[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19913-19914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8588]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19913]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0010]
Compliance Testing Procedures: Correction Factor for Room Air
Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision on petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 15, 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) received
a petition for rulemaking from the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM). The petition requests the initiation of a
rulemaking regarding compliance testing procedures for room air
conditioners. The petition seeks temporary enforcement forbearance, or
in the alternative, a temporary, industry-wide waiver or guidance, to
allow the use of a data correction factor in compliance testing
procedures for room air conditioners. In this document, DOE denies the
petition as moot because the amended test procedure for room air
conditioners and clothes dryers incorporates use of the correction
factor requested in the AHAM petition.
DATES: The petition is denied as of April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this
petition and the test procedure rulemaking for room air conditioners
and clothes dryers at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of
the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, 20585-0121, (202) 586-6590, e-mail: [email protected].
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency
shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). Pursuant to this
provision of the APA, AHAM petitioned the Department of Energy for the
issuance of a new rule to allow manufacturers of room air conditioners
to use a correction factor that was not included in the regulations
governing DOE's compliance testing procedures at that time. The
petition also sought temporary enforcement forbearance, or a temporary
industry-wide waiver or guidance, to allow use of this methodology. DOE
published the petition for public comment until December 27, 2010,
seeking views on whether it should grant the petition and undertake a
rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the petition. (75 FR
72739, Nov. 26, 2010).
In addition to a comment from AHAM reiterating support for their
petition, DOE received a jointly filed comment from the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and Earth Justice regarding AHAM's
petition. ASAP and Earth Justice were concerned that the correction
factor is not appropriate and may not have a sound technical basis.
ASAP and Earth Justice stated that the cooling capacity of a room air
conditioner may actually be higher rather than lower when barometric
pressure is lower than standard pressure (due to greater moisture
content in the air, which generally increases latent heat removal). As
a result, the correction factor, which adjusts the measured capacity
upwards when barometric pressure for the test is lower than standard
pressure, may actually correct the capacity in the wrong direction.
ASAP and Earth Justice also commented that the correction factor
referenced in AHAM's petition applies to test room conditions only
where the barometric pressure is lower than standard pressure, but that
it would seem appropriate that the correction factor should account for
any deviation from standard barometric pressure regardless of the
direction (i.e., both higher and lower). (ASAP and Earth Justice, No.
42 at pp. 1-2)
ASAP and Earth Justice indicated their understanding that in the
latest revision of ASHRAE Standard 37 (which applies to central air
conditioners), the correction factor was removed when the committee
could not find any reference as to where the correction factor
originated or data demonstrating the problem of barometric pressure
variation and how this problem could be addressed. ASAP and Earth
Justice stated their understanding that the correction factor will be
removed in the next revision of ASHRAE Standard 16. ASAP and Earth
Justice also stated that DOE should fully investigate the issue in the
test procedure rulemaking, which was ongoing at the time the comment
was submitted, to ensure that the correction factor appropriately
reflects the relationship between barometric pressure and measured
total capacity. (ASAP and Earth Justice, No. 42 at pp. 1-2)
ASAP and Earth Justice commented that any use of a correction
factor is contrary to DOE's regulations for room air conditioners to
meet specific Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) levels as prescribed under
10 CFR 430.23(f)(2) and 430.32(b), and determined in accordance with
ASHRAE Standard 16-69. ASHRAE Standard 16-69 does not contain a
correction factor to adjust the tested unit's capacity to a standard
barometric pressure. Further, ASAP and Earth Justice stated that any
deviation from DOE's test procedure regulations negates the effect of
any demonstration of compliance with the applicable room air
conditioner standards. (ASAP and Earth Justice, No. 42 at p. 2)
DOE notes that the removal of the correction factor in ASHRAE
Standard 37 (which applies to central air conditioners) does not
indicate that its use is inappropriate in ASHRAE Standard 16, which is
used for rating of room air conditioners. Room air conditioners operate
with a ``wet'' condenser in rating test conditions, because room air
conditioners use the
[[Page 19914]]
condensate from the evaporator side of the product to enhance
performance of the condenser. Central air conditioners, which are
covered under ASHRAE Standard 37, generally do not have this feature
and operate primarily with dry condensers. DOE notes that changes in
the barometric pressure have an impact on the moist air conditions, and
this may affect room air conditioner performance differently than it
would affect central air conditioners because of the difference in
condenser operation. This factor could lead to different efficiency
measurement impacts of barometric pressure for these two types of
products. DOE has not received any information from ASHRAE indicating
that ASHRAE is considering revisions to Standard 16 at this time.
DOE also received additional information from AHAM supporting the
inclusion of the barometric pressure correction factor in the
calculation of cooling capacity from ASHRAE Standard 16. AHAM indicated
that as atmospheric pressure drops, so does the air density and,
therefore, the mass of air in a room. As atmospheric pressure drops,
the efficiency of a unit would also drop because there would be less
medium for heat transfer. ``The performance of the cooling coil is
considerably influenced, and the cooling capacity of the air supplied
to the conditioned room is reduced, by altitude effects because air
density reduces * * *. Air mass flow rate is probably the most
important effect of barometric pressure changes upon system
performance. It is the air mass flow rate that transfers heat between
cooler coils or condensers and airstreams and removes the sensible and
latent heat gains from the conditioned space. Therefore, it is of vital
importance that the correct air density or specific volume be used in
calculations.'' (William Peter Jones, Air Conditioning Applications and
Design, 32 (2d Ed. 1997)). AHAM indicated that because barometric
pressure is connected to the measured efficiency of the unit, multiple
tests of the same unit, under slightly different barometric pressure
conditions, will likely produce different results.
AHAM also provided data from a room air conditioner performance
simulation using IMST-ART version 3.30 modeling software of five
simulations, in each case progressively reducing the barometric
pressure inputs by 1 in. Hg starting from standard barometric pressure
(29.92 in. Hg). The results from this simulation, presented below in
Table 1, show that the cooling capacity decreases as atmospheric
pressure decreases.
Table 1--AHAM Room Air Conditioner Performance Simulation Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Units 2. Case 1 3. Case 2 4. Case 3 5. Case 4 6. Case 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporator Inlet Pressure psia............ 14.695 14.204 13.713 13.222 12.731
(Atmospheric Pressure
Inputs).
Condenser Inlet Pressure psia............ 14.695 14.204 13.713 13.222 12.731
(Atmospheric Pressure
Inputs).
Condensation Temp............ [deg]F.......... 122.21 122.65 123.12 123.62 124.15
Evaporation Temp............. [deg]F.......... 47.867 47.689 47.511 47.33 47.144
Condensation Press........... psia............ 446.62 449.1 451.8 454.7 457.8
Evaporation Press............ psia............ 151.96 151.53 151.09 150.64 150.18
EER Fan/Pump Included........ ................ 11 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.4
Cooling Capacity............. Btu/h........... 11,740 11,670 11,590 11,500 11,420
Refrigerant.................. ................ R410A R410A R410A R410A R410A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recently published a final rule to amend the test procedure for
room air conditioners and clothes dryers. (75 FR 972, Jan. 6, 2011). In
the final rule, DOE noted that section 6.1.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
16-1983 (RA 2009) introduces a correction factor based on the test room
condition's deviation from the standard barometric pressure of 29.92
inches (in.) of mercury (Hg) (101 kilopascal (kPa)). Section 6.1.3 of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009) states that the cooling capacity
may be increased 0.8 percent for each in. of Hg below 29.92 in. of Hg
(0.24 percent for each kPa below 101 kPa). For the reasons stated in
the final rule, DOE amended the DOE test procedure to reference the
relevant section of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard and include use of the
barometric pressure correction factor.
The amended test procedure was effective February 7, 2011 and
applies prospectively. DOE notes that the Administrative Procedure Act
defines a rule as being prospective in nature. 5 U.S.C. 551(4) (``
`rule' means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or
particular applicability and future effect * * *'') In addition, the
Supreme Court has stated that absent express statutory authority,
agencies cannot promulgate retroactive rules. See Bowen v. Georgetown
University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988). The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq., does not
authorize DOE to specify retroactive application of any portion of the
test procedure in a test procedure rulemaking.
For the reasons stated above, DOE denies AHAM's petition as moot.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4, 2010.
Sean A. Lev,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-8588 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P