Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-28474

Rule2024-28474

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

December 23, 2024

Effective

February 21, 2025

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 review its existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins. It has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 246 (Monday, December 23, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 104616-104855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28474]

[[Page 104615]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 246

December 23, 2024

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 104616]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009]
RIN 1904-AD79

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 review its
existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would
be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is
adopting amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins. It has
determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these
products would result in significant conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 21, 2025. Compliance
with the amended standards established for walk-in non-display doors in
this final rule is required on and after December 23, 2027. Compliance
with the amended standards established for walk-in refrigeration
systems in this final rule is required on and after December 31, 2028.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <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.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f0e3f3f23262e212c2a1c3b2e212b2e3d2b3c1e3a2a3c3b2620213c0f2a2a612b202a61282039">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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. Telephone: (240) 449-9387. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c2d1c1c00050d020f093f180d02080d1e081f3d19091f180503021f2c090942080309420b031a">[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: (202) 586-4798. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e78a8693938f8290c994848f89828e838295a78f96c9838882c9808891">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
1. Annualized Benefits and Costs
a. Non-Display Doors
b. Refrigeration Systems
c. Amended Standards
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
1. Comments Regarding the Proposed Standard Levels
2. Comments Regarding the Proposed Compliance Date
3. Comments Regarding Rulemaking Process
4. Comments Regarding Prescriptive Standards
5. Comments Regarding the Standards Equations
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 Products
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. General Feedback
b. Display Doors
c. Non-Display Doors
d. Panels
e. Dedicated Condensing Units and Single-Packaged Dedicated
Systems
f. Unit Coolers
2. Cost Analysis
a. Teardown Analysis
b. Cost Estimation Method
c. Low-GWP Refrigerants
d. More Efficient Single-Speed Compressors
e. Variable-Speed Compressors
f. Unit Coolers
g. Capital Expenditures Represented in MPCs
h. Manufacturer Markups and Shipping Costs
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. Nominal Daily Run Hours
4. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Consumer Sample
2. Equipment Cost
a. Application of the Low-GWP Refrigerant Transition to Specific
Regions
3. Installation Cost
a. Refrigeration Systems
b. Cooler and Freezer Panels
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

[[Page 104617]]

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. Discussion of MIA Comments
a. Conversion Costs
b. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
c. Manufacturing Capacity Constraints
d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
e. Refrigerant Transition Costs
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. National 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-In Cooler
and Walk-In Freezer Standards
a. Refrigeration Systems
b. Doors
c. Panels
d. Combined Benefits of Amended Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
a. Non-Display Doors
b. Refrigeration Systems
c. Amended Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
a. Doors
b. Panels
c. Refrigeration Systems
d. Doors and Refrigeration Systems
5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To
Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 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, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ added by
Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment includes walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers (``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs''), the subject of this document. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(G)) DOE defines ``walk-ins'' 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to review its existing energy
conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Pursuant to that statutory
provision, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(Id.) 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 significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE has conducted this review of the energy
conservation standards for walk-ins under EPCA's 6-year lookback
authority described herein.
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 each component of walk-ins (i.e., doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems). 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 determined that TSL 1 represents the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified
for non-display doors and that TSL 2 represents the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified for refrigeration systems. DOE is not amending energy
conservation standards for display doors or panels at this time and the
existing standards will remain in effect. The adopted 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 standards apply to all walk-in non-display doors listed in
table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the

[[Page 104618]]

United States starting on December 23, 2027.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.000

The adopted standards for walk-in refrigeration standards, 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 standards apply to all walk-in refrigeration systems listed in
Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on December 31, 2028.

[[Page 104619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.001

[[Page 104620]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023
dollars unless indicated otherwise. For purposes of discounting
future monetary values, the present year in the analysis was 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 through table I.4 summarize DOE's evaluation of the
economic impacts of the adopted 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 8.5 years for
both refrigeration systems and non-display doors (see section IV.F 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.C of this document).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through
the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed
compliance date. For walk-in display doors, non-display doors, and
panels, the analysis period is 2024-2057. For refrigeration systems,
the analysis period is 2024-2058. 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 $218.7 million,

[[Page 104621]]

$508.4 million, $926.0 million, and $542.0 million in 2023$,
respectively. Under the adopted 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 adopted standards, the change in INPV for non-
display door manufacturers is estimated to range from -0.4 percent to
0.7 percent, which is approximately -$2.0 million to $3.5 million.
Under the adopted 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 adopted
standards, the change in INPV for refrigeration system manufacturers is
estimated to range from -11.3 percent to -8.4 percent, which is
approximately -$61.2 million to -$45.7 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 $1.4 million and $90.1 million,
respectively.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023
dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for walk-ins would save a significant amount of energy. The
adopted TSLs are TSL 1 for walk-in non-display doors and TSL 2 for
walk-in refrigeration systems. 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 (2028-2057 for non-display doors and 2029-2058
for refrigeration systems) amount to 1.60 quadrillion British thermal
units (``Btu''), or quads of-full-fuel cycle energy savings.\6\ This
represents a savings of 6.3 percent relative to the energy use of these
products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the
``no-new-standards case'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 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 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for walk-ins ranges from $2.00 billion USD
(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $4.74 billion USD (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and
installation costs for walk-in non-display doors purchased during the
period 2028-2057 and walk-in refrigeration systems purchased in 2029-
2058.
In addition, the adopted standards for walk-ins are projected to
yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the
standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 28.82 million metric tons (``Mt'') \7\
of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 8.8 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 53.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 243.2 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.3 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.06 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (AEO2023). AEO2023 represents current Federal and state
legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time
of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further
discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using 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 an updated set of SC-GHG estimates published in
2023 (``2023 SC-GHG''), as well as the 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'') in 2021 (``2021
Interim SC-GHG''), which DOE used in the notice of proposed rulemaking
for this rule before the updated values were available.\9\ These values
are discussed in section IV.L of this document. The climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 2-percent near-term Ramsey
discount rate using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates are estimated to be $6.80
billion, and the climate benefits associated with the average 2021
Interim SC-GHG estimates at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to
be $1.70 billion. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would
be economically justified even without inclusion of the estimated
monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 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>.
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf</a>;
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf</a> (last accessed July 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program \10\ as discussed
in section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the reduction in
mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the
present value of the health benefits would be $1.37 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate and, $3.33 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.\11\ DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for
NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health benefits, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Precursors from 21 Sectors. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors">https://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursors-and-ozone-precursors</a>.
\11\ 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.5 Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy
Conservation Standards for Table I.5 summarizes the monetized benefits
and costs expected to result from the amended 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.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 104622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.004

[[Page 104623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.005

1. Annualized Benefits and Costs
The benefits and costs of the adopted 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2020, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. 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-in non-
display doors and refrigeration systems shipped during the periods
2028-2057 and 2029-2058, respectively. The benefits associated with
reduced emissions achieved as a result of the amended standards are
also calculated based on the lifetime of walk-in non-display doors and
refrigeration systems shipped during the period 2028-2057 and 2029-
2058, respectively. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 2 percent near-term
Ramsey discount rate for the 2023 SC-GHG estimates and the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate for the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates
in section IV.L of this document.
a. Non-Display Doors
Table I.6 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standard for walk-in non-display doors,
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule
is $31.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $123.4 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $117.3 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-
GHG estimates) or $34.8 million in climate benefits (using the 2021
interim SC-GHG estimates), and $52.0 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount to $261.5 million per year
(using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $179.0 million per year (using the
2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).
Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $32.0 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $147.9 million in reduced operating costs, $117.3 million in
climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $34.8 million in
climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $68.8
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $302.0 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $219.5
million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

[[Page 104624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.006

[[Page 104625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.007

b. Refrigeration Systems
Table I.7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standard for walk-in refrigeration systems,
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule
is $67.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $180.9 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $209.2 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-
GHG estimates) or $61.7 million in climate benefits (using the 2021
interim SC-GHG estimates), and $89.0 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount to $411.2 million per year
(using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $263.7 million per year (using the
2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).
Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $61.7 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $222.0 million in reduced operating costs, $209.2 million in
climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $61.7 million in
climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $165
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $482.5 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $335.1
million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).

[[Page 104626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.008

[[Page 104627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.009

c. Amended Standards
Table I.8 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standard for walk-in non-display doors (TSL
1) and refrigeration systems (TSL 2), expressed 2023$ 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 adopted
in this rule is $99.1 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $304.4 million in reduced
operating costs, $96.5 million in climate benefits, and $140.9 million
in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to
$442.7 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $101.2 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $369.8 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $96.5 million in climate
benefits, and $189.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $554.5 million per year.

[[Page 104628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.010

[[Page 104629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.011

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.J.3, and IV.L of this document.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the
methodology used to present the change in producer cashflow (i.e.,
INPV) in the monetized benefits and costs tables. In response to the
September 2023 NOPR, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration
Institute (``AHRI'') stated agreement with DOE's methodology to present
the change in INPV in the monetized benefits and costs tables in table
1.6, table 1.7, and table V.100 of the September 2023 NOPR (which
correspond to table I.5, table I.8, and table V.125 in this final
rule), but stated the resultant dollar amounts do not support the kinds
of efficiency gains claimed, perhaps due to the errors called out in
determining the baseline. (AHRI, No. 72 at pp. 8-9) Hussmann commented
that it agrees with the views presented by AHRI on this topic.
(Hussmann, No. 75 at p. 10)
DOE maintained its methodology from the September 2023 NOPR and
presents change in INPV in the monetized benefits and costs tables in
this final rule. DOE discusses baseline design assumptions throughout
the engineering analysis, see section IV.C of this document. 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 determined that TSL 1 for non-display doors
and TSL 2 for refrigeration systems represents the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule
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 regard to
technological feasibility, equipment achieving these standard levels
are already commercially

[[Page 104630]]

available for all equipment classes covered by this final rule. As for
economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the
standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule
is $99.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $304.4 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $326.5 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-
GHG estimates) or $96.5 million in climate benefits (using the 2021
interim SC-GHG estimates), and $136 million in health benefits. In this
case, the net benefit would amount to $672.7 million per year (using
the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $442.7 million per year (using the 2021
interim SC-GHG estimates).
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.\13\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
the impacts of products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 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 full fuel cycle (``FFC'') energy savings of 1.60
quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 10.7 million
homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 28.82 Mt. over the time period of non-
display doors shipped from 2028-2057 and refrigeration systems shipped
from 2029-2058. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy
savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more
detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in
the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\14\ added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317)
This equipment includes walk-ins, the subject of this document. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ As noted previously, for editorial reasons, upon
codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-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 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b), and (d)).
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); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6295I) Manufacturers of covered
equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations
regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model
complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). (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.
EPCA set initial prescriptive energy conservation standards for
walk-ins and further required DOE to set performance standards. (42
U.S.C. 6313(f)) EPCA also required 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 six years after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice
of determination (``NOPD'') that standards for the equipment 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)) DOE must make the analysis on
which a NOPD or NOPR is based publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(2)) Not later than two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must
publish a final rule amending the energy conservation standard for the
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including walk-ins. Any new or
amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if: (1) for certain
equipment, including walk-ins, no test procedure has been established
for the equipment, or (2) DOE determines by rule that the establishment
of such standard will not result in significant conservation of energy,
or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In

[[Page 104631]]

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:
The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers
of the equipment subject to the standard;
The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
The need for national energy and water conservation; and
Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing 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, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of 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. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for
a type or class of products 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 considers such factors as the utility to
the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of
the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to its statutory
obligations pursuant to EPCA described herein. (42 U.S.C. 6311(f)(5);
42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

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 (``MDEC''), 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 annual walk-in energy factor (``AWEF''), which
is measured in Btu/W-h (see table II.3).
BILLING CODE 6410-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.012

[[Page 104632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.014

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C
As previously mentioned, EPCA also specifies prescriptive energy
conservation standards for walk-ins. These prescriptive standards are
codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a) and (b). First, all walk-in doors
narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet must have
automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have
been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, and must also have strip
doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration
when doors are open. Additionally, walk-ins must contain wall, ceiling,
and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers,
excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor
insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors
of under 1 horsepower (``hp'') and less than 460 volts must be
electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or
three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1
horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically
commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must
have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast
losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a
timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the
walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).
EPCA also requires that walk-in freezers with transparent reach-in
doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective treated
glass or gas fill for doors and windows. Transparent walk-in cooler
doors must have either double-pane glass with heat-reflective treated
glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with heat-reflective treated
glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with
transparent reach-in doors, EPCA also prescribes specific anti-sweat
heater-related requirements: walk-ins without anti-sweat heater
controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts
per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively.
Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater
power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door
opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat
heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity
corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or
to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Walk-Ins
In a final rule published on June 3, 2014 (``June 2014 Final
Rule''), DOE promulgated 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,
AHRI and Lennox International, Inc. (``Lennox''), a manufacturer of
walk-in refrigeration systems, filed petitions for review of DOE's
final rule

[[Page 104633]]

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.\15\
After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE established a Working
Group to negotiate energy conservation standards to replace the six
vacated standards (``ASRAC Working Group''). 80 FR 46521 (August 5,
2015). The ASRAC 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 (``ASRAC'') on December 18, 2015. (EERE-2015-BT-STD-
0016-0055 at p. 11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 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-temperature; 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 with vacated standards--specifically,
unit coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems
manufactured. 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.
On September 5, 2023, DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register
regarding energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
freezers (``September 2023 NOPR''). 88 FR 60746. Specifically, DOE
proposed amended standards for walk-in non-display doors and walk-in
refrigeration systems. DOE did not propose to amend the standard for
walk-in panels or display doors. The amended standards proposed for
non-display doors in the September 2023 NOPR were defined in terms of
maximum daily energy consumption. The amended standards proposed for
refrigeration systems in the September 2023 NOPR were defined in terms
of AWEF2, adopted in a test procedure final rule that published on May
4, 2023 (``May 2023 TP Final Rule''). The technical support document
(``TSD'') that presented the methodology and results of the September
2023 NOPR analysis (``September 2023 NOPR TSD'') is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0046">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0046</a>. Additionally,
on September 28, 2023, DOE published a notice of data availability
(``NODA'' (``September 2023 NODA'') summarizing additional comments
received on the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis (87 FR 39008) that were
considered but not discussed in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 66710.
On September 27, 2023, DOE held a public webinar (``September 2023
Public Webinar'') in which it presented an overview of the topics
addressed in the September 2023 NOPR, allowed time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encouraged all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking.
On March 14, 2024, DOE published a second NODA (``March 2024
NODA'') presenting an updated analysis for walk-in non-display doors
and refrigeration systems in light of additional data and comments
received in response to the September 2023 NOPR, and as a result,
presented life-cycle cost and payback period results and national
impacts for TSLs that were different from those analyzed for the
NOPR.\16\ 89 FR 18555. DOE's final rule analysis considers these data
and comments, and DOE's responses to those comments and analysis
adjustments are presented in the March 2024 NODA, with no further
adjustment in the final rule analysis except as discussed in this final
rule. The remaining comments received in response to the September 2023
NOPR are summarized and responded to in this final rule. Additionally,
DOE received comments in response to the March 2024 NODA, which it also
addresses in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ As discussed in section IV.E.1, the TSLs analyzed in this
final rule for non-display doors and refrigeration systems are
largely consistent with the TSLs analyzed in the March 2024 NODA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR and
March 2024 NODA from the interested parties listed in table II.4 and
table II.5, respectively. DOE also received three anonymous comment
submissions in response to the September 2023 NOPR.
BILLING CODE 6410-01-P

[[Page 104634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.015

[[Page 104635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.016

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the September 2023 Public Webinar, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral
comments provided during the September 2023 Public Webinar that are not
substantively addressed by written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after a review of the market for the
subject walk-ins. DOE also considered comments, data, and information
from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This
final rule addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding the proposed standards, rulemaking timing, and
process.
1. Comments Regarding the Proposed Standard Levels
Ballesteros expressed general support for the standards proposed in
the September 2023 NOPR, stating that the benefits would outweigh the
burdens. (Ballesteros, No. 56 at p. 1)
DuPont supported panel efficiency standards remaining the same and
the non-display door efficiencies remaining at 4-inch insulation
thickness. DuPont stated that added efficiency could create a WICF
supply shortage above current constraints. (DuPont, No. 74 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to adopt TSL 2 for WICFs. The
CA IOUs also supported DOE's proposal to establish energy conservation
standards for high-temperature systems. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at p. 1)
In response to the March 2024 NODA, ASAP et. al. and the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE adopt TSL 2 analyzed in the March 2024 NODA. (ASAP
et al., No. 90 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 91 at p. 1) However, ASAP et
al. additionally urged DOE to consider higher standards for non-display
doors associated with the use of thicker insulation. (ASAP et al., No.
90 at pp. 1-2)
DOE evaluated more-stringent standards for non-display doors
associated with the use of thicker insulation; these are considered in
TSL 3 of this final rule. The rationale for not adopting higher
standards for non-display doors that would likely necessitate thicker
insulation is discussed further in section V.C of this document.
AHRI recommended that DOE issue a no-new-standard approach for the
equipment covered in the September 2023 NOPR, which would provide an
additional 3 years of lead time to manufacturers and allow them to
complete the transition to low global warming potential (``GWP'')
refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 3 and No. 86 at p. 3)
NRAC also recommended that DOE issue a ``no-new-standard'' standard
for the equipment covered in the September 2023 NOPR to allow the
necessary time needed to complete the transition to A2Ls \18\ and low-
GWP refrigerants required by the EPA's American Innovation and
Manufacturing (``AIM'') Act of 2020 and also the new UL 60335-2-89
standard.\19\ NRAC commented that these regulations are placing
significant burdens on manufacturers and end

[[Page 104636]]

users, posing a high risk that none of the requirements will be met in
the proposed timeframes. (NRAC, No. 73 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Refrigerants in the A2L subgroup, as categorized by ASHRAE
Standard 34, have lower toxicity and lower flammability than other
subgroups.
\19\ UL 60335-2-89, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE acknowledges that EPA's final rule published in the Federal
Register on October 24, 2023, to address hydrofluorocarbons through the
AIM Act (``October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule'') will
require the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration
(``HVACR'') industry to undertake a broad transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants. 88 FR 73098. DOE has considered this refrigerant
transition and the burdens that come with it in the analyses that
support this final rule. In summary, DOE analyzed all medium- and low-
temperature dedicated condensing system (i.e., dedicated condensing
unit and single-packaged dedicated system) representative units with R-
448A as the baseline refrigerant, which DOE has concluded is
representative of sub-300 GWP refrigerants that would likely be used in
medium- and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems. DOE also
analyzed R-290 as a design option for medium- and low-temperature
single-packaged dedicated systems. DOE used R-404A to analyze medium-
and low-temperature unit coolers, which provides a conservative
analysis because sub-300 GWP refrigerants would likely increase unit
cooler performance. DOE analyzed high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated systems and high-temperature unit coolers using R-134a
because DOE has not been able to identify a sub-300 GWP refrigerant
that could serve as a replacement for R-134a in high-temperature
applications that has enough performance data (e.g., compressor
coefficients) available to conduct a full engineering analysis for
high-temperature units. These analyses are further discussed in
sections IV.C.1.e, IV.C.1.f, and IV.F.2.a of this document. DOE also
considers the potential manufacturer investments associated with the
transition to low-GWP refrigerants in response to refrigerant
regulations in section V.B.2.e of this document. Through these
analyses, DOE has determined that the standards promulgated in this
final rule are technologically feasible and economically justified
given the refrigerant transition required of the HVACR industry.
NAFEM requested that DOE find that no-new-standards are justified
at this time. NAFEM stated that DOE previously promulgated standards
for WICFs in 2014, but six of the classes were remanded by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; NAFEM further stated
that DOE promulgated revised standards for these six classes in 2017,
with compliance deadlines of 2020. NAFEM stated that based on this
timeline, the latest technologies are still being implemented into the
latest equipment. NAFEM commented that there has not been sufficient
time to develop, test, and make available the types of new technologies
that would impact the most recent energy efficiency standards and
otherwise justify revising those standards in the next several years.
(NAFEM, No. 67 at p. 2)
As indicated by NAFEM, compliance with the existing standards has
been required for multiple years. Compliance with the current energy
conservation standards for walk-in doors and medium-temperature
dedicated condensing systems was required on June 5, 2017, over 7 years
ago. Compliance with the current energy conservation standards for unit
coolers and low-temperature dedicated condensing systems was required
on July 10, 2020, over 4 years ago. EPCA requires that any new or
amended standard for covered equipment 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)) As part of DOE's assessment of
whether adopting amended standards is economically justified, DOE
considers the potential impact on manufacturers, including the
potential investments required to develop, test, produce, and market
compliant equipment. See sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document for
details on the manufacturer impact analysis. As discussed further in
section V.C of this document, DOE is adopting amended standards for
walk-ins that are technologically feasible and economically justified.
DOE also received comments that the standards proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR and/or that updated analysis presented in the March
2024 NODA are too stringent.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
determined that TSL 3 is not economically justified; however, DOE
determined that TSL 2 is economically justified. AHRI and Hussmann
further stated that for unit coolers, both TSL 3 and TSL 2 incorporate
the max-tech design options for all unit cooler equipment classes.
(AHRI, No. 72 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2-3) Therefore, Hussmann
recommended that efficiency levels for TSL 2 for unit coolers be set at
the intermediate (EL 1) levels. (Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 2-3) Hussmann
also recommended that DOE propose an AWEF2 of 9.15 for medium-
temperature unit coolers and an AWEF2 of 4.30 for low-temperature unit
coolers. (Hussmann, No. 75 at pp. 5-7)
DOE notes that it determined in the September 2023 NOPR that, for
refrigeration systems, TSL 3 was not economically justified. 88 FR
60746, 60852. This determination was made despite certain efficiency
levels for certain equipment classes that made up TSL 3 being
economically justified. In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that TSL 2 was economically justified. 88 FR 60746, 60853.
Given that some efficiency levels for some representative units that
made up TSL 3 in the September 2023 NOPR were cost effective, there was
overlap in the efficiency levels that made up TSL 3 and the efficiency
levels that made up TSL 2 for certain representative units. 88 FR
60746, 60786-60787. Medium-temperature unit coolers and low-temperature
unit coolers were two of the equipment classes where the efficiency
levels between TSL 3 and TSL 2 were the same. DOE is required to set
standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)); therefore, in
the September 2023 NOPR DOE proposed the economically justified maximum
technology levels for medium- and low-temperature unit cooler equipment
classes. DOE is adopting amended standards based on the updated
analyses from the March 2024 NODA in this final rule that achieve the
maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE notes that in
this final rule it is adopting the max-tech efficiency level for low-
temperature and high-temperature ducted unit coolers but is not
adopting the max-tech efficiency level for all analyzed capacities of
medium-temperature unit coolers in this final rule. See section V.C of
this document for further discussion.
Lennox commented that the baseline design assumptions and AWEF2
levels may result in proposed AWEF2 standard levels that would drive
financials considerably more unfavorably to manufacturers and
consumers. Lennox requested that DOE correct discrepancies in baseline
assumptions and costs associated with higher efficiency levels in the
September 2023 NOPR and September 2023 NOPR TSD. (Lennox, No. 70 at p.
8) Lennox stated that once DOE has addressed the technical issues
Lennox identified in the September 2023 NOPR,

[[Page 104637]]

DOE must re-run the NOPR analysis to determine if the proposed
standards are technologically feasible and economically justified.
Lennox recommended that the final standards be no more stringent than
those proposed in the September 2023 NOPR. (Lennox, No. 70 at p. 6) In
response to the March 2024 NODA analysis, Lennox stated that DOE must
address various technical issues--baseline design assumptions and costs
of attaining higher efficiency levels, reduced incremental margins
assumptions to attain higher efficiency levels, and product lifetime
assumptions--to ensure that any new WICF energy conservation standard
is ``technologically feasible and economically justified'', as required
by statute. (Lennox, No. 87 at p. 3) Lennox further stated that section
7 of the NODA support document presents updated AWEF2 calculations for
refrigeration system equipment classes at TSLs presented in the NODA
that lack justification. (Id. at pp. 7-8) Lennox commented it has
significant concerns regarding this rulemaking's technical and cost
analysis, and DOE has not demonstrated that amended energy conservation
standards are appropriate. (Id. at p. 8)
In the March 2024 NODA, DOE reviewed and updated parts of its
analyses based on stakeholder feedback from the September 2023 NOPR and
DOE's own findings. As such, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented
updated LCC and PBP results, as well as national impacts. 89 FR 18555.
Additionally, in this final rule, DOE further reviewed and updated its
analyses based on stakeholder feedback from both the September 2023
NOPR and March 2024 NODA, in particular for refrigeration systems and
through comments raised by Lennox. DOE addresses and discusses Lennox's
indicated technical issues in section IV of this document. The updated
analytical results that reflect the comments that have been addressed
can be found in section V of this document. DOE has concluded that the
analyses in this final rule are representative of the performance
capabilities and costs of WICF components to justify the adopted
standards. When proposing a standard level, DOE considers the benefits
and burdens of each TSL as discussed in section V.C.1 of this document.
As a result, DOE is adopting a standard level that represents the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified for both consumers and
manufacturers.
Senneca and Frank Door commented that the standards proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR for WICFs contain procedural and substantive flaws,
which affect the technical feasibility and economic justification of
the proposed standards and have the potential to violate EPCA and the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 1)
Senneca and Frank Door asserted that DOE used inaccurate inputs to
calculate several values that are integral to DOE's evaluation of
whether the proposed standards are economically justified, and that,
therefore, DOE should withdraw the September 2023 NOPR and redo the
evaluation with accurate inputs in every calculated value. (Senneca and
Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 6) Senneca and Frank Door commented that the
proposed standards would result in the elimination of certain types
and/or sizes of doors and the elimination of anti-sweat heat, which the
commenters stated would violate 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (Senneca and
Frank Door, No. 78 at pp. 5-6) Following publication of the March 2024
NODA, Senneca commented that the NODA does not address flaws in the
September 2023 NOPR. Senneca stated that DOE cannot identify technology
options that, when applied in a real-world context as opposed to
modeling, are capable of achieving the level of reductions that would
be required under either set of standards; in effect, DOE has failed to
meet its burden for both the standards in the September 2023 NOPR and
the March 2024 NODA.
Imperial Brown stated that the 0.06 coefficient to calculate the
March 2024 NODA MDEC for low-temperature doors is too stringent.
Imperial Brown stated that this reduction leads to MDEC requirements
that Imperial Brown believes the industry cannot achieve. Imperial
Brown stated that it supports energy conservation but is concerned that
the MDEC proposed is unattainable. (Imperial Brown, No. 84 at pp. 1-3)
RSG commented that the proposed changes in maximum daily energy
consumption for non-display doors would pose a significant challenge
because RSG and other manufacturers have already implemented reduced
anti-sweat heat as a design option to the meet the current standards.
RSG stated that the reduction in maximum daily energy consumption
outpaces the technology changes for reduced, real-world power
consumption; therefore, RSG suggested that DOE refrain from adopting
such significant reduction in the maximum daily energy consumption at
this time. (RSG, No. 69 at p. 1)
DOE notes that in the March 2024 NODA, DOE reviewed and updated
parts of its analyses based on stakeholder feedback from the September
2023 NOPR and DOE's own findings. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented
an updated engineering analysis for non-display doors based on
stakeholder feedback in response to the September 2023 NOPR and
presented updated LCC and PBP results, as well as national impacts. 89
FR 18555. Specifically, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented energy
consumption allowances for electricity-consuming devices that may be
present on non-display doors and updated the energy consumption due to
thermal load for low-temperature non-display doors. DOE addresses and
discusses the feedback received from Senneca and Frank Door, Imperial
Brown, and RSG in section IV and V of this document. In this final
rule, DOE is adopting standards for non-display doors that are less
stringent (i.e., allow a higher MDEC) than those proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR. In consideration of stakeholder feedback and
uncertainty as to whether all non-display doors could implement certain
design options (i.e., improved frame systems and reduced anti-sweat
heat) DOE is adopting a standard level that does not necessitate the
use of those design options, which is discussed in section V.C.1.a of
this document. Based on the considerations discussed in section V.C.1.a
of this document, DOE has concluded that the adopted standards for non-
display doors would not result in the elimination of certain types and/
or sizes of doors; nor would the adopted standards result in the
elimination of anti-sweat heat. Further, DOE has concluded that the
reduction in MDEC is achievable by the walk-in door industry. DOE has
concluded that the analyses in this final rule are sufficiently
representative of the performance capabilities and costs of WICF
components to justify the adopted standards.
Rep. Bice expressed strong opposition to multiple rules recently
proposed by DOE that would add new regulations. Rep. Bice expressed
concern that the consistent proposals coming out of DOE are adding
burdensome energy conservation standards to products Americans use on a
regular basis. Rep. Bice stated that increased standards will increase
production costs for manufacturers and retail prices for consumers and
asserted that this would cost millions of dollars with little long-term
benefit. (Rep. Bice, No. 82 at p. 1)
As previously discussed, EPCA requires that DOE must periodically
evaluate the appropriateness of

[[Page 104638]]

amended energy conservation standards and publish either a NOPD stating
that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE has concluded
that the standards adopted in this final rule are economically
justified and will save consumers $442.7 million annually (2023$) over
the lifetime of equipment shipped (see section I.C.1.c of this document
for details).
2. Comments Regarding the Proposed Compliance Date
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE estimated publication of a final
rule regarding amended energy conservation standards for walk-ins in
2024; therefore, for purposes of the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE
used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards
for walk-ins, consistent with the requirements of EPCA (see 42 U.S.C.
6313(f)(5)(B)(i)). 88 FR 60746, 60791.
In response, AHRI commented that the proposal requires as much as a
15-percent increase in efficiency. AHRI stated that a maximum 5-percent
increase in efficiency would be acceptable, depending on other related
requirements, however, AHRI also stated the 2027 timing for compliance
is not desirable even if DOE were to amend unit cooler energy
efficiency minimums by 5 percent given the EPA Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program (``SNAP'') 23 activities and test method
changes that would require efficiency improvements. (AHRI, No. 72 at p.
5) AHRI commented that should DOE adopt the standards proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR without any changes, AHRI suggests that DOE target
to publish this final rule by June 2025 with a 3-year compliance period
(i.e., compliance required by June 2028). AHRI recommended that if
there are changes to the September 2023 NOPR based on stakeholder
comments, the compliance date should be pushed back further. (Id. at p.
14)
Lennox commented that a 3-year lead time to comply with potential
amended WICF energy conservation standards is inadequate. Lennox
commented that manufacturer engineering, lab, and product development
resources are already overburdened through 2026 due to required
compliance with EPA's ``technology transition'' final rule. Lennox
added that manufacturer resources are additionally strained by
competing out-of-sequence rulemakings, which impose a cumulative
regulatory burden on WICF manufacturers. Lennox requested that DOE
allow an additional 2 years' lead time (for a total of 5 years) to
comply with any amended WICF energy conservation standards; Lennox
added that the 5-year lead time would allow for WICF manufacturers to
implement required changes after the required EPA refrigerant
transition. Lennox commented that due to these factors, manufacturing
capacity and/or engineering resource constraints are significant and
may indeed limit consumer access to, as well as increase costs for,
WICF under a 3-year, versus a 5-year, compliance period. Lennox further
commented that even a 5-year compliance period is feasible only if DOE
issues final standards that are no more stringent than those proposed
in the NOPR. (Lennox, No. 70 at pp. 1-3, 9)
Additionally, in response to the March 2024 NODA, Lennox stated
that as an alternative to allowing a longer compliance period, DOE
should postpone the rulemaking process until the low-GWP products are
available to ensure DOE meets the statutory criteria in promulgating
energy conservation standards that are ``economically justified.''
Lennox stated that increasing the energy efficiency of WICF products
using low-GWP refrigerants presents significant uncertainty regarding
costs and stated that DOE has not adequately addressed this issue, as
the design and manufacture of WICF equipment that uses low-GWP
refrigerants is complex and involves A2L refrigerants that present
significant engineering challenges different from existing refrigerants
used. Lennox stated it is premature for DOE to consider tightening
standards for WICF equipment that is not yet on the market. (Lennox,
No. 87 at p. 2) Lennox stated that DOE should not move to a final rule
regarding WICF equipment, but rather DOE should continue to improve its
analysis to ensure that the proposed standards are economically
justified. Lennox also stated that given the substantial redesign of
WICF equipment that is already underway regarding EPA requirements to
transition to equipment that uses low-GWP refrigerant, Lennox believes
DOE's best course would defer further rulemaking until that redesigned
equipment is better understood and engineering and lab capacity becomes
available to better assess amended WICF energy conservation standards.
(Lennox, No. 87 at pp. 4-5) NRAC commented that engineering resources
will be fully consumed by the transition to low-GWP refrigerants and
transitioning all product lines to the new safety standards. NRAC
commented that it will have insufficient time to meet the 2027 amended
standard compliance date and requested a pause on the amended standards
until after the transition to low-GWP refrigerants is complete. NRAC
commented that the proposed rulemaking would require a transition to
new low-GWP A2L refrigerants as well as a change in all the safety
standards, which would in turn require changes to testing and design of
current equipment. NRAC recommended a pause, delay, or no-new-standards
rulemaking to benefit the environment and all parties. (NRAC, No. 73 at
pp. 2-3)
DOE understands that Federal and State refrigerant regulations,
such as EPA's October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule,
require manufacturers of WICF refrigeration systems to cease
manufacturing equipment that uses high-GWP HFC refrigerants and to
begin manufacturing redesigned equipment that uses low-GWP refrigerants
before that rule's compliance date, which would occur prior to the
expected compliance date of new and amended DOE standards. As discussed
in section V.B.2.e of this document, DOE expects that the research and
development and capital investment required to comply with the October
2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule may exceed the typical
industry R&D and capital expenses. DOE has quantitatively estimated
those expenditures in its Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM'')
\20\ in the no-new-standards case and standards case to reflect the
increased operating expenses and reduced cash flow experienced by
industry due to Federal refrigerant regulations. DOE qualitatively
discusses potential engineering and laboratory resource constraints in
section V.B.2.cof this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The GRIMs developed for this final rule are available for
download at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the timeline to comply with EPA refrigerant regulations,
in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register
on December 15, 2022 (``December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions
NOPR''), EPA proposed a January 1, 2025 compliance date for the
refrigeration categories that apply to walk-in refrigeration systems
(i.e., remote condensing units and cold storage warehouse systems). 87
FR 76738, 76810. In the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final
Rule, EPA determined that due to the need for

[[Page 104639]]

certain SNAP approvals,\21\ updates to building codes, equipment
design, testing, and certifications, technician trainings, and
manufacturing facility upgrades, providing additional time to comply
was reasonable for certain subsectors in retail food refrigeration,
including the categories applicable to walk-in refrigeration systems.
88 FR 73098, 73149-73152. As such, EPA finalized a compliance date of
January 1, 2026, for both remote condensing units and cold storage
warehouses, delaying compliance one year from what was proposed in the
December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The EPA SNAP program evaluates and approves alternative
refrigerants to those that are no longer compliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA, DOE analyzed a 3-
year compliance lead-in period for walk-in doors, panels, and
refrigeration systems, which DOE modeled as requiring compliance in
2027. DOE notes that it has some flexibility under EPCA to delay the
effective date of amended standards: if the Secretary determines that a
3-year period is inadequate, the Secretary may establish an effective
date for WICFs manufactured beginning on the date that is not more than
5 years after the date of publication of a final rule for WICFs. (42
U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)(B)(ii)) DOE received comments regarding industry's
ability to meet the standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR
specific to walk-in refrigeration systems. Although most manufacturers
emphasized that a 3-year lead-in and 2027 compliance date would not be
feasible due to engineering and laboratory resource constraints related
to the refrigerant transition, RSG commented that a 2027 compliance
date would be viable to meet the standards proposed in the September
2023 NOPR for walk-in refrigeration systems. (RSG, No. 69 at p. 3) AHRI
commented that if DOE adopted the standards proposed in the September
2023 NOPR, a June 2028 compliance date would be feasible for industry.
Generally, DOE understands that aligning compliance dates to avoid
multiple successive redesigns can help to reduce cumulative regulatory
burden. However, most stakeholder comments indicate that the rulemaking
timelines and compliance periods for DOE and EPA regulations make it
challenging to redesign and retest walk-in refrigeration systems
simultaneously to meet both the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions
Final Rule and new and amended DOE standards. Specifically,
manufacturers are in the midst of redesigning walk-in refrigeration
systems to comply with the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions
Final Rule by January 1, 2026, and may not be able to incorporate the
necessary updates to comply with new and amended DOE standards within
the same design cycle. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of significant
walk-in refrigeration system shipments currently rated above the
baseline efficiency level (i.e., EL 0). Thus, DOE expects that most
manufacturers will need to update their equipment portfolios to meet
the standards adopted in this final rule. Therefore, based on
stakeholder comments and DOE's assessment of the investments and
redesign required to meet the adopted levels, combined with the
overlapping Federal refrigerant regulations, DOE is extending the
compliance period so that compliance is required by December 31, 2028
(modeled as 2029), approximately 1 year later than the expected
compliance year (2027) analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR (which was
based on a 3-year compliance period).
DOE has determined that spreading out the DOE compliance date for
amended energy conservation standards from the October 2023 EPA
Technology Transitions Final Rule compliance date will help alleviate
manufacturers' concerns about engineering and laboratory resource
constraints. Furthermore, the longer compliance period will help
mitigate cumulative regulatory burden by allowing manufacturers more
flexibility to spread investments across approximately 4 years instead
of 3 years. Manufacturers will also have more time to recoup any
investments made to redesign walk-in equipment for the October 2023 EPA
Technology Transitions Final Rule as compared to a 3-year compliance
period.
DOE did not receive comments regarding the 3-year compliance period
analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR for walk-in doors or panels.
Therefore, DOE maintains the 3-year compliance period for the amended
walk-in non-display doors standard in this final rule, which DOE models
as 2028. As previously discussed, DOE is not amending the standard for
walk-in panels and display doors.
3. Comments Regarding Rulemaking Process
In response to the September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA, DOE
received several comments regarding the process of the rulemaking.
In response to both the September 2023 NOPR and the March 2024
NODA, AHRI requested that DOE consider a pause in its current
rulemakings relating to energy conservation standards for walk-ins,
given the efforts now underway across the HVACR industry to transition
to new classes of refrigerants with low GWP for the AIM Act. AHRI
commented that since most substitute refrigerants capable of complying
with the AIM Act are A2Ls, SNAP approvals contain highly prescriptive
use conditions and limitations, including conformance to safety
standards that are now in the process of being updated and revised,
such as ASHRAE 15 \22\ and UL 60335-2-89. AHRI commented that State and
local building codes further complicate the picture, with many
prohibiting A2Ls and requiring updating, which can take 2 to 5 years to
complete--eight States have updated their codes and more than 20 have
yet to authorize A2L refrigerants for commercial refrigeration. (AHRI,
No. 72 at pp. 1-2 and No. 86 at pp. 1-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ ASHRAE Standard 15, Safety Standard for Refrigeration
Systems and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022, Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is statutorily required to publish either a NOPD if it finds
that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The final rules
that established the current standards for walk-in doors and
refrigeration systems were issued in 2014 and 2017, respectively.
Further, EPCA specifically prescribed that no later than January 1,
2020, DOE shall publish a final rule to determine if standards for
walk-ins should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(5)) DOE is conducting
this rulemaking pursuant to these statutory requirements.
Regarding AHRI's comments surrounding the transition to low-GWP
refrigerants in response to Federal refrigerant regulations, DOE
considered the refrigerant transition and the burdens that come with it
in the analyses that support this final rule. With respect to AHRI's
concern that some State and local building codes currently prohibit
A2Ls, DOE notes that although it considers the potential impacts of
refrigerant regulations on walk-in refrigeration systems in its
analysis, the energy conservation standards adopted in this final rule
generally do not require the use of specific refrigerants (e.g.,
A2Ls).\23\

[[Page 104640]]

Furthermore, DOE is aware of ongoing efforts by industry groups and
other stakeholders to work with State and local officials to update
building codes to allow for alternative refrigerants, such as A2Ls.
Additionally, DOE notes that EPA, to the extent practicable, took
building codes into account in its consideration of availability of
substitutes in the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule.
88 FR 73098, 73136. As such, DOE understands that EPA established
compliance dates for the transition to low-GWP refrigerants with the
expectation that jurisdictions will prioritize completing building code
updates with the October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule
deadlines in mind. Id. DOE notes that the change in the EPA compliance
date for walk-in refrigeration systems (i.e., from January 1, 2025
proposed in the December 2022 EPA Technology Transitions NOPR to
January 1, 2026 finalized in the October 2023 EPA Technology
Transitions Final Rule) provides additional time for jurisdictions to
update their building codes or legislation accordingly. As previously
discussed, DOE is finalizing a compliance date of December 31, 2028,
for walk-in refrigeration systems (approximately 3 years after the
October 2023 EPA Technology Transitions Final Rule compliance date for
walk-in refrigeration systems), which DOE believes is sufficient time
for manufacturers to comply with the adopted standards, accounting for
other regulatory obligations. DOE expects that all states will have
updated their building codes to reference the updated mechanical codes
and safety standards by the December 31, 2028, compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ DOE notes that it expects that manufacturers of lower-
capacity medium temperature single-packaged dedicated condensing
systems would generally incorporate propane compressors at the
standard level adopted in this final rule. However, the charge of
propane required for these systems is within the acceptable charge
limits specified in an EPA SNAP rule for propane in a refrigeration
circuit (300 grams) for refrigeration systems with end-uses in the
retail food industry. 89 FR 50410, 50467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ravnitsky supported DOE's efforts to improve the energy efficiency
of walk-ins, stating that the benefits estimated by DOE are substantial
for the consumers, economy, and environment. Ravnitsky recommended that
DOE adopt a negotiated rulemaking process to revise the standards for
walk-ins. (Michael Ravnitzky, No. 55 at pp. 1-3)
The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
(``ASRAC'') allows DOE to use negotiated rulemaking as a method to
engage all interested parties, gather data, and attempt to reach
consensus on establishing energy conservation standards. ASRAC has not
voted to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking regarding energy
conservation standards for WICFs. Further, there was no additional
information provided to suggest that a negotiated rulemaking would
result in standards significantly different than those proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR or adopted in this final rule. Therefore, DOE is
adopting this final rule after using the typical rulemaking process.
Senneca commented that the information contained in the March 2024
NODA undermines DOE's standards proposed in the September 2023 NOPR.
Senneca stated that the failure to consider the energy consumption of
the additionally analyzed electricity-consuming devices (i.e., heating
vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/temperature
alarms) despite having documented that they are all included on models
of doors covered by the proposed standards invalidates DOE's
conclusions that the proposed standards are technologically feasible
and economically justified as they were based on a model door that is
not representative of doors in the market. Senneca commented that DOE
should withdraw the proposed standards and restart the process so that
additional electrical components can be included in the required
analysis. (Senneca, No. 92 at pp. 1-2) Senneca stated that DOE cannot
propose new standards in a NODA. Senneca stated that the new standards
cannot be considered a logical outgrowth of the September 2023 NOPR.
Senneca also stated that the standards are not amendments to existing
standards and that they are entirely new standards for entirely new
classes of equipment. (Senneca, No. 92 at pp. 2-3) Senneca further
stated that if DOE considered product literature and non-public
information, DOE must first make data and information available to the
public as part of the rulemaking docket before using that data and
information. (Senneca, No. 92 at p. 3) Hormann and Jamison supported
the comments made by Senneca and Frank Door in response to the
September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA. (Hormann, No. 85 at p. 1;
Jamison, No. 83 at p. 1)
As noted previously, under EPCA DOE has authority to amend the
energy conservation standards applicable to certain industrial
equipment, including equipment meeting the definition of walk-in
coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m); 6316(a); 6311(20)).
In doing so, DOE may make certain standards more stringent and can
impose additional standards on equipment that fall within the
definition of a covered equipment category that previously were not
subject to existing regulation. Consistent with EPCA's purposes, this
authority allows DOE to amend standards to adjust to technological
innovations and changes in the marketplace. DOE further has authority
to establish separate equipment classes 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 short,
DOE has authority to amend the energy conservation standards applicable
to walk-ins and to add certain equipment classes, as adopted in this
final rule.
DOE further responds that it did not propose new standards in the
March 2024 NODA. As discussed in the March 2024 NODA, upon
consideration of the views shared in the September 2023 Public Webinar
and public comments DOE received in response to the September 2023
NOPR, the March 2024 NODA presented an analysis with updated portions
of DOE's NOPR analysis for walk-in non-display doors and refrigeration
systems on which DOE had sought comments, data, and information. 89 FR
18555, 18556. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE demonstrated how the updated
analysis applied to the existing equipment classes through the
inclusion of the MDEC allowances (see section IV.A.1.a of this
document) for non-display doors and the impact on the standards
equations proposed in the September 2023 NOPR, which functionally would
make them sub-classes within the existing class structure. (Id. at 89
FR 18576). DOE did not propose any new TSLs and sought further public
input. Id. In this final rule, DOE has incorporated additional feedback
regarding the March 2024 NODA analysis (see section IV of this final
rule) and adopted standards that reflect the totality of feedback
received during this rulemaking process, including the comments
regarding energy use of electricity-consuming components, in response
to both the September 2023 NOPR and the March 2024 NODA. The standards
adopted in this final rule are within the range of alternatives
proposed in the September 2023 NOPR.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE summarized the NOPR stage
deviations from 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (which DOE
referred to as the ``Process Rule'' in that document). 88 FR 60746,
60756. In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door
disagreed with DOE's decision to deviate from the process outlined for
the development of new

[[Page 104641]]

efficiency standards, specifically regarding DOE's decision not to
publish a Framework Document due to alleged redundancy and to reduce
the comment period for interested parties to respond to the proposed
rule by 20 percent. Senneca and Frank Door commented that if redundancy
and multiplicity of comment opportunities were valid reasons to deviate
from the Process Rule, no standards development rulemaking would need
to follow the process adopted by DOE in that rule. Senneca and Frank
Door commented that DOE's rulemaking process intentionally includes
requirements to explain aspects of the rulemaking in multiple documents
and provide interested parties with multiple opportunities to comment.
Senneca and Frank Door additionally commented that the previous
opportunities for interested parties to provide comments were not, in
fact, opportunities to comment on the proposed standards themselves,
but instead were opportunities for interested parties to inform DOE's
decisions on whether to propose amended standards and what the proposed
standards should be. Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's
rationale for limiting the opportunity for the public to participate in
the development of the proposed standards was further weakened when two
leading trade associations jointly requested additional time to comment
due to the complexity of the issues presented in the proposal, a
request that DOE refused to accommodate. Senneca and Frank Door
commented that DOE's decision to deviate from the Process Rule sets a
precedent to continue deviating from the Process Rule. (Senneca and
Frank Door, No. 78 at pp. 2-3)
Senneca and Frank Door commented that prior opportunities to
comment on the technological feasibility and economic costs of the
potential new standards did not sufficiently capture important
information from WICF door manufacturers. Senneca and Frank Door
commented that the single manufacturer of WICF doors to comment on
DOE's Preliminary Analysis does not manufacture any doors that would be
covered by the proposed standards, and that DOE's reliance on
information from this manufacturer to justify reducing the amount of
information made available to the public, shorten the length of the
comment period, and support the conclusion that the proposed standards
are technically feasible and economically justified is inconsistent
with DOE's commitment to robust participation. (Id.)
In a final rule published on December 13, 2021, DOE adopted a
provision allowing it to depart from the general guidance in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A so long as DOE provides notice and an
explanation (86 FR 70892, 70896). This rule restored DOE's authority to
deviate on a case-by-case basis, which was included in previous
versions of appendix A. (61 FR 36974) The provisions at 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A contain procedures, interpretations and
policies that are generally applicable to the development of energy
conservation standards, but DOE may, as provided in the rule itself,
deviate from this appendix to account for the specific circumstances of
a particular rulemaking. See section (3)(a) of appendix A to subpart C
of 10 CFR part 431. If DOE concludes that changes to the procedures,
interpretations, or policies in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
are necessary or appropriate, DOE will provide notice in the Federal
Register of modifications to this appendix with an accompanying
explanation. See section (3)(b) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR
part 431.
As provided in the September 2023 NOPR, 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. As such, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE determined that
publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant
given previously published documents. DOE maintains its determination
that publication of a separate framework document would be largely
redundant for this rulemaking. Further, 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A as amended does not require that a framework document and
preliminary analysis be published in the pre-NOPR stage and states that
such pre-NOPR documents could take several forms depending upon the
specific proceeding. See section 6(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10
CFR part 430.
As also 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
the September 2023 NOPR analysis remained largely the same as the June
2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of the 60-day comment period
DOE provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined
that a 60-day comment period was appropriate for the September 2023
NOPR and provided interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the proposed rule. 88 FR 60746, 60756. Additionally, DOE
made subsequent updates to the September 2023 NOPR analysis in the
March 2024 NODA and provided interested parties an opportunity to
comment on those updates. 89 FR 18555.
Regarding Senneca and Frank Door's assertion that previous
opportunities for interested parties to provide comments were not
opportunities to comment on the proposed standards themselves, DOE
notes that stakeholders were given the opportunity to comment on the
assumptions used in analyses that fed into the standards proposed in
the September 2023 NOPR. As discussed previously in this section, the
analysis presented in the September 2023 NOPR remained largely the same
as the analysis presented in the June 2022 preliminary analysis.
Additionally, the March 2024 NODA afforded stakeholders an additional
opportunity to comment on the updated analysis. As such, stakeholders
were given multiple opportunities to provide input on the analyses and
assumptions that support this final rule.
Regarding Senneca and Frank Door's assertion that prior
opportunities to comment on the technological feasibility and economic
costs of the potential new standards did not sufficiently capture
important information from WICF door manufacturers, DOE notes that in
addition to public comments, DOE sought feedback from WICF door
manufacturers during confidential manufacturer interviews. Feedback
from these interviews has been incorporated throughout the September
2023 NOPR analysis and this final rule analysis.
4. Comments Regarding Prescriptive Standards
Kolpak requested that DOE clarify its requirements for minimizing
infiltration when doors are open and suggested that DOE require spring-
loaded hinges causing the door to self-close and either fan-driven air
curtains, strip curtains, or strip doors. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1
at pp. 2-3)

[[Page 104642]]

The prescriptive standards for walk-ins were set in EPCA by
Congress and were subsequently codified by DOE at 10 CFR 431.306(a)(2).
It is required that each walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer manufacturer
on or after January 1, 2009, have strip doors, spring-hinged doors, or
other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. DOE is
not updating the prescriptive standards for walk-ins in this
rulemaking.
5. Comments Regarding the Standards Equations
DOE presented several potential energy conservation standards
curves for refrigeration systems as supporting data for the March 2024
NODA. See section 7 of the NODA support document.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ ``Detailed Data for Engineering Analysis and National
Impact Analysis for the Notice of Data Availability Pertaining to
Walk-in Coolers and Walk-In Freezers.'' Available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0079">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0009-0079</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHRI, Hussmann, and Lennox stated that for the medium-temperature
and low-temperature unit cooler (UC.M and UC.L) equipment classes, the
efficiency level selected is the same for TSL 1, 2 and 3 but that there
are different standards equations for TSL 3 than TSL 1 and 2 in the
NODA support document. (AHRI, No. 86 at pp. 5-6; Hussmann, No. 88 at
pp. 3-4; Lennox, No. 87 at p. 6) AHRI requested that DOE clarify the
difference between the equations for TSL 1 and 2 and those for TSL 3.
(AHRI, No. 86 at pp. 5-6)
DOE notes that the standards equations shown for medium-temperature
and low-temperature unit coolers in the March 2024 NODA support
document at TSL 3 should have matched those for TSL 1 and TSL 2, as the
same efficiency level was selected for each TSL. The equations for TSL
3 were erroneously different from those at TSL 1 and 2 for medium-
temperature and low-temperature unit coolers. DOE also notes that in
the NODA support document, the equation for the high-temperature,
ducted unit coolers at TSL 2 was erroneously written and did not
account for the updated NODA analysis. In this final rule, the equation
at TSL 2, which is the adopted standard level, has been corrected to
reflect the changes made in the March 2024 NODA analysis. DOE does not
believe these typographical errors impacted commenters' ability to
evaluate and provide input on DOE's updated analysis.
AHRI and Lennox asked how the equation (- 6.43 x 10-6 x
q<INF>net</INF> + 9.97) that increases the minimum AWEF2 from 9.65 in
the September 2023 NOPR to a higher minimum AWEF2 up to 9.9 in the
March 2024 NODA for net capacities greater than or equal to 9 kBtu/h
and less than 54 kBtu/h was determined. (AHRI, No. 86 at p. 5; Lennox
No. 87 at pp. 7-8) AHRI asserted that the AWEF2 standard should reflect
a decrease and not an increase and recommended that DOE review the
rationale and reconcile it with the change in the AWEF2 standard.
(AHRI, No. 86 at p. 5)
In the September 2023 NOPR, for medium-temperature and low-
temperature unit coolers, DOE proposed standards at constant AWEF2
values (i.e., the proposed AWEF2 standard did not vary with capacity).
Specifically, DOE proposed a standard equal to the average AWEF2
corresponding to the selected efficiency levels of each representative
capacity in the selected TSL. Stakeholders pointed out that the
proposed AWEF2 levels were above the ``max-tech'' levels for some of
the representative capacities. (AHRI, No. 72 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 75
at p. 2) Additionally, the proposed AWEF2 levels were below the ``max-
tech'' levels for other representative capacities. In the March 2024
NODA, DOE presented standards equations for medium-temperature unit
coolers that vary with capacity, following the representative-capacity
efficiency levels more closely, but not exceeding any of the ``max-
tech'' levels for specific representative capacities. As such, the
presented standards equation resulted in AWEF2 values that were greater
than what was proposed in the September 2023 NOPR for capacities
between 9 kBtu/h and 54 kBtu/h for medium-temperature unit coolers.
See section IV.E.1 for discussion regarding how DOE set the
standards equations for the standards adopted in this final rule.

B. Scope of Coverage

This final rule 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 (``[deg]F'')
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 previously established separate
standards for the principal components that make up a walk-in (i.e.,
doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). In this final rule, DOE has
continued with this approach.
A ``door'' means an assembly installed in an opening on an interior
or exterior wall that is used to allow access or to 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.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, AHRI commented that DOE is
expanding the scope of the rulemaking to include CO<INF>2</INF> unit
coolers, multi-circuit single-packaged dedicated systems, and ducted
fan coil units, but DOE has not been able to procure a CO<INF>2</INF>-
dedicated condensing unit and did not test or allow for CO<INF>2</INF>-
dedicated condensing units. AHRI commented that the walk-in market will
probably adopt CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing units. (AHRI, No. 72
at p. 7)
In response to AHRI's assertion that DOE did not allow for
CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing units, DOE notes that the test
procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems does not explicitly define
scope based on refrigerant, as discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule.
88 FR 28780, 28786. Notwithstanding the fact that DOE did not adopt
test procedures specifically for CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing
units addressing the unique characteristics of CO<INF>2</INF>, DOE has
concluded that all such condensing units currently available, whether
in the United States or elsewhere, can be tested using the existing
test procedures set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendices C
and C1. Specifically, DOE's understanding is that no modifications are
needed to test CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing units under the
walk-in dedicated condensing unit test procedure, provided the
CO<INF>2</INF> exiting the condensing unit is liquid. DOE also

[[Page 104643]]

notes that there are CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing units
certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'')
currently. On this basis, and the fact that no petitions for waiver of
the DOE test procedure for condensing units have been submitted, DOE
concludes that the current test procedures and energy conservation
standards are applicable to such equipment. If a manufacturer believes
that a CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing unit contains one or more
design characteristics that prevent testing of the basic model(s)
according to the prescribed DOE test procedures or cause the prescribed
test procedures to evaluate the CO<INF>2</INF>-dedicated condensing
unit in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption
characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data,
then manufacturers can petition for a waiver in accordance with 10 CFR
431.401. DOE notes that in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted test
provisions specific for CO<INF>2</INF> unit coolers and added new
provisions to appendix C1 because the industry test procedure
referenced in the DOE test procedure at the time (AHRI 1250-2009,
referenced in appendix C) did not accommodate CO<INF>2</INF> unit
coolers. The procedure and provisions that DOE adopted were consistent
with waivers and interim waivers granted to manufacturers of
CO<INF>2</INF> unit coolers. 88 FR 28780, 28786.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment
classes analyzed in this final rule.

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 as
the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any
representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate
whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation
standard(s). 10 CFR 429.110(e). The current test procedure for walk-in
display and non-display doors is codified at 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix A (``appendix A''), which includes provisions for
determining maximum daily energy consumption, the metric on which
current standards for walk-in display and non-display doors are based.
10 CFR 431.306 The current test procedure for walk-in panels is
codified at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix B (``appendix B''),
which includes provisions for determining R-value, the metric on which
current standards for walk-in panels are based. The current test
procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems is codified at 10 CFR part
431, subpart R, appendix C (``appendix C''). Appendix C includes
provisions for determining AWEF, the metric on which current standards
for walk-in refrigeration systems are based.
In the September 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE used the test procedures
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 referred to as 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 efficiency
metric, AWEF2, for refrigeration systems. (See 10 CFR part 431, subpart
R, appendix C1.) The engineering analysis results and the adopted
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 energy conservation standards
promulgated as a result of this rulemaking.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
As discussed, 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))
To determine whether potential amended standards would be
technologically feasible, DOE first develops a list of all known
technologies and design options that could improve the efficiency of
the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. DOE
considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products
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). Section IV.A.2 of this document discusses the technology
options identified by DOE for this analysis. For further details on the
technology assessment conducted for this final rule, see chapter 3 of
the final rule TSD.
After DOE has determined which, if any, technologies and design
options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each
technology and design option in light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and
service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3)
adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5). Those technology options that
are ``screened out'' based on these criteria are not considered
further. Those technology and design options that are not screened out
are considered as the basis for higher efficiency levels that DOE could
consider for potential amended standards. Section IV.B of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis conducted for this
final rule. For further details on the screening analysis conducted for
this final rule, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
EPCA requires that for any proposed rule that prescribes an amended
or new energy conservation standard or prescribes no amendment or no
new standard for a type (or class) of covered product, DOE must
determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for each type
(or class) of covered products. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1). Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE identifies
the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level representing the maximum
theoretical efficiency that can be achieved through the application of
all available technology options retained from the screening
analysis.\25\ In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not
commercially available because it is not currently economically
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ In applying these design options, DOE would only include
those that are compatible with each other that when combined, would
represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are
described in section IV.C.1 of this document and in chapter 5 of the
final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level, DOE projected energy savings from
application of the TSL to walk-in doors,

[[Page 104644]]

panels, and refrigeration systems purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057
for doors and panels, 2029-2058 for refrigeration systems).\26\ The
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of walk-ins purchased in
the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-
standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that
reflects how the market for the equipment would likely evolve in the
absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended
standards for walk-ins. 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 are the
savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site
electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered
to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in
terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy savings. The FFC metric
includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 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. 6316(a); 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.\28\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
the impacts of products 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ 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 adopted in this final rule are
projected to result in national energy savings of 1.60 quad, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 10.6 million homes.
Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in
emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has
determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this
final rule 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 potential new or amended standards 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 payback period (``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 cost (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

[[Page 104645]]

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 IV.H of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of
the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 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 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)) To assist the Department of Justice (``DOJ'')
in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed
rule and the NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a
request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its
assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed
energy conservation standards for walk-ins are unlikely to have a
significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation 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 adopted standards are
likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also
may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M 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 adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K 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 IV.L 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 effect potential amended 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) and 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 IV.F of this document.

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 considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the GRIM,
to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three
spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
<a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/walk-coolers-and-walk-freezers">https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/walk-coolers-and-walk-freezers</a>.
Additionally, DOE used outputs from the latest version of the Energy
Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook
(``AEO'') 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

[[Page 104646]]

market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the
products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market
characteristics, and technologies used in the products. 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) market and industry trends, and (5) 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 final rule TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing or amending 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
considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer
and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (Id.)
As noted previously, rather than establishing standards for
complete walk-in systems, DOE has established separate standards for
each of the principal components that make up a walk-in (i.e., doors,
panels, and refrigeration systems). DOE's analysis for each component
is discussed in the following sections.
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.
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. Display doors are
further divided based on walk-in temperature (i.e., cooler/medium-
temperature or freezer/low-temperature). DOE currently defines separate
energy conservation standards for these two classes of display doors:
medium-temperature and low-temperature. 10 CFR 431.306(c).
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE considered distinguishing display
door classes by the presence or absence of a motorized door opener for
the purposes of its analysis. DOE analyzed medium- and low-temperature
display doors without motorized door openers and medium-temperature
display doors with motorized door openers. Id. DOE did not identify any
motorized display doors for low-temperature applications and therefore
did not analyze such equipment in the September 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 60746,
60761. Ultimately, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE did not find that
amended standards for display doors were economically justified and
therefore, DOE did not propose any amendments to the class structure
for display doors. 88 FR 60746, 60841-60843.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the equipment classes
analyzed for display doors in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE maintains
its conclusion from the September 2023 NOPR for this final rule, and
for the purposes of this analysis, evaluated amended standards for
display doors by presence or absence of a motorized door opener.
Therefore, DOE evaluated the display door equipment classes in Table
IV.1 for this final rule. However, as discussed further in section
V.C.1.a of this document, DOE has determined that amended standards for
display doors are not economically justified; therefore, DOE is not
adopting equipment classes that differ from the existing classes for
display doors.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.017

DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for
representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher
efficiency levels for walk-in display doors in section IV.C.1 of this
document. Consistent with the September 2023 NOPR, DOE 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 final rule. 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 did not receive any comments regarding
this in response to the September 2023 NOPR and 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.a and IV.A.2.b of this document.
Non-Display Doors
Non-display doors are all doors not considered display doors. (10
CFR 431.302) Non-display doors are mainly used to allow people and
products to be moved into and out of the walk-in. Non-display doors are
further divided into equipment classes 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. Id. DOE defines passage doors as any doors that are not display
doors or freights doors. Id. Passage and freight doors are further
divided based on walk-in temperature (i.e., cooler/medium-temperature
or freezer/low-temperature). DOE currently defines separate energy
conservation standards for the following walk-in non-display door
classes (10 CFR 431.306(d)):

<bullet> Passage Door, Medium-temperature
<bullet> Passage Door, Low-temperature
<bullet> Freight Door, Medium-temperature
<bullet> Freight Door, Low-temperature

[[Page 104647]]

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to combine passage and
freight non-display door classes and instead differentiate non-display
doors by whether or not they have motorized door openers. 88 FR 60746,
60761. Unlike door size, DOE tentatively determined that the presence
or absence of a motorized door opener was a performance-related feature
that justified adopting a different standard. 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). Id.
As discussed in the March 2024 NODA, DOE received comments in
response to the September 2023 NOPR indicating that other electricity-
consuming devices such as heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights,
and thermometer/temperature alarms provide functionality. These
physical and functional attributes, which can be installed on non-
display doors, were not considered in the representative units analyzed
in the September 2023 NOPR but would be included in the calculation of
daily energy consumption (``DEC'') per the test procedure. The current
MDEC standards allow for additional electrical components such as
heated vents, heated viewing windows, lights, and thermometer/
temperature alarms to be included and considered in the DEC
calculation. However, the basis of the energy conservation standards
proposed in the September 2023 NOPR only accounted for the electrical
energy consumption from anti-sweat heat around the perimeter of the
door (and motors for doors classified as ``motorized non-display
doors''). As a result, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE tentatively
concluded that the proposed standards as outlined in the September 2023
NOPR may be difficult to meet for basic models of doors that have
additional electrical components beyond what DOE considered in its
representative units. 89 FR 18555, 18556-18559.
Therefore, in the March 2024 NODA, DOE presented an updated
analysis that included MDEC allowances for non-display doors with
certain electricity-consuming devices based on the feedback received in
response to the September 2023 NOPR. These MDEC allowances represent
additional energy consumption added to the adopted standard calculation
based on the presence of these certain electricity-consuming devices.
The MDEC allowances implement the four features as adders which
effectively result in a less-stringent standard when applied to the
base equipment class. In the March 2024 NODA, DOE considered MDEC
allowances, which represent additional equipment classes of non-display
doors, if manufacturers offer basic models with any combination of the
following four electricity-consuming devices:

[square] Lighting
[square] Anti-sweat heat for viewing window
[square] Digital temperature display with or without alarms
[square] Heated pressure relief vent

The four features are implemented as adders, which effectively
result in a less-stringent standard when applied to the base equipment
class. For example, if a basic model is sold with lighting, then the
basic model would be subject to the adopted standard for that equipment
class (i.e., manual or motorized, low-temperature or medium-temperature
non-display door) plus the lighting MDEC allowance. The allowances are
additive, i.e., maximum allowed MDEC is increased for each of the
devices that is present on the door.
Each of these electrical components is a performance-related
feature that provides functionality to the consumer when installed on a
non-display door. Pursuant to EPCA, 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
the equipment's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) In
the March 2024 NODA, DOE noted that these devices constitute a
performance-related feature that justifies a higher standard. DOE
sought comment in the March 2024 NODA on the MDEC allowances for the
specified electricity-consuming devices. 89 FR 18555, 18559. DOE
discusses comments received regarding the MDEC allowances in section
IV.C.1.c of this document.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the approach outlined in the
updated analysis from the March 2024 NODA, that lighting, anti-sweat
heat for viewing windows, digital temperature displays with or without
alarms, and heated pressure-relief vents constitute performance-related
features that justify a higher MDEC standard. Each equipment class of
non-display doors is being further subdivided based on whether each
electricity-consuming device is present or not present. DOE analyzed
the equipment classes listed in Table IV.2 for walk-in non-display
doors. DOE further evaluated the MDEC allowances for classes of non-
display doors with lighting, anti-sweat heat for viewing windows,
digital temperature displays with or without alarms, and/or heated
pressure relief vents.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.018

DOE discusses representative units, baseline assumptions for
representative unit efficiency, and design options analyzed at higher
efficiency levels for walk-in non-display doors in section IV.C.1.c of
this document. DOE discusses MDEC allowances and the comments received
in response to the March 2024 NODA regarding the MDEC allowances in
section IV.C.1.c 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

[[Page 104648]]

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. DOE expected that setting an R-value requirement for walk-in
cooler floor panels would cause manufacturers to stop selling cooler
floor panels to avoid the certification burden. 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 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
<bullet> Floor Panel, Low-Temperature

DOE has not established energy conservation 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
September 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed maintaining the current panel
equipment classes. 88 FR 60746, 60761-60762. DOE received no comment
regarding panel equipment classes in response to the September 2023
NOPR. As such, DOE is maintaining its current equipment classes for
walk-in panels. Table IV.3 summarizes the equipment classes for walk-in
panels.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.019

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.

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.
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, in general, DOE has
separated packaged equipment from split dedicated condensing
systems,\29\ as packaged equipment provides consumers with more options
for space-constrained applications. Single-packaged dedicated 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. Single-packaged dedicated
systems are constrained by the overall dimensions and weight
limitations of the equipment; therefore, manufacturers cannot employ
the same technologies, such as increased heat exchanger sizes. In the
September 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that single-packaged
system and split system walk-in refrigeration systems cannot be
combined into the same equipment class because single-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. For these reasons, in
the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated single-packaged dedicated
systems separately from split systems. 88 FR 60746, 60762-60763.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the September 2023
NOPR or March 2024 NODA regarding its separation of equipment classes
for single-packaged dedicated systems and split systems. Further, DOE
maintains its conclusion that separate equipment classes are warranted
for single-packaged dedicated systems and split systems. Therefore, in
this final rule, DOE maintained a separate analysis for single-packaged
dedicated systems and split systems equipment classes.
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. DOE
established a test procedure for high-temperature unit coolers, matched
refrigeration systems, and single-

[[Page 104649]]

packaged dedicated condensing systems, but did not establish a test
procedure in the May 2023 TP Final Rule for high-temperature dedicated
condensing units tested alone. 88 FR 28780, 28816-28817. As such, DOE
did not analyze high-temperature dedicated condensing units as an
equipment class, but did analyze high-temperature unit coolers, matched
refrigeration systems, and single-packaged dedicated condensing systems
in the September 2023 NOPR analysis. 88 FR 60746, 60762-60763.
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 either sold in ducted or non-ducted
configurations, dependent on the configuration of the walk-in box and
surrounding space. Ducting adds flexibility to the installation
location and removes refrigeration equipment from the refrigerated
storage space. However, ducting imposes a higher external static
pressure on the system's fans and therefore, a ducted system has
greater energy consumption to maintain the same or sufficient airflow
(and sufficient cooling capacity) as a system without ducting. DOE
tentatively concluded ducting of high-temperature units constitutes a
performance-related feature. Therefore, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE
evaluated high-temperature ducted and non-ducted units as separate
equipment classes. Id.
For the September 2023 NOPR, different from the treatment of
medium-temperature and low-temperature matched refrigeration systems
and single-packaged dedicated systems, DOE evaluated high-temperature
matched refrigeration systems and high-temperature single-packaged
dedicated systems as a single equipment class because 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 tentatively determined that a
single class of equipment encompassing high-temperature matched
refrigeration systems and single-packaged dedicated systems is
appropriate. In its September 2023 NOPR 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the September 2023
NOPR or March 2024 NODA regarding its selection of high-temperature
refrigeration system equipment classes. Further, DOE maintains its
conclusions that the high-temperature refrigeration system classes
proposed in the September 2023 NOPR are appropriate. Therefore, in this
final rule, DOE maintained the high-temperature equipment classes
analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR.
DOE analyzed and is establishing the equipment classes for
refrigeration systems for this final rule presented in Table IV.4.
BILLING CODE 6410-01-P

[[Page 104650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.020

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE evaluated multiple capacities in
each equipment class to better ascertain the relationship between
efficiency and net capacity. In this final rule, DOE maintained the
same approach and evaluated multiple capacities in each equipment
class. This is discussed in more detail in the Representative Units
subsection of section IV.C.1.e of this document.
2. Technology Options
DOE considered separate technology options for whole walk-ins,
doors and panels, and refrigeration systems.
a. Fully Assembled Walk-Ins
Although DOE has set standards for walk-in components (i.e.,
panels, doors, and refrigeration systems) rather than fully assembled
walk-ins, EPCA gives DOE authority to establish standards that address
fully assembled walk-ins. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)). Hence, DOE has
considered technologies that could be relevant for fully assembled
walk-ins in its technology assessment. In the market analysis and
technology assessment presented in chapter 3 of the June 2022
Preliminary Analysis TSD and in the September 2023 NOPR, 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:

(1) Energy storage systems,
(2) Refrigeration system override,
(3) Automatic evaporator fan shut-off,
(4) Non-penetrative internal racks and shelving,
(5) Humidity sensors,
(6) Fiber optic natural lighting, and
(7) Heat reclaim valve.

DOE received no comments on the technology options that might
improve the efficiency of whole walk-ins in response to the September
2023 NOPR. DOE maintained the same technology options for whole walk-
ins for this final rule analysis. DOE further discusses these
technology options in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
b. Doors and Panels
In the NOPR 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. The technology options analyzed for doors in the September
2023 NOPR are listed in Table IV.5.

[[Page 104651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23DE24.021

BILLING CODE 6410-01-C
DOE received comments regarding several of the technology options
pertaining to the screening or use of these technology options in the
engineering analysis in response to the September 2023 NOPR and March
2024 NODA. DOE summarizes those comments and addresses them further in
sections IV.B and IV.C of this document.
DOE did not receive any comments suggesting that specific new
technology options for doors and panels be considered; therefore, DOE
is considering the same technology options for doors and panels in this
final rule that it considered in the September 2023 NOPR.
c. Refrigeration Systems
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE identified 17 technology options
that would be expected to improve the efficiency of refrigeration
systems,

1. Improved evaporator and condenser fan blades,
2. Improved evaporator and condenser coils,
3. Evaporator fan control,
4. Oil management systems,
5. Hydrocarbon refrigerants,\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Hydrocarbon refrigerants were not listed as a technology
option in the September 2023 NOPR notice. 88 FR 60746, 60764-60765.
However, they were listed as a technology option on p. 3-41 of
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD and considered in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis as a design option to improve AWEF2 of certain
refrigeration system representative units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Ambient subcooling,
7. Higher efficiency fan motors,
8. Higher efficiency compressors,
9. Variable-speed compressors,
10. Liquid suction heat exchanger,
11. Adaptive defrost,
12. Hot gas defrost,
13. Floating head pressure,
14. Variable-speed condenser fan control,
15. Economizer cooling,
16. Crankcase heater controls, and
17. Improved thermal insulation for single-packaged dedicated
systems.

88 FR 60746, 60764-60765.

Regarding the technology options analyzed in the September 2023
NOPR, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider additional design
options in its analysis that could justify even more cost-effective
savings for TSL 2, specifically evaporator fin density, two-speed
condenser fan modulation, more-efficient single-speed compressors,
electronic expansion valves, and efficiency improvements to condensate
pan heating. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at p. 1) Similarly, ASAP et al.
recommended that DOE consider electronic expansion valves (``EEVs'') as
a design option for outdoor refrigeration systems. (ASAP et al., No. 77
at pp. 2-3)
DOE notes that evaporator fin density and more-efficient single-
speed compressors were considered as technology options in the
September 2023 NOPR as a part of improved evaporator coils and higher
efficiency compressors, respectively. See sections 3.3.7.2 and 3.3.8.3
of chapter 3 of the September 2023 NOPR TSD. In response to these
recommendations, DOE considered two-speed condenser fan controls, EEVs,
and condensate pan heating controls as technology options for this
final rule analysis. In response to comments submitted on the September
2023 NOPR, DOE also evaluated more efficient single-speed compressors
in the March 2024 NODA. 89 FR 18555, 18560-18561. A more detailed
discussion of additional comments submitted in response to the
technology and design options analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR and
March 2024 NODA is included in section IV.B.1.c and the Design Options
subsection of sections IV.C.1.e and IV.C.1.f of this document.

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:

[[Page 104652]]

(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 results 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 sum, 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 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 and September 2023 NOPR, 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. DOE initially established the current approach
in its April 15, 2011, final rule in which DOE found that a component-
based approach would address the unique challenges posed in regulating
the energy efficiency performance of walk-in envelopes. 76 FR 21580,
21582. As noted in that rule, these challenges include the fact that
walk-in units are frequently assembled using components made by
multiple manufacturers, and walk-in installers may not be equipped to
test all the components that comprise a walk-in. The screened-out
options included the following:

<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.

88 FR 60746, 60765.

Furthermore, in this final rule, DOE is screening out fiber optic
natural lighting because it would not affect rated energy consumption
of the walk-in components as measured by the DOE test procedure.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the September 2023
NOPR screening analysis regarding technologies applicable to fully
assembled walk-ins. As such, in this final rule, DOE has screened out
all technology options for fully assembled walk-ins for the same
rationale as provided in the September 2023 NOPR. For details of this
screening analysis, see section 4.2.1 of chapter 4 of the final rule
TSD.
b. Doors and Panels
In the September 2023 NOPR, 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'') for doors, and any increase in overall
thermal improvement of a panel would not be captured by the test
procedure that measures R-value of insulation only 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.

88 FR 60746, 60765-60766.

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. 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.
Id.
Additionally, DOE tentatively 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 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 thermal performance
of the panel, including structural materials, is not captured by the
current test procedure. Therefore, such technologies were screened out.
Id.
Additionally, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE screened out the
technology option to utilize insulation from the box/cooler wall to
minimize door anti-sweat heat power. 88 FR 60746, 60766. As discussed
in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE recognizes that an ideally designed
walk-in box ensures that panel design could reduce door sweating;
however, 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. Id.
Furthermore, in the September 2023 NOPR, 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.

[[Page 104653]]

Id.

DOE screened out panel and door insulation thicker than 6 inches
because DOE received feedback during manufacturer interviews that it is
not practicable to manufacture and install. DOE tentatively concluded
that insulation thicker than 6 inches would be heavy, unwieldy, and
take up space that the consumer would otherwise use. Additionally,
panels and non-display doors greater than 6 inches that use foam-in-
place insulation would take an excessive amount of time to cure,
impacting the practicability to manufacture, install, and service. Id.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door
commented that aerogels and vacuum-insulated panels are not usable as
framing materials and cannot support the weight of the product; nor can
they hold fasteners such as screws and bolts. Senneca and Frank Door
commented that DOE's conclusion that the proposed standards are
technologically feasible based on a manufacturer's ability to use
aerogels and vacuum-insulated panels should be withdrawn. Senneca and
Frank Door stated that two-part polyurethane foam is essential to the
ability of a walk-in door to function properly because it is an
insulator and the method manufacturers use to keep the framing
materials and metal skins adhered to one another. Senneca and Frank
Door commented that incorporating aerogels or vacuum insulation would
lessen the utility and performance of WICF doors. Senneca and Frank
Door also stated that aerogels cannot be exposed to moisture, which is
present in all WICFs. Senneca and Frank Door stated that neither
aerogels nor vacuum insulation are commercially available for use by
WICF door manufacturers. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at pp. 3-5)
Furthermore, Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's estimated
costs of incorporating aerogels and vacuum insulation into WICF doors
are severely underestimated. (Senneca and Frank Door, No. 78 at p. 10)
DOE did not consider aerogels and vacuum-insulated panels as design
options in the September 2023 NOPR to improve thermal insulation of
framing materials of doors and/or panels. In section 3.3.5.1 of the
September 2023 NOPR TSD, DOE discusses potential thermal improvements
through the use of insulation thickness and materials relevant to non-
display doors and panels. In that section, DOE describes the primary
method through which to improve insulating capacity--i.e., by
increasing insulation thickness using existing foam materials. DOE also
stated that other options to improve the insulating capacity of the
envelope could include the use of insulating materials that have higher
thermal resistance per inch of thickness than materials currently used,
such as aerogels and vacuum-insulated panels. While these were
mentioned as potential technology options, DOE did not evaluate the use
of aerogels or vacuum-insulated panels in the September 2023 NOPR
analysis as alternative insulating materials in non-display doors and
panels. Similarly, in this final rule analysis, DOE did not consider
the use of aerogels or vacuum-insulated panels.
As discussed in the September 2023 NOPR, 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 walk-in users; (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. It can also be affected by the thermal resistance of the
door frame and edge materials. To ensure the temperature of the door
surface stays above the dewpoint 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 United States without having a potential
negative impact on the safety and functionality of the walk-in.
Therefore, DOE screened out the elimination of anti-sweat heater
systems in the September 2023 NOPR on the basis of safety of
technology. 88 FR 60746, 60766. However, DOE screened in reduced anti-
sweat heat. Id. at 88 FR 60767. DOE evaluated the energy savings and
cost associated with reducing rated anti-sweat heater power for medium-
temperature and low-temperature doors based on a combination of
certified values in DOE's Compliance Certification (``CCMS'') database,
rated anti-sweat heater power per linear foot of wire based on product
literature, and information received during confidential interviews
with manufacturers. Id. at 88 FR 60770.
In response to the September 2023 NOPR, Senneca and Frank Door
commented that reducing the amount of anti-sweat heat would lessen the
utility, performance, and safety of walk-in doors such that doors could
freeze shut and puddles or ice patches could form on the floor. Senneca
and Frank Door commented that reducing or eliminating anti-sweat heat
is not sufficient to meet the proposed standard. (Senneca and Frank
Door, No. 78 at pp. 4-5) NAFEM commented that the prior WICF rulemaking
resulted in safety concerns because by reducing the door perimeter
heater's wattage, passage doors are more likely to freeze closed and
temporarily trap workers. NAFEM commented that WICF manufacturers have
reported an increase in consultants requesting corrective action
concepts and strategies to allow trapped workers to open frozen doors
through secondary, fail-safe methods other than the emergency release
handles or push buttons used on most walk-in doors. (NAFEM, No. 67 at
p. 3)
DOE also received comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR
from RSG and Kolpak supporting the levels of reduced anti-sweat heat
that DOE analyzed. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at p. 1; RSG, No. 69
at p. 1) Kolpak agreed with DOE's proposal to reduce anti-sweat heater
wire power and commented that the anti-sweat heater wires on its non-
display doors have already been reduced to 1 W/ft for medium-
temperature and 5 W/ft for low-temperature. Additionally, Kolpak
commented that the anti-sweat heater wire power on its non-display
doors use bimetallic thermostat controls that turn the heater wire off
once it has reached a temperature required to remove condensation.
(Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at p. 1) RSG commented that it has
already reduced heater wire power to the level proposed in the
September 2023 NOPR; therefore, the reduced heater wire power values
proposed in the September 2023 NOPR should be acceptable for most
applications. (RSG, No. 69 at p. 1)
In response to the March 2024 NODA, DOE received additional
comments regarding the screening of reduced anti-sweat heat.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ DOE did not update its analysis regarding anti-sweat heat
around the perimeter of the door leaf in the March 2024 NODA. DOE
nevertheless considered these comments as part of developing the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although RSG previously commented in support of the levels of anti-
sweat heat analyzed in the September 2023 NOPR, in response to the
March 2024 NODA, RSG commented that to meet the standards in the March
2024 NODA, RSG's door frame anti-sweat heaters would need to be reduced
to half the current wattage and this reduction could result in
formation of condensate

[[Page 104654]]

water, which is a safety slip issue. RSG stated that the heater wire
wattages were reduced about 50 percent to meet the 2017 door MDEC
standards. RSG commented that a balance should exist between energy
consumption and safety when considering new energy requirements. RSG
commented that technology options for walk-in door construction have
not significantly changed since 2017 and are limited largely to
existing components and insulation science. RSG commented that manual
non-display doors may be a category best suited for no new changes,
similar to panels. (RSG, No. 89 at p. 1) Despite the fact that RSG
previously commented in support of the reduced anti-sweat heat levels
that DOE analyzed, DOE is viewing RSG's latest comment in response to
the March 2024 NODA as its current position on the screening of this
technology option.
Imperial Brown commented that door perimeter heater cables are
critical components of walk-in freezer doors that eliminate
condensation or frost formation at the door perimeter. Imperial Brown
commented that in a worst-case scenario, a door could become frozen
shut, leading to entrapment and risk of death. Imperial Brown stated
that it reduced the power consumption of its perimeter heater cables in
response to the first WICF standards rulemaking and even though
Imperial Brown has not witnessed freezing issues since, condensation
issues are not uncommon, especially in high-humidity geographical
areas. Imperial Brown commented it does not believe that it can further
reduce the power rating of its perimeter heater cables without risking
doors freezing shut and endangering lives. Imperial Brown commented it
targets heater cables rated at 4.5 to 5.5 W/ft of door perimeter for
PVC frame doors and non-PVC frame doors, respectively. Imperial Brown
stated that because heater cables are only available in limited ohms/ft
ratings, the real heat cable W/ft will differ from the target number
and that deviation can be as much as <plus-minus>25 percent. Imperial
Brown provided a description of how it wires its doors. (Imperial
Brown, No. 84 Attachment 1 at p. 2) Imperial Brown commented it does
not know of ways to reduce energy consumption of its--or competitors'--
freezer door perimeter heater cables without producing unacceptable
products. Imperial Brown commented that condensation on door gaskets
may lead to mold growth (health hazard) and frost formation around the
door (life hazard). (Imperial Brown, No. 84 at p. 3) Imperial Brown
also provided DEC numbers for several of its models. (Imperial Brown,
No. 84, Attachment 2)
Regarding NAFEM's comments that the prior rulemaking (i.e., June
2014 Final Rule) resulted in safety concerns, DOE notes the performance
standards finalized in the prior rulemaking and in this rulemaking are
not prescriptive, i.e., they don't prescribe use of specific design
options or technologies to reduce energy consumption. Therefore,
manufacturers may comply with MDEC standards using any technologies
they see fit, and the standard levels themselves set no explicit
requirements on anti-sweat heater wattage levels. In the June 2014
Final Rule, DOE included anti-sweat heat for both cooler and freezer
non-display doors in its analysis but did not analyze reduced anti-
sweat heat as a design option; therefore, the standard levels adopted
for non-display doors in the June 2014 Final Rule were representative
of baseline anti-sweat heat wattage used in non-display doors at the
time. 79 FR 32050. Furthermore, there are several factors besides anti-
sweat heat wattage that could affect the chances that a low-temperature
non-display door would freeze shut, including but not limited to the
humidity of the environment, the thermal characteristics of the door,
how well the walk-in door is sealed during construction and
installation, and how often the door is opened. RSG and Imperial Brown
commented that in response to the MDEC standards that went into effect
in 2017 they both reduced the anti-sweat heat on their non-display
doors to a level that they indicate is the minimum level required to
restrict the formation and freezing of condensation to prevent safety
issues under typical conditions in the field. Imperial Brown commented
that it has not witnessed doors freezing shut with the current anti-
sweat heat levels that it uses. Stakeholder feedback primarily
indicates that further reducing anti-sweat heat beyond what is used to
meet the existing standards increases the risk of condensation forming
on non-display doors. Based on public comments and data included in
those public comments and a review of certified data, DOE has concluded
that manufacturers offer models for sale that use anti-sweat heat
wattage around the perimeter of the door leaf at levels equal to or
lower than those analyzed for the reduced anti-sweat heat design option
in the September 2023 NOPR. For example, DOE identified 20
manufacturers of medium-temperature non-display doors that use anti-
sweat heater wire wattage around the perimeter of the door leaf that is
less than or equal to what DOE analyzed for the reduced anti-sweat heat
design option. Similarly, DOE has identified low-temperature non-
display doors with anti-sweat heat levels that are at or below the
reduced ASH level that DOE analyzed in this rulemaking. The presence of
these doors on the market with lower ASH wattage than what DOE analyzed
indicates that manufacturers are safely applying these designs in the
field today without leading to an increase in safety incidents or
increasing risks. As such, DOE is not screening out reduced anti-sweat
heat as a technology option for non-display doors in this final rule.
However, as discussed in section V.C.1.b of this document, DOE does not
expect that the standard level adopted in this final rule for non-
display doors would necessitate the use of reduced anti-sweat heat.
Rather, DOE expects that manufacturers would incorporate anti-sweat
heat controls, which only limit or turn off anti-sweat heat when anti-
sweat heat is not necessary based on the ambient conditions, to meet
the standard level adopted in this final rule for non-display doors.
DOE does not expect to see an increase in condensation when the anti-
sweat heat is turned off when ambient conditions do not result in a
need to reduce the humidity.
The September 2023 NOPR and March 2024 NODA also evaluated reduced
thermal conduction load through improved framing systems and materials.
In response, Kolpak commented that it supports requiring more-efficient
frames. (Kolpak, No. 66, Attachment 1 at p. 3)
Senneca and Frank Door commented that DOE's determination that the
proposed standards are technologically feasible for all non-display
doors does not consider doors that are manufactured separately from the
walk-in box in which they are installed. Senneca and Frank Door stated
that these types of doors must be bolted onto the walk-in box in the
field using various fasteners and the commenters are unaware of any
framing materials for these types of doors with a low enough U-factor
that could meet the proposed standard levels. (Senneca and Frank Door,
No. 78 at p. 5) Additionally, Senneca and Frank Door commented that
common framing materials include aluminum, plastics, and wood and that
the commenters are unaware of any framing materials with a low enough
U-factor to comply with the proposed standards. (Senneca and Frank
Door, No. 78 at pp. 3-4) Imperial Brown stated that non-PVC frame doors
are a necessity for applications that have higher structural
requirements (e.g.,

[[Page 104655]]

bigger doors with heavier pass-thru traffic or doors installed in areas
with seismic or high wind exposures). (Imperial Brown, No. 84 at p. 2)
Despite mixed support and opposition of thermal improvements to
framing systems in doors, DOE is aware through public comments and
review of the market that better thermally insulating (and therefore
less energy consumptive) frame systems exist on the market. Some
stakeholder comments suggest that such thermally-improved frame designs
may have reduced structural rigidity compared to traditional (e.g.,
wood) framing systems. Nonetheless, DOE expects that non-display doors
with thermally-improved frames can maintain a certain level of
resiliency to typical structural loads (e.g., accommodating typical
walk-in traffic) because they are available for sale in the walk-in
market. As such, DOE is not screening out the improved frame design
option for non-display doors in this final rule. Nevertheless, due to
the variability in structural loads that walk-in doors may be subject
to, DOE recognizes that there is not full certainty that the best
thermally-insulating frame systems available on the market would be
sufficiently robust in certain circumstances. If there are cases where
thermally-improved frame designs are not sufficiently robust in
structure, then this could result in the need for earlier replacement
of certain non-display doors. DOE considers and discusses the impact to
consumer economics as a result of a potentially reduced lifetime for
non-display doors in section IV.F.7 of this document.
In this final rule, DOE is screening out the same technologies for
doors and panels that it screened out in the September 2023 NOPR. DOE
further discusses considerations for adopting a standard level that
could require reduced anti-sweat heat and improved frame design options
in section V.C.1.a of this document.
c. Refrigeration Systems
In the September 2023 NOPR, 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 the DOE test procedures outlined in the
newly adopted appendix C1. 88 FR 60746, 60766. DOE did not receive any
comments in response to the September 2023 NOPR regarding its tentative
conclusion. DOE maintains this conclusion for the final rule.
In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE responded to CA IOU comments
requesting that DOE include EEVs as a standalone technology option. 88
FR 66710, 66713. The CA IOUs commented that an EEV would reduce cycling
losses and therefore save energy when compared to a thermostatic
expansion valve (``TXV''). Id. Because the tests conducted as part of
the test procedure in appendix C1 are steady-state tests, DOE
tentatively concluded that a test performed with a TXV would result in
the same measured efficiency as a test of the same unit performed with
an EEV. Id. In response, the CA IOUs commented they disagree with DOE's
statement that DOE cannot include EEVs as a technology option because
the test procedure measures refrigeration performance at steady-state
conditions and would therefore not capture the energy savings of EEVs
because, according to a study conducted by Hill Phoenix, an 8.7-percent
reduction in kWh was found when using an EEV rather than a mechanical
TXV at steady-state temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 76 at pp. 5-6)
DOE was not able to determine if the Hill Phoenix study was
conducted at steady-state conditions from a chart shown by the CA IOUs
with their comment. DOE notes that a refrigeration system with steady
ambient air temperature and steady refrigerated storage space
temperature may not qualify as a steady-state test. A steady-state test
must include no compressor cycling, as the DOE test procedure
specifies. See 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C1 and section
C3.6.1 of AHRI 1250-2020. DOE was unable to find the complete study
conducted by Hill Phoenix that the CA IOUs reference, so DOE is unable
to confirm that the test was conducted at test conditions
representative of the DOE test procedure for walk-in refrigeration
equipment. DOE likewise cannot confirm that the savings seen in Hill
Phoenix's study would be measurable by the DOE test procedure in
appendix C1. Therefore, DOE determined it was appropriate to still
screen out EEVs as a standalone design option given that no evidence
has been presented to indicate that adding EEVs to walk-in
refrigeration equipment would result in a measurable increase in
efficiency when tested according to the DOE test procedure. EEVs within
the context of the floating head pressure design option are discussed
in more detail in section IV.C.1.e of this document.
In this final rule analysis, DOE has determined that the following
technologies will not have an effect on walk-in refrigeration system
efficiency as measured by appendix C1, and therefore is screening them
out on that basis:

<bullet> Adaptive defrost,
<bullet> Hot gas defrost,
<bullet> Oil management systems,
<bullet> Economizer cooling, and
<bullet> Electronic expansion valves.

In the September 2023 NOPR, DOE also screened out three-phase
motors as a technology option. 88 FR 60746, 60766. The 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 technology
option because it could result in the unavailability of this equipment
with certain performance features for certain consumers. Id.
Furthermore, in the September 2023 NOPR, DOE screened out improved
evaporator and condenser coils for high-temperature refrigeration
systems on the grounds of having adverse impacts on the functionality
of the equipment in response to stakeholder feedback regarding the
space constraints imposed when installing high-temperature
refrigeration systems. 88 FR 60746, 60766.
DOE did not receive comments in response to its tentative
conclusions regarding the screening of improved evaporator and
condenser coils for high-temperature refrigeration systems and three-
phase motors. DOE maintains its conclusions from the September 2023
NOPR and is screening out three-phase motors and improved evaporator
and condenser coils for high-temperature refrigeration systems in this
final rule.
2. Remaining Technologies
a. Doors and Panels
Through a review of each technology, DOE 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 this analysis. In 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 non-display doors, and
<bullet> Increased insulation thicknesses up to 6 inches for non-
display doors and panels.

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in

[[Page 104656]]

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; do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety; and do not utilize unique-pathway
proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the
final rule TSD.
b. Refrigeration Systems
Through a review of each technology, DOE 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 this analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options for walk-in refrigeration systems:

<bullet> Improved condenser and evaporator fan blades,
<bullet> Improved evaporator and condenser coils for medium- and low-
temperature refrigeration systems,
<bullet> Off-cycle and on-cycle evaporator fan control,
<bullet> Hydrocarbon refrigerants,
<bullet> Ambient subcooling,
<bullet> Higher-efficiency condenser and evaporator fan motors
(excluding three-phase motors),
<bullet> Higher-efficiency compressors,
<bullet> Variable-speed compressors,
<bullet> Liquid suction heat exchanger,
<bullet> Head pressure control,
<bullet> Condenser fan speed control (two-speed and variable-speed),
<bullet> Crankcase heater controls,
<bullet> Improved thermal insulation for single-packaged dedicated
systems, and
<bullet> Condensate pan heating controls.

DOE determined that these technology options are technolog

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 23, 2024.

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.