Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

32354

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
plate assemblies described in ASTM
C518 are typically determined by test laboratories and whether the test procedure should be revised to clarify how to determine these parameters, e.g., what type of instruments are used to measure these values, how many measurements are made for a given specimen, and other details that could affect conclusions regarding compliance with the test procedure.
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on the extent to which manufacturers of insulation specify conditioning for insulation materials that differ from the typical conditioning approach described in ASTM C518. DOE also seeks feedback on whether more than one 24-hour conditioning period is ever needed to complete the conditioning i.e., the change in specimen mass is less than 1
percent after the first 24 hours of conditioning for a specimen extracted from a WICF panel or door. Finally, DOE requests information or data on how specimen conditioning times less than or equal to 24 hours impacts the accuracy, repeatability, and representativeness of the test.
Issue 23: DOE requests information about panel construction factors that would affect thermal transmission and the magnitude of the energy efficiencyrelated impacts of thermal bridges in the panel assembly. Additionally, DOE
requests comment on alternative test methods that measure the overall thermal transmittance of walk-in panels and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. DOE also seeks feedback on the number and location of labs that have the facilities and are qualified to run ASTM C136305.
Issue 24: DOE seeks feedback on the current test procedure for display panels in Appendix A and what amendments should be made, if any, to it.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether the single-package system test and calculation methods described in AHRI 12502020 provide representative energy use. DOE also requests comment on whether DOE should incorporate by reference AHRI 12502020 as the test procedure for single-package systems.
Issue 26: DOE requests any data or calculations quantifying the additional thermal losses associated with testing single-package systems due to the exposure of their cold sides to the exterior air i.e., surface and infiltration losses. DOE additionally requests comment on whether the AHRI 1250
2020 test methodology for singlepackage systems fully accounts for these additional losses.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment and data on the use of water, glycol, or other heat transfer liquid in maintaining test
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:51 Jun 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

compartment temperature using the calorimeter methods referenced in AHRI
12502020 for the testing of singlepackage refrigeration systems. DOE
requests comment on whether the description and requirements for calorimetric testing as provided in AHRI
12502020 should be modified or enhanced in order to better ensure that measurements are accurate and repeatable.
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on whether calorimeter test methods for single-package systems should implement a pressure-equalizing device, as included in ASHRAE 162016. DOE
requests information on any additional cost and resource burdens, if any, manufacturers would face when employing these methods to evaluate single-package systems.
Issue 29: DOE seeks comment regarding any alternative test methods not mentioned in this document that could be used to measure single-package system capacity. To the extent that any alternative test methods could be used for this purpose, DOE requests information on their advantages and disadvantages in measuring singlepackage system capacity.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment on the alternative test procedure for wine cellar walk-in refrigeration systems that it has granted in the interim waivers and waivers listed in Table II.3. DOE
additionally seeks comment on whether the alternative test procedure prescribed for the specified basic models identified in the waivers would be appropriate for similar refrigeration equipment.
Issue 31: DOE requests feedback on its approach for testing ducted units in its alternate test procedure for wine cellar refrigeration systems. Specifically, DOE
requests comment and supporting data on whether testing at 50 percent of maximum ESP provides representative performance values, or whether other fractions of maximum ESP may be more appropriate. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on other industry test methods that include the testing of ducted units.
Finally, DOE is interested in other alternative approaches for testing ducted units that have been demonstrated to provide repeatable and representative results.
Issue 32: DOE requests data and information on appropriate EER values for use in calculating AWEF for wine cellar unit coolers tested alone, and how these EER values might depend on refrigerant and/or capacity. DOE
requests that commenters provide background explanation regarding how any such EER recommendations have been developed.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Issue 33: DOESince unit coolers for wine cellar systems are sold alone, DOE
seeks information on the characteristics of condensing units that would typically be paired with these unit coolers e.g., make/model, compressor style, capacity range, manufacturers.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment on whether, and if so how, it should modify its definitions for singlepackaged dedicated system and unit cooler to address units that are designed to be installed with ducts.
Issue 35: DOE requests comment on any other issues regarding testing of wine cellar refrigeration systems that may not be fully addressed by the current DOE test procedure.
Issue 36: DOE requests comment on test conditions that would be most appropriate for evaluating the energy use of CO2 unit coolers. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on any additional changes that would need to be made to the DOE test procedure to accurately evaluate energy use of these systems, while minimizing test burden.
Issue 37: DOE requests comment on the present and future expected use of walk-in refrigeration systems using CO2.
DOE requests specific information about these systems that would suggest a need to modify the DOE test procedure to address such equipment. Specifically, DOE requests information on whether such equipment is sold in the U.S., whether this equipment is sold as matched pairs or individual components, and to what extent dedicated condensing units are configured to supply subcritical liquid rather than supercritical gas to the unit coolers.
Issue 38: DOE requests information regarding potential methods of providing a measurable frost load and frost type for defrost testing, including data and information demonstrating the repeatability of such a test.
Additionally, DOE requests data and information indicating what a typical frost load and frost type would befor example, whether the moist air flow of section C11.1.1 of AHRI 12502009
provides the appropriate amount of moisture, and if so, whether any data are available to support the use of this quantity. If such data are available, DOE
asks that interested parties share it with the agency for further consideration. If such data are currently unavailable, DOE is interested in what kind and amount of testing would be needed to sufficiently validate an appropriate method to evaluate frost loads and frost types during defrost testing.
Issue 39: DOE requests comment on the specific refrigeration system configurations i.e., matched-pairs,
E:FRFM17JNP2.SGM

17JNP2