Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-17583

Proposed Rule2023-17583

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 5, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60746-60865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17583]

[[Page 60745]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 170

September 5, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 60746]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1905-AD79

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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

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

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

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than November 6, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday,
September 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII,
``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information,
participant instructions and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before October 5, 2023.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009, by any of the following methods:
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13445a5055212322244047572323232a5376763d777c763d747c65">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Non-electronic submissions: Please contact (202) 287-1445 for
instructions if an electronic copy cannot be submitted.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583d363d2a3f21762b2c39363c392a3c2b182d2b3c3732763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Troy Watson, 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. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86c7f6f6eaefe7e8e5e3d5f2e7e8e2e7f4e2f5d7f3e3f5f2efe9e8f5c6e3e3a8e2e9e3a8e1e9f0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d000c191905081a431e0e0503080409081f2d051c43090208430a021b">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d3e2e2fefbf3fcf1f7c1e6f3fcf6f3e0f6e1c3e7f7e1e6fbfdfce1d2f7f7bcf6fdf7bcf5fde4">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Public Comment Period
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
a. Doors
b. Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
2. Technology Options
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
b. Doors and Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened Out Technologies
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
b. Doors and Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
2. Remaining Technologies
a. Doors and Panels
b. Refrigeration Systems
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Display Doors
b. Non-Display Doors
c. Panels
d. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated
Systems
e. Unit Coolers
2. Cost Analysis
a. Teardown Analysis
b. Cost Estimation Method
c. Manufacturing Production Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup and Shipping Costs

[[Page 60747]]

3. Cost-Efficiency Results
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Trial Standard Levels
2. Energy Use of Envelope Components
3. Energy Use of Refrigeration Systems
a. Fan Power
b. Nominal Daily Run Hours
4. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Consumer Sample
3. Installation Cost
4. Annual Energy Consumption
5. Energy Prices
a. Future Electricity Prices
6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
7. Equipment Lifetimes
8. Discount Rates
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
1. Price Elasticity
2. Shipments Results
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
1. High Warm Air-Infiltration Applications
2. Small Businesses
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Increasing Insulation Thickness
b. Reduced Anti-Sweat Heat
c. Refrigerant Regulation
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. 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. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
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
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Walk-Ins
Standards
a. Doors
b. Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
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
a. Doors
b. Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. 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
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes walk-ins,\3\ the subject of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\3\ Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers are defined as an
enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels, doors,
and refrigeration systems, 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; however, the terms do not include products
designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or
research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for walk-ins. The TSLs and their associated
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE
has tentatively determined that TSL 2 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. The proposed standards for walk-in non-display
doors, which are expressed in maximum daily energy consumption in
kilowatt-hours per day (``kWh/day''), are shown in Table I.1. These
proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all non-display doors of
walk-ins listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on the date 3 years after the publication of the
final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 60748]]

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Non-Display Doors
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum daily energy
Display/non-display Opening mechanism Temperature consumption (kWh/day) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Display......................... Manual................. Medium................. 0.01 x And + 0.25
Low.................... 0.06 x And + 1.32
Manual................. Medium................. 0.01 x And + 0.39
Low.................... 0.05 x And + 1.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And is the representative value of surface area of the non-display door as determined in accordance with the
DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A and applicable sampling plans.

The proposed standards for walk-in refrigeration systems, which are
expressed as annual walk-in energy factor 2 (``AWEF2'') in British
thermal units per Watt-hour (``Btu/W-h''), are shown in Table I.2.
These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all walk-in
refrigeration systems listed in Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the date 3 years after the
publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

Table I.2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In
Refrigeration Systems
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Minimum AWEF2 (Btu/W-h) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing System--
High, Indoor, Non-Ducted with a
Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<7,000 Btu/h................. 7.80E-04 x qnet + 2.20
>=7,000 Btu/h................ 7.66
Dedicated Condensing system--
High, Outdoor, Non-Ducted with a
Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<7,000 Btu/h................. 1.02E-03 x qnet + 2.47
>=7,000 Btu/h................ 9.62
Dedicated Condensing system--
High, Indoor, Ducted with a Net
Capacity (qnet) of:
<7,000 Btu/h................. 2.46E-04 x qnet + 1.55
>=7,000 Btu/h................ 3.27
Dedicated Condensing system--
High, Outdoor, Ducted with a Net
Capacity (qnet) of:
<7,000 Btu/h................. 3.76E-04 x qnet + 1.78
>=7,000 Btu/h................ 4.41
Dedicated Condensing unit and
Matched Refrigeration System--
Medium, Indoor with a Net
Capacity (qnet) of:
<8,000 Btu/h................. 5.58
>=8,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.00E-05 x qnet + 5.34
h.
>=25,000 Btu/h............... 6.09
Dedicated Condensing unit and
Matched Refrigeration System--
Medium, Outdoor with a Net
Capacity (qnet) of:
<25,000 Btu/h................ 2.13E-05 x qnet + 7.15
>=25,000 Btu/h............... 7.68
Dedicated Condensing unit and
Matched Refrigeration System--
Low, Indoor with a Net Capacity
(qnet) of:
<25,000 Btu/h................ 2.50E-05 x qnet + 2.36
>=25,000 Btu/h and <54,000 1.72E-06 x qnet + 2.94
Btu/h.
>=54,000 Btu/h............... 3.03
Dedicated Condensing unit and
Matched Refrigeration System--
Low, Outdoor with a Net Capacity
(qnet) of:
<9,000 Btu/h................. 9.83E-05 x qnet + 2.63
>=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.06E-05 x qnet + 3.23
h.
>=25,000 Btu/h and <75,000 4.96E-06 x qnet + 3.88
Btu/h.
>=75,000 Btu/h............... 4.25
Single-Packaged Dedicated
Condensing system--Medium,
Indoor with a Net Capacity
(qnet) of:
<9,000 Btu/h................. 9.86E-05 x qnet + 4.91
>=9,000 Btu/h................ 5.8
Single-Packaged Dedicated
Condensing system--Medium,
Outdoor with a Net Capacity
(qnet) of:
<9,000 Btu/h................. 2.47E-04 x qnet + 4.89
>=9,000 Btu/h................ 7.11
Single-Packaged Dedicated
Condensing system--Low, Indoor
with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<6,000 Btu/h................. 8.00E-05 x qnet + 1.8
>=6,000 Btu/h................ 2.28
Single-Packaged Dedicated
Condensing system--Low, Outdoor
with a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<6,000 Btu/h................. 1.63E-04 x qnet + 1.8
>=6,000 Btu/h................ 2.77
Unit Cooler--High Non-Ducted with
a Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<9,000 Btu/h................. 10.34
>=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.83E-04 x qnet + 6.9
h.
>=25,000 Btu/h............... 16.46
Unit Cooler--High Ducted with a
Net Capacity (qnet) of:
<9,000 Btu/h................. 6.93
>=9,000 Btu/h and <25,000 Btu/ 3.64E-04 x qnet + 3.66
h.
>=25,000 Btu/h............... 12.76
Unit Cooler--Medium.......... 9.65

[[Page 60749]]

Unit Cooler--Low............. 4.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* qnet is the representative value of net capacity in Btu/h as
determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendix C1 and applicable sampling plans.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 through Table I.5 present DOE's evaluation of the
economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of walk-ins, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the
simple payback period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are
positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the
average lifetime of walk-ins, which is estimated to be between 8 and 20
years (see section IV.F.10 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and 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 new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.F of this document).
\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars.

Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-In Display and Non-Display
Doors
[TSL 2] \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC
Display/non-display Opening mechanism Temperature savings Simple payback
(2022$) period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display........................... Manual............... Low.................. .............. ..............
Medium............... .............. ..............
Non-Display....................... Manual............... Low.................. 723 1.3
Medium............... 86 3.2
Motorized............ Low.................. 1,192 1.0
Medium............... 113 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-In Panels
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC
Equipment Temperature savings Simple payback
(2022$) period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural.................................... Low............................. .............. ..............
Medium.......................... .............. ..............
Floor......................................... Low............................. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.5--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Walk-in Refrigeration Systems
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC
System Temperature Location savings Simple payback
(2022$) period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit and Low.................. Indoor............... 163 4.0
Matched Refrigeration System. Outdoor.............. 172 3.6
Medium............... Indoor............... 567 3.4
Outdoor.............. 136 2.6
Unit Cooler....................... Low.................. N/A.................. 1,306 1.2
Medium............... 212 2.0
High................. .............. ..............
High, Ducted......... 237 0.7
Matched Refrigeration Systems and High, Non-Ducted..... Indoor............... 124 1.3
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems. Outdoor.............. 126 2.9
High, Ducted......... Indoor............... 296 1.7
Outdoor.............. 305 3.4

[[Page 60750]]

Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems. Low.................. Indoor............... 180 3.8
Outdoor.............. .............. ..............
Medium............... Indoor............... 103 3.5
Outdoor.............. 177 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.4 percent for doors, 10.5 percent for panels, and 10.2 percent for
refrigeration systems, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of
walk-in display doors, non-display doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems in the case without amended standards is $278.0 million, $536.7
million, $875.2 million, and $490.1 million, respectively. Under the
proposed standards, all walk-in display door equipment classes remain
at the baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to
INPV and no conversion costs for display door manufacturers. Under the
proposed standards, the change in INPV for non-display door
manufacturers is estimated to range from -4.8 percent to -2.6 percent,
which is approximately -$25.5 million to -$14.2 million. Under the
proposed standards, all walk-in panel equipment classes remain at the
baseline efficiency level. As a result, there are no changes to INPV
and no conversion costs for panel manufacturers. Under the proposed
standards, the change in INPV for refrigeration system manufacturers is
estimated to range from -9.8 percent to -7.7 percent, which is
approximately -$47.8 million to -$37.9 million. In order to bring
equipment into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that
the walk-in non-display door and refrigeration system industries would
incur total conversion costs of $28.9 million and $60.1 million,
respectively.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for walk-ins would save a significant amount of energy.
Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy
savings for walk-ins purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056)
amount to 1.51 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\7\ This represents a savings of 6 percent relative to the energy
use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred
to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 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.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for walk-ins ranges from $1.45
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.66 billion (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs and
installation costs for walk-ins purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for walk-ins are projected to
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over
the same period as for energy savings) of 28.5 million metric tons
(``Mt'') \8\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 8.8 thousand tons
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 52.9 thousand tons of nitrogen
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 237.4 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\9\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that effect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\10\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.6
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency,\11\ as discussed in

[[Page 60751]]

section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the
health benefits would be $1.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate,
and $3.2 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\12\ DOE is currently
only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from two
precursors (SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in
ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
Directly Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and
Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\12\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.6 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for walk-ins. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.6--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Walk-Ins
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2022$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 4.7
Climate Benefits *................................... 1.6
Health Benefits **................................... 3.2
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 9.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 1.3
Net Benefits......................................... 8.2
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).. (0.07) - (0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 2.2
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................ 1.6
Health Benefits **................................... 1.3
Total Benefits [dagger].............................. 5.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 0.7
Net Benefits......................................... 4.4
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger]).. (0.07) - (0.05)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-in
coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-2056. These results include
consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the
walk-in coolers and freezers shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To
monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses
the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.
[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life
cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in
detail. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA
includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to
manufacture the equipment and ending with the increase in price
experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed
analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J
of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers'
pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments,
conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of
impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change
in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and
manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the
industry weighted average cost of capital values of 9.4 percent for
walk-in non-display doors and 10.2 percent for walk-in refrigeration
systems that are estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD
for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of
capital). For walk-ins, those values are -$73 million to -$52 million.
DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a
TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE
is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup
scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the
manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of
Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers
would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion
to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range
of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained
further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional
context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposal to
society, including potential changes in production and consumption,
which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE
were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this
proposed rule, the net benefits would range from $8.13 billion to
$8.15 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $4.33
billion to $4.35 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( )
indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

[[Page 60752]]

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards 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 increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, 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., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2023. 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 walk-ins shipped
in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved
as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the
3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG
social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values
are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this
document.
Table I.7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOx and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and the
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG
emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is
$70.7 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $214.1 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $90.4 million in climate benefits, and $132.2 million
in health benefits. In this case the net benefit would amount to $366.0
million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $72.4 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$260.0 million in reduced operating costs, $90.4 million in climate
benefits, and $177.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $455.7 million per year.

Table I.7--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-ins
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 260.0 265.3 264.9
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 90.4 92.6 90.0
Health Benefits **.............................................. 177.7 182.1 177.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]........................... 528.1 540.0 531.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 72.4 102.6 64.7
Monetized Net Benefits.......................................... 455.7 437.4 467.2
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV[Dagger][Dagger]).............. (7.6) - (5.4) (7.6) - (5.4) (7.6) - (5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 214.1 218.8 218.3
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 90.4 92.6 90.0
Health Benefits **.............................................. 132.2 135.3 131.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]........................... 436.7 446.7 440.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 70.7 95.4 64.1
Monetized Net Benefits.......................................... 366.0 351.2 376.0
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV [Dagger][Dagger])............. (7.6) - (5.4) (7.6) - (5.4) (7.6) - (5.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with walk-ins shipped in 2027-2056. These results
include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the
Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG
emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost
of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021
by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

[[Page 60753]]

[Dagger][Dagger] Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national
impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's NIA includes
all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the
manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE
also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of
this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding
investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's
expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow,
including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized
change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital values of 9.4 percent for
walk-in non-display doors and 10.2 percent for walk-in refrigeration systems that are estimated in the MIA
(see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital).
For walk-ins, those values are -$7.6 million to -$5.4 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts
in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the
range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is
the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and
the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to
increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes
the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in
section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this
proposal to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's
Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for
this proposed rule, the annualized net benefits would range from $448.1 million to $450.3 million at 3-percent
discount rate and would range from $358.4 million to $360.6 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses (
) indicate negative values. DOE seeks comment on this approach.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOx and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount
rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed
standards for walk-ins is $70.7 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $214.1 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $90.4 million in climate benefits
and $132.2 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to
$366.0 million per year.
The significance of the savings offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For example,
some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these
products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 1.55 quad FFC for walk-in doors,
panels and refrigeration systems shipped between 2027 and 2056, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 42.7 million homes, or
1.4 million homes per year of the analysis. In addition, they are
projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 28.5 Mt for walk-in
doors, panels and refrigeration systems shipped between 2027 and
2056.\15\ Based on these findings, DOE has initially determined the
energy savings from the proposed standard levels are ``significant''
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in
the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support
document (``TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ These results include benefits to consumers which accrue
after 2056 from the equipment shipped in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking.
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the
projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
walk-ins.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment.
Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV,
section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This equipment includes walk-ins, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for
these products. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA specifically prescribed that
no later than January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall publish a final rule
to determine if the standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42

[[Page 60754]]

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
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 equipment during a
representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must
use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE
that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for walk-ins appear at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart R, appendices
A, B, C, and C1.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including walk-ins. 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(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))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain
products, including walk-ins, 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.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, 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 products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products 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
products 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA 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 a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 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 product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product 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 products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products,
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the
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. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are set
forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.306. The current energy
conservation standards for walk-in doors are in terms of maximum daily
energy consumption, which is measured in kWh/day (see Table II.1). The
current energy conservation standards for walk-in panels are in terms
of R-value, which is measured in h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu (see Table II.2).
The current energy conservation standards for refrigeration systems are
in terms of AWEF, which is measured in Btu/W-h (see Table II.3).

Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-in Coolers
and Walk-In Freezer Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations for maximum daily
Equipment class energy consumption (kWh/
day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display door, medium-temperature.......... 0.04 x Add + 0.41.
Display door, low-temperature............. 0.15 x Add + 0.29.
Passage door, medium-temperature.......... 0.05 x And + 1.7.
Passage door, low-temperature............. 0.14 x And + 4.8.

[[Page 60755]]

Freight door, medium-temperature.......... 0.04 x And + 1.9.
Freight door, low-temperature............. 0.12 x And + 5.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add or And = surface area of the display door or non-display door,
respectively, expressed in ft\2\, as determined in appendix A to
subpart R of 10 CFR part 431.

Table II.2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
and Walk-In Freezer Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum R-
value (h-
Equipment class ft\2\-[deg]F/
Btu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall or ceiling panels, medium-temperature.............. 25
Wall or ceiling panels, low-temperature................. 32
Floor panels, low-temperature........................... 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II.3--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Minimum AWEF (Btu/W-h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated condensing system, medium- 5.61.
temperature, indoor.
Dedicated condensing system, medium- 7.60.
temperature, outdoor.
Dedicated condensing system, low- 9.091 x 105 x qnet + 1.81.
temperature, indoor with a net capacity
(qnet) of <6,500 British thermal units
per hour (``Btu/h'').
Dedicated condensing system, low- 2.40.
temperature, indoor with a net capacity
(qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low- 6.522 x 10-5 x qnet + 2.73.
temperature, outdoor with a net capacity
(qnet) of <6,500 Btu/h.
Dedicated condensing system, low- 3.15.
temperature, outdoor with a net capacity
(qnet) of >=6,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, medium-temperature........... 9.00.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with 1.575 x 10-5 x qnet + 3.91.
a net capacity (qnet) of <15,500 Btu/h.
Unit cooler, low-temperature, indoor with 4.15.
a net capacity (qnet) of >=15,500 Btu/h.
Where qnet is net capacity as determined
in accordance with 10 CFR 431.304 and
certified in accordance with 10 CFR part
429.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (``June 2014 Final
Rule''), DOE prescribed the energy conservation standards for walk-in
doors, panels, and refrigeration systems manufactured on and after June
5, 2017. 79 FR 32050. After publication of the June 2014 Final Rule,
the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'')
and Lennox International, Inc. (``Lennox''), a manufacturer of walk-in
refrigeration systems, filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule
and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the
rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lennox Int'l v. Dep't of Energy, Case
No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). A settlement agreement was reached among the
parties under which the Fifth Circuit vacated energy conservation
standards for six of the refrigeration system equipment classes--the
two standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems
(subsequently re-named as ``unit coolers'') operating at medium and
low-temperatures and the four standards applicable to dedicated
condensing refrigeration systems operating at low-temperatures.\16\
After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE established a Working
Group to negotiate energy conservation standards to replace the six
vacated standards. 80 FR 46521 (August 5, 2015). The Working Group
assembled its recommendations into a Term Sheet (see Docket EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0016-0056) that was presented to, and approved by, the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee on December 18,
2015. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0055 at p. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The 13 other standards established in the June 2014 Final
Rule (i.e., 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. The compliance date for the remaining
standards was on or after June 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a final rule published on July 10, 2017 (``July 2017 Final
Rule''), DOE adopted energy conservation standards for the six classes
of walk-in refrigeration systems were vacated--specifically, unit
coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems. 82 FR 31808.
The rule required compliance with the six new standards on and after
July 10, 2020.
To evaluate whether to propose amendments to the energy
conservation standards for walk-ins, DOE issued a request for
information (``RFI'') in the Federal Register on July 16, 2021 (``July
2021 RFI''). 86 FR 37687. In the July 2021 RFI, DOE sought data,
information, and comment pertaining to walk-ins. 86 FR 37687, 37689.
DOE subsequently announced the availability of the preliminary
analysis it had conducted for the purpose of evaluating the need for
amending the current energy conservation standards for walk-ins in the
Federal Register on June 30, 2022, (``June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis''). The analysis was set forth in the Department's
accompanying preliminary TSD. DOE held a public meeting via webinar to
discuss and receive comment on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on
July 22, 2022. The meeting covered the analytical framework, models,
and tools that DOE

[[Page 60756]]

used to evaluate potential standards; the results of the preliminary
analyses performed by DOE; the potential energy conservation standard
levels derived from those analyses; and other relevant issues.
In response to the publication of the July 2021 RFI, DOE received
comments from interested parties. The July 2021 RFI comments were
addressed in chapter 2 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.4 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ AHRI submitted two comment documents to the docket. The
first document in the docket includes AHRI's comments for
traditional walk-in manufacturers (i.e., medium- and low-temperature
walk-in components). The associated file name in the docket is: AHRI
Comments WICF NOPR EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009. These comments are
referenced in this document as ``AHRI'' comments.
\18\ AHRI submitted two comment documents to the docket. The
second document in the docket includes AHRI's comments supporting
wine cellar manufacturers (i.e., high-temperature walk-in
refrigeration systems). The associated file name in the docket is:
Comments WICF NOPR EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009 Wine. These comments are
referenced in this document as ``AHRI-Wine'' comments.

Table II.4--June 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Abbreviation the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI \17\................. 39 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI-Wine \18\............ 39 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Efficiency Advocates...... 37 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance.
Heat Transfer Products Group, LLC....... HTPG...................... 35 Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation.................... Hussmann--Door............ 33 Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation.................... Hussmann--Refrigeration... 38 Manufacturer.
KeepRite Refrigeration, Inc............. KeepRite.................. 41 Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc................ Lennox.................... 36 Manufacturer.
North American Association of Food NAFEM..................... 42 Trade Association.
Equipment.
Rob Brooks.............................. Brooks.................... 34 Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\19\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the July 22, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for walk-ins. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0009, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages
for an energy conservation standard rulemaking by not publishing a
framework document and providing a public comment period less than 75
days. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary
analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE
published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (see 87 FR 39008),
DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the
preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the
preliminary TSD that accompanied the preliminary analysis--entitled
Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE
Responses--describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in
evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation
standards.\20\ As such, publication of a separate framework document
would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The preliminary technical support document is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0024">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0024</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60-day comment period,
consistent with EPCA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period
because stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities
to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking.
As noted previously, DOE requested comment in the July 2021 RFI on
the analysis conducted in support of the last energy conservation
standard rulemaking for walk-ins and provided a 30-day comment period.
In its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and TSD, DOE's analysis remained
largely the same as the analysis conducted in support of the previous
energy conservation standards rulemaking for walk-ins. DOE requested
comment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD on the analysis
conducted in support of this current rulemaking. Given that this
analysis remained largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, and in light of the 60-day comment period DOE has already
provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE has determined
that a 60-day comment period is appropriate for this NOPR and that it
will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

[[Page 60757]]

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
The Efficiency Advocates commented that they encourage DOE to
consider evaluating potential standards for refrigeration shipping
containers. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 5-6) As discussed in
the test procedure final rule that was published on May 4, 2023 (``May
2023 TP Final Rule''), DOE has not evaluated refrigerated shipping
containers to determine if current walk-in test procedures would
produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle,
without being unduly burdensome to conduct. 88 FR 28780, 28787.
Therefore, DOE has determined that refrigerated shipping containers are
not currently subject to the DOE test procedure or energy conservation
standards for WICFs. DOE may consider whether test procedures and
energy conservation standards should be applied to refrigerated
shipping containers in a future rulemaking.
AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers seek
clarification on whether the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis would
change AWEF standards for high-temperature walk-in refrigeration
systems. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5) DOE notes that there are currently
no standards for high-temperature units. DOE did analyze high-
temperature units in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. In this NOPR,
DOE is proposing an energy conservation standard for high-temperature
units in section I.
AHRI-Wine urged DOE to increase in future analysis the box load
multiplier of 0.5 that was proposed in the April 2022 test procedure
because many wine cellar applications are high-end homes with little
traffic into and out of the cellar. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 3) DOE
notes that the box load multiplier is part of the walk-in test
procedure and not the energy conservation standards. The May 2023 TP
Final Rule adopted the box load multiplier of 0.5 and therefore, the
NOPR engineering analysis for high-temperature units used this value.
AHRI-Wine recommended that DOE conduct interviews with more wine
cellar manufacturers to get a better representation of the wine cellar
market. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 5) DOE notes that it invited several wine
cellar manufacturers to participate in interviews, which informed this
rulemaking. DOE further notes that it welcomes comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed rule from all interested parties.
The Efficiency Advocates suggested that DOE consider setting
standards for refrigeration systems as a function of capacity since
larger capacity units are generally able to reach higher efficiency
levels. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 2-3) Furthermore, the
Efficiency Advocates cited the disparity in the LCC to support setting
standards as a function of capacity. Id. DOE evaluated the economics of
each efficiency level for each representative unit. This analysis
indicated that more stringent standards were generally economically
justified for larger units and, therefore, DOE proposed standards that
reflected this. As seen in section I, DOE is proposing standards as a
function of capacity for most refrigeration system equipment classes.
Lennox commented that several items were non-functional in the June
2022 preliminary engineering analysis worksheet. (Lennox, No. 36 at p.
9) DOE notes that a new engineering spreadsheet has been updated to
reflect the updated analysis for this NOPR and the items identified by
Lennox have been resolved in this version of the engineering sheet.\21\
Additionally, DOE has reviewed the non-functional items identified in
Lennox's comment and found that none impacted the results of the
engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The new refrigeration systems engineering sheet can be
found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAFEM stated that it endorses and reiterates all comments made by
AHRI. (NAFEM, No. 42 at p. 2) DOE notes that throughout this document,
reference to comments made by AHRI are therefore understood to be
representative of the viewpoints of NAFEM as well. NAFEM also commented
that it hopes DOE will follow the Process Rule. Id. In section II.C of
this document, DOE discusses certain minor deviations from the Process
Rule as well as the justification for such deviations. Aside from these
minor deviations, DOE has developed this NOPR in accordance with the
Process Rule.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers ``walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers'' defined
as an enclosed storage space, including but not limited to panels,
doors, and refrigeration systems, 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; however, the terms do not include products designed and
marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10
CFR 431.302. Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in
systems, DOE has established standards for the principal components
that make up a walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems).
A ``door'' means an assembly installed in an opening on an interior
or exterior wall that is used to allow access or close off the opening
and that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving manner
of movement. For walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, a door includes
the frame (including mullions), the door leaf or multiple leaves
(including glass) within the frame, and any other elements that form
the assembly or part of its connection to the wall. Id.
A ``panel'' means a construction component that is not a door and
is used to construct the envelope of the walk-in, (i.e., elements that
separate the interior refrigerated environment of the walk-in from the
exterior). Id.
A ``refrigeration system'' means the mechanism (including all
controls and other components integral to the system's operation) used
to create the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in
cooler or walk-in freezer, consisting of:
(1) A dedicated condensing refrigeration system (as defined in 10
CFR 431.302); or
(2) A unit cooler.
The scope of coverage and equipment classes for this NOPR are
discussed in further detail in section IV.A.1 of this document.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for walk-in doors are expressed
in terms of maximum daily energy consumption, DOE's current energy
conservation standards for walk-in panels are expressed in terms of R-
value, and DOE's current energy conservation standards for walk-in
refrigeration systems are expressed in terms of AWEF. (See 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendices A, B, C, and C1.)
On April 21, 2022, DOE published a test procedure NOPR (``April
2022 TP NOPR'') and on May 4, 2023, DOE published the May 2023 TP Final
Rule.

[[Page 60758]]

87 FR 23920; 88 FR 28780 In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
used the test procedure proposed in the April 2022 TP NOPR to evaluate
the efficiency of walk-in components. In this NOPR analysis, DOE used
the test procedure adopted in the May 2023 TP Final Rule to evaluate
the efficiency of walk-in components. From this point forward the May
2023 TP Final Rule will be the ``current test procedure''.
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established a new appendix,
appendix C1 to subpart R (``appendix C1''), and a new energy metric,
AWEF2, for refrigeration systems. (See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R,
appendix C1.) The engineering analysis results and the proposed energy
conservation standards for refrigeration systems are presented as AWEF2
values. Manufacturers would be required to begin using appendix C1 as
of the compliance date of an energy conservation standards promulgated
as a result of this rulemaking.

D. 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 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 equipment
or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4;
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1)
of the Process Rule.
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 equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration
systems, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened
out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or
class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for walk-in doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems, using the design parameters for the most
efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes.
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are
described in section IV.C.1 of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of
the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to walk-in doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).\22\ The
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of walk-in doors, panels,
and refrigeration systems purchased in the previous 30-year 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 would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
equipment class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for walk-in doors, panels, and refrigeration systems. 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 products 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. DOE also calculates NES in
terms of 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.\23\
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.H.2 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\24\ For
example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of this
equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels proposed in this document are
projected to result in national energy savings of 1.55 quads, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 42.7 million homes.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in
emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE

[[Page 60759]]

has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard
levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) 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 a potential new or amended standard
on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. 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) 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 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 consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a 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 equipment 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 equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates
appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability
in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE
uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each
value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of more-efficient equipment 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 equipment 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 of this
document.
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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document,
DOE uses its NIA model to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed 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 proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation

[[Page 60760]]

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
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 proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``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 of this document; 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 V.C.1 of this document.
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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment 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. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effects that proposed 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). 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 V.B.1.c of this proposed
rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to walk-ins. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed 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 proposed rulemaking:
<a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56&action=viewlive">www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56&action=viewlive</a>. Additionally, DOE used
output from the latest version of the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of walk-ins. The key findings
of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.
See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment
(i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that
separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or
if DOE determines that equipment capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
Rather than establishing standards for complete walk-in systems,
DOE has established standards for each of the principal components that
make up a walk-in (i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems).
a. Doors
DOE's existing standards for walk-in doors are based on six
equipment classes, differentiated by temperature and whether they are
display doors or non-display doors. DOE defines a display door as a
door that is designed for product display or has 75 percent or more of
its surface area composed of glass or another transparent material. 10
CFR 431.302. Non-display doors are all doors not considered display
doors and are mainly used to allow people and products to be moved into
and out of the walk-in. Non-display doors are further divided by
whether they are passage or freight doors. DOE defines a freight door
as a door that is not a display door and is equal to or larger than 4
feet wide and 8 feet tall. DOE defines passage doors as any doors that
are not display doors or freights doors. Id. Display, passage, and
freight doors are further divided based on walk-in temperature (i.e.,
cooler or freezer). DOE currently defines separate energy conservation
standards for the following walk-in door classes (10 CFR 431.306(c) and
(d)):
<bullet> Display Door, Medium-temperature,
<bullet> Display Door, Low-temperature,
<bullet> Passage Door, Medium-temperature,
<bullet> Passage Door, Low-temperature,
<bullet> Freight Door, Medium-temperature, and
<bullet> Freight Door, Low-temperature.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE combined passage and
freight non-display door classes and

[[Page 60761]]

instead differentiated non-display doors by whether or not they have
motorized door openers. DOE's initial research and analysis indicated
that distinguishing non-display door classes by the presence or absence
of a motorized door opener could be a more appropriate distinction of
equipment classes rather than door size. As with its prior analysis,
DOE also evaluated the motorized and non-motorized non-display door
classes by temperature conditions: medium-temperature (i.e., cooler)
and low-temperature (i.e., freezer).
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE also distinguished
display door classes by the presence or absence of a motorized door
opener. DOE analyzed medium- and low-temperature display doors without
motorized door openers and medium-temperature display doors with
motorized door openers. DOE has not identified any motorized display
doors for low-temperature applications and therefore did not analyze
such equipment in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. See section
3.1.2.1 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD.
DOE sought feedback on the equipment classes analyzed for walk-in
doors in section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
Hussmann-Doors commented that their request to have their Heavy Duty
Door (``HDD'') and ABC Beer Cave (``ABC'') products classified as
passage doors was not approved in 2017 and stated that there would be a
cost benefit if their HDD and ABC product were to be classified as
passage doors rather than display doors. Hussmann-Doors further
elaborated that if these products were recognized as passage doors,
they would not need to use expensive vacuum-insulated glass packs and
could consider a more economical glass pack. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at
p. 2) In response, DOE notes that the display door definition
references the physical characteristics of the door (i.e., the
percentage of surface area composed of glass or another transparent
material) and is not contingent on door application. It is DOE's
understanding that both Hussmann's HDD and ABC products are composed of
at least 75 percent glass or another transparent material. Any door(s)
that meets this criteria is considered a display door, even those not
necessarily designed for product display.
The Efficiency Advocates agreed that non-display doors should be
differentiated by manual or motorized opening mechanism (Efficiency
Advocates, No. 37 at pp. 1-2).
Consistent with stakeholder feedback, DOE has tentatively concluded
that it is more appropriate to distinguish non-display doors by whether
or not they have a motorized door opener, rather than by size.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to
distinguish display doors by whether or not they have a motorized door
opener. DOE is proposing to establish the equipment classes listed in
Table IV.1 for walk-in doors.

Table IV.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for Walk-In Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display/non-display Opening mechanism Temperature Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display.............................. Manual................. Medium................. DW.M.
Low.................... DW.L.
Motorized.............. Medium................. DS.M.
Non-display.......................... Manual................. Medium................. NM.M.
Low.................... NM.L.
Motorized.............. Medium................. NO.M.
Low.................... NO.L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for
representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher
efficiency levels for walk-in display and non-display doors in sections
IV.C.1.a and IV.C.1.b of this document, respectively. DOE notes that,
consistent with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, it did not consider
more efficient levels for the motorized display door class beyond the
current maximum energy consumption (i.e., baseline efficiency level) in
this NOPR. In its review of the motorized display door market, DOE
found that manufacturers are already implementing maximum technology
design options, such as vacuum- insulated glass, to achieve the current
maximum energy consumption standard since the motor consumes additional
energy. DOE has not identified any energy-saving technology options for
motorized display doors that were retained during the screening
analysis, as discussed in sections IV.A.2.b and IV.B of this document.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
regarding efficiency of motorized (i.e., sliding) display doors. These
comments are addressed in section IV.C.1.a of this document.
b. Panels
DOE's existing standards for walk-in panels apply to three
equipment classes that are differentiated by whether they are
structural (also referred to as ``wall or ceiling panels'') or floor
panels. Structural panels are further separated by temperature
condition (i.e., cooler or freezer). DOE's analysis for the June 2014
Final Rule determined that, unlike walk-in freezers, the majority of
walk-in coolers have concrete floors and no insulated floor panels.
Thus, DOE did not adopt insulation R-value standards for walk-in cooler
floors. 79 FR 32050, 32067. DOE's re-evaluation of the market for this
rulemaking suggests that the walk-in cooler floor panel market has not
changed substantially since the June 2014 Final Rule. Therefore, DOE
has excluded walk-in cooler floor panels from this proposed rulemaking.
DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for
the following walk-in panel classes (10 CFR 431.306(a)):
<bullet> Structural Panel, Medium-Temperature,
<bullet> Structural Panel, Low-Temperature, and
<bullet> Floor Panel, Low-Temperature.
DOE has not established standards for display panels because they
make up a small percentage of the panel market; therefore, standards
would not result in significant energy savings without incurring
disproportionate costs. 79 FR 32050, 32067. In the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE maintained the current panel equipment
classes. See section 3.1.2.2 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary
analysis TSD. In section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
TSD, DOE requested comment on the equipment classes used in this
analysis. DOE received no comment regarding panel equipment classes in
response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. As such, DOE is
proposing to maintain its

[[Page 60762]]

current equipment classes for walk-in panels. Table IV.2 summarizes the
equipment classes for walk-in panels.

Table IV.2--Equipment Classes for Walk-In Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Temperature Class code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural Panel................ Medium............ PS.M.
Low............... PS.L.
Floor Panel..................... Low............... PF.L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Refrigeration Systems
DOE's existing standards for walk-in refrigeration systems apply to
nine equipment classes, differentiated by whether they are unit coolers
or dedicated condensing systems and by temperature (i.e., whether they
are a cooler or freezer). A ``dedicated condensing system'' means a
dedicated condensing unit, a single-packaged dedicated system, or a
matched refrigeration system. (See 10 CFR 431.302.) Dedicated
condensing systems are further differentiated by their installation
location (i.e., indoor or outdoor). Low-temperature dedicated
condensing systems and unit cooler equipment classes are further
differentiated by net capacity. DOE currently defines separate energy
conservation standards for the following walk-in refrigeration system
classes (10 CFR 431.306(e)):
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Indoor,
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Medium-Temperature, Outdoor,
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net
Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h,
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Indoor, Net
Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h,
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net
Capacity of less than 6,500 Btu/h,
<bullet> Dedicated Condensing System, Low-Temperature, Outdoor, Net
Capacity of greater than or equal to 6,500 Btu/h,
<bullet> Unit Cooler, Medium-Temperature,
<bullet> Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of less than
15,500 Btu/h, and
<bullet> Unit Cooler, Low-Temperature, Net Capacity of greater than
or equal to 15,500 Btu/h.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE noted that single-
packaged dedicated systems, which are dedicated condensing systems with
a combined condensing unit and unit cooler, were not evaluated
separately from dedicated condensing units and matched refrigeration
systems in the previous rulemaking. New test procedure provisions in
appendix C1 require specific test methods for single-packaged dedicated
systems that measure the inherent thermal losses of such systems. These
thermal losses reduce the capacity and therefore the efficiency of
single-packaged dedicated systems. For this reason, in the June
Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated single-packaged dedicated systems
separately from split dedicated condensing systems.\25\ See section
3.1.2.3 of chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Split dedicated condensing systems or split systems refer
to any dedicated condensing system that is made up of a unit cooler
and a remote dedicated condensing unit. The systems are split
because the unit cooler and dedicated condensing unit are not in the
same package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE defined a high-temperature
refrigeration system as a walk-in refrigeration system that is not
designed to operate below 45 [deg]F. 88 FR 28780, 28789. High-
temperature units are generally smaller capacity than medium-
temperature units and therefore contain small-capacity compressors,
which DOE has found to be less efficient. Additionally, some high-
temperature units are sold in ducted configurations. Ducting adds
flexibility to installation location and removes refrigeration
equipment from the refrigerated storage space. Ducts also increase
energy consumption due to the higher external static pressure imposed
on the system's fans. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
evaluated high-temperature units and ducted units as separate equipment
classes. The equipment classes that DOE analyzed in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis are summarized in Table IV.3.

Table IV.3--Walk-In Refrigeration System Equipment Classes Analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Temperature Location Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Unit............ Medium-Temperature..... Outdoor................ DC.M.O.
Indoor................. DC.M.I.
Low-Temperature........ Outdoor................ DC.L.O.
Indoor................. DC.L.I.
Unit Cooler.......................... High-Temperature....... N/A.................... UC.H.
Medium-Temperature..... UC.M.
Low-Temperature........ UC.L.
Single-Packaged Dedicated System..... High-Temperature (Non- Outdoor................ SPU.H.O.
ducted). Indoor................. SPU.H.I.
High-Temperature Outdoor................ SPU.H.O.D.
(Ducted). Indoor................. SPU.H.I.D.
Medium-Temperature..... Outdoor................ SPU.M.O.
Indoor................. SPU.M.I.
Low-Temperature........ Outdoor................ SPU.L.O.
Indoor................. SPU.L.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60763]]

DOE requested comment on the equipment classes in section ES.4.1 of
the Executive Summary of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD,
repeated in Table IV.3. AHRI requested further clarification on DOE's
reasoning for separating single-packaged dedicated systems and
dedicated condensing systems. (AHRI, No. 39 at pp. 1-2) Hussmann-
Refrigeration stated that it agrees with AHRI's inquiry. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 2) HTPG commented that it disagrees with
DOE separating single-packaged dedicated systems and dedicated
condensing systems because a single-packaged dedicated system is
essentially a matched pair and matched pairs have the same efficiency
requirements as dedicated condensing systems. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 3)
Additionally, HTPG stated that if single-packaged dedicated systems are
held to a lower standard than dedicated condensing systems and matched
pairs, then consumers could purchase lower cost single-packaged
dedicated systems at a lower efficiency level than dedicated condensing
units and matched pairs. Id. The Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to
ensure that efficiency standard levels for single-packaged dedicated
systems are as stringent (e.g., incorporate similar assumed design
options) as efficiency standard levels for dedicated condensing units
to prevent a shift in the market away from dedicated condensing units
and towards single-packaged dedicated systems. (Efficiency Advocates,
No. 37 at p. 5)
DOE clarifies that in Table IV.3, the dedicated condensing unit
equipment class refers to all split systems. In general, DOE has
separated packaged equipment from split systems as packaged equipment
provides consumers with more options for space-constrained
applications. But packaged refrigeration systems are inherently less
efficient because manufacturers cannot employ the same technologies
such as increased heat exchanger sizes without impacting the overall
dimensions of the packaged system. In addition, packaged systems are
constrained by their overall weight limitations of the equipment, which
affects the technologies options that can be applied to the system.
Packaged systems typically contain smaller heat exchangers and those
heat exchangers have less faces for airflow to pass over impacting the
overall heat transfer of the system. In addition, packaged systems have
both the cold and hot sides connected within the packaged framework and
the cold side is exposed to the outside, which increases the losses
associated with the thermal loads. Overall, DOE has tentatively decided
that packaged system and split system WICF refrigeration systems cannot
be combined into the same product class because packaged systems
provide consumers with more options for space-constrained applications
and inherent differences in system design between packaged systems and
split systems limit the efficiency of the former.
AHRI-Wine commented that it seeks clarification on where matched
split systems are represented in Table 5.3.4 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD, which lists the representative units chosen
for the refrigeration system analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2)
Also, AHRI-Wine recommended adding high-temperature dedicated
condensing [units] since leaving these out of the scope would be a
competitive disadvantage for manufacturers that sell single-packaged
dedicated systems and matched split systems. Id. Furthermore, AHRI-Wine
commented that wine cellar manufacturers seek clarification on the
classes that constitute matched split, ducted and non-ducted, and
indoor and outdoor systems. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 5)
DOE notes that it did not establish a test procedure for high-
temperature dedicated condensing units tested alone in the May 2023 TP
Final Rule; however, it did establish a test procedure for high-
temperature matched refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated
condensing systems. This decision is discussed in detail in the May
2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 28780, 28816-28817. As such, DOE did not
analyze high-temperature dedicated condensing units in this NOPR
analysis and therefore is not proposing to establish an equipment class
for high-temperature dedicated condensing units. DOE is, however,
proposing to establish an equipment class for both high-temperature
matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated condensing systems. For this NOPR, DOE evaluated high-
temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-
packaged dedicated systems as a single equipment class since both are
sold with a condenser and an evaporator that are matched for optimal
performance. Furthermore, the temperature difference between the
refrigerated and ambient spaces for high-temperature refrigeration
systems is less than the temperature difference for medium- and low-
temperature systems. Therefore, thermal losses have less impact for
high-temperature systems. This means that the difference in performance
between high-temperature matched refrigeration systems and high-
temperature single-packaged dedicated systems is much less than the
performance difference expected between medium- or low-temperature
matched refrigeration systems and medium- or low-temperature single-
packaged dedicated systems. Because of the expected similarity in
performance, DOE has tentatively determined that a single class of
equipment encompassing high-temperature matched refrigeration systems
and single-packaged dedicated systems is appropriate. In its analysis
of high-temperature refrigeration units, DOE focused on single-packaged
dedicated systems since this is where most of the shipments are
concentrated for the high-temperature market.
DOE is proposing to establish the following equipment classes for
refrigeration systems, as presented in Table IV.4.

Table IV.4--Proposed Equipment Classes for Walk-In Refrigeration Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Temperature Location Class code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated Condensing Units and Medium-Temperature..... Outdoor................ DC.M.O.
Matched Refrigeration Systems. Indoor................. DC.M.I.
Low-Temperature........ Outdoor................ DC.L.O.
Indoor................. DC.L.I.
Unit Cooler.......................... High-Temperature (Non- N/A.................... UC.H.
Ducted).
High-Temperature UC.H.D.
(Ducted).
Medium-Temperature..... UC.M.
Low-Temperature........ UC.L.
Matched Refrigeration Systems and High-Temperature (Non- Outdoor................ SPU.H.O.
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems. ducted). Indoor................. SPU.H.I.

[[Page 60764]]

High-Temperature Outdoor................ SPU.H.O.D.
(Ducted). Indoor................. SPU.H.I.D.
Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems.... Medium-Temperature..... Outdoor................ SPU.M.O.
Indoor................. SPU.M.I.
Low-Temperature........ Outdoor................ SPU.L.O.
Indoor................. SPU.L.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed previously, the current DOE standards for walk-in
refrigeration systems differentiate low-temperature dedicated
condensing systems and unit coolers by net capacity. DOE understands
that for split systems and single-packaged dedicated systems, lower
capacity systems may have greater difficulty attaining higher
efficiency levels than higher capacity systems since compressors for
small-sized equipment are generally less efficient. Additionally, DOE
has found through testing that lower capacity unit coolers tend to have
reduced efficiency compared to higher capacity unit coolers. As
discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE received comments on
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis suggesting that walk-in
refrigeration system efficiency standards should vary with net capacity
for walk-in refrigeration system equipment classes. In this NOPR, DOE
evaluated multiple capacities in each equipment class to better
ascertain the relationship between efficiency and net capacity. This is
discussed in more detail in the Representative Units subsection of
section IV.C.1.d of this document. In section I, DOE discusses the
proposed standards for walk-in refrigeration systems.
2. Technology Options
DOE considered separate technology options for whole walk-ins,
doors, and panels, and refrigeration systems.
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
In the market analysis and technology assessment presented in
Chapter 3 of the June 2022 preliminary analysis TSD, DOE identified
seven technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of a fully assembled walk-in (i.e., wall, ceiling and floor
panels, door(s), and refrigeration system(s)) but would not apply
specifically to any of the components analyzed in this rulemaking:
<bullet> Energy storage systems,
<bullet> Refrigeration system override,
<bullet> Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,
<bullet> Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,
<bullet> Humidity sensors,
<bullet> Fiber optic natural lighting, and
<bullet> Heat reclaim valve.
DOE requested comment on the technology options in section ES.4.2
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE received no comments on
the technology options that might improve the efficiency of whole walk-
ins. Therefore, DOE identified the same technology options for the NOPR
analysis. DOE further discusses these technology options in chapter 3
of the NOPR TSD.
b. Doors and Panels
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified 15 technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of doors and/or panels, as measured by the DOE test
procedure. These technology options are listed in Table IV.5.

Table IV.5--Summary of Door and Panel-Related Technology Options
Analyzed in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Applicable component
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Door gaskets.............................. Doors.
Anti-sweat heater/freezer wire controls...
Display and window glass system insulation
performance.
Non-electric, reduced, or no anti-sweat
systems.
Improved frame systems....................
Automatic door opening and closing systems
Occupancy sensors.........................
High-efficiency lighting..................
Automatic insulation deployment systems... Display Doors.
Infiltration-reducing devices or systems Non-display Doors.
(e.g., air curtains, strip curtains,
vestibule entryways, revolving doors).
Insulation thickness and material......... Non-display doors and
panels.
Framing materials.........................
Damage-sensing systems (e.g., air and
water infiltration sensors, heat flux
sensors).
Panel interface systems................... Panels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hussmann-Doors
stated that its sliding doors are designed to utilize insulation from
the box/cooler wall to minimize door anti-sweat heat power. (Hussmann-
Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) Per Hussmann-Doors' recommendation, DOE is
considering this as a technology option for walk-in doors. The
screening of this technology option is discussed further in section
IV.B.1.a.
DOE is considering the same technology options for doors and panels
in this NOPR that it considered in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis,
as well as the sliding doors referenced the comment from Hussmann-
Doors.
c. Refrigeration Systems
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified 16 technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of refrigeration systems:
<bullet> Improved evaporator and condenser fan blades,
<bullet> Improved evaporator and condenser coils,
<bullet> Evaporator fan control,
<bullet> Ambient sub-cooling,
<bullet> Higher-efficiency fan motors,
<bullet> Higher-efficiency compressors,
<bullet> Variable-speed compressors,
<bullet> Liquid suction heat exchanger,
<bullet> Adaptive defrost,
<bullet> Hot gas defrost,
<bullet> Floating head pressure,
<bullet> Condenser fan control,
<bullet> Economizer cooling,
<bullet> Crank case heater controls,
<bullet> Single-package thermal insulation, and
<bullet> Oil management systems.
DOE requested comment on the technology options in section ES.4.2
of

[[Page 60765]]

the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. AHRI commented that there are
many technology options on the market that may individually provide
energy savings for refrigeration systems, however, these technologies
would require significant modification to implement with current
systems and once implemented, they may no longer provide significant
energy savings, as they are contingent on other aspects of the system.
(AHRI, No. 39 at p. 2)
DOE notes that it applies screening criteria to all potential
technology options which is designed to eliminate technologies that are
not suitable for further analysis as discussed in section IV.B and in
Ch. 4 of the TSD. This includes analysis of the technological
feasibility and practicability. DOE then conducts a full engineering
analysis to weigh the costs and energy savings of each design option
that remains after the screening analysis. The engineering analysis is
discussed in section IV.C. This engineering analysis evaluates
potential changes to other aspects of the system necessary to implement
the option.
HTPG agreed that DOE has considered all the technology options
available on the market for walk-in refrigeration systems that it is
aware of. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 4) AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar
manufacturers agree with the technologies that DOE has considered in
its analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2)
Based on comments received from stakeholders, DOE is considering
the same technology options for walk-in refrigeration systems in this
NOPR as were considered in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
1. Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial equipment or in commercially viable,
existing prototypes will not be considered further.
2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
3. Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to
subgroups of consumers or result in the unavailability of any covered
equipment type with performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United
States at the time, it will not be considered further.
4. Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
5. Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened Out Technologies
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out the
following technology options under the tentative assumption that they
would not affect rated energy consumption of the walk-in components as
measured by the DOE test procedure. While these technologies may
improve the energy efficiency of a fully assembled walk-in installed in
the field, DOE's current walk-in test procedures are component-specific
(i.e., DOE does not have a test procedure for determining energy use of
a fully assembled walk-in):
<bullet> Energy storage systems,
<bullet> Refrigeration system override,
<bullet> Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,
<bullet> Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,
<bullet> Humidity sensors, and
<bullet> Heat reclaim valves.
See section 4.2.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
Furthermore, in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened
out fiber optic natural lighting since it is not technologically
feasible. DOE is not aware of any such systems currently manufactured
and sold for walk-in operations.
DOE requested comment on the technologies that it had screened out
in section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. HTPG
commented that it agrees that energy storage systems, refrigeration
systems override, automatic evaporator fan shut-off, humidity sensors,
and heat reclaim valves do not affect the rated energy consumption as
measured under the walk-in test procedures. (HTPG, No. 359 at p. 4)
Lennox supported DOE's conclusions and rationale for the screened out
technologies. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 3) AHRI-Wine stated that wine
cellar manufacturers agree with the technologies screened in and out of
the analysis. (AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2)
In its NOPR analysis, DOE has screened out all technology options
for whole walk-ins for the same rationales as it did for the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis.
b. Doors and Panels
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out the
following technology options because any reduction in energy use would
not be captured by the test procedure in appendix A to subpart R of 10
CFR part 431 (``appendix A'') and any increase in R-value would not be
captured by the test procedure in appendix B to subpart R of 10 CFR
part 431 (``appendix B''):
<bullet> Infiltration-reducing devices,
<bullet> Air and water infiltration sensors,
<bullet> Heat flux sensors, and
<bullet> Structural materials for panels.
Infiltration-reducing technologies could include door gaskets,
automatic door opening and closing systems, air curtains, strip
curtains, vestibule entryways, revolving doors, and panel interface
systems. In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE had tentatively
determined that any potential energy savings from infiltration-reducing
devices would not be captured because air infiltration is a
characteristic of a fully assembled walk-in. The walk-in test
procedures do not evaluate the energy use of the assembled walk-in box
and instead evaluate the energy use of a single component (i.e., door
or panel); therefore, technologies that may improve energy efficiency
of the full walk-in box were screened out.
Additionally, DOE preliminarily concluded that any potential energy
savings from air and water infiltration sensors, heat flux sensors, and
structural materials for panels would not be captured by either the
appendix A or

[[Page 60766]]

appendix B test procedures. Air and water infiltration sensors and heat
flux sensors are technology options that would most benefit the end
user for monitoring the continuing performance of walk-in components;
however, the potential degradation captured by these sensors over the
lifetime of a walk-in are not reflected in the current test procedure.
Additionally, changes to panel structural materials are not captured in
the test procedure since the current walk-in panels test procedure
provides a method for determining the R-value of the panel insulation
only. In other words, the overall R-value of the panel, including
structural materials, is not captured by the current test procedure.
Therefore, such technologies were screened out.
Furthermore, in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened
out the following technologies due to technological infeasibility since
DOE was not able to find these technologies incorporated into either
prototypes or commercially available walk-in doors or panels:
<bullet> Non-electric anti-sweat systems,
<bullet> Higher efficiency LEDs, and
<bullet> Automatic insulation deployment systems.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out panel and
door insulation thicker than six inches because DOE received feedback
during manufacturer interviews that it is not practicable to
manufacture and install and it has adverse impacts on consumer utility.
See section 4.3.2.4 of chapter 4 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
TSD. DOE preliminarily concluded that insulation thicker than six
inches would be heavy, unwieldy, and would take up space that the
consumer would otherwise use. Additionally, panels and non-display
doors greater than six inches that use foam-in-place insulation would
take an excessive amount of time to cure, impacting the practicability
to manufacture, install, and service.
In section ES.4.1 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
requested comment on the technology options it had screened out for
doors and panels. DOE received no comment on the screened out
technologies for doors and panels. In this analysis, DOE is screening
out the same technologies that it screened out in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, in addition to the eliminated anti-sweat heater
system technology option.
Walk-in doors typically use anti-sweat heater wires to prevent (1)
condensation from collecting on the glass, frame, or any other portion
of the door, which can puddle and be hazardous to consumers, (2) glass
from fogging, and (3) condensation that may lead to low-temperature
doors freezing shut. The amount and rate of condensation on walk-in
doors is dependent on the relative humidity surrounding the walk-in and
the surface temperature of the door. To ensure the temperature of the
door surface stays above the dew point of its surroundings, electric
resistive heater wire is installed around the frame of the door. DOE
recognizes that anti-sweat systems on doors may be necessary in high-
humidity environments and DOE does not have sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that anti-sweat heat can be removed from doors installed in
all climate zones of the U.S. without having a potential negative
impact on the safety and utility of the walk-in. Therefore, DOE is
screening out eliminated anti-sweat heater systems in this NOPR on the
basis of safety of technology.
Furthermore, DOE is screening out the technology option to utilize
insulation from the box/cooler wall to minimize door anti-sweat heat
power recommended by Hussmann-Doors in its comment and discussed in
section IV.A.2.b of this document. DOE recognizes that an ideally
designed walk-in box ensures that panel design could reduce door
sweating; however, DOE notes that since its walk-in test procedures
evaluate the performance of walk-in components separately, these design
pairings are not captured by the test procedure and therefore cannot be
used to analyze higher efficiency levels.
c. Refrigeration Systems
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE tentatively determined
that adaptive defrost, hot gas defrost, oil management systems, and
economizer cooling would not affect the measured AWEF2 value of walk-in
refrigeration systems based on appendix C1. DOE requested comment on
the screened out technologies in section ES.4.3 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD.
HTPG commented that it agrees that oil management systems, adaptive
defrost, hot gas defrost, and economizer cooling do not affect rated
energy consumption as measured under the test procedures for
refrigeration systems. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 4)
DOE has tentatively determined that oil management systems,
adaptive defrost, hot gas defrost, and economizer cooling would not
affect the measured AWEF2 value of walk-in refrigeration systems when
measured using appendix C1.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE also screened out three-
phase motors as a design option. In general, three-phase motors can
save energy compared to single-phase motors, however, use of three-
phase motors requires three-phase power. Not all businesses that use
walk-ins are equipped with three-phase power, and therefore must use
single-phase equipment. DOE therefore screened out this design option
on the grounds of utility.
HTPG commented that it agrees with screening out three-phase motors
as a technology option. Id. In this NOPR analysis, DOE is screening out
three-phase motors based on utility.
In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI-Wine
recommended that DOE consider how a 50-percent increase in condenser
face area would increase the footprint of a single-packaged wine cooler
system and how this increase in footprint would affect the market.
(AHRI-Wine, No. 39 at p. 2) DOE received similar feedback during
manufacturer interviews. DOE notes that high-temperature walk-ins are
often installed in residential applications that have standard stud
spacing in walls and standard joist spacing in floors and ceilings;
therefore, these units may be designed to fit between these structural
members for construction and aesthetic reasons. DOE has tentatively
determined that consumers would lose the compact feature of high-
temperature refrigeration systems if the evaporator or condenser heat
exchangers underwent a considerable increase in size. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to screen out improved evaporator and condenser coils for
high-temperature refrigeration systems on the grounds of customer
utility due to the additional heat exchanger size needed for this
technology option.
The screened out technologies for fully assembled walk-ins and each
component of walk-ins are discussed in more detail in chapter 4 of the
accompanying TSD.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
none of the identified technologies for whole walk-ins, listed in
section IV.A.2.a, met all five screening criteria to be examined
further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis.
a. Doors and Panels
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies for doors and panels, listed
in section IV.A.2.b of this document met all five screening criteria to
be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In

[[Page 60767]]

summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:
<bullet> Glass system insulation performance for display doors,
<bullet> Occupancy sensors (lighting controls) for doors,
<bullet> Anti-sweat heater controls for doors,
<bullet> Improved frame systems and materials for non-display
doors,
<bullet> Reduced anti-sweat heater systems for doors, and
<bullet> Increased insulation thicknesses up to 6 inches for non-
display doors and panels.
In section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
requested comment on the screened in technologies. Hussmann-Doors
stated that increased insulation thicknesses up to 6 inches for non-
display doors and panels would help reduce insulation requirements on
framing materials for door products and that increased wall thickness
would offer additional insulation. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) DOE
understands this comment to support increased insulation thicknesses up
to 6 inches as a technology option for non-display doors and panels.
Additionally, Hussmann-Doors stated that the cost of applying
controllers (e.g., to control the on time of electrical components like
lighting and anti-sweat heat) to door products is not economically
justified by the resulting energy savings. However, Hussmann-Doors
commented that it does use controllers on its products to be compliant
with regulations. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 2) Hussmann-Doors also
commented that it does not see a need for a change to the standard for
doors based on the technology option of occupancy sensors. Id. DOE
understands Hussmann-Doors comment to mean that it believes the energy
consumption standard for doors should not change to reflect that
occupancy sensors can reduce energy consumption. In response to these
comments, DOE notes that it in addition to the screening analysis
discussed above, it conducts a full engineering analysis to weigh the
costs and energy savings of each potential design option. While DOE
evaluates specific design options for the purposes of developing a
representative cost-efficiency curve, manufacturers are not bound to
implement the design options that DOE analyzes to meet a performance-
based energy conservation standard. Manufacturers may employ any design
option, whether DOE has evaluated it or not, so long as it meets the
energy consumption standard based on the Federal test procedure. The
engineering analysis is discussed further in section IV.C of this
document.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available equipment or working prototypes.
DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the
other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install,
and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Refrigeration Systems
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2.c of
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen
out the following technology options for walk-in refrigeration systems:
<bullet> Hydrocarbon refrigerants,
<bullet> Higher efficiency compressors,
<bullet> Improved evaporator and condenser coil,
<bullet> Higher efficiency condenser fan motors,
<bullet> Improved condenser and evaporator fan blades,
<bullet> Ambient sub-cooling,
<bullet> Off-cycle evaporator fan control,
<bullet> Head pressure control,
<bullet> Variable-speed condenser fan control,
<bullet> Crankcase heater controls,
<bullet> Improved thermal insulation for single-packaged dedicated
systems,
<bullet> Higher efficiency evaporator fan motors,
<bullet> On-cycle evaporator fan control, and
<bullet> Liquid suction heat exchanger.
In section ES.4.3 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD, DOE
requested comment on the screened in technologies. DOE received no
comment on the screened in technologies for refrigeration systems.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of each component of walk-
ins (e.g., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
walk-ins, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each walk-in component
equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the walk-in component at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).

[[Page 60768]]

In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a design-option approach for
doors, panels, dedicated condensing units, and single-packaged
dedicated systems. DOE relies on both a design-option and an
efficiency-level approach for unit coolers, depending on the equipment
class. These approaches are discussed in the following sections.
a. Display Doors
Representative Units
As previously mentioned in section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE
evaluated equipment classes for display doors in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis based on the presence or absence of a motor. In
the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed three representative
door sizes for manually opening display doors and two representative
door sizes for motorized display doors. The representative units were
based on the number of door openings within a common frame.
Additionally, DOE based its representative door sizes on typical height
and width of doors found in equipment product literature. See section
5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE
sought comment on the representative units selected in section ES.4.5
of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD.
In response, Hussmann-Doors commented that the representative door
sizes used in the analysis are appropriate; however, Hussmann-Doors
stated that it sells a sliding door that is larger than the
representative units. (Hussmann-Doors, No. 33 at p. 3) DOE notes that
the representative units it selects for analysis are intended to be
representative of the display door industry as a whole and cannot
capture every door available on the market. Additionally, DOE
ultimately did not define representative units for motorized display
doors in this NOPR since, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this
document, DOE did not evaluate higher efficiency levels for these doors
in its analysis. However, DOE may consider evaluating higher efficiency
levels for motorized display doors in a future rulemaking, at which
time it would determine representative units based on the market at
that time.
DOE received no comments on the manually opening display door
representative units; therefore, in this NOPR, DOE maintained the same
manually opening display door representative units that were evaluated
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Table IV.6 lists the display
door classes and sizes that DOE analyzed in its engineering analysis
for this NOPR, where the dimensions listed are consistent with the
surface area that is used to determine the maximum daily energy
consumption.

Table IV.6--Representative Units Analyzed for Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of door Dimensions height
Opening mechanism Temperature Class code openings x length, ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual........................... Medium-temperature.. DW.M................ 1 6.25 x 2.5
3 6.25 x 7.5
5 6.25 x 12.5
Low-temperature..... DW.L................ 1 6.25 x 2.5
3 6.25 x 7.5
5 6.25 x 12.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options, and Higher Efficiency Levels
To determine the baseline efficiency of manually opening display
doors in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE relied on the current
energy conservation standards and minimum prescriptive requirements for
the glass pack of transparent reach-in doors at 10 CFR 431.306(b)(1)-
(2). DOE's analysis suggested that manufacturers already implement
high-efficiency frame designs to minimize thermal transmission;
therefore, DOE included high-efficiency frame designs as a baseline
design option for manually opening display doors in the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the design
options listed in Table IV.7 for manually opening display doors. As
noted, design option DR1 includes baseline design options; additional
design options are evaluated in DR2 (efficiency level 1) and DR3
(efficiency level 2).

Table IV.7--Design Options Evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and This NOPR Analysis for Display
Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
-------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Design option code Medium-temperature, Low-temperature, manual
manual display doors display doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 (Baseline)......................... DR1.................... 2-pane glass with argon 3-pane glass with argon
gas fill. gas fill.
1.................................... DR2.................... 3-pane glass with argon 3-pane glass with
gas fill. krypton gas fill.
2.................................... DR3.................... 2-pane vacuum-insulated 2-pane vacuum-insulated
glass. glass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hussmann-Doors
commented that vacuum-insulated glass on a sliding door affects the U-
factor. DOE interprets this comment to suggest that vacuum-insulated
glass could be used to reach higher efficiency levels for all display
doors, including manually opening display doors. DOE notes that vacuum-
insulated glass is the maximum technology option for manually opening
display doors.
DOE received no other comments on the design options or efficiency
levels for manually opening display doors. In this NOPR analysis, DOE
maintained the same baseline efficiency level, design options, and
higher efficiency levels that it evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis.

[[Page 60769]]

b. Non-Display Doors
Representative Units
As previously mentioned in section IV.A.1.a of this document, DOE
evaluated equipment classes for non-display doors based on the presence
or absence of a motorized door opener in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. DOE analyzed three representative sizes for each class of
non-display doors based on the representative sizes analyzed for both
passage and freight doors in the June 2014 Final Rule and based on
typical height and width of doors found in current equipment product
literature. See section 5.3.1 of chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis
TSD. DOE sought comment on the representative units selected in section
ES.4.5 of the preliminary analysis TSD. DOE did not receive any
stakeholder comments with respect to non-display door representative
units.
In this NOPR analysis, DOE modified the non-display door
representative sizes that it evaluated based on further review of
product literature and interviews with manufacturers. Table IV.8 lists
the non-display door classes and sizes that DOE analyzed in the
engineering analysis for this NOPR.

Table IV.8--Representative Units Analyzed for Non-Display Doors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions,
Opening mechanism Temperature Class code Size height x length,
in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual.......................... Medium-temperature. NM.M.............. Small............. 84 x 38
Medium............ 90 x 40
Large............. 96 x 56
Low-temperature.... NM.L.............. Small............. 84 x 38
Medium............ 90 x 40
Large............. 96 x 56
Motorized....................... Medium-temperature. NO.M.............. Small............. 100 x 66
Medium............ 118 x 90
Large............. 154 x 90
Low-temperature.... NO.L.............. Small............. 100 x 66
Medium............ 118 x 90
Large............. 154 x 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options, and Higher Efficiency Levels
To determine non-display door baseline efficiency, DOE relied on
the current energy conservation standards. For the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, based on certifications in the private
certification and compliance management system (``CCMS'') database and
product literature, DOE assumed that baseline non-display doors had
3.5-inch-thick insulation for coolers and 4-inch-thick insulation for
freezers, wood framing materials, anti-sweat heat with no controls, and
lighting with no controls.
For the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the design
options listed in Table IV.9 for non-display doors. While DOE largely
maintained these design options in its analysis for this NOPR, there
were a few changes specific to their implementation, discussed in more
detail below.

Table IV.9--Design Options Evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis for Non-Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design option code Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupancy sensors (lighting
controls).
LNC.............................. No lighting controls.
LCTRL............................ Lighting controls.
Anti-sweat heater wire controls.
ASHNC............................ No anti-sweat heater controls.
ASCTRL........................... Anti-sweat heater controls.
Improved frame systems and lower
conductivity framing materials.
FR1.............................. Baseline non-display door frame made
of wood.
FR2.............................. Improved non-display door frame made
of insulation.
Decreased anti-sweat heater power.
ASH1............................. Baseline anti-sweat heater power.
ASH2............................. Reduced or eliminated anti-sweat
heater power.
Increased Insulation Thickness.
TCK1............................. Baseline insulation thickness.
TCK2............................. Increased insulation thickness 1.
TCK3............................. Increased insulation thickness 2.
TCK4............................. Increased insulation thickness 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE included lighting in
baseline manually opening non-display doors. DOE's research at the time
indicated that non-display doors sometimes include lighting and
switches to operate that lighting. Therefore, DOE was able to use
lighting controllers as a design option for the representative units it
modeled. However, upon further review of the market, DOE found that
lighting may or may not be included with non-display doors. Therefore,
DOE removed lighting from its baseline representative units of manually
opening non-display doors in this NOPR, thus removing the use of the
lighting controller as a design option in its analysis of non-display
doors.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE combined improved non-
display door framing systems and materials with reduced or eliminated
anti-sweat heater power. In section ES.4.6 of the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD, DOE requested comment on its assumptions that anti-sweat
heater power can be reduced or eliminated by use of improved framing
systems and materials. If anti-sweat heater power can be reduced
through other means of design or technology options for doors, DOE
sought specific data on the achievable reduction in anti-sweat heater
power and the cost to implement. DOE received no comment on whether
improving framing systems and materials could reduce anti-sweat heater
or by how much anti-sweat heater power could potentially be reduced.
In this NOPR analysis, DOE decoupled improved frame systems and
materials from the reduction in anti-sweat heater power and implemented
these as separate design options. Additionally, in this NOPR analysis,
rather than present a fixed value of anti-

[[Page 60770]]

sweat heater wire power in watts, DOE is presenting the amount of anti-
sweat heater power in terms of rated power per linear foot, which can
be converted into the total anti-sweat heater power per representative
unit using door leaf dimensions. DOE recognizes that the total value of
anti-sweat heater power will vary based on the size of the door leaf
but that manufacturers generally use wire with the same rating of power
per linear foot across doors of different sizes. DOE is presenting
anti-sweat heat in terms of a rated power per linear foot and is
soliciting feedback on the values used in this analysis.
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE had considered
eliminated anti-sweat heater power as a design option for medium-
temperature non-display doors, however, as discussed in section
IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE is no longer considering elimination of
anti-sweat heater systems as a design option since DOE does not have
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that doors without anti-sweat heat
could be installed in all climates or installation locations. Instead,
DOE has tentatively concluded in this NOPR that cooler doors could
reduce anti-sweat heater power. Based on certified information in DOE's
private CCMS database, approximately 93 percent of models reported a
rated anti-sweat heater power of less than or equal to 2 W/ft;
therefore, DOE evaluated the energy savings and cost associated with
reducing rated anti-sweat heater power from baseline levels to 2 W/ft.
For low-temperature non-display doors, in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE determined reduced anti-sweat heater power values based
on a line of best fit of anti-sweat heater power versus door area from
the lower third of non-zero anti-sweat heater power values certified in
DOE's private CCMS database. See section 5.7.1.4 of chapter 5 of the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In this NOPR analysis, based on a
combination of certified values in CCMS, rated anti-sweat heater power
per linear foot of wire based on product literature, and information
received during confidential interviews with manufacturers, DOE has
tentatively concluded that freezer doors may be able to implement a
reduced rated anti-sweat heater system power of 5 W/ft.
Table IV.10 shows the baseline and reduced anti-sweat heater wire
power evaluated in this NOPR for each equipment class. The design
options that DOE evaluated for non-display doors for the NOPR analysis
are shown in Table IV.11.

Table IV.10--Anti-Sweat Heater Wire Power per Linear Foot Used in NOPR
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline anti- Reduced anti-
sweat heater wire sweat heater wire
Equipment class power rating (W/ power rating (W/
ft) ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium-Temperature, Manually- 4 2
Opening Non-Display Doors........
Low-Temperature, Manually-Opening 10 5
Non-Display Doors................
Medium-Temperature, Motorized Non- 4 2
Display Doors....................
Low-Temperature, Motorized Non- 9.5 5
Display Doors....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.11--Design Options Evaluated in This NOPR Analysis for Non-
Display Doors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design option code Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-sweat heater wire controls.
ASHNC............................ No anti-sweat heater controls.
ASCTRL........................... Anti-sweat heater controls.
Improved frame systems and lower
conductivity framing materials.
FR1.............................. Baseline non-display door framing
made of wood.
FR2.............................. Improved non-display door framing
made of insulation.
Decreased anti-sweat heater power.
ASH1............................. Baseline anti-sweat heater power.
ASH2............................. Reduced anti-sweat heater power.
Increased Insulation Thickness.
TCK1............................. Baseline insulation thickness.
TCK2............................. Increased insulation thickness 1.
TCK3............................. Increased insulation thickness 2.
TCK4............................. Increased insulation thickness 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the baseline and assumed reduction in anti-
sweat heater wire power listed in Table IV.10. DOE specifically seeks
feedback on whether the reduced anti-sweat heater wire power is
acceptable for use in walk-in doors at all climates and installations
throughout the U.S.
c. Panels
Representative Units
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated the same
representative units for each panel equipment class that it evaluated
for the June 2014 Final Rule. See section 5.3.2 of chapter 5 of the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE requested comment on these
panel representative units in section ES.4.5 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD. DOE did not receive any comments regarding
the representative units analyzed for panels. Therefore, DOE maintained
the same representative units it evaluated in the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis for this NOPR analysis. Table IV.12 summarizes the
representative units evaluated for walk-in panel equipment classes.

Table IV.12--Representative Units Analyzed for Panels in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions
Equipment Temperature Equipment class code height x
length, ft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural.............................. Medium.................... PS.M...................... 8 x 1.5
8 x 4
9 x 5.5
Structural.............................. Low....................... PS.L...................... 8 x 1.5
8 x 4

[[Page 60771]]

9 x 5.5
Floor................................... .......................... PF.L...................... 8 x 2
8 x 4
9 x 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseline Efficiency, Design Options and Efficiency Levels
For panels, DOE evaluated increasing insulation thickness to obtain
higher insulation R-values as calculated pursuant to appendix B of
subpart R to 10 CFR 431. The thermal resistance of insulating materials
increases approximately linearly with material thickness.
For determining the baseline efficiency level, DOE relied on the
current R-value standards. Based on DOE's analysis of the market, 3.5
inches of foam insulation is generally used for baseline medium-
temperature panels and low-temperature floor panels, while 4 inches of
foam insulation is used in baseline low-temperature structural panels
to meet the minimum R-value requirements specified in 10 CFR
431.306(a)(3)-(4).
In addition, DOE found that many panel manufacturers offer
insulation in thicknesses of 4, 5, and 6 inches. DOE also observed that
the majority (approximately 75 percent) of the market uses polyurethane
insulation, with the remainder using extruded polystyrene (``XPS''),
expanded polystyrene, and polyisocyanurate insulation in its walk-in
panels. Therefore, DOE assessed the incremental increase in R-value for
polyurethane insulation at 4, 5, and 6 inches as design options, with 6
inches being the max-tech design option.
d. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems
Refrigerants Analyzed
In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE assumed R-448A as a
refrigerant for medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units
and single-packaged dedicated systems. Based on the available
compressor performance coefficients, and an examination of the
refrigerant compositions, DOE tentatively concluded that R-448A and R-
449A have nearly identical performance characteristics for walk-in
applications and that AWEF2 standards would not be meaningfully changed
if analysis was conducted using R-449A instead of R-448A. R-448A/R-449A
was chosen because the walk-in industry is shifting to lower global
warming potential (``GWP'') refrigerants. R-448A/R-449A have much lower
GWP compared to R-404A--additionally R-448A/R-449A has a higher glide,
which will tend to disadvantage dedicated condensing units when they
are tested alone according to the DOE test procedure. In other words,
R-448A/R-449A are the most conservative, lower GWP, widely available
refrigeration options. For the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used
R-134A in its evaluation of high-temperature single-packaged dedicated
units since this is the only refrigerant option currently offered for
this equipment.
DOE requested comment on whether the refrigerants used are
representative of the current and future walk-in market in section
ES.4.8 of the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD. In response to the
June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE received several comments on the
refrigerants used in the analysis and on the need to consider lower GWP
refrigerants.
HTPG agreed with DOE using R-448A and R-449A in its analysis of
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing units, specifically
the compressor coefficients and the reduction in mass flow rate. (HTPG,
No. 35 at pp. 3, 6) AHRI agreed with DOE using R-448A and R-449A in its
analysis, however, it recommended that A2L \26\ or other refrigerants
(i.e., R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-744A) be considered in a future
analysis. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 3) Hussmann-Refrigeration stated that due
to the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') regulations,\27\
changes to refrigerants are expected and further analysis of system
performance may be required to determine the efficiency impact of the
new refrigerants. (Hussmann-Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 2) Hussmann-
Refrigeration additionally commented that it agrees with the views of
other AHRI members on the matter of the transition to A2L refrigerants
and stated that R-448A and R-449A will not be available for future
markets and are currently not available for new applications at a
charge level greater than 50 pounds in California. (Hussmann-
Refrigeration, No. 38 at p. 4) Lennox commented that R-448A and R-449A
are not representative of the future market, which would likely consist
of R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, and R-744. (Lennox, No. 36 at p. 5) Lennox
also stated that R-744 (i.e., CO<INF>2</INF>) could pose a significant
challenge if it is required for transcritical operation.\28\ Id. Lennox
recommended that DOE consider the technological feasibility,
performance, and cost impacts of the transition to lower GWP
refrigerants, specifically A2L and CO<INF>2</INF> refrigerants, when
proposing energy conservation standards. (Lennox, No. 36 at pp. 1-3).
HTPG also recommended that DOE consider the transition to low-GWP
refrigerants in its analysis. (HTPG, No. 35 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ A2L is a refrigerant classification from the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(``ASHRAE'') Standard 34: ``Designation and Safety Classification of
Refrigerants''. The A2L class defines refrigerants that are
nontoxic, but mildly flammable. Refrigerants in this classification
include R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A.
\27\ See ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Allowance Allocation
Methodology for 2024 and Later Years'', 87 FR 66372.
\28\ CO<INF>2</INF> refrigeration systems are transcritical
because the high-temperature refrigerant that is cooled by ambient
air is in a supercritical state, above the 87.8 [deg]F critical
point temperature, above which the refrigerant cannot exist as
separate vapor and liquid phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA published a NOPR, ``Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons:
Restrictions on the Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons Under Subsection
(i) the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020'', on
December 15, 2022, as a part of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing (``AIM'') Act (``December 2022 AIM NOPR'') which outlined
new refrigerant regulations regarding acceptable GWP limits for various
air conditioning and refrigeration systems. 87 FR 76738. One proposal
in the December 2022 AIM NOPR is to limit the GWP of refrigerants in
remote condensing units used in retail food refrigeration or cold
storage warehouse systems to 300 GWP or less if the system's
refrigerant charge is less than 200 pounds. As proposed, this limit

[[Page 60772]]

would take effect on January 1, 2025. DOE has tentatively determined
that walk-in refrigeration systems within the scope of this energy
conservation standards rulemaking, designed to cool a chilled storage
area less than 3,000 square feet, would not exceed 200 pounds of
refrigerant charge and would therefore be subject to the GWP
limitations proposed in the December 2022 AIM NOPR. R-448A and R-449A
have GWPs of just under 1,400, well over the proposed 300 GWP limit.
Therefore, DOE acknowledges that by the compliance date of any
potential standards promulgated by this rulemaking, R-448A and R-449A
may no longer be permitted for use in walk-in refrigeration systems if
the proposals in the December 2022 AIM NOPR are finalized.
For this NOPR, to estimate potential performance penalties
associated with transitioning from R-448A and R-449A to a lower GWP
refrigerant, DOE modeled the performance of three potential replacement
A2L refrigerants: R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A. At the DOE test
conditions prescribed for dedicated condensing units tested alone, R-
407A, R-448A and R-454A have condenser glides of less than 9 [deg]F,
R454C has a glide of roughly 12 [deg]F, and R455A has a glide or
roughly 17 [deg]F. When analyzed with available compressor
coefficients, DOE found that R-454A had a coefficient of performance
higher than R-407A and R-448A, while R455A and R-454C had coefficients
of performance that were lower than R-407A and R-448A. Of the three
refrigerants with GWPs less than 300, R-454A has the lowest glide and
highest coefficient of performance. Based on these results, DOE has
tentatively determined that R-454A would be the most likely replacement
for R-407A, R-448A, and R-449A in walk-in applications if the proposals
in the December 2022 AIM NOPR are adopted. DOE further analyzed the
compression efficiency of R-454A compared to R-448A and has tentatively
determined that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would not suffer a
performance penalty when switching from R-407A, R-448A, or R-449A to R-
454A.
DOE attempted to corroborate these modeling results with data from
testing. During interviews, DOE asked if manufacturers had tested any
A2L refrigerants such as R-454A, R-454C, and R-455A. At the time,
manufacturers indicated that they were not able to obtain a sufficient
quantity of these refrigerants for testing. Manufacturers stated that
chemical companies that manufacturer these refrigerants were still in
the process of formulating these refrigerant blends. Additionally,
manufacturers emphasized that there was not yet industry consensus on
the best refrigerant to move forward with given the information they
have about refrigerants and regulations at this time. As such, DOE was
not able to compare its modeling results to real-world tests prior to
the publication of this NOPR.
In response to the December 2022 AIM NOPR the Chemours Company FC,
LLC (``Chemours'') submitted a comment in which they presented results
from an analysis comparing the performance of various refrigerants.
(Chemours, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0643 No. 141 at p. 12) That analysis showed
that R-454A has similar, if not better, performance to refrigerants
used in walk-in coolers today. Id. Chemours generally supported R-454A
as a replacement for higher GWP refrigerants. Id.
DOE has tentatively determined that any standards set based on an
analysis of dedicated condensing units operating with R-448A or R-449A
would be appropriate for units operating with R-454A. DOE has therefore
continued to use R-448A as the baseline refrigerant for all medium- and
low-temperature dedicated condensing units and single-packaged
dedicated systems in this NOPR analysis.
DOE requests test results or performance data for walk-in
refrigeration systems using R-454A, R-454C, and/or R-455A.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that
R-454A is the most likely replacement for R-448A and R-449A with a GWP
of less than 300 and that walk-in dedicated condensing systems would
not suffer a performance penalty when switching from R-448A or R-449A
to R-454A.
DOE did not consider R-744 (CO<INF>2</INF>) as a potential
refrigerant for this NOPR analysis. During interviews, manufacturers
stated that while CO<INF>2</INF> may be a viable option for larger
grocery store rack condenser installations, CO<INF>2</INF> is unlikely
to be commonly adopted for walk-in dedicated condensing systems in
response to a low-GWP transition. Based on this feedback, DOE has
tentatively determined that analyzing CO<INF>2</INF> dedicated
condensing systems would not be representative of the industry as a
whole and would not provide insight into the performance of walk-in
dedicated condensing systems after the low-GWP transition.
DOE also did not analyze R-290 (propane) as a potential refrigerant
in the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis because DOE lacked R-290
performance data for walk-in systems. See the June 2022 Preliminary
Analysis TSD, chapter 2, section 2.4.3.2 for details. In response to
this, AHRI stated that some companies have transitioned smaller charge
walk-in refrigeration system products to propane. (AHRI, no. 39 at p.
5) DOE is aware that there are single-packaged dedicated systems
currently on the market that use R-290 as a refrigerant for use in
walk-in systems. In this NOPR analysis, DOE collected additional
performance data for R-290 compressors and has included R-290 in its
analysis of medium- and low-temperature single-packaged dedicated
systems. The current charge limits for A3 (flammable) refrigerants are
limited to 150 grams.\29\ DOE has determined that all split system
walk-in refrigeration systems would exceed this limit, so DOE did not
analyze R-290 as a refrigerant for dedicated condensing units.
Additionally, DOE was unable to identify compressors for high-
temperature applications designed for use with R-290. As such, DOE did
not analyze high-temperature refrigeration systems using R-290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ EPA published a final rule pertaining to hydrocarbon
refrigerants on December 20, 2011. FR 76 78832. This rule limits the
acceptable charge of propane in a refrigeration circuit to 150 grams
for refrigeration systems with end-uses in the retail food industry.
FR 76 78832, 78836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHRI commented that when transitioning from non-flammable
refrigerants to R-290, other components must be upgraded to comply with
UL60335-2-89 \30\ requirements. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 6) Furthermore,
AHRI stated that few state and local building codes are updated to
handle charging refrigeration equipment that use A3 refrigerants and
storing the necessary quantities of flammable refrigerants to supply
end-user needs. Id. AHRI also commented that charge sizes may need to
be increased; however, this may only be possible when doors are not
present on equipment. (AHRI, No. 39 at p. 6) In this NOPR, DOE assumed
that refrigerant system component costs would increase to comply with
safety standards when switching from non-flammable refrigerants to R-
290. These cost increases are associated with ensuring all components
are spark proof. Details of DOE's cost analysis are discussed in more
detail in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD. Additionally, DOE limited
each refrigeration circuit using R-290 to 150 grams of charge in its
analysis to comply with current regulations. DOE is aware of commercial
refrigeration systems and walk-in

[[Page 60773]]

refrigeration systems currently on the market that use propane as a
refrigerant. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that building
codes and local regulations are in-place for refrigeration systems
charged with A3 refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ UL standard ``Household and Similar Electrical Appliances--
Safety--Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial
Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or
Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed high-
temperature refrigeration systems using R-134A. In response to this
analysis, AHRI-Wine commented that wine cellar manufacturers agree with
DOE using R-134A and stated that adopting other ref

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 5, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.