Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

37706

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
DOE also requests comment on any other considerations which may impact the use and power of anti-sweat heaters.
Issue 10: DOE seeks specific data and information on the correlation between relative humidity conditions at installation and the anti-sweat heater power needed to prevent condensation from accumulating on a walk-in door.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the differences in design, typical conditions, and usage of a walk-in display door as compared to a display door for commercial refrigeration equipment which result in commercial refrigeration equipment door designs with no anti-sweat heaters.
Issue 12: DOE seeks specific data and information on how the physical construction of both passage and freight doors impact the amount of anti-sweat heater wire power needed to prevent condensation accumulation on any part of the door. DOE requests specific comment on any technologies that may reduce or eliminate the need for antisweat heat on passage or freight doors.
DOE also requests door design information and data that explain why many passage and freight doors are able to perform without any anti-sweat heater power in the field but some doors, specifically low-temperature passage and freight doors, still require anti-sweat power that is greater than that required for display doors to prevent condensation accumulation.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on the prevalence of vacuum-insulated glass for walk-in doors and whether other manufacturers are considering adopting this technology. DOE requests specific feedback on any obstacles or concerns e.g., patents, proprietary use, durability, practicability to manufacture, etc. which would prevent manufacturers from using vacuuminsulated glass in walk-in doors. DOE
also requests cost data for implementing vacuum-insulated glass in walk-in display doors.
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, DOEs screening criteria technological feasibility;
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and uniquepathway proprietary technologies would have on each of the technology options listed in Table II.6, Table II.7, and Table II.8 of this document. DOE
also seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any other technology options not already identified in this document with respect to their potential use in walk-in doors and panels.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:52 Jul 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on whether 6 inches is an appropriate upper limit for screening out insulation thickness for panels and doors. For manufacturers that produce and certify panels with insulation thicknesses exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback on what manufacturing investments have been made to do so.
For manufacturers that do not produce panels with insulation thicknesses exceeding 6 inches, DOE requests feedback on the obstacles preventing them from increasing panel thickness.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on the representative units for display doors used for the 2014 ECS final rule engineering analysis and whether multidoor configurations should be included as representative units. If so, DOE seeks comment on panel size and the number of panels that would be most representative for multi-door configurations. Additionally, DOE seeks specific data on the appropriate number of door openings and door sizes to consider and the additional electrical component power e.g., anti-sweat heater power, lighting, etc. required for each additional door opening. DOE is also interested in any other differences between single-door and multi-door configurations that would impact energy use.
Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the representative units chosen for the previous analysis of passage and freight doors. DOE requests specific feedback on what the minimum and maximum sizes of both passage and freight doors are and if there are other attributes besides size which differentiate passage doors from freight doors and vice versa.
Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of motorized door openers for both display and non-display doors.
DOE requests specific feedback on the prevalence of motorized door openers by equipment class, the minimum door size that might have a motorized door opener, the percentage of doors sold which typically include a motorized door opener, and any data relating power of a motorized door opener to door size.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether there are technology options or other design features that would be unique to high-temperature freezer refrigeration systems i.e., mediumtemperature systems operating at a temperature between 10 F to 32 F as compared to technology options or design features for medium-temperature refrigeration systems operating at abovefreezing cooler temperatures. If hightemperature freezer refrigeration systems have certain unique features,
PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

DOE seeks information on those features and how they impact refrigeration system performance.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available and used in single-package refrigeration systems.
DOE also requests comment on whether there are other technologies that apply to single-package refrigeration systems not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on which technology options are feasible for dedicated condensing systems and unit coolers but may not be feasible for single-packaged refrigeration systems due to structural design constraints.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on which of the technology options listed in Table II.12 and Table II.13 of this document are available and used in wine cellar refrigeration systems. DOE
also seeks information on whether there are additional technologies that apply to wine cellar refrigeration systems that are not mentioned in Table II.12 or Table II.13 of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the specific design constraints for wine cellar refrigeration systems and how these constraints may impact the use of certain technology options.
Issue 22: DOE seeks information on the availability of multiple-capacity or variable-capacity compressors in the current market. DOE is also interested in any end-user requirements that may restrict the use of, or reduce the potential benefits of, multior variablecapacity compressors in the field.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the relative efficiency difference between scroll and semi-hermetic compressors in the range of capacities in which both are available. DOE also requests comment on other design parameters that would lead a manufacturer to select a certain compressor design over another and would represent potential utility differences of different compressor designs, specifically, 1 compressor weight relative to the final equipment weight and its impact on equipment shipping, installation, and end-use; 2
compressor durability, equipment warranty, and equipment lifetime; and 3 any other relevant differences.
Issue 24: DOE seeks information on the availability and efficiencies of single-speed compressors e.g., scroll compressors, rotary compressors, semihermetic compressors that were not available or were not considered in the analysis during the rulemaking finalized in 2017. Additionally, DOE is interested in understanding the availability of
E:FRFM16JYP1.SGM

16JYP1