Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules rotary compressors for use in singlepackage and wine cellar refrigeration systems.
Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of the use of crankcase heater controls for walk-in refrigeration systems. Additionally, DOE requests information on what type of crankcase heater controls are considered viable, and what application circumstances would make certain control approaches inappropriate e.g., by unacceptably increasing the chance of compressor failure.
Issue 26: DOE seeks information on the potential for improved thermal insulation and sealing of air leaks to improve the efficiency of single-package refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE
is interested in data on the range of typical insulation thickness used in single-package systems to insulate the indoor portion, in addition to the insulation materials that are typically used. Additionally, DOE requests information on the processes and materials that manufacturers utilize to ensure airtight enclosures. DOE is also interested in understanding the quality control processes manufacturers have in place to ensure that airtight units are released to the market.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and data to support whether it should include refrigerant as a design option in its engineering analysis for walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE also requests information on the availability and relative utility of R452A, R407C, and R407F compared to R407A and R448A/R449A for use in walk-in dedicated condensing units and singlepackage systems. Additionally, DOE is interested in understanding the availability and relative utility of R450A, R513A/R513B, and R515A
compared to R134A for wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is also interested in understanding what domestic and international activities may be driving trends in the market adoption of low GWP refrigerants.
Issue 28: DOE requests information on the availability of specific nontraditional e.g., hydrocarbon refrigerants for use in dedicated condensing unit, unit cooler, singlepackage, and wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE is interested in understanding what domestic and international activities may be driving trends in market adoption of nontraditional e.g., hydrocarbon refrigerants. DOE also seeks comment on whether and how the availability of higher-efficiency compressors might be impacted by the use of non-traditional e.g., hydrocarbon refrigerants. DOE
requests information on whether charge
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:52 Jul 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

limits or safety standards e.g., standards issued by Underwriters Laboratory would restrict the use of non-traditional e.g., hydrocarbon refrigerants in walk-in refrigeration systems. Finally, DOE requests comment on any additional design changes or safety measures that may be necessary for WICFs to incorporate nontraditional e.g., hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on if 4
fins per inch and 6 fins per inch for lowand medium-temperature unit coolers, respectively, are still appropriate to use in its engineering analysis given the number of certified models at each operating temperature that do not meet these specificationsand if not, which fin configurations should DOE use for its analysis? DOE also requests information and data on the potential impact on defrost frequency and/or daily energy use contributions for lowtemperature unit coolers with more than 4 fins per inch and for mediumtemperature unit coolers with more than 6 fins per inch used in high-temperature freezer applications i.e., freezers with an interior temperature range from 10 F
to 32 F. Finally, DOE requests comment on whether the number of fins per inch would be different for mediumtemperature unit coolers used for medium-temperature versus hightemperature freezer applications. If the number of fins per inch would differ, DOE seeks data to support a representative number of fins per inch for medium-temperature unit coolers used in high-temperature freezer applications.
Issue 30: 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.12 or Table II.13 of this document. Similarly, DOE
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 refrigeration systems.
Issue 31: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address adaptive defrost in a future rulemaking.
Specifically, DOE is interested in data that support whether DOE should continue to screen adaptive defrost from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE
is interested in understanding whether adaptive defrost functionality and cost burden should be included in its
PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

37707

analysis of dedicated condensing units or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE
additionally requests comment on how the screening results summarized in Table II.14 may have changed for adaptive defrost, such that the approaches used in the prior rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
Issue 32: DOE requests stakeholder feedback on how to address hot gas defrost in a future rulemaking.
Specifically, DOE is interested in data that support whether DOE should continue to screen hot gas defrost from its engineering analysis, and if not, DOE
is interested in understanding whether hot gas defrost functionality and cost burden should be included in its analysis of dedicated condensing units or in its analysis of unit coolers. DOE
additionally requests comment on how the screening results presented in Table II.14 of this document have changed for hot gas defrost, such that the approaches used in the prior rulemaking analyses may no longer be appropriate.
Issue 33: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative minimum and maximum capacities listed in Table II.15 of this document are appropriate for walk-ins of 3,000 square feet or less.
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether the highest capacities listed for each equipment class in Table II.15 of this document appropriately represent walk-ins within the scope of DOEs energy conservation standards and/or sufficiently representative of models up to the largest capacities. If the highest capacities listed for each equipment class in Table II.15 of this document are not representative, DOE requests data and supporting information as to why they are not representative, and what appropriate maximum capacities for each equipment class would be.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of the compressor types associated with each representative unit. Specifically, DOE seeks data on the respective ranges of refrigeration system capacities for which each compressor type scroll, hermetic, and semihermetic may realistically be used.
Further, DOE seeks comment on if there are refrigeration system capacity ranges for which multiple types of compressors may be used.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on appropriate representative capacities for single-package refrigeration systems.
Specifically, DOE requests data on the availability and prevalence of singlepackage units sized between 17,000 Btu/
h and 29,000 Btu/h, and whether DOE
should consider including a representative single-packaged refrigeration system with capacity in this range.

E:FRFM16JYP1.SGM

16JYP1