Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

37699

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules DOE also requests information and data on the potential impact on defrost frequency and/or daily energy use contributions for low-temperature unit coolers with more than 4 fins per inch and for medium-temperature 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.
b. Screening of Technology Options Table II.14 summarizes the refrigeration system technology options that DOE did not include in its analysis in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 2017 ECS final rule, and the applicable screening criteria.

TABLE II.14REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED FROM THE JUNE 2014 ECS FINAL RULE AND/
OR JULY 2017 ECS FINAL RULE
EPCA criteria
Screened technology option
Technological feasibility
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service
Adverse impact on product utility
Adverse impacts on health and safety
Other reasons for not considering the technology
Liquid suction heat exchangers
Refrigeration system override
Economizer cooling
Automatic evaporator fan shut-off
Energy storage systems
High efficiency evaporator fan motor
3-Phase motors
Improved evaporator coil
Variable-capacity compressors
Adaptive defrost
On-cycle variable-speed evaporator fans
Hot gas defrost

X
X

X
X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

DOE screened out these technology options because they do not affect energy consumption as measured by the current DOE test procedure. Docket EERE2008BTSTD00150131, Section 4.2 at pp. 43 through 44; EERE2015BTSTD00160099, Section 4.2 at pp. 42
through 44.
DOE screened out variable-capacity compressors a subset of higher-efficiency compressors because the current DOE test procedure does not include a method for assessing variable-capacity dedicated condensing units tested without a matched unit cooler see 10 CFR 431.304. 82
FR 31808, 31839.

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.
The current test procedure includes a method to address systems with adaptive defrost. Section 3.3.5 of appendix C to subpart R of 10 CFR part 431. As provided in the DOE test procedure, adaptive defrost is not included in the determination of AWEF
to demonstrate compliance but a manufacturer may voluntarily account for a units improved performance with adaptive defrost activated in its market representations. Id. As discussed in the June 2021 TP RFI, an adaptive system
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:28 Jul 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

with a long period i.e., when too much frost builds up on the coils between defrosts may significantly affect the oncycle performance of the refrigeration system; however, a system that defrosts frequently could increase defrost energy use. 86 FR 32332, 32348. DOE
recognizes the potential efficiency advantage offered by adaptive defrost and is considering how best to incorporate adaptive defrost into its analysis.
In a future rulemaking, DOE may consider allowing walk-in refrigeration systems with adaptive defrost to continue to qualitatively represent improved efficiency performance solely for marketing purposes and not for demonstrating compliance with the current standards. Adaptive defrost could also be used to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE could also include adaptive defrost in its analysis for setting new energy conservation standards; however, DOE would need to determine whether adaptive defrost would be included in the engineering analysis for dedicated condensing unit
PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

or for unit coolers since DOEs analysis is based on a single component.
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 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.
DOE removed hot gas defrost as a design option in its analysis for the July 2017 ECS final rule. 82 FR 31808, 31834. Instead, DOE assigned to hot gas defrost unit coolers the same default values for electric defrost heat and energy use calculations that the test procedure assigns to dedicated condensing units that are not matched with a unit cooler for testing i.e., tested
E:FRFM16JYP1.SGM

16JYP1