Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

37714

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
considered for CRE, including technology options that could be used to improve the energy efficiency of refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; additional pull-down temperature applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE;
and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. DOE also seeks information on how technology options may have unique efficiency impacts on these equipment categories. For example, there may be greater energy savings potential associated with
variable-speed compressors and fan motors in pull-down temperature applications and chef bases or griddle stands compared to the other existing CRE equipment classes.
2. Screening Analysis The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration. DOE determines whether
to eliminate certain technology options from further consideration based on the following criteria: Technological feasibility; practicability to manufacture, install, and service;
adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; adverse impacts on health or safety; and unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6c3.
Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out in the March 2014 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.

TABLE II.4PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE
EPCA criteria X = basis for screening out Screened technology option Technological feasibility
Higher Efficiency Expansion Valves
Variable Speed Condenser Fans and Condenser Fan Motor Controllers.
Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers
Liquid Suction Heat Exchangers
Air Curtain Design

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology options listed in Table II.3 of this document with respect to CRE. 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 CRE.
Issue 17: With respect to the screened out technology options listed in Table II.4 of this document, DOE seeks information on whether these options would, based on current and projected assessments regarding each of them, remain screened out under the screening criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these technology options, what steps, if any, could be or have already been taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to improve the energy performance of CRE and the potential to impact consumer utility of the CRE.
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency efficiency levels. This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for commercial consumers, manufacturers,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:52 Jul 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service
Adverse impact on product utility
Does not reduce energy consumption measured by the DOE test procedure X
X X
X

X
X

and the Nation, as described further in section II.D of this document.
As discussed, the current energy conservation standard for each CRE
equipment class is based on MDEC in kWh/day determined according to an equation using the equipments chilled volume V in cubic feet ft3, or its TDA in square feet ft2. The current standards for CRE are found at 10 CFR
431.62.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the current established energy conservation standards for CRE are appropriate baseline efficiency levels for the existing equipment classes. DOE
further requests comment on whether the existing energy conservation standards are based on the appropriate normalization metric i.e., TDA or volume for the existing equipment classes.
As mentioned in section II.A.2 of this RFI, DOE is evaluating whether to develop test procedures for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation buffet tables; solid-doored equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. As no energy conservation standards currently exist for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation buffet tables, soliddoored equipment for pull-down
PO 00000

Adverse impacts on health and safety
Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

applications, chef bases or griddle stands, and current energy conservation standards are not specific to hightemperature CRE and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units, DOE is interested in data that would allow the development of a baseline efficiency levels for these equipment categories and any applicable equipment classes.
Although existing CRE energy conservation standards are based on either the chilled volume or TDA for a CRE model, for these newly considered equipment categories, other parameters may be more appropriate as the basis for an equation representing how the maximum allowable daily energy consumption varies with equipment size and application. For example, for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables, pan volume or surface area possibly in addition to the chilled volume of any refrigerated compartments that are not thermally separate from the pans may be the appropriate capacity metric. Similarly, for solid-doored equipment for pulldown applications, product capacity may be the relevant metric.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on appropriate parameters to use as the basis for efficiency levels to represent potential energy conservation standards for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
E:FRFM16JYP1.SGM

16JYP1