Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules characteristic which separates freight and passage doors.
Issue 5: Regarding a door that meets the freight door definition but does so only because it has a multi-door configuration in which the individual component doors each would by themselves not meet the freight door definition, DOE seeks comment on how such doors should be classified, and whether such classification should depend on other factors, such as whether one or more frame members divides the door opening into smaller openings.
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on whether any attribute, or combination of attributes, other than size, would affect energy use and could be used to distinguish between freight doors and passage doors. If so, DOE requests data and comment on such attributes.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on the accuracy of the computational method in NFRC 100 to predict U-factor for display and non-display doors. DOE
seeks feedback regarding the differences in results if any between those obtained using the NFRC 100
computational method and those obtained when conducting physical testing using NFRC 102 for display and non-display doors. DOE is also interested in the magnitude of these differences and whether the computational method can be modified to yield results that more closely match the results obtained from actual physical testing. If manufacturers are aware of other methods to predict Ufactor for either display doors or nondisplay doors besides NFRC 100, DOE
requests how the results from these methods compare to physical testing.
Issue 8: DOE seeks information from manufacturers and other interested parties regarding how the industry currently rates individual door models, including the prevalence within the industry of using the computational method from NFRC 100. DOE also requests information on the costs associated with the computational method of NFRC 100 or an alternative computational method compared to physically testing the thermal transmittance of walk-in doors using NFRC 102.
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on what issues, if any, would be present if ASTM C51817 were to be referenced in the Appendix B test procedure for measuring panel K-factor, or average thermal conductivity. While not exhaustive, primary areas of interest to DOE include any differences between the currently referenced version of the industry standard ASTM C51804 and ASTM C51817 that would result in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:51 Jun 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

difference in the determined R-value and/or test burden whether an increase or decrease, and if there are such differences, the magnitude of impact to the determined R-value and/or test burden.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on what issues, if any, would be present if AHRI 12502020 were to be referenced in the Appendix C test procedure for measuring walk-in refrigeration system AWEF. While not exhaustive, primary areas of interest to DOE include any differences between the currently referenced version of the industry standard AHRI 12502009 and AHRI
12502020 that would result in a difference in the determined AWEF
and/or test burden whether an increase or decrease, and if there are such differences, the magnitude of impact to the determined AWEF and/or test burden.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers determine surface area for the purpose of evaluating compliance with the standards for both display doors and nondisplay doors.
DOE seeks input on any distinction between display doors and nondisplay doors, especially the door frames, which may warrant surface area for each to be determined differently.
Issue 12: DOE seeks feedback on how manufacturers interpret and measure door opening as it relates to prescriptive standards for antisweat heaters, including whether or not manufacturers agree that the door opening considered for antisweat heat should be consistent with the surface area used to determine maximum energy consumption.
Issue 13: DOE requests feedback on specifying the surface area used to determine thermal conduction through a walk-in door from the surface area used to determine the maximum energy consumption of a walk-in door.
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on whether, and if so how, an option for direct component power measurement could be included in the test procedure or compliance, certification, and enforcement CCE provisions to allow more accurate accounting for the direct electrical energy consumption of WICF doors. DOE also seeks input on whether specific provisions should be provided for determining power input from the information that is typically provided on nameplates, noting the limitations that were described above.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on the current PTO values and whether DOE should consider amending any of the current values or adding specific values for additional electrical components, specifically motorized door openers. DOE requests data from
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

32353

field studies or similar sources to support any proposed amendments or additions to these PTO values.
Issue 16: DOE seeks feedback on whether the current PTO of 50 percent is appropriate for evaluating direct energy consumption of anti-sweat heaters with controls for walkin cooler doors marketed for high humidity applications. DOE seeks feedback on the average amount of time per day or per year that anti-sweat heaters with controls are off for these high humidity doors and how this compares to standard i.e., non-high humidity walkin cooler display doors.
Issue 17: DOE seeks feedback on the current EER values specified in Appendix A used to calculate daily energy consumption for walk-in doors and the values used in testing of unit coolers alone, as specified in Appendix C. Specifically, DOE requests comment on which of these sets of EER values is more representative, whether DOE
should make the values used for door testing and unit cooler testing consistent with each other, and if so, which of the sets of values should be used.
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on how frequently test laboratories perform each of the calibration procedures referenced in ASTM C1199 and ASTM
C1363, e.g., those used to determine calibration coefficients that are used to calculate metering box wall loss and surround panel flanking loss. DOE also requests comment on the magnitude of variation in the calibration coefficients measured during successive calibrations.
Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on whether the tolerances in section 5.3a1 of Appendix A applied to the surface heat transfer coefficients used to measure thermal transmittance are achievable for all walk-in doors and if not, whether the tolerances should be increased or omitted. Specifically, DOE
seeks data to support any changes to the tolerances on the surface heat transfer coefficients.
Issue 20: DOE requests comment on how panel thickness is currently measured for determining the panels R-value per the DOE test procedure, including number of measurements, measurement location, and any steps that are routinely followed for the removal of the protective skins or facers to obtain the full panel thickness. DOE
requests that commenters identify any specific guidelines, practices or standardized approaches that are followed, as well as their date of publication, if applicable.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on how flatness and parallelism of the test specimen surfaces that contact the hot
E:FRFM17JNP2.SGM

17JNP2