Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules and preparation tables. DOE similarly seeks information on appropriate parameters to use in developing efficiency levels for solid-door equipment for pull-down applications, chef bases or griddle stands, hightemperature CRE, and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units.
Issue 20: DOE requests data describing the energy consumption, and storage and/or display capacity of refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; hightemperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units that could be used in assessing appropriate baseline efficiency levels based on the current market for this equipment. DOE
requests information on the typical design options that would be expected to be incorporated into a baseline model for each equipment category.
As part of DOEs analysis, DOE
develops efficiency levels above the baseline as potential energy conservation standards to evaluate in the rulemaking analyses. Among these, DOE typically establishes efficiency levels at the maximum available and max-tech efficiencies. The maximum available efficiency level represents the highest efficiency units currently available on the market.
DOE has performed a preliminary analysis of CRE models, found in the DOEs Compliance Certification CCMS Database,14 to assess the potential to improve efficiency relative to current i.e., baseline standard levels.
DOE observed that models are currently available with daily energy consumptions significantly lower than the baseline at the currently allowable energy conservation standard.
Issue 21: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels i.e., the lowest available energy use levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for consideration as possible energy conservation standards for CRE. DOE
seeks information on the design options incorporated into these maximumavailable models, and also on the order in which manufacturers incrementally incorporate each design option when improving efficiency from the baseline to the maximum-available efficiency level i.e., which design options would be included at incremental efficiency levels between the baseline and maximum available. DOE also requests information on the design changes implemented to achieve efficiencies 14 Available at https www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/q=Product_Group_s%3A.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:52 Jul 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

better than the max-tech considered in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
Issue 22: DOE also seeks information on the maximum-available efficiencies for the CRE for which there are no specific DOE energy conservation standards, and for which DOE does not have manufacturer-submitted efficiency information i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables;
solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing units, and on the test procedures used to determine any such efficiencies. DOE
requests feedback on which design options are incorporated into the most efficient equipment available in these equipment categories.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not economically feasible. In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined maxtech efficiency levels using energy modeling. The energy models were based on the use of all design options applicable to the specific equipment classes. While some of these equipment configurations had not likely been tested as prototypes, all of the individual design options had been incorporated in available equipment.
See chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
In its review of the CCMS data, DOE
identified basic models with certified daily energy consumptions lower than the max-tech efficiency levels considered in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
Issue 23: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those levels, for each equipment class. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of design options. DOE is particularly interested in any design options that may have become available since the March 2014
Final Rule that would allow greater energy savings relative to the max-tech efficiency levels assessed for each equipment class in that rulemaking.
Issue 24: Additionally, DOE requests comment on what design options should be considered for the max-tech efficiency levels for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pulldown applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

37715

with dedicated remote condensing units, as well as other potential equipment classes not currently subject to a standard.
D. Economic Justification In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE
seeks comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and data on any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from the March 2014 Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost effective.
While DOEs request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following.
1. Engineering Cost Analysis For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
developed cost-efficiency relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and costs associated with incorporating specific design options into the assumed baseline model for each analyzed equipment class. See chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach. As a result of recent technological innovations, costs for several design options considered in the March 2014
Final Rule e.g., LED lighting and ECMs for fans are likely to have changed since they were previously assessed.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on the increase in manufacturer production cost associated with incorporating each particular design option from the baseline efficiency to max-tech.
Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in the March 2014 Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling if any, materials, engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment and supporting data on the incremental manufacturer product costs associated with transitioning to alternative refrigerants, including costs associated with converting any refrigeration system components e.g., compressors, heat
E:FRFM16JYP1.SGM

16JYP1