure any test methods associated with technology options deemed by the Working Group to be inappropriate for consideration under the standards rulemaking (Term Sheet Recommendations #2, #3, and #4, No. 56 at p. 2). DOE issued a pre-publication version of the test procedure NOPR on July 29, 2016 and immediately made it available for stakeholder review, thus

giving an extended period for consideration of the test procedure clarifications and simplifications. DOE amended the test procedure consistent with its understanding of the approach agreed upon by the various parties who participated in the negotiated rulemaking.

DOE notes that the test procedure NOPR proposed no changes to the test methods used to determine equipment efficiency levels, other than the amendments made, consistent with the Term Sheet, of removing the test provisions for hot gas defrost, and requiring the demonstration of compliance without the use of adaptive defrost or on-cycle evaporator fans. In light of these facts, in DOE's view, stakeholders had sufficient notice and information regarding these specific aspects related to the test procedure. No additional time was needed to consider these aspects of the proposed amendments beyond that which DOE already provided during its negotiated rulemaking meetings and the proposal itself.

DOE notes also that comments were received in response to the energy conservation standard NOPR, and that some of these addressed interaction between the energy conservation standard and the test procedure, thus indicating that commenters had time to voice concerns regarding such interactions. Further, DOE notes that none of the comments recommended that the proposed standard levels should be changed if the final test procedure were as proposed in the test procedure NOPR. As mentioned above, there were no proposed changes to the test methods other than those recommended by the Working Group—hence, since there is no measurement change, there is no basis for consideration of any standards adjustment associated with measurement change. Finally the test method of the final rule is identical to that of the NOPR, so stakeholder comments made on the basis of the proposed test procedure would have been equally relevant on the basis of the finalized test procedure.

The test procedure final rule did modify the approach for testing hot gas defrost systems to make the test for such units consistent with tests for electric defrost units. However, this change is consistent with the Term Sheet removal of hot gas defrost as a design option and simply puts hot gas and electric defrost units on the same footing. See additional discussion in section IV.A.2.d.

Additionally, commenters indicated that it was the inclusion of what they claim to be additional equipment categories in the scope of the standards that, in their view, goes beyond the agreements reached during the ASRAC negotiations and presented a timing challenge with the rulemakings because the test procedure proposals affecting scope would have a direct bearing on stakeholders' consideration of the standard levels (see,

e.g.,

AHRI, No. 90 at pp. 2, 3). Commenters specifically mentioned single-package dedicated refrigeration systems, preparation room refrigeration systems, and process cooling refrigeration systems as categories that were added to the scope of coverage by the test procedure rulemaking, thus creating the need for more time for consideration of the standard levels. (

Id.

)

In response, DOE does not agree that more time was needed for consideration of the standard levels because DOE does not believe that the test procedure NOPR or final rule extended the regulatory scope of the proposed refrigeration system standards to new equipment, as suggested by AHRI and other manufacturers. First, there is no record indicating that single-package dedicated refrigeration systems were not included as part of the Working Group discussions. The inclusion of this equipment category was confirmed on two occasions during the Working Group meetings by manufacturer representatives (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) There was no subsequent discussion to exclude single-package dedicated systems and the Term Sheet does not indicate any such exclusion. DOE clarified at least as far back as the June 2014 energy conservation standard final rule that these systems are subject to the refrigeration system standards. 79 FR at 32068 (June 3, 2014). Hence, stakeholders have had ample time to consider the Term Sheet's recommended standard levels with respect to all of the equipment classes at issue, including single-package dedicated refrigeration systems.

Second, regarding preparation room refrigeration systems, DOE addressed this issue in the December 2016 TP final rule, providing extensive discussion supporting its position, and concluding that preparation room refrigeration systems are indistinguishable from other walk-in refrigeration systems, and hence are subject to the walk-in refrigeration system energy conservation standards. 81 FR at 957

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.