[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27220-27260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10170]



[[Page 27219]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 87

May 5, 2016

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 27220]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054]
RIN 1904-AD43


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes 
to prescribe new definitions, sampling provisions, and test procedures 
for compressors in a new subpart of DOE regulations. The proposed test 
procedure would provide instructions for determining the full-load 
package isentropic efficiency for certain fixed-speed compressors and 
the part-load package isentropic efficiency for certain variable-speed 
compressors based on test methods described in International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 1217:2009, 
``Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests,'' (ISO 1217:2009). This 
document also proposes certain modifications and additions to ISO 
1217:2009 to increase the specificity of certain testing methods and 
improve the repeatability of tested and measured values. In this 
notice, DOE also announces a public meeting to discuss and receive 
comments on issues presented in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than July 5, 2016. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Monday, June 20, 2016 
from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in Washington, DC. The meeting will also 
be broadcast as a webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. Persons may also attend the public meeting via 
webinar. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. 
For more information, refer to section V, ``Public Participation,'' 
near the end of this document.
    Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Any comments 
submitted must identify the NOPR for test procedures for compressors, 
and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054 and/or regulation 
identifier number (RIN) 1904-AD43. Comments may be submitted using any 
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected] Include the 
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on 
a compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public 
Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/87. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
proposed rule on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov 
Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 
documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for 
information about how to submit comments through regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-8654. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference 
into part 431 the testing methods contained in certain applicable 
sections of the following industry standard:
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 1217:2009, 
``Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests,'' sections 2, 3, and 4; 
subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and subsections 
C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of 
Annex C.
    This material is available from the International Organization for 
Standardization, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, 
Switzerland, www.iso.org. +41 22 749 01 11. It is also available for 
inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Suite 600, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to 
http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program.
    See section IV.M for additional information on this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Definition of Covered Equipment
    B. Scope of Applicability of the Test Procedure
    1. Summary of Scope of Applicability
    2. Equipment System Boundary and Application
    a. Equipment System Boundary
    b. Application
    c. Definition of Air Compressor
    d. Definition of Air Compressor Components
    3. Compression Principle
    4. Styles of Drivers

[[Page 27221]]

    a. Electric Motor- and Engine-Driven Compressors
    b. Styles of Electric Motor
    5. Compressor Capacity (Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower)
    6. Output Pressure Range
    C. Energy-Related Metrics
    1. Specific Input Power and Isentropic Efficiency
    2. Selected Metric: Package Isentropic Efficiency
    3. Load Points and Weighting Factors for Calculating Full-Load 
and Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    4. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    5. Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    D. Test Method
    1. Referenced Industry Test Method
    2. Modifications, Additions, and Exclusions to ISO 1217:2009
    a. Sections Not Included in DOE's Incorporation by Reference
    b. Terminology
    c. Testing Conditions
    d. Equipment Configuration
    e. Data Collection and Sampling
    f. Allowable Deviations From Specified Load Points
    g. Calculations and Rounding
    h. Measurement Equipment
    i. Determination of Maximum Full-Flow Operating Pressure, Full-
Load Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate
    E. Definition of Basic Model
    F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency
    G. Sampling Plans for Tested Data and AEDMs
    1. Statistical Sampling Plan
    2. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods
    a. Background
    b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must Satisfy
    c. Validation
    d. Records Retention Requirements
    e. Additional AEDM Requirements
    3. Enforcement Provisions
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Small Business Determination
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Air Compressor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
    2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Compressor Test 
Procedure
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues About Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Compressors are included in the list of ``industrial equipment'' 
that DOE may determine to include as ``covered equipment,'' and thus 
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L), 6311(2)(A)-(B), 6312(b)). Specifically, DOE 
issued a Proposed Determination of Coverage (2012 Proposed 
Determination) that proposed to establish compressors as covered 
equipment. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012). However, DOE has not yet 
exercised this authority and thus no Federal energy conservation 
standards or test procedures for compressors are currently in place. In 
this document, DOE proposes to establish test procedures for 
compressors. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to 
establish test procedures for compressors and relevant background 
information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this 
equipment.

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended, (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was codified as 
Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), 
establishes the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment. Under EPCA, DOE may include a type of industrial equipment, 
including compressors, as covered equipment if it determines that to do 
so is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1. (42 U.S. 
6311(1)(L), 6311(2)(B)(i), and 6312(b)). The purpose of Part A-1 is to 
improve the efficiency of electric motors and pumps and certain other 
industrial equipment in order to conserve the energy resources of the 
Nation. (42 U.S.C 6312(a)) In DOE's 2012 Proposed Determination, DOE 
proposed to determine that because (1) DOE may only prescribe energy 
conservation standards for covered equipment; and (2) energy 
conservation standards for compressors would improve the efficiency of 
such equipment more than would be likely to occur in the absence of 
standards, including compressors as covered equipment is necessary to 
carry out the purposes of Part A-1. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012).
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 
labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. Specifically, subject to 
certain criteria and conditions, EPCA requires DOE to develop test 
procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 
annual operating cost of each type of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE 
test procedure: (1) As the basis for certifying to DOE that their 
equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)) and (2) when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test 
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with any 
relevant standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 
6316(a))
    There are currently no DOE test procedures or energy conservation 
standards for compressors. However, DOE is currently evaluating whether 
to establish energy conservation standards for certain categories of 
compressors. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0040) DOE must first 
establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy 
efficiency, or estimated operating costs of such equipment, prior to 
establishing energy conservation standards for such equipment. See 
generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) and 6316(a).
    EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to 
follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Among other things, EPCA requires that test 
procedures must be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of 
a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a 
representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary of 
Energy), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) Furthermore, DOE is required to publish the proposed test 
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an 
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to

[[Page 27222]]

present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed 
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))
    Consistent with EPCA requirements, DOE proposes to prescribe a test 
procedure for certain categories of compressors to be used with its 
ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040). The test procedure, if adopted, 
would include the methods necessary to: (1) Measure certain performance 
parameters of the compressor (i.e., inlet and discharge pressures, flow 
rate, and packaged compressor power input); and (2) use the measured 
results to calculate the package isentropic efficiency \2\ of the 
compressor, inclusive of all compressor-package components. DOE 
proposes specific test procedures and metrics for fixed-speed versus 
variable-speed compressors: Full-load efficiency for fixed-speed 
compressors and a part-load efficiency for variable-speed compressors. 
DOE also proposes to establish the categories of compressors to which 
the proposed test method would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Package isentropic efficiency is defined as the ratio of 
power required for an ideal isentropic compression process to the 
actual packaged compressor power input used at a given load point, 
as determined in accordance with the methods described in sections 
III.C.4 and III.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If DOE adopts an applicable test procedure, manufacturers would be 
required to use the adopted test procedure and performance metrics when 
making representations regarding the energy consumption of covered 
equipment beginning 180 days after publication of the test procedure 
final rule in the Federal Register (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) (see section 
III.F).

B. Background

    Consistent with DOE's authority under EPCA, as discussed in section 
I.A, DOE issued the 2012 Proposed Determination that proposed to 
establish compressors as covered equipment. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 
2012). Subsequently, in February 2014, DOE published a Notice of Public 
Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document to initiate an 
energy conservation standard rulemaking for compressors. 79 FR 6839 
(Feb. 5, 2014). In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback from 
interested parties on multiple issues, including the definition of 
compressor, characteristics of different compressor categories, and how 
to test compressor efficiency. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the 
Framework Document on April 1, 2014, hereafter referred to as the 
``Framework public meeting.'' DOE received 15 comments in response to 
the Framework Document. After the comment period, DOE held interviews 
with several interested parties to help gather additional information 
necessary to complete the regulatory analyses that were described in 
the Framework Document. Those recommendations received from interested 
parties in both comments on the Framework Document and during the 
Framework public meeting, as well as feedback provided during the 
preliminary manufacturer interviews, that are pertinent to the test 
procedure and performance metric are addressed in this NOPR and 
reflected in DOE's proposed compressor test procedure.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a new 
subpart T to 10 CFR part 431 that would contain, among other things, 
definitions and a test procedure applicable to compressors. However, 
DOE proposes to establish test procedures for only a specific subset of 
compressors. Specifically, this proposed test procedure would apply 
only to a subset of rotary and reciprocating compressors, as defined in 
section III.B of this NOPR. DOE intends this proposed test procedure to 
apply to the same equipment for which DOE is considering adopting 
energy conservation standards (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054). 
However, DOE notes that the scope of any energy conservation standards 
would be established in that rulemaking.
    This proposed test procedure prescribes methods for measuring and 
calculating the energy performance of certain rotary and reciprocating 
compressors, inclusive of all compressor package components.\3\ DOE 
also proposes to describe the energy performance of certain rotary and 
reciprocating compressors using package isentropic efficiency. The 
package isentropic efficiency describes the ratio of the ideal 
isentropic power required for compression to the actual packaged 
compressor power input used for the same compression process. DOE 
proposes to use full-load package isentropic efficiency as the metric 
for rating certain fixed-speed compressors ([eta]isen,FL) 
and part-load package isentropic efficiency as the metric for rating 
certain variable-speed compressors ([eta]isen,PL). DOE 
believes these metrics would provide a representative measurement of 
the energy performance of the rated compressor under an average cycle 
of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed further in section III.B.2.c, DOE proposes to 
define air compressors as a ``packaged compressor,'' inclusive of a 
compression element (``bare compressor''), driver(s), and mechanical 
equipment to drive the compressor element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's proposed test method includes measurements of the inlet and 
discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and packaged compressor 
power input, as well as calculations of the theoretical power necessary 
for compression--all of which are required to calculate full- or part-
load package isentropic efficiency. For reproducible and uniform 
measurement of these values, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference 
the test methods established in certain applicable sections of ISO 
Standard 1217:2009, ``Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests,'' 
sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 
6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, 
C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C; along with certain modifications 
and additions, as noted in section III.D.2. Members of the compressor 
industry developed ISO 1217:2009, which contains methods for 
determining inlet and discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and 
packaged compressor power input for electrically driven packaged 
displacement compressors. DOE has reviewed the relevant sections of ISO 
1217:2009 and has determined that ISO 1217:2009, in conjunction with 
the additional referenced test methods and calculations proposed in 
this test procedure (see sections III.D.2 and III.C, respectively), 
would produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy 
use, or estimated operating costs of a compressor during a 
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE has also 
reviewed the burdens associated with conducting the proposed test 
procedure, including ISO 1217:2009 and, based on the results of such 
analysis, has found that the proposed test procedure would not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE's analysis 
of the burdens associated with the proposed test procedure is presented 
in section IV.B.
    DOE also proposes to establish, in subpart B of part 429 of Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requirements regarding the 
sampling plan for testing and allowable representations for certain 
rotary and reciprocating compressors. The proposed sampling plan 
requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial 
and industrial equipment (e.g., pumps) and are appropriate for 
compressors based on the expected range of measurement

[[Page 27223]]

uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this equipment (see 
section III.G). DOE also proposes provisions regarding the 
representations of energy consumption, energy efficiency, and other 
relevant metrics manufacturers may make in their manufacturer 
literature (see section III.F). Any representations of the energy 
efficiency or energy use of compressors to which an adopted test 
procedure applies must be made based on the adopted compressor test 
procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of any test 
procedure final rule establishing such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))

III. Discussion

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to place a new compressor test procedure 
and related definitions into a new subpart T of part 431, add new 
sampling plans for this equipment in a new section 429.61 of 10 CFR 
part 429, add a new alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) 
for this equipment in 10 CFR 429.70, and add new enforcement provisions 
for compressors in 10 CFR 429.110 and 134. The proposed subpart T would 
contain definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test 
procedure applicable to certain classes and configurations of 
compressors established as a result of this rulemaking, as shown in 
Table III.1. DOE would also incorporate in subpart T any energy 
conservation standards for compressors resulting from the concurrent 
energy conservation standard rulemaking. (See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0040)

 Table III.1--Summary of Proposals in This NOPR, Their Location Within the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
                                         Applicable Preamble Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Applicable Preamble
           Location                    Proposal               Summary of Additions             Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 429.61................  Sampling Plan...........  Minimum number of compressors  Section III.G
                                                          to be tested to rate a
                                                          compressor basic model.
10 CFR 429.110...............  Enforcement Provisions..  Method for determining         Section III.G.3
                                                          compliance of basic models.
10 CFR 431.341...............  Purpose and Scope.......  Scope of the proposed          Section III.B
                                                          compressor regulations.
10 CFR 431.342...............  Definitions.............  Definitions pertinent to       Section III.B.2
                                                          categorizing and testing of
                                                          compressors.
10 CFR 431.343...............  Incorporation by          Description of industry        Section III.D
                                Reference.                standards incorporated by
                                                          reference in the DOE test
                                                          procedure and related
                                                          definitions.
10 CFR 431.344...............  Test Procedure..........  Instructions for determining   Sections III.C and III.D
                                                          the package isentropic
                                                          efficiency for applicable
                                                          categories of compressors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: DOE also proposes minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2 and 429.70; to apply the general definitions to
  the equipment-specific provisions proposed for compressors at 10 CFR 429.61 and propose AEDM requirements for
  compressors, respectively.

    The following sections discuss DOE's proposals regarding 
establishing new testing and sampling requirements for compressors, 
including A) definition of covered equipment, B) scope of applicability 
of the test procedure, C) energy-related metrics, D) test method, E) 
definition of basic model, F) representations of energy use and energy 
efficiency, and G) sampling plans for testing and AEDMs.
    These sections also present any pertinent comments DOE received in 
response to the February 2014 Framework Document, as well as DOE's 
responses to those comments.

A. Definition of Covered Equipment

    Although a compressor is listed as a type of industrial equipment 
in EPCA, the term is not defined. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(i)) In the 
Framework Document, DOE requested feedback on a definition for the term 
``compressor,'' taken from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) Technical Report 12942:2012, ``Compressors--
Classification--Complementary information to ISO 5390,'' (``ISO/TR 
12942:2012''). (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 3). 
Specifically, ISO Technical Report 12942:2012 defines compressor as a 
machine or apparatus converting different types of energy into the 
potential energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of 
gaseous media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure 
with pressure-increase ratios exceeding 1.1.
    In response to the provided definition, the Edison Electric 
Institute (EEI) supported the use of the ISO/TR 12942:2012 definition. 
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA 
IOUs), the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), and a joint comment 
submitted by the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy 
(ACEEE), the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (APSP), the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and the Alliance to Save 
Energy (ASE) (hereafter referred to as the Joint Commenters) 
recommended establishing the pressure ratio that defines compressors to 
align with the maximum ratio that will eventually be proposed for the 
DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking for fans and blowers 
(``Fans and Blowers Rule,'' Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, EEI, No. 
0012 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 0019 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 0040 at p. 23; CA IOUs, 
No. 0018 at p. 2; SCGC, No. 0018 at p. 2; and Joint Comment, No. 0016 
at p. 1) The Compressed Air and Gas Institute (CAGI) commented that the 
pressure ratio was too low and suggested using a ratio of 2.5. (CAGI, 
No. 0009 at p. 1; CAGI, No. 0040 at p.2)
    DOE agrees with the recommendations from interested parties 
suggesting alignment of the pressure ratio used to define compressors 
with any maximum pressure ratio adopted for fans and blowers. That is, 
DOE believes that, in order to ensure comprehensive and equitable 
coverage of equipment (i.e., prevent gaps in coverage and double 
coverage by two rules) it is critical that the maximum pressure ratio 
applicable to fans and blowers be mutually exclusive with the minimum 
pressure ratio proposed to define compressors.
    Although DOE intends to align the maximum pressure ratio for fans 
and blowers with the minimum pressure ratio for compressors, DOE notes 
that the Fans and Blowers Rules are currently in progress and that DOE 
has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for either a test 
procedure or energy conservation standards. As a result, DOE has not 
yet offered any formal proposals for a limiting maximum pressure ratio 
for fans and blowers.

[[Page 27224]]

    However, DOE discussed the use of pressure ratio limits in the 
Framework Document for its Fans and Blowers Rule. Specifically, DOE 
discussed a definition for the term ``blower,'' as ``an axial or 
centrifugal fan with a ``specific ratio,\4\ '' between 1.11 and 1.20'' 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0001 at p. 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specific ratio is defined in ISO 13349:2010 as the total 
pressure at the outlet of the fan over the total inlet pressure. 
This term is synonymous to pressure ratio, as discussed in this 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received comments in response to its discussion of specific 
ratio limits in the Fans and Blowers Rule Framework Document. 
Specifically, Ingersoll-Rand supported use of an upper limit of 25 kJ/
kg for equipment being considered as a part of the Fans and Blowers 
Rule (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0153 at p. 6). DOE notes that 
ISO 13349:2010 \5\ also defines fans based on a maximum energy limit of 
25 kJ/kg of air and indicates that 25 kJ/kg is equivalent to a specific 
ratio of 1.3. The CA IOUs, in response to the Fans and Blowers 
Framework Document, commented that they were aware of the ongoing 
compressors rulemaking, and that the respective pressure ratio limits 
of each rule should be aligned in order to prevent gaps in coverage 
(``Fans and Blowers Rule,'' Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0011 at p. 
3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ISO 13349:2010 Fans--Vocabulary and definitions of 
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DOE notes that, following the completion of the 
Framework comment period, an ASRAC Working Group was established to 
negotiate proposed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. 
80 FR 17359 (Apr. 1, 2015). Ultimately this Working Group concluded its 
negotiations on September 3, 2015, with a supportive vote on several 
recommendations (``a term sheet'') for DOE regarding the testing and 
regulation this equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, No. 179) 
Although the Working Group's term sheet did not explicitly include an 
upper limit on pressure ratio, the working group did discuss, and come 
to ``general agreement'' on a ``maximum fan energy limit of 25 kJ/kg'' 
(approximately 1.3 pressure ratio) as the appropriate cutoff to 
distinguish between fans and compressors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0006; Public Meeting, No. 84 at p. 11).
    As discussed previously, DOE agrees with the recommendations from 
NRDC, NEEA, CA IOUs, SCGC and the Joint Commenters, suggesting 
alignment of the pressure ratio used to define compressors with any 
maximum pressure ratio adopted for fans and blowers. Consequently, DOE 
proposes to incorporate into its definition of a compressor, a pressure 
ratio limit of greater than 1.3. DOE believes that, based on the most 
recent Fans and Blowers Rule public information (discussed above), a 
pressure ratio limit of 1.3 is the most appropriate cutoff to 
distinguish between fans and compressors, and this cutoff limit meets 
the intent of definitional alignment between the Fans and Blowers Rule 
and this rulemaking.
    DOE notes that it is proposing to limit the definition of a 
compressor using pressure ratio, rather than fan energy (in kJ/kg), as 
fan energy is not a commonly used parameter in the compressor industry 
and DOE is unaware of any compressor industry test standards that 
specify the calculation of such a parameter. Alternatively, pressure 
ratio is a commonly used, and well understood, parameter in the 
compressor industry, and is easily derived from test methods contained 
in common industry standards, such as ISO 1217:2009.
    In addition to the lower pressure ratio limit of ``greater than 
1.3'', DOE proposes to base the remainder of its compressor definition 
on the ISO 12942:2012 definition of a compressor; which was discussed 
in the Compressors Framework Document and supported in previously 
discussed comments submitted by EEI.
    Ultimately, DOE proposes to define a compressor as a machine or 
apparatus that converts different types of energy into the potential 
energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of gaseous 
media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure and has 
a pressure ratio \6\ greater than 1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE proposes to use terminology consistent with ISO 
1217:2009 in describing the ratio of discharge to inlet pressures as 
``pressure ratio,'' as opposed to ``pressure-increase ratio,'' which 
is the term used in some other industry documents. However, for the 
purpose of this document ``pressure-increase ratio'' and ``pressure 
ratio'' are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that proposing a pressure ratio of greater than 1.3, DOE 
intends to align the minimum pressure ratio for compressors to the 
maximum ratio proposed in the fans and blowers rule and create a 
continuous spectrum of coverage between the two equipment types. 
However, as discussed previously, the fans and blowers rulemaking is 
still in progress, and the limit of 25 kJ/kg (approximately a 1.3 
pressure ratio) discussed during Working Group negotiations has not 
been proposed by DOE and is subject to change. As such, DOE reiterates 
that the primary intent of proposing a pressure ratio greater than 1.3 
is to align with the fans and blowers rule and creates a continuous 
spectrum of coverage between the two equipment types. If the fans and 
blowers rulemaking ultimately proposes and adopts an upper limit other 
than 25 kJ/kg, DOE may alter the pressure ratio threshold of greater 
than 1.3 referenced in the compressor definition, in order to achieve 
the original intent of this proposal, either through this rulemaking, 
the fan and blowers rulemaking, or other subsequent rulemakings.
    In order to objectively and unambiguously determine whether 
equipment meets the definition of compressor, DOE also proposes to 
define the term ``pressure ratio.'' DOE proposes to define pressure 
ratio as the ratio of discharge pressure to inlet pressure, as 
determined at full-load operating pressure. This definition allows DOE 
to establish quantitatively which equipment meet the pressure ratio 
requirement proposed in the definition of compressor.
    This definition of pressure ratio relies on the terms discharge 
pressure and inlet pressure. Definitions and methods to calculate the 
discharge pressure and inlet pressure are established in ISO 1217:2009, 
certain sections of which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference (see 
section III.D). DOE also notes that in this NOPR DOE proposes methods 
to identify full-load operating pressure; such methods are discussed 
further in section III.D.2.i.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for compressor and 
pressure ratio, as well as the definitions referenced in ISO 1217:2009.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed lower limit of pressure ratio 
for compressors of ``greater than 1.3.''

B. Scope of Applicability of the Test Procedure

1. Summary of Scope of Applicability
    DOE notes that while the definition of compressor, as proposed in 
section III.A, is broad, the categories of compressors to which the 
proposed test procedure applies would be limited to a more narrow range 
of equipment. Specifically, after consideration of feedback from 
interested parties, as well as DOE research, DOE proposes to limit the 
applicability of this test procedure to compressors that meet the 
following criteria:
     Are air compressors, as defined in section III.B.2;
     Are rotary or reciprocating compressors, as defined in 
section III.B.3;

[[Page 27225]]

     Are driven by a brushless electric motor, as defined in 
section III.B.4;
     Are distributed in commerce with a compressor motor 
nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 
500 horsepower (hp) as defined in section III.B.5; and
     Operate at a full-load operating pressure of greater than 
or equal to 31 and less than or equal to 225 pounds per square inch 
gauge (psig), as defined in section III.B.6.
    In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to limit the 
applicability of the test procedure to compressor equipment being 
analyzed in the energy conservation standard. However, DOE notes that 
the broad definition of compressor provides DOE with flexibility to 
consider establishing test procedures and energy conservation standards 
for compressors outside the scope of this test procedure in the future.
2. Equipment System Boundary and Application
a. Equipment System Boundary
    In the Framework Document for the compressor standards rulemaking, 
DOE considered three options for the equipment system boundary, based 
on the three different ways in which compressors are distributed in 
commerce: (1) As a bare compressor; (2) as a bare compressor, inclusive 
of driver(s) and mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor; and 
(3) as a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and mechanical 
equipment to drive the bare compressor, as well as all secondary 
equipment, componentry, and air conveyance equipment (i.e., a 
compressed air system (CAS)). DOE requested comment regarding the 
feasibility of covering each boundary level of compressor equipment.
    In the Framework Document, DOE proposed no formal definitions for 
these equipment configurations. However, DOE described the term ``bare 
compressor'' as a ``singular machine responsible for the change in air 
pressure, which is sometimes referred to as an `air end,' and which is 
the compression chamber where air is compressed.'' DOE specifically 
noted that this term would be exclusive of any other devices, such as 
an electric motor. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 6).
    With respect to the ``a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and 
mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor '' option (a 
compressor package), DOE described a configuration of compressor 
components that includes ``a driver, such as an electric motor, and may 
include other equipment, such as gears, drains, air treatment 
(filtering) equipment, onboard controls, etc.'' DOE noted that this 
``configuration is considered the single largest piece of equipment 
brought to market by an individual manufacturer.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the ``a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and 
mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor, as well as all 
secondary equipment, componentry, and air conveyance equipment (i.e., a 
CAS)'' option, DOE described a system ``inclusive of all componentry 
that would be attached and would include components starting from the 
air intake and including the final `point-of-use.' '' DOE noted that 
under this option, ``the compressor could include the many 
configuration packages that could be attached such as the distribution 
(piping) network, air-treatment systems, sequencers, storage tanks, and 
any end-use equipment (e.g., pneumatic tools).'' (Docket No. EERE-2013-
BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 7).
    In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on the different 
equipment system boundary options. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, 
No. 1 at p. 11). In response, Saylor-Beall commented that ``while it 
might be possible to rate the air compressor package, attention needs 
to be given to the entire compressed air system of the end user.'' 
(Saylor-Beall, No. 0003 at p. 2)\8\ Alternatively, Jenny Compressors 
(``Jenny'') stated that ``covering the entire `CAS' may prove nearly 
impossible since many systems include components from many different 
manufacturers, and no two systems are the same.'' (Jenny, No. 0005 at 
p. 2) CAGI and the Joint Commenters agreed that DOE should cover the 
compressor package as part of this rulemaking. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 3; 
Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters also stated that, 
if DOE covers the compressor package, DOE would need to ensure 
companies that assemble packages from purchased components are also 
subject to proposals in this rulemaking. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 
2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures 
for pumps (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov). This particular notation refers to a comment: 
(1) Submitted by HI; (2) appearing in document number 8 of the 
docket; and (3) appearing on page 4 of that document. This final 
rule also contains comments submitted in response to the pumps ECS 
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) and such comments will 
be identified with that docket number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE considered these comments and reviewed the pros and cons of 
each equipment system boundary option. The following paragraphs discuss 
DOE's finding and conclusions.
    DOE considers covering a bare compressor to represent significantly 
lower energy savings compared to the other two equipment system 
boundary options. Logically, because a bare compressor is a subset of 
the compressor package and CAS, any energy savings available in the 
bare compressor would also be available in the compressor package and 
CAS options. Additionally, some energy savings opportunities are 
related to the ability to optimize a bare compressor relative to other 
components of the compressor package or CAS. Covering the bare 
compressor only would forgo the opportunity to realize those additional 
savings opportunities. Furthermore, some of those additional components 
have a significant impact on the energy consumption of the bare 
compressor in the field and are required for the bare compressor to 
function as intended. Consequently, DOE believes that determining the 
energy performance of the bare compressor alone would not be 
representative of the energy consumption of the equipment under typical 
use conditions. For these reasons, DOE does not propose to include bare 
compressors within the scope of applicability of this test procedure.
    DOE also understands that, while the CAS represents the largest 
available energy savings, including the CAS in the scope of 
applicability of this rulemaking has significant drawbacks:
     Often a CAS is unique to a specific installation;
     Each CAS may include equipment from several different 
manufacturers; and
     A single CAS can include several different compressors, of 
different categories, which may all have different full-load operating 
pressures.
    Implementing a broader, CAS-based approach to regulating compressor 
efficiency would require DOE to (1) establish a methodology for 
measuring losses in any arbitrary air-distribution network; and (2) 
assess what certification, compliance, and enforcement practices would 
be required for a potentially unlimited, and extremely variable, number 
of system designs. For these reasons, DOE does not propose to establish 
the scope of applicability of this test procedure to include CAS.
    Based on the considerations stated above, at this time, DOE 
proposes to establish test procedures only for

[[Page 27226]]

compressor packages, which contain bare compressors, driver(s), 
mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor, and any ancillary 
equipment. DOE believes that determining the energy performance of 
compressors as a ``compressor package'' is the most representative of 
the energy consumption of the equipment under an average cycle of use.
b. Application
    Broadly, compressors are used to compress a wide variety of gases, 
including, among others, air, natural gas, and refrigerants. In the 
Framework Document, DOE requested comment on limiting the scope to only 
``air compressors'' and stated that information gathered to that point 
indicated that non-air compressing equipment accounted for a relatively 
small fraction of the overall compressors market, in terms of both 
shipments and annual energy consumption. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0040, No. 1 at p. 4). In response, DOE received conflicting feedback on 
the topic from interested parties. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 
recommended covering all compressor categories regardless of the gas 
that is compressed because natural gas compressor energy use is 
projected to increase, while CAGI stated that DOE should cover only air 
compressors. (EEI, No. 0012 at p. 1-2; CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) The Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) requested 
that compressors used in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 
(HVAC) equipment be specifically excluded. (AHRI No. 0015, at p. 1)
    After the publication of the Framework Document, DOE announced 
several new initiatives to modernize the country's natural gas 
transmission and distribution infrastructure, including one to explore 
establishing efficiency standards for natural gas compressors.\9\ As 
part of that effort, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI), on 
August 5, 2014, to help determine both the feasibility of energy 
conservation standards for natural gas compressors and whether they are 
similar enough to air compressors to be considered within the scope of 
this rulemaking. 79 FR 45377 (Aug. 5, 2014). Additionally, DOE 
announced the availability of a preliminary, high-level description of 
the market and available technology for natural gas compressors. 
(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0051, No. 5). DOE held a public meeting on 
December 17, 2014, to present and seek comment on the content of that 
data. Based upon the feedback DOE received in response to the RFI and 
the NODA, DOE has determined that natural gas compressors are a unique 
style of compressors that serve different applications and market 
utility, which would necessitate unique test procedures and standards. 
As such, DOE opted to consider natural gas compressors separately from 
air compressors. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0051)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See: http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-announces-steps-help-modernize-natural-gas-infrastructure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding refrigerant compressors, DOE considers refrigerant 
compressors to have the same basic function as air compressors in that 
they both compress a working fluid to a higher pressure, but with the 
working fluid of refrigerant compressors being refrigerant instead of 
air. Refrigerant compressors are typically used in heating, 
ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) equipment. 
Similar to natural gas compressors, DOE has determined that refrigerant 
compressors serve a specific and unique application and also 
necessitate unique test procedures and standards. As such, DOE has 
opted not to consider refrigerant compressors in this rulemaking.
    Furthermore, DOE's research found no large market segments or 
applications for compressor equipment used with gases other than air, 
natural gas, and refrigerant. Information gathered during confidential 
manufacturer interviews also indicated that non-air and non-natural gas 
compressing equipment represented relatively low sales volume and 
annual energy consumption. Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, DOE 
proposes to establish test procedures only for air compressors in this 
rulemaking.
c. Definition of Air Compressor
    DOE proposes to define the term ``air compressor'' as a compressor 
designed to compress air that has an inlet open to the atmosphere or 
other source of air, and is made up of a compression element (bare 
compressor), driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the compressor 
element, and any ancillary equipment.
    The first clause of this definition the application of the 
compressor. The portion of the definition that states, ``. . . a 
compressor designed to compress air that has an inlet open to the 
atmosphere or other source of air,'' describes what is commonly known 
as an air compressor and establishes that this definition includes air 
compressors only. DOE includes language regarding the compressor inlet 
as a secondary identifier of air compressors that focuses on features, 
so that the definition is not entirely reliant on assessment of design 
objectives. DOE notes that if this definition were to be adopted, DOE 
would refer to manufacturer literature, including operation and 
installation manuals, and any other representations made by the 
manufacturer when determining design intent.
    The second clause of this definition discusses the equipment system 
boundary. Specifically, the portion of the definition which states, ``. 
. . made up of a compression element (bare compressor), driver(s), 
mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element, and any ancillary 
equipment.'' This clause describes the components that must be to be a 
regulated air compressor and subject to the proposed test procedure. 
These specific components are discussed and defined in section 
III.B.2.d.
    DOE also notes that the proposed definition of air compressor is 
similar to the European Union's (EU's) Ecodesign Lot 31 Draft Standard 
of ``basic package compressor,'' the ISO 1217:2009 definition of 
``packaged compressor,'' and DOE's own ``compressor package'' 
definition from the Framework Document, each of which is presented in 
the following paragraphs. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at 
p. 6).
EU Lot 31 Definition of ``Basic Package Compressor''
    Basic package compressor means a compressor made up of compression 
element (`air end'), electric motor(s) and transmission or coupling to 
drive the compression element, and which is fully piped and wired 
internally, including ancillary and auxiliary items of equipment that 
is considered essential for safe operation and required for functioning 
as intended; (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 3).
ISO 1217:2009 Definition of ``Packaged Compressor''
    Packaged compressor means a compressor with prime mover, 
transmission, fully piped and wired internally, including ancillary and 
auxiliary items of equipment and being stationary or mobile (portable 
unit) where these are within the scope of supply.
Framework Document Definition of ``Compressor Package''
    Compressor package refers to the bare compressor plus a driver, 
such as an electric motor, and may include ancillary equipment such as 
gears, drains, air-treatment (filtering) equipment, onboard controls, 
etc. A

[[Page 27227]]

compressor package is considered the single largest piece of equipment 
brought to market by an individual manufacturer. (Docket No. EERE-2013-
BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 6).
d. Definition of Air Compressor Components
    In order to explicitly establish the applicable components included 
in an air compressor, as defined, DOE must also define the terms ``bare 
compressor,'' ``driver,'' and ``mechanical equipment.'' The following 
sections discuss DOE's proposed definitions for those terms.
Definition of ``Bare Compressor''
    In the Framework Document, DOE described a ``bare compressor'' as 
``[a] singular machine responsible for the change in air pressure and 
is sometimes referred to as an ``air end,'' which is the compression 
chamber where air is compressed.''
    In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes a similar definition for 
``bare compressor.'' However, DOE's proposed definition expands upon 
and clarifies the discussion presented in the Framework Document to 
reference several specific design characteristics of bare compressors. 
Specifically, DOE proposes to include specific language from the 
definition for mechanical compressor included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 \10\ 
to define the term bare compressor. DOE's proposed definition of ``bare 
compressor'' reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The definition of ``mechanical compressor'' in ISO 
12942:2012 includes ``compressor machine constituting essentially 
one or several working members movable in compression chambers and 
common built-in mechanism for conversion of external energy supply 
motion of the driver to the required working member motion, and 
being operable by supply of external mechanical energy from the 
power output shaft, or motion rod or piston of the driver or speed-
adjusting driving gear. NOTE 1 The mechanical compressor contains 
necessary auxiliary devices for performing the gas compression 
process in the working chambers: applicable gas inlet and outlet 
valves, gas flow paths, seals, lubrication system, capacity control 
means, measuring instruments etc., but it does not contain driver, 
speed-adjusting gear, gas processing apparatuses and piping or 
compressor equipment packaging and mounting facilities and 
enclosures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bare compressor \11\ means the compression element and auxiliary 
devices (e.g., inlet and outlet valves, seals, lubrication system, and 
gas flow paths) required for performing the gas compression process, 
but does not include the driver; speed-adjusting gear(s); gas 
processing apparatuses and piping; or compressor equipment packaging 
and mounting facilities and enclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The compressors industry frequently uses the term 
``airend'' or ``air end'' to refer to the bare compressor. DOE uses 
``bare compressor'' in the regulatory text of this proposed rule but 
notes that, for the purposes of this rulemaking, it considers the 
terms to be synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Driver
    As discussed previously, another fundamental element of an air 
compressor is the driver, which provides mechanical power to drive a 
bare compressor. Examples include an electric motor, internal 
combustion engine, or gas turbine. In the Framework Document, DOE 
described and used the term driver, but did not offer a specific 
definition. In the recent pumps test procedure final rule, DOE defined 
the term, as it applies to pumps. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). 
Specifically, the pumps test procedure final rule defines driver as 
``the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare pump directly 
or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples include, but are 
not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/
steam turbine.'' Id. Due to the similarities between the equipment 
categories (i.e., equipment typically driven by electric motors and 
sometimes accompanied with variable frequency drives), in this NOPR, 
DOE proposes a definition for ``driver'' that is similar the one 
proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE proposes a definition 
for the term ``driver'' to mean the machine providing mechanical input 
to drive a bare compressor directly or through the use of mechanical 
equipment.
Definition of Mechanical Equipment
    An air compressor, as defined, may include mechanical equipment 
that serves to transfer energy from a driver to the bare compressor. In 
DOE's pumps test procedure final rule, DOE adopted a definition for 
mechanical equipment as ``any component of a pump that transfers energy 
from a driver to a bare pump.'' 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). Again, due 
to the similarities between the equipment categories (i.e., equipment 
typically driven by electric motors and sometimes accompanied with 
variable frequency drives), DOE believes such a definition is also 
applicable to compressors and, as a result, in this NOPR, DOE proposes 
a definition for the term mechanical equipment as follows:
    Mechanical equipment means any component of an air compressor that 
transfers energy from the driver to the bare compressor.
Definition of Ancillary Equipment
    DOE believes that the energy consumption of all components 
distributed in commerce with an air compressor should be considered 
when evaluating the energy performance of the air compressor. 
Consequently, DOE proposes to define ancillary equipment as any 
equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor that is not a 
bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment. DOE notes that 
ancillary equipment would be considered to be part of a given air 
compressor model, regardless of whether the ancillary equipment is 
physically attached to the bare compressor, driver, or mechanical 
equipment at the time when the air compressor is distributed in 
commerce.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of air compressor 
and its use in limiting the scope of applicability of this test 
procedure.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for bare 
compressor, driver, and mechanical equipment.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of ancillary 
equipment, and whether a comprehensive list of potential ancillary 
equipment is more appropriate. If a comprehensive list of potential 
ancillary equipment is preferred, DOE requests information on what 
equipment should be on that list.
    DOE requests comment on its position that all ancillary equipment 
distributed in commerce with an air compressor be installed when 
testing to evaluate the energy performance of the air compressor. DOE 
requests comment on a potential alternative approach, in which DOE 
could generate a list of specific ancillary equipment that must be 
installed to ensure that the test result is representative of 
compressor performance; equipment on this list would not be optional, 
regardless of how that compressor model is distributed in commerce. If 
the alternative approach is preferred, DOE requests comments on what 
ancillary equipment be required to be installed to representatively 
measure compressor energy performance and how to evaluate compressor 
performance if an air compressor is distributed in commerce without 
certain items on the list.
3. Compression Principle
    Compressor equipment can use a variety of different compression 
mechanisms in order to increase the pressure of the gas. The three main 
compressor categories each rely on a different compression principle 
and include rotary compressors, reciprocating compressors, and dynamic 
compressors. In the Framework Document, DOE offered definitions for 
each of these compressor equipment categories as follows:

[[Page 27228]]

    Dynamic compressor means a compressor in which the increase in gas 
pressure is achieved continuously by increasing the kinetic energy of 
the working fluid in the flow path of the equipment due to acceleration 
to high velocities by mechanical action of blades placed on a rapid 
rotating wheel and further transformation of the kinetic energy into 
potential energy by successive deceleration of the working fluid flow 
rate and associated pressure increase.
    Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which 
gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced 
discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors 
in a compressor casing.
    Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor 
in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are 
performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving 
member(s) in a compression chamber(s).
    In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on which 
compression categories should be considered for inclusion in the scope 
of DOE's rulemaking efforts. In response, several interested parties 
agreed that DOE should cover all three compressor categories. (Joint 
Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2; CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) Scales commented 
that DOE should focus on centrifugal and rotary screw compressors above 
350 hp. (W. Scales, No. 0020 at p. 1) DOE also received annual 
shipments data, differentiated by these compressor categories, in 
industry stakeholder submittals.
    In response to the submitted comments, DOE researched the 
characteristics, typical usage and applications, and available test 
methods for the different compressor categories. DOE research indicated 
that dynamic compressors are typically larger in horsepower than 
positive displacement compressors, and commonly engineered specifically 
for a unique customer or application. In addition, DOE found that the 
standard international test procedure for dynamic compressors, ISO 
5389, is considered too complicated and not widely used by industry. As 
a result of the specialization of dynamic compressor equipment and the 
complexity of the industry test procedure, very little application and 
performance data are publicly available, which makes it difficult for 
DOE to assess the feasibility or representativeness of ISO 5389 or 
other test procedures for this equipment. In addition, due to the 
unique industry test procedure and applications of dynamic compressors, 
DOE believes it is most appropriate to apply a unique test procedure to 
such equipment. Conversely, ISO 1217:2009 is applicable to both rotary 
and reciprocating compressors and is currently widely used by the 
industry for testing and verifying equipment performance. For further 
details on ISO 1217:2009 see section III.D.
    Based on the shipments data submitted by interested parties in 
response to the Framework Document, DOE also estimated the overall size 
of the air compressors market for each configuration. The shipments 
data for 2013 provided to DOE suggest that rotary and reciprocating 
compressors account for the majority of the air compressors market by 
units shipped. By contrast, dynamic compressors account for fewer than 
300 total units shipped, or roughly one percent of the total market. 
Because rotary and reciprocating compressors can be tested in the same 
manner and represent the majority of the market, DOE is electing to 
consider a test procedure that is applicable only to rotary and 
reciprocating compressors. DOE may create test procedures for dynamic 
compressors in the future and notes that, due to the differences from 
rotary and reciprocating compressors, it would be most appropriate to 
address the test procedure for dynamic compressors as part of a 
separate rulemaking.
    To establish the applicability of the test procedure proposed in 
this NOPR, DOE proposes the following definitions for rotary and 
reciprocating compressors, which are consistent with those discussed in 
the Framework Document:
    Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which 
gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced 
discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors 
in a compressor casing. This definition for rotary compressor is 
consistent with the definition included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is 
currently used within the compressor industry.
    Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor 
in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are 
performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving 
member(s) in a compression chamber(s). This definition for 
reciprocating compressor is consistent with the definition included in 
ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is currently used within the compressor industry.
    To support the previous definitions, DOE also proposes to define 
the term positive displacement compressor as a compressor in which the 
admission and diminution of successive volumes of the gaseous medium 
are performed periodically by forced expansion and diminution of a 
closed space(s) in a working chamber(s) by means of displacement of a 
moving member(s) or by displacement and forced discharge of the gaseous 
medium into the high-pressure area. This definition for positive 
displacement compressor is consistent with the definition included in 
ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is currently used within the compressor industry.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of rotary 
compressor, reciprocating compressor, and positive displacement 
compressor and their use in defining the scope of applicability of this 
test procedure.
4. Styles of Drivers
a. Electric Motor- and Engine-Driven Compressors
    Compressors can be powered using several different kinds of 
drivers, commonly including electric motors and internal combustion 
engines. Electric motor-driven equipment may use either single-phase or 
three-phase electric motors. Engine-driven \12\ compressors can be 
powered by using different kinds of fuels, commonly including diesel, 
gasoline, and natural gas. In the Framework Document, DOE considered 
covering all compressors regardless of driver design and requested 
comments from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For the purposes of this document, the term ``engine'' 
means ``combustion engine,'' equipment which can convert chemical 
energy into mechanical energy by combusting fuel in the presence of 
air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received varying comments regarding the inclusion of engine-
driven compressors. Jenny, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers 
(AEM), and Sullair recommended excluding engine-driven compressors due 
to the burden imposed by current emissions regulations and overall low 
energy consumption by these products. (Jenny, No. 0005 at p. 2; AEM, 
No. 0011 at p. 1-2; Sullair, No. 0013 at p. 2) EEI and the CA IOUs 
urged DOE to include engine-driven compressors to avoid creating a 
market trend towards engine-driven compressors. (EEI, No. 0012 at p. 2-
3; CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 2) The joint Commenters recommended that DOE 
examine engine-driven compressors to evaluate possible energy savings 
but noted that generally they are used in low-duty cycle applications. 
(Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2)
    In response to comments submitted by interested parties, DOE 
investigated engine-driven air compressors and

[[Page 27229]]

found that they are generally portable and designed to be used in 
environments where access to electricity is limited or non-existent, 
particularly at the current or voltage levels required by comparable 
electric motor-driven compressors. Engine-driven air compressors are 
also typically used as on-demand units, with a low duty cycle and 
annual energy consumption. Additionally, engine-driven air compressors, 
by nature of their portability, are difficult to optimize for a 
specific set of operating conditions, which may affect their efficiency 
relative to a stationary unit that is designed or selected with a 
specific load profile in mind. Consequently, engine-driven and electric 
motor-driven air compressors do not serve the same applications or 
utility in the marketplace and are not mutual substitutes.
    DOE is aware that engine-driven air compressors are currently 
covered by the Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 4 emissions 
regulations (40 CFR 1039). DOE understands that these Tier 4 
regulations have resulted in market-wide redesigns for the engines 
typically used in these compressors, which has required compressor 
manufacturers to redesign some aspects of the bare compressor as well. 
DOE recognizes that any regulations established for engine-driven 
compressors may result in incrementally more burdensome testing 
requirements for such equipment and potential design changes that 
conflict with those required for compliance with Tier 4 regulations.
    Additionally, the industry standard test method proposed for 
incorporation into this test procedure, Annex C of ISO 1217:2009, is 
the most widely-used test method for determining performance of 
electric motor-driven compressors. However, Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 
does not apply to engine-driven compressors. DOE notes that Annex D of 
ISO 1217:2009, which is not proposed for incorporation into this test 
procedure, is intended to address engine-driven compressors. However, 
unlike Annex C of ISO 1217:2009, DOE currently lacks testing and 
performance data related to Annex D of ISO 1217:2009. Consequently, DOE 
is unable to verify the repeatability and applicability of Annex D of 
ISO 1217:2009 at this time.
    Due to the lack of testing and performance data from Annex D of ISO 
1217:2009, as well as the difference in market, application, and 
applicable industry test procedure; DOE proposes to exclude engine-
driven air compressors from the scope of applicability of the test 
procedure proposed in this rulemaking. However, DOE may consider a test 
procedure for engine-driven compressors as part of a future rulemaking.
b. Styles of Electric Motor
    Motors used in compressors broadly fall into two categories: 
brushed and brushless. Brushed motors perform ``commutation''--changing 
the direction of the electric field as the motor's rotor turns--using a 
sliding electrical contact, or ``brush.'' Brushless motor technologies 
may vary widely in how they accomplish commutation, but have in common 
the absence of brushes.
    DOE is aware that some small compressors intended for very low duty 
cycle applications may be manufactured with motors which use brushes. 
Although brushes are simple to control and inexpensive to construct, 
they are rarely used in applications with significant operating hours 
for several reasons. First, brushes generally are less efficient than 
brushless technology, and are therefore suitable only for applications 
with low duty cycles. Second, brushes wear and require replacement at 
regular intervals, which may result in costly downtime in an industrial 
process. Third, brushes may create electrical arcing, rendering them 
unsuitable for certain industrial environments where combustible or 
explosive gases or dusts may exist. Finally, brushes may create more 
noise than brushless technology, and quieter equipment is often viewed 
as an important and attractive attribute by an end-user. All of these 
factors limit the applications suitable for compressors manufactured 
with brushed motors. However, DOE recognizes there is a unique market 
segment in which brushed motors are appropriate, such as specific 
applications in which operating life and durability are not important 
criteria. As a result, DOE believes that any test procedure designed 
for compressors sold with brushed electric motors would require a 
unique load profile in order to accurately reflect a representative 
average use cycle, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE also 
notes that, because compressors sold with brushed motors play a 
specialized and minor role in the compressors market, they are not 
associated with significant energy consumption. Consequently, DOE 
proposes to limit the scope of the test procedure to only those 
compressors that are driven by brushless motors. DOE may consider 
separate test procedures or energy conservation standards for 
compressors sold with brushed electric motors as part of a separate 
rulemaking.
    For the purposes of establishing the applicability of this test 
procedure rulemaking, DOE proposes to define a brushless electric motor 
as a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical 
power without use of sliding electrical contacts. DOE considers 
brushless motors to include, but not be limited to, what are commonly 
known as induction, brushless DC, permanent magnet, electrically 
commutated, and reluctance motors. The term brushless motors would not 
include what are commonly known as brushed DC and universal motors.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish test procedures 
for only brushless electric motor-driven equipment and on its proposed 
definition of brushless electric motor.
5. Compressor Capacity (Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower)
    Compressors are sold in a very wide range of capacities. Compressor 
capacity refers to the overall rate at which a compressor can perform 
work. Although the ultimate end-user requirement is a specific output 
volume flow rate of air at a certain pressure, industry typically 
describes compressor capacity in terms of the ``nominal'' horsepower of 
the motor. As a result, in this rulemaking, DOE proposes to consider 
compressor capacity in terms of the ``nominal'' horsepower of the motor 
with which the compressor is distributed in commerce.
    DOE recognizes that although the term nominal motor horsepower is 
commonly used within the compressor industry, it is not explicitly 
defined in ISO 1217:2009. To alleviate any ambiguity associated with 
these terms, DOE proposes to define the term ``compressor motor nominal 
horsepower'' to mean the motor horsepower of the electric motor, as 
determined in accordance with the applicable procedures in subpart B 
and subpart X of part 431, with which the rated air compressor is 
distributed in commerce.
    In the Framework Document, DOE discussed limiting the scope of 
applicability based on compressor capacity as measured in horsepower 
(hp) to units with capacities of between 1 to 500 hp in order to align 
the scope of compressor standards with the scope of DOE's electric 
motors standards. See 10 CFR 431.25. Commenters generally recommended 
expanding the scope to cover compressors larger than 500 hp, in order 
to capture the maximum possible energy savings that may result from the 
combined impacts of this test procedure rulemaking and the associated 
energy conservation standard rulemaking. (EEI,

[[Page 27230]]

No. 0012 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2; Natural Resource 
Defense Council (NRDC), No. 0019 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 2) 
Jenny and the Joint Commenters also recommended that the lower hp limit 
should be increased due to the low annual energy usage of compressors 
under 10 hp. (Jenny, No. 0005 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2)
    DOE considered the comments of interested parties regarding the 
range of equipment capacities considered in this test procedure 
rulemaking. Shipment data, broken down by rated capacity and compressor 
style (i.e., rotary, reciprocating, and dynamic) indicate that units 
above 400 hp represent less than 1 percent of the rotary market and 
virtually none of the reciprocating market. Although it is possible to 
build positive displacement compressors above 500 hp, shipments are 
very low and the equipment is typically custom-ordered. DOE notes that, 
above 500 hp, dynamic compressors are the dominant choice for 
industrial compressed air service. However, as discussed previously in 
section III.B.3, the proposed test procedure would not apply to dynamic 
compressors. Additionally, less performance data is available on units 
with capacities greater than 500 hp and therefore it is difficult to 
determine the suitability of the proposed test procedure provisions to 
such large equipment. Further, testing such large capacity equipment 
may require more specialized equipment that is less commonly available 
and would increase the burden associated with conducting the test 
procedure. Regarding the lower end of the capacity range (i.e., 1 hp), 
DOE notes that available shipment data indicates that compressors 10 hp 
and below, while consuming less power on a per-unit basis, account for 
more than a quarter of fixed-speed, rotary units shipped. DOE believes 
the proposed test procedures are suitable for measuring the performance 
of such units, and would not preclude the possibility of cost effective 
energy savings without performing analysis. As a result, DOE proposes 
limiting the scope of this test procedure to air compressors with a 
compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than or equal to 1 and 
less than or equal to 500 hp. Based on available shipment data, DOE's 
proposal is expected to cover nearly the entirety of the rotary and 
reciprocating compressor market.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of compressor motor 
nominal horsepower. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether motors 
not currently subject to the test procedure requirements in subpart B 
and subpart X of part 431 are incorporated into air compressors within 
the scope of this proposed test procedure. If so, DOE requests comment 
on how prevalent these motors are, and whether the test methods 
described in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 would be applicable to 
determine the compressor motor nominal horsepower of such motors. If 
the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of 10 CFR part 
431 are not applicable to motors not subject to DOE's current Federal 
test procedures for small electric or electric motors, DOE requests 
comment on what test methods could be used to determine their 
compressor motor nominal horsepower.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors 
with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than or equal to 
1 and less than or equal to 500 within the scope of this test 
procedure.
6. Output Pressure Range
    DOE also proposes in this NOPR to limit the applicability of the 
test procedure based on the full-load operating pressure of the 
equipment. Specifically, DOE proposes that the test procedure only be 
applicable to compressors with full-load operating pressures greater 
than or equal to 31 psig and less than or equal to 225 psig. DOE 
believes this range represents the majority of the reciprocating and 
rotary compressor market. In the Framework Document, DOE discussed 
limiting the scope of this initial compressor test procedure based on 
the full-load operating pressure of the compressors. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 8). However, in the Framework Document, 
DOE used the comparable terms ``absolute discharge pressure'' and 
``absolute gauge output pressure.'' (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, 
No. 1 at p. 19). DOE also notes that the full-load operating pressure 
is related to the pressure ratio, discussed previously in section 
III.A, but describes the absolute increase in pressure, whereas the 
pressure ratio represents the pressure increase expressed as a multiple 
of the inlet pressure of the compressor.
    In response to the Framework Document, CAGI noted that industry 
generally considers compressors to have a pressure ratio of greater 
than 2.5. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) In a separate submission, CAGI 
provided the following more detailed breakdown of the rotary 
compressors market:
     Approximately 4.4 to 30 pounds per square inch gauge 
(psig) (pressure ratio greater than 1.3 and less than or equal to 3.0): 
The compressors industry generally refers to these products as 
blowers--a term DOE is considering defining as part of its fans and 
blowers rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006). The majority of 
these units are typically distributed in commerce as bare compressors 
and do not include a driver, mechanical equipment, or controls.
     31 to 79 psig (pressure ratio greater than 3.1 and less 
than or equal to 6.4): There are relatively few compressed air 
applications in this pressure range, contributing to both low product 
shipment volume and low annual energy consumption.
     80 to 139 psig (pressure ratio greater than 6.4 and less 
than or equal to 10.5): This range represents the majority of general 
compressed air applications, shipments, and annual energy use.
     140 to 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 10.5 and less 
than or equal to 15.6): This range represents certain specialized 
applications, relatively lower sales volumes and annual energy 
consumption when compared to the 80 to 139 psig rotary compressor 
segment.
     Greater than 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 15.6): 
This range represents even more specialized applications, which require 
highly engineered rotary compressors that vary based on each 
application.
(CAGI, No. 0030 at p. 4)
    DOE did not receive any additional information that separated the 
market of reciprocating compressors by pressure. According to the Lot 
31 preparatory study final report,\13\ single- and two-stage 
reciprocating compressors typically operate from 0.8 to 12 bar (12 to 
174 psig; pressure ratio 1.8 to 13), and multi-stage reciprocating 
compressors typically operate from 12 to 700 bar (174 to 10,152 psig; 
pressure ratio 13 to 701). However, based on market research and 
discussions with various compressor manufacturers, DOE believes that 
pressure ranges for reciprocating compressors are similar to rotary 
compressors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For copies of the EU Lot 31 draft regulation: 
www.regulations.gov/conentStreamer?document=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's research and information from commenters, DOE 
proposes to apply the test procedure to compressors with full-load 
operating pressures of between 31 and 225 psig (pressure ratios greater 
than ~3.1 and less than or equal to 16.3). DOE notes that while some 
commenters suggested an upper limit of 215 psig, full-load operating 
pressure values may be

[[Page 27231]]

generated differently by each manufacturer and it is not clear that 
they are completely comparable between manufacturers.\14\ For example, 
a product listed at 215 psig from one manufacturer may compete with a 
product listed at 217 psig from another, which may compete with one 
listed at 212 psig from a third. Although DOE's proposed test procedure 
seeks to eliminate this issue (see specifically, section III.D.2.i), 
DOE must still account for the current lack of consistent pressure 
rating methodology in the compressor industry. As a result, DOE 
proposes to adopt an upper limit of 225 psig to include the majority of 
non-special purpose equipment DOE could identify on the market. 
Compressor equipment with full-load operating pressures below 31 psig 
and above 225 psig generally serve applications that do not often 
overlap with the 31-225 psig compressor market and do not represent a 
significant volume of sales. DOE notes that equipment with full-load 
operating pressures below 31 psig and above 225 psig may still meet the 
proposed definition of air compressor. DOE may consider extending test 
procedure applicability to these compressors in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DOE notes that there is no universally accepted procedure 
for establishing full-load operating pressure and, thus, no 
assurances that values are comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on its characterization of the rotary 
compressor market by pressure ranges, and whether the reciprocating 
compressor market is similarly characterized.
    As the full-load operating pressure would be used to determine the 
applicability of the proposed test procedure, it is important that the 
full-load operating pressure be established consistently amongst 
compressor models. To that end, DOE proposes to establish a specific 
definition and procedure for determining full-load operating pressure 
for applicable compressors, which is based on the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure. Specifically, DOE proposes to define the term full-
load operating pressure as follows:
    Full-load operating pressure means the represented value of 
discharge pressure, which must be greater than or equal to 90 percent 
and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure. The term full-load operating pressure is commonly 
used in the compressors industry to characterize compressor output air 
pressure and appears as a listed parameter on CAGI's voluntary 
performance verification data sheets. Additionally, the EU Lot 31 draft 
standard \15\ characterizes compressor output pressure using a nearly 
identical term, ``full load outlet pressure.'' DOE proposes this 
definition of full-load operating pressure in order to characterize 
compressor output pressure in a manner consistent with both the U.S. 
industry and the European standard, and to ensure reproducible and 
comparable representations among the different manufacturers and 
models. Specifically, DOE understands the full-load operating pressure 
to be a nominal term at which manufacturers elect to produce ratings. 
For example, the CAGI datasheets define the term as ``the operating 
pressure at which the capacity and electrical consumption were measured 
for this data sheet.'' \16\ Therefore, DOE is defining the term ``full-
load operating pressure'' to be a nominal, self-declared value that is 
within a certain range of the actual, measured maximum full-flow 
operating pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
    \16\ See, for example, http://www.cagi.org/pdfs/Fixed%20Speed%20Datasheet%2010-11%20rev8.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE understands the need to provide manufacturers some 
discretion with regard to the selection of the full-load operating 
pressure, specifying that the selected nominal value is within 10 
percent of the actual, tested maximum full-flow operating pressure 
ensures that the self-declared value is in fact representative of the 
equipment's capacity and provides better consistency and comparability 
among ratings. As the proposed definition of full-load operating 
pressure references the maximum full-flow operating pressure, DOE also 
proposes a definition and test method (discussed in section III.D.2.i) 
for maximum full-flow operating pressure. Specifically, the maximum 
full-flow operating pressure is defined as the maximum discharge 
pressure at which the compressor is capable of operating as determined 
in accordance with the methods described in the applicable section of 
the compressor test procedure.\17\ This is the actual maximum operating 
pressure of the equipment, consistent with the CAGI definition of the 
term, which describes the maximum full-flow operating pressure as 
maximum pressure attainable at full flow, usually the unload pressure 
setting for load/no load control or the maximum pressure attainable 
before capacity control begins. In the case of the term full-load 
operating pressure, there is a corresponding flow term, full-load 
actual volume flow rate, which DOE proposes to define as the actual 
volume flow rate of the compressor at the full-load operating pressure. 
The full-load actual volume flow rate is a dependent value and is 
determined through measurement at the full-load operating pressure, as 
determined in section III.D.2.i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the definition proposed in section 10 CFR 431.344, this 
language refers to the appropriate section number of the regulatory 
text as it would appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed definition of full-load actual volume flow rate 
mentions the actual volume flow rate of the equipment; therefore, DOE 
must also define the term actual volume flow rate. ISO 1217:2009 
defines a similar term, actual volume flow rate of a compressor, as the 
actual volume flow rate of gas, compressed and delivered at the 
standard discharge point, referred to conditions of total temperature, 
total pressure and composition prevailing at the standard inlet 
point.\18\ Assuming, as proposed, this test procedure applies only to 
air compressors, DOE's proposes the following, similar definition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This language also describes the parameter called 
``corrected volume flow rate,'' which works out to be equivalent to 
``actual volume flow rate'' and is addressed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actual volume flow rate means the volume flow rate of air, 
compressed and delivered at the standard discharge point, referred to 
conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition 
prevailing at the standard inlet point.
    DOE notes that the terms standard discharge point, total 
temperature, total pressure, and [gas] composition are explicitly 
defined in ISO 1217:2009, and DOE proposes to incorporate these 
definitions by reference. DOE also notes that the term ``referred to,'' 
which is common compressor industry parlance, is synonymous with the 
term ``normalized to.'' In both cases, the objective is to characterize 
measured values with respect to a common reference point so that they 
may be more easily compared. In this case, the reference point is the 
measured atmospheric conditions at the compressor inlet point. The 
compressor industry describes this practice as ``referring'' the values 
to inlet conditions. In the interest of harmonization with the 
definition supplied in ISO 1217:2009, DOE proposes to keep the term 
``referred to'' in its definition of actual volume flow rate.
    DOE also proposes that actual volume flow rate be measured in 
accordance

[[Page 27232]]

with section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009. DOE notes that 
section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to a parameter 
called ``corrected volume flow rate;'' for the purposes of this test 
procedure, DOE proposes that the terms corrected volume flow rate and 
actual volume flow rate be deemed equivalent and synonymous. Section 
C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 also includes a correction factor 
for shaft speed, which is clarified in section C.4.2.2 of annex C of 
ISO 1217:2009 as ``only required when the electric motor drive is not 
supplied.'' As described in section III.B.2, DOE is proposing to 
establish test procedures only for compressor packages, which always 
include a driver (i.e., electric motor). Therefore, DOE proposes to 
specify that the correction factor for shaft speed in section C.4.2.1 
of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 is not to be used.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions of full-load 
operating pressure, maximum full-flow operating pressure, and full-load 
actual volume flow rate, and actual volume flow rate.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors 
with a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 31 psig 
and less than or equal to 225 psig within the scope of this test 
procedure.

C. Energy-Related Metrics

1. Specific Input Power and Isentropic Efficiency
    In the Framework Document, DOE discussed the two most common 
metrics used in the compressor industry today to describe the 
performance of air compressors: package specific power and package 
isentropic efficiency. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, No. 1 at p. 
10-11). Package specific power is the compressor power input at a given 
load point, divided by the actual volume flow rate at the same load 
point, as determined in accordance with the methods described in 
section III.C.1. Further discussion of the relevant portions of ISO 
1217:2009 and DOE's proposal to incorporate it by reference is found in 
section III.D of this document. DOE notes that section C.4.4 of annex C 
of ISO 1217:2009 refers to ``specific energy consumption.'' For the 
purposes of this test procedure, the terms specific energy consumption 
and package specific power are interchangeable.
    Package isentropic efficiency is the ratio of power required for an 
ideal isentropic compression process at a given load point \19\ to the 
actual packaged compressor power input used at the same load point, as 
determined in accordance with the methods described in section III.C.4 
and III.C.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Or a weighted average of several, specified load points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two metrics under consideration provide similar but different 
information. Package specific power provides users with a way to 
directly calculate the power required to deliver a particular flow rate 
of air; this metric is currently used by the CAGI Voluntary Performance 
Verification Program to characterize compressor performance.\20\ 
However, package specific power calculations are only valid at the 
output pressure at which a unit is tested and cannot be used to compare 
units operating at different pressures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ http://cagi.org/performance-verification/overview.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Package isentropic efficiency measures how efficiently a compressor 
package delivers a given flow rate of air. Package isentropic 
efficiency is relative to an ideal isentropic process and therefore can 
be used to compare units across a wide range of pressures. DOE notes 
that the EU has adopted package isentropic efficiency as the regulatory 
metric in their draft air compressor regulation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback regarding both 
metrics and which would be more appropriate for any potential 
compressors energy conservation standard. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0040, No. 1 at p. 11). The Joint Commenters and NRDC commented that 
both package specific power and package isentropic efficiency should be 
considered to provide end users with the most information possible when 
making purchasing decisions. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 3; NRDC, 
No. 0019 at p.1; and NRDC, No. 0019 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended 
that a part-load test metric be used to assist in the design 
optimization of compressor systems with multiple compressors. (CA IOUs, 
No. 0018 at p. 3)
    The following section discusses DOE's selected metric and DOE's 
rationale for selecting it.
2. Selected Metric: Package Isentropic Efficiency
    After careful consideration of Framework Document comments and 
additional feedback received during interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
proposes to adopt package isentropic efficiency as the representative 
metric for describing the energy performance of certain compressors.
    However, DOE notes that package isentropic efficiency, as 
introduced in section III.C.1, is a generic metric applicable to all 
load points. Therefore, DOE must define a load point (or load points) 
for the purpose of determining a reproducible and comparable efficiency 
rating for each compressor model. Kaeser corroborated this idea in its 
comment, and stated that ISO 1217:2009 provides instructions for how to 
perform testing but does not specify at what points to perform said 
tests. (Kaeser Compressors, No. 0040 at p. 94) In relation to load 
points and the proposed metric, NEEA requested that the test procedure 
account for variable-speed compressors, while the CA IOUs recommended 
that DOE include a part-load efficiency metric. (NEEA, No. 0040 at p. 
92; and CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 3). DOE agrees that part-load 
performance may be valuable for users of variable-speed compressors. 
However, DOE believes that a part-load performance metric would not be 
applicable to all fixed-speed compressors, as many of these compressors 
are not designed to operate at part-load.
    Consequently, DOE proposes to establish two versions of package 
isentropic efficiency: full-load package isentropic efficiency and 
part-load package isentropic efficiency. Full-load package isentropic 
efficiency would apply only to fixed-speed compressors, whereas part-
load package isentropic efficiency would apply only to variable-speed 
compressors. Full-load isentropic efficiency is evaluated at a single 
load point, while part-load isentropic efficiency is a weighted 
composite of performance at multiple load points (or rating points). 
This structure follows the structure of the draft EU compressors 
regulation and is consistent with the previously discussed interested 
party comments. DOE believes these metrics and load points provide the 
best representation of energy consumption for fixed- and variable-speed 
equipment, respectively.
    Equations 1 and 2 describe the full- and part-load package 
isentropic efficiency. Further details on the calculation of these 
metrics are contained in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. Further details 
on load points and weighting are discussed in section III.C.3.

[[Page 27233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.000


Where:

[eta]isen,FL = package isentropic efficiency at full-load 
operating pressure,
Pisen,100 = isentropic power required for 
compression at full-load operating pressure, and
Preal,100 = packaged compressor power input at 
full-load operating pressure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.001


Where:

[eta]isen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency,
[omega]i = weighting factor for rating point i,
Pisen,i = isentropic power required for compression at 
rating point i,
Preal,i = packaged compressor power input at rating point 
i, and
i = selected rating points.

    In order to clearly separate the two groups of compressors, DOE 
proposes the following definitions for fixed-speed and variable-speed 
compressors.
    Fixed-speed compressor means an air compressor that is not capable 
of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver 
operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the 
required compressor flow rate.
    Variable-speed compressor means an air compressor that is capable 
of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver 
operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the 
required compressor actual volume flow rate.
    The proposed definition for fixed-speed compressor encompasses 
compressors that use single speed and multi-speed drivers. Both 
definitions are based on the definitions for non-continuous control and 
continuous control, respectively, as adopted in DOE's pumps test 
procedure final rule, due to the similarities between compressors and 
pumps. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016).
    The following section discusses load points for both full-load and 
part-load package isentropic efficiency.
3. Load Points and Weighting Factors for Calculating Full-Load and 
Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    DOE reviewed the load points and weighting factors used by current 
industry programs. For fixed-speed compressors, the CAGI Performance 
Verification Program specifies testing at two load points: (1) flow 
rate at full-load operating pressure and (2) zero flow rate. In 
contrast, the European Union's draft air compressors regulation \22\ 
specifies testing fixed-speed compressors only at full-load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For variable-speed compressors, the CAGI Performance Verification 
Program references Annex E of ISO 1217:2009 and specifies testing at a 
minimum of six load points:
     maximum volume flow rate,
     three or more volume flow rates evenly spaced between the 
minimum and maximum volume flow rate,
     minimum volume flow rate, and
     no-load power.
    In contrast, the European Union's draft air compressors regulation 
\23\ specifies testing variable-speed compressors at only three 
designated load points; 40, 70, and 100 percent of the flow rate 
measured at full-load operating pressure (or maximum flow rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that the EU's draft approach of requiring testing at 
only three load points would reduce the burden of testing while still 
providing an accurate representation of the unit's part-load 
performance. Further, by stipulating specific load points for testing 
rather than evenly spaced load points, the EU method ensures that all 
variable-speed compressors are tested at the same load points, 
resulting in simple and accurate comparisons across equipment models. 
Consequently, DOE proposes to adopt the same load profiles for fixed-
speed and variable-speed compressors as those published in the draft EU 
air compressors regulation. These load points are summarized in Table 
III.2.

      Table III.2--Load Profiles Based on Compressor Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Compressor configuration        Load profile         Load points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-speed compressors.......  Full-Load........  Maximum flow rate.
Variable-speed compressors....  Part-Load........  40, 70, and 100
                                                    percent of maximum
                                                    flow rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As first discussed in section III.C.2, and shown in equation 2, the 
part-load package isentropic efficiency metric requires a weighting 
factor for each load point in order to calculate the final part-load 
package isentropic efficiency. These weighting factors are meant to 
represent the percentage of operating time the compressor is operating 
at each load point. The draft EU air compressors regulation, after 
which DOE modeled its proposed part-load efficiency calculation, 
specifies weights of 25, 50, and 25 percent; at load points of 40, 70, 
and 100 percent of maximum flow, respectively. DOE notes that the CAGI 
Performance Verification Program does not use a weighted average part-
load metric, and thus does not provide weighting factors.
    DOE found no other weighting factors currently in use within the 
compressor industry. Additionally, DOE was unable to find real-world, 
representative load

[[Page 27234]]

profile data for equipment in the field. In the absence of 
representative load profile data, DOE proposes adopting the EU load 
weighting factors, which would allow for direct and equitable 
comparisons between equipment, since the weighting factors would be 
applicable to all variable-speed equipment. In addition, DOE believes 
these weighting factors adequately represent the operating range of 
variable-speed compressors and would not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct, since compressor manufacturers may already perform such 
testing in support of compliance with the EU regulations. Table III.3 
summarizes DOE's proposal for weighting factors for the part-load 
package isentropic efficiency metric.

                   Table III.3--Weight Values for Specified Part-Speed Compressor Load Profile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Load point (percent of maximum flow rate)         Weighting factors ([omega]i as specified in equation 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40....................................................                                                      0.25
70....................................................                                                      0.50
100...................................................                                                      0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting 
factors for package isentropic efficiency for both fixed-speed and 
variable-speed compressors.
4. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE proposes to rate fixed-speed 
compressors with the full-load isentropic efficiency metric. This 
section discusses, in detail, the formulas needed to calculate full-
load isentropic efficiency for fixed-speed compressors. DOE notes that 
certain inputs to these formulas are measured or calculated using ISO 
1217:2009, certain sections of which DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference (see section III.D). For these inputs, DOE has referenced the 
specific locations within ISO 1217:2009 where those values or 
procedures may be found. Complete details on ISO 1217:2009, and DOE's 
justification for its use in this test procedure, are discussed in 
section III.D.
    As discussed in section III.C.3, full-load package isentropic 
efficiency is calculated at one load point: full-load operating 
pressure. The equation for full-load package isentropic efficiency is 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.002


Where:
[eta]isen,FL = [eta]isen,100 = package 
isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure and 100 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate,
Preal,100 = packaged compressor power input at 
full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined from equation 4,\24\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The correction factor for the shaft speed (K4) 
in section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to 
this test procedure because the electric motor drive is included in 
the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pisen,100 = isentropic power required for 
compression at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate, as determined from equation 5.

    As referenced in equation 3, the packaged compressor power input at 
full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume 
flow rate is determined in accordance with equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.003


Where:

K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,\25\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual 
values for inlet pressure. Since a contractual value is not 
applicable to this test procedure, DOE proposes to use a value of 
100 kPa from annex F in ISO 1217:2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPR,100 = packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).

    The isentropic power required for compression at full-load 
operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate 
(Pisen,100), shown in equation 5, is evaluated using 
measurements taken while the unit is operating at full-load operating 
pressure:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.004



[[Page 27235]]


Where:
V1_m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at full-load 
operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow 
rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 
(cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed,
p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
p2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure 
and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, determined in 
accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and
[kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which, for the purposes of this test procedure, is 1.400.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability 
with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to 
align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations.

    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for full-load 
package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for fixed-
speed compressors.
5. Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency
    As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE proposes to rate variable-
speed compressors with the part-load package isentropic efficiency 
metric. This section discusses, in detail, the formulas needed to 
calculate part-load isentropic efficiency for fixed-speed compressors. 
DOE notes that certain inputs to these formulas are measured or 
calculated using ISO 1217:2009, certain sections of which DOE proposes 
to incorporate by reference. For these inputs, DOE has referenced the 
specific location within ISO 1217:2009 where that value or calculation 
procedure is found. However, complete details on ISO 1217:2009, and 
DOE's justification for its use in this test procedure, are discussed 
in section III.D.
    As discussed in section III.C.3, part-load package isentropic 
efficiency is calculated using a weighted average of three load points: 
40, 70, and 100 percent of maximum flow rate. The equation for part-
load package isentropic efficiency is as follows: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.005


Where:

[eta]isen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency 
for a variable-speed compressor,
[eta]isen, 100 = package isentropic efficiency at 
full-load operating pressure, as determined in equation 3,
[eta]isen,70 = package isentropic efficiency at 
70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
equation 7,
[eta]isen,40 = package isentropic efficiency at 
40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
equation 9,
[omega]40 = weighting at 40 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate (0.25), as described in section III.C.3,
[omega]70 = weighting at 70 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate (0.5), as described in section III.C.3, and
[omega]100 = weighting at 100 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate (0.25), as described in section 
III.C.3.

    The equation for full-load package isentropic efficiency is the 
same as noted in III.C.4, above (equation 3 through equation 5). 
Package isentropic efficiency at 40 and 70 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate are defined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.006


Where:

[eta]isen,70 = package isentropic efficiency at 
70 percent of maximum flow rate,
Pisen,70 = isentropic power required for 
compression at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as 
determined in equation 11, and
Preal,70 = packaged compressor power input at 70 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from 
equation 8.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The correction factor for the shaft speed (K4) 
in section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to 
this test procedure because the electric motor drive is included in 
the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.007


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

K5= correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,\28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual 
values for inlet pressure. Since a contractual value is not 
applicable to this test procedure, a value of 100 kPa from annex F 
in ISO 1217:2009 is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPR,70= packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 70 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.008


Where:

[eta]isen,40 = package isentropic efficiency at 
40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate,
    Pisen,40 = isentropic power required for 
compression at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as 
determined in equation 12, and

[[Page 27236]]

    Preal,40 = packaged compressor power input at 
40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from 
equation 10.\29\

    \29\ The correction factor for the shaft speed (K4) 
in section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to 
this test procedure because the electric motor drive is included in 
the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.009


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,\30\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual 
values for inlet pressure. Since a contractual value is not 
applicable to this test procedure, a value of 100 kPa from annex F 
in ISO 1217:2009 is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPR,40 = packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 40 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).

    Finally, Pisen,70, and 
Pisen,40 would then be calculated using values 
measured at each of the designated rating points, as shown in equations 
11 and 12 respectively:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.010


Where:

V1\m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at 70 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C 
of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made 
for shaft speed,
    p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 
5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
    p2 = discharge pressure at 70 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and
    [kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability 
with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to 
align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.011


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

V1\m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at 40 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C 
of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made 
for shaft speed,
p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
p2 = discharge pressure at 40 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 
1217:2009 (Pa), and
[kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability 
with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to 
align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations.

    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for part-load 
package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for variable-
speed compressors.

D. Test Method

    This section discusses DOE's proposal for a test method to measure, 
in a standardized and reproducible manner, all quantities needed to 
determine package isentropic efficiency. These quantities are: Inlet 
and discharge pressures, flow rate, and packaged compressor power input 
at given load point(s). Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference the test methods contained in certain, applicable sections of 
ISO 1217:2009 as the basis for the compressors test procedure. However, 
DOE notes that several modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 are 
required to determine the package isentropic efficiency of applicable 
compressors and improve the repeatability of ratings. These proposals 
are discussed in sections III.D.1 and III.D.2.
1. Referenced Industry Test Method
    In the Framework Document, DOE noted the need to establish a test 
method capable of reliably measuring compressor performance for 
determining compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE stated 
that it was considering two industry standards (ISO 1217:2009 and ISO 
5389:2005) as the basis for DOE's compressor test procedure. DOE 
requested comments from interested parties on the potential use of 
several test procedures, including ISO 1217:2009, as a basis for the 
development of a DOE test procedure. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040, 
No. 1 at p. 12).
    In response to the Framework Document, The Joint Commenters, CAGI, 
and the CA IOUs all recommended using ISO 1217:2009 for compressor 
package testing. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 
3; and CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 3) CAGI further commented during the 
Framework Public Meeting that it would evaluate ISO 1217:2009 to 
determine if additional changes were necessary. (CAGI, No. 0040 at p. 
92) Ingersoll-Rand cautioned that ISO 1217:2009 may require changes in 
order to measure package isentropic efficiency but provided no specific 
recommendations regarding these changes. (Ingersoll-Rand, No. 0040 at 
p. 90) DOE agrees with Ingersoll-Rand, and DOE has proposed specific 
methods for calculating package isentropic

[[Page 27237]]

efficiency, as discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. DOE's 
proposal uses the methods and results of ISO 1217:2009 as a basis for 
their proposed test procedure, but provides additional calculations and 
provisions that are necessary for determining package isentropic 
efficiency.
    In response to the comments regarding the use of ISO 1217:2009, DOE 
reviewed ISO 1217:2009 and ultimately determined that it (1) is the 
most widely used test standard in the compressor industry for 
evaluating positive displacement compressor performance; and (2) it 
attempts to define uniform methods for conducting laboratory tests to 
determine the inlet and discharge pressures, flow rate, and packaged 
compressor power input at a given load point--all of which are required 
to calculate part- and full-load package isentropic efficiency (as 
defined sections III.C.4 and III.C.5). ISO 1217:2009 also contains 
certain specifications regarding test equipment, instrument accuracy, 
and test tolerances. However, as discussed previously, DOE notes that 
several modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 are required to 
determine the package isentropic efficiency of applicable compressors 
and improve the repeatability and reproducibility of ratings.
    Generally, in DOE's view, ISO 1217:2009 is an appropriate industry 
testing standard for evaluating performance of applicable compressors. 
However, DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 is written as a customer 
acceptance test. As such, DOE believes that several modifications and 
additions to ISO 1217:2009 are required in order to provide the 
specificity and repeatability required by DOE. These proposed 
modifications are discussed in detail in section III.D.2. Furthermore, 
DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 provides both ``complete'' and 
``simplified'' test methods for a variety of compressor categories, 
only some of which are within the scope of applicability of DOE's 
proposed test procedure. As such, DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference only the sections of ISO 1217:2009 that are relevant to the 
equipment within the scope of applicability of DOE's proposed test 
procedure. The specific sections proposed for incorporation, and well 
as the specific proposed modifications, are discussed further in 
III.D.2.
    Ultimately, by incorporating by reference much of ISO 1217:2009 
into the proposed DOE test procedure, DOE believes that the resulting 
DOE test procedure will remain closely aligned with existing and widely 
used industry procedures and limit testing burden on manufacturers.
2. Modifications, Additions, and Exclusions to ISO 1217:2009
    As discussed previously, DOE believes that certain modifications, 
additions, and exclusions are necessary to ensure repeatable and 
reproducible test results and provide measurement methods and testing 
equipment specifications for the entire scope of compressors that DOE 
would address as part of this proposal. These specific modifications, 
additions and exceptions are discussed in the following sections 
III.D.2.a through III.D.2.i.
a. Sections Not Included in DOE's Incorporation by Reference
    While DOE proposes to incorporate by reference certain, applicable 
sections of ISO 1217:2009 as the basis for its compressor test 
procedure, DOE notes that the following sections, subsections, and 
annexes of the standard are not applicable to DOE's regulatory 
framework:
     Sections 1, 7, 8 and 9, in their entirety;
     Section 6, in its entirety (except subsections 6.2(g), and 
6.2(h), which would be incorporated by reference);
     Subsections 5.1, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8;
     Annexes A, B, D, E, F, and G in their entirety; and
     Sections C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1 and C.4.5 of 
Annex C.
    Specifically, section 1 of ISO 1217:2009, titled ``Scope,'' 
discusses the scope of applicability of ISO 1217:2009. However, the 
scope discussed in section 1 of ISO 1217:2009 does not align with the 
specific proposed scope of applicability for DOE's test procedure, as 
established in section III.B of this notice.
    Section 7 of ISO 1217:2009 is titled ``Uncertainty of measurement'' 
and simply refers the reader to Annex G for information on uncertainty 
of measurement. Section 7 of ISO 1217:2009 is not called upon by any 
other sections of ISO 1217:2009 relevant to the testing of compressors 
within the scope of this rulemaking. Section 8 of ISO 1217:2009 is 
titled ``Comparison of test results with specified values'' and 
discusses how to compare test results with contractually guaranteed 
performance values. Such methods would not be required for testing and 
rating compressors in accordance with DOE's proposed test procedure. 
Furthermore, in section III.G, DOE proposes its own sampling and 
enforcement criteria for compressors included in the scope of 
applicability of this proposed test procedure.
    Section 9, titled ``Test report,'' contains requirements regarding 
the generation of a test report. These requirements are not relevant to 
the testing and rating of compressors in accordance with DOE's proposed 
procedure. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to incorporate these 
sections of ISO 1217:2009 by reference.
    Section 6 of ISO 1217:2009 is titled ``Test procedures'' and 
discusses procedures for a compressor acceptance test. However, DOE 
proposes to incorporate by reference much of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, 
titled ``Simplified acceptance test for electrically driven packaged 
displacement compressors.'' Both Section 6 and Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 
provide methods to calculate discharge pressure, inlet pressure, flow 
rate, and packaged compressor power input at a given load point. 
However, the methods contained in Annex C are more specifically 
optimized for the categories of compressors within the scope of 
applicability of this rulemaking, and are more widely used in the 
compressor industry. As a result, DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference the methods prescribed in Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, and not 
to incorporate by reference section 6 of ISO 1217:2009, with the 
following exceptions:
     DOE proposes to incorporate by reference sections 6.2(g), 
and 6.2(h) of ISO 1217:2009, as they contain important testing 
configuration information that is not supplied in Annex C to ISO 
1217:2009.
     DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference sections 
C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1 and C.4.5 of Annex C to ISO 
1217:2009, as these subsection provide instructions that are not 
relevant to the testing and rating of compressors in accordance with 
DOE's proposed procedure.
    Subsection 5.1 of ISO 1217:2009 contains general statements related 
to measuring equipment, methods and accuracy; however, DOE finds most 
of the statements and instructions in this subsection to be general and 
ambiguous in nature. To avoid any confusion, DOE proposes not to 
incorporate by reference subsection 5.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Subsections 
5.5 and 5.8 to ISO 1217:2009 provide instructions for how to measure 
quantities not relevant to DOE proposed test procedures. As a result, 
DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference subsections 5.5 and 5.8 of 
ISO 1217:2009. Subsection 5.7 provides instruction for how to measure 
power and energy; however, this information is also provided in Annex C 
to ISO 1217:2009. As discussed previously, DOE proposes to use the 
methods

[[Page 27238]]

established in Annex C rather than Section 5. Consequently, DOE 
proposes not to incorporate by reference subsection 5.7 of ISO 
1217:2009.
    Annex A to ISO 1217:2009, ``Acceptance test for liquid-ring 
compressors;'' annex B to ISO 1217:2009, ``Simplified acceptance test 
for bare compressors;'' and annex D to ISO 1217:2009, ``Simplified 
acceptance test for internal combustion engine-driven packaged 
displacement compressors;'' are not required for, or applicable to, 
testing compressors within the proposed scope of this rulemaking. As 
such, DOE proposes to not incorporate annexes A, B, and D to ISO 
1217:2009 by reference.
    Annex E to ISO 1217:2009, titled ``Acceptance test for electrically 
driven packaged displacement variable speed drive compressors,'' is 
currently used by CAGI to evaluate variable-speed compressors for their 
performance verification program. This annex stipulates a specific set 
of load points and states that a variable-speed compressor should be 
tested at each load point using the methods established in annex C of 
ISO 1217:2009. However, the load points identified in annex E are not 
the same as the variable-speed load points proposed by DOE in section 
III.C.3. Consequently, it is not necessary for DOE to include annex E 
within this proposed test procedure, and DOE is not proposing to 
incorporate annex E to ISO 1217:2009 by reference.
    Annex F to ISO 1217:2009 is titled ``Reference conditions'' and 
provides informative standard inlet conditions for a compressor test. 
However, DOE proposes to explicitly provide applicable standard inlet 
conditions in section III.D.2.c. Annex G to ISO 1217:2009 is not called 
upon by any other sections of ISO 1217:2009 relevant to the testing 
compressors within the scope of this rulemaking. As such, DOE proposes 
to not incorporate annexes F or G to ISO 1217:2009 by reference.
    After considering the sections and subsections listed in this 
section, and based on the reasoning provided, DOE ultimately proposes 
to incorporate by reference the following sections and subsections of 
ISO 1217:2009:
     Sections 2, 3, and 4;
     Subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and
     Subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, 
C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference 
certain applicable sections of ISO 1217: 2009 as the basis of the DOE 
test procedure for compressors. DOE requests comment on the proposal 
not to incorporate by reference specific sections and annexes as 
explained in this section.
b. Terminology
    DOE notes that, although section 3.4.1 of ISO 1217:2009 defines the 
term ``actual volume flow rate,'' the term ``corrected volume flow 
rate'' is used throughout the standard to refer to the same quantity. 
To clarify, DOE is proposing to use the term ``actual volume flow 
rate'' exclusively and to note that, where the ISO 1217:2009 refers to 
``corrected volume flow rate'' the term would be deemed equivalent and 
synonymous with the term ``actual volume flow rate.''
c. Testing Conditions
    Subsection 6.2 of ISO 1217:2009 specifies test arrangements and 
accuracy requirements for testing compressors. However, as previously 
discussed, DOE finds that the information contained in this subsection 
is not sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results. As 
such DOE proposes to not incorporate the majority of this subsection by 
reference. Rather, DOE proposes to adopt several requirements regarding 
the ambient testing conditions and input power characteristics.
Ambient Conditions
    DOE notes that section 6.2(d) of ISO 1217:2009 states that ``test 
conditions shall be as close as reasonably possible to the conditions 
of guarantee. . .If no inlet conditions have been agreed, then the 
provisions of Annex F shall apply.'' Because DOE is proposing to 
establish a performance test, rather than a customer acceptance test 
(i.e., there are no applicable conditions of guarantee), DOE proposes 
to not incorporate section 6.2(d) of ISO 1217:2009 by reference into 
its proposed test procedure. However, DOE recognizes that ambient 
conditions may affect test results; as such DOE proposes to specify 
relevant ambient test conditions as part of this test procedure, rather 
than rely on specification contained in ISO 1217:2009.
    DOE understands that the CAGI Performance Verification Program 
specifies that testing should occur with an ambient air temperature of 
80-90[emsp14][deg]F. DOE proposes to adopt this range of ambient air 
temperature (and specify that the range is inclusive of the endpoints) 
to remain consistent with current industry practices. DOE also proposes 
not to require certain ambient condition requirements for inlet 
pressure or relative humidity, as corrections for differences in these 
values are accounted for in ISO 1217:2009. Finally, DOE proposes to 
specify that the inlet of the compressor under test must be open to 
ambient conditions and intake ambient air during testing.
    DOE requests comment regarding the proposed ambient conditions 
required for testing, and if they are sufficient to produce repeatable 
and reproducible test results.
Power Supply Characteristics
    DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 does not specify the power supply 
characteristics required for testing. Because packaged compressor power 
input is a component of the proposed metric, measuring power is an 
important element of the test. The characteristics of the power 
supplied to the compressor will affect the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the measured packaged compressor power input. As a 
result, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of packaged 
compressor power input, DOE also proposes to specify nominal 
characteristics of the power supply. Namely, DOE proposes nominal 
values for voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and total harmonic 
distortion, as well as tolerances for each of these values that must be 
maintained at the input terminals to the compressor equipment.
    To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics for 
testing compressors, DOE examined applicable test methods for similar 
equipment (i.e., equipment typically driven by electric motors and 
sometimes accompanied with variable frequency drives). DOE reviewed the 
recently published pumps test procedure final rule, which adopts 
specific requirements for the voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, 
and total harmonic distortion when testing pumps in accordance with the 
DOE test procedure. These requirements are shown in Table III.4. DOE 
believes that, because compressors utilize similar electrical equipment 
(i.e., electric motors and drives) to pumps, such requirements should 
also apply when testing compressors.

     Table III.4--Proposed Power Supply Requirements for Compressors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Characteristic                          Tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voltage...................................  5 percent of the
                                             rated value of the motor
Frequency.................................  1 percent of the
                                             rated value of the motor
Voltage Unbalance.........................  3 percent of the
                                             rated value of the motor

[[Page 27239]]

 
    Total Harmonic Distortion.............  <=12 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that, as discussed at length in the pumps test procedure 
final rule, these power supply requirements are generally consistent 
with the requirements and operating conditions for other, similar 
commercial equipment (i.e., that operate with electric motors and 
sometimes variable frequency drives) and with relevant industry test 
standards. In addition, DOE noted in the January 2016 general pumps 
test procedure final rule that these requirements are generally 
available on the national electric power grid and, therefore, not 
unduly burdensome to conduct. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). DOE believes 
the requirements, by extension, would present a similarly low level of 
burden with respect to compressors.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 
unbalance, and total harmonic distortion requirements when performing a 
compressor test. Specifically, DOE requests comments on whether these 
tolerances can be achieved in typical compressor test labs, or whether 
specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment would be 
required.
d. Equipment Configuration
    ISO 1217:2009 does not specify how a unit under test should be 
configured for testing. As a result, DOE proposes to specify how 
equipment is to be configured to ensure repeatable results when 
conducting the DOE test procedure.
    The proposed definition for an air compressor includes ancillary 
equipment, and therefore DOE proposes to specify that all ancillary 
equipment that is distributed in commerce with the compressor must be 
present and installed for all tests.
    The proposed definition for an air compressor also specifies that 
the air compressor has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source 
of air. In addition, DOE is proposing ambient conditions for testing. 
Because an air compressor may have an inlet open to an ``other source 
of air,'' DOE proposes to specify that the inlet of the compressor 
under test must be open to the atmosphere and take in ambient air for 
all tests.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed equipment configuration that 
the inlet of the air compressor under test be open to the atmosphere 
and take in ambient air, and whether all air compressors can be 
configured and tested in this manner.
    Finally, DOE notes that air compressors often require setup prior 
to testing. DOE proposes that a unit under test must be set up 
according to all manufacturer instructions for normal operation. 
Instructions from the manufacturer may include instructions on 
verifying oil levels and/or filling the unit with oil for lubrication, 
checking and connecting loose internal electrical connections, ensuring 
the bottom of the unit is closed from ambient air and in contact with 
the floor as intended, or installing forklift cover holes.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed requirements for equipment 
configuration.
e. Data Collection and Sampling
    To ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the DOE 
compressor test procedure should provide instructions about how to 
sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data 
is taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely 
represent the performance of the compressor at that load point. Section 
6.2(i) of ISO 1217:2009 states that ``before readings are taken, the 
compressor shall be run long enough to ensure that steady-state 
conditions are reached so that no systematic changes occur in the 
instrument readings during the test.'' However, ISO 1217:2009 does not 
clearly define, in a repeatable way, what steady-state conditions are, 
and how a test operator would know definitively that steady-state has 
been reached. As a result, DOE proposes to require that measurements be 
taken at steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the 
difference between two consecutive, unique, power measurements, taken 
at least 10 seconds apart and no more than 60 seconds apart and 
measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is less than or 
equal to 300 watts. DOE believes that this requirement is sufficient to 
ensure the measurement is accurate and precise for either manually or 
digitally recorded data points. Additionally, DOE understands that a 
similar 300-watt stability requirement is currently the standard 
industry practice.
    With regards to data sampling and frequency, section 6.2(k) of ISO 
1217:2009 states that ``for each load, a sufficient number of readings 
shall be taken to indicate that steady-state conditions have been 
reached. The number of readings and the intervals shall be chosen to 
obtain the required accuracy.'' Due to the lack of specificity 
regarding the number and interval of data points required, DOE proposes 
to not incorporate section 6.2(k) of ISO 1217:2009 by reference into 
its proposed test procedure. Instead, DOE proposes that formal data 
recordings used to determine package isentropic efficiency, package 
specific power, and pressure ratio consist of at least 16 unique 
measurements, collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes. Each 
consecutive measurement must be spaced no more than 60 seconds apart, 
and not less than 10 seconds apart. To ensure that the compressor 
remains at steady state throughout the test, the difference in packaged 
compressor power input between the maximum and minimum measurement 
during the 15-minute data recording time period must be less than or 
equal to 300 watts, as measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 
1217:2009. DOE proposes that all the unique measurements taken in each 
15-minute data recording time period must meet the requirements in this 
section; if one or more measurements in each data recording time period 
do not meet the requirements, then a new data recording of at least 16 
new unique measurements collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes 
must be performed.
    DOE requests comment regarding the proposed data collection 
requirements.
f. Allowable Deviations From Specified Load Points
    DOE notes that Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
specify maximum deviations from specified values of discharge pressures 
during an acceptance test and maximum deviations in volume flow rate at 
specified conditions permissible at test, respectively. DOE proposes to 
specify that when performing the DOE test procedure for package 
isentropic efficiency, the values listed in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex 
C of ISO 1217:2009 would serve as the maximum allowable deviations from 
the discharge pressure and volume flow rate load points specified in 
the proposed test procedure.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ DOE notes that Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 uses 
the term ``volume flow rate.'' For the purposes of the proposed DOE 
test procedure, the term ``volume flow rate'' in Table C.2 will be 
considered synonymous with the ``actual volume flow rate'' of the 
compressor under test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the allowable deviations in Tables C.1 and 
C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests comment on 
whether air compressors are able to

[[Page 27240]]

control discharge pressure and volume flow rate with more precision 
than as specified from values in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 
1217:2009.
g. Calculations and Rounding
    DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 does not specify how to round values 
when performing calculations or making representations. DOE recognizes 
that the order and manner in which values are rounded can affect the 
resulting value, and, for consistency, it is important that all 
represented values of package isentropic efficiency, package specific 
power, actual volume flow rate, and full-load operating pressure be 
represented consistently across the compressor industry. DOE proposes 
to require that all calculations be performed with the raw measured 
data, to ensure accuracy. DOE also proposes that the package isentropic 
efficiency be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.001,\34\ package 
specific power be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.01 kilowatt 
per 100 cubic feet per minute, pressure ratio be rounded and 
represented to the nearest 0.1, actual volume flow rate be rounded and 
represented to the nearest 0.1 acfm, and full-load operating pressure 
be rounded and represented to the nearest 1 psig.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ DOE's proposal is consistent with CAGI's current 
performance verification datasheet practice, which expresses energy 
consumption to three significant digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Measurement Equipment
Packaged Compressor Power Input
    DOE reviewed section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
``Measurement of packaged compressor power input'' and found that it 
did not contain clear and explicit tolerance requirements for equipment 
used to measure the power supplied to the compressor under test. In the 
absence of tolerance requirements established by the compressor 
industry, DOE evaluated accuracy requirements for electrical 
measurement equipment for similar commercial and industrial equipment--
specifically, pumps. DOE considers commercial and industrial pumps to 
be similar and relevant, as these pumps are typically driven by the 
same electric motors and variable-frequency drives (if present) as 
compressors and have similar power supply requirements.
    In the pumps test procedure final rule, DOE adopted specific 
requirements for electrical measurement equipment used to measure input 
power to the motor, continuous controls, or non-continuous controls. 
Specifically, DOE specified that the electrical measurement equipment 
in such cases must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS 
voltage, and real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental 
supply source frequency and have an accuracy level of 2.0 
percent of the measured value when measured at the fundamental supply 
source frequency. DOE noted that such characteristics and requirements 
are consistent with other, similar industry test standards for 
applicable motors and controls and are necessary for determining 
compliance with the pump power supply requirements, which are the same 
as those proposed in section III.D.2.c for compressors.
    DOE notes that several interested parties commented throughout the 
pumps rulemaking that such measurement equipment was necessary due to 
the potential impact of the continuous control on line harmonics and 
other equipment on the circuit. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, CA 
IOUs, Framework public meeting transcript No. 19 at p. 236; Docket No. 
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, HI, No. 25 at p. 35; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-
0055, AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) AHRI also indicated that any harmonics 
in the power system can affect the measured performance of the pump 
when tested with a motor or motor and continuous or non-continuous 
control. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055, AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1-2) DOE 
believes that, similarly, such equipment is necessary to accurately 
measure the input power to the compressors that would be subject to 
this test procedure.
    DOE also recognizes that current and voltage instrument 
transformers can be used in conjunction with electrical measurement 
equipment to measure current and voltage. Usage of instrument 
transformers can introduce additional losses and errors to the 
measurement system. Section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 
recognizes this potential for losses and errors and states that 
``current and voltage transformers shall be chosen to operate as near 
to their rated loads as possible so that their ratio error is 
minimized.'' However, this section does not specify precisely how to 
combine the individual errors of each transformer to determine the 
combined accuracy of the measurement system. To clarify this ambiguity, 
DOE reviewed applicable industry test procedures related to electrical 
power measurement. Section C.4.1 of AHRI 1210-2011 indicates that 
combined accuracy should be calculated by multiplying the accuracies of 
individual instruments. In contrast, section 5.7.2 of CSA C838-2013 
indicates that if all components of the power measuring system cannot 
be calibrated together as a system, the total error must be calculated 
from the square root of the sum of the squares of all the errors. DOE 
understands that it is more accurate to combine independent accuracies 
(i.e., uncertainties or errors) by summing them in quadrature.\35\ DOE 
therefore proposes to use the root sum of squares to calculate the 
combined accuracy of multiple instruments used in a single measurement, 
consistent with conventional error propagation methods.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST 
Measurement Results (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/sec5.html, accessed September 8, 2015).
    \36\ DOE notes that section G.2.5.2 of Annex G to ISO 1217 also 
directs uncertainties to be summed in quadrature. However, Annex G 
to ISO 1217:2009 is not directly referenced by the applicable power 
measurement section of ISO 1217:2009 (section C.2.4 of Annex C), and 
therefore DOE is not proposing to incorporate Annex G by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes that the electrical 
measurement equipment used when measuring the input power to the 
compressor must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS 
voltage, and real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental 
supply source frequency and have a combined instrument accuracy level 
of 2.0 percent of the measured value when measured at the 
fundamental supply source frequency. Combined instrument accuracy would 
be calculated by summing the individual accuracies in quadrature.
    DOE requests comment regarding the proposed packaged compressor 
power input measurement equipment requirements.
Pressure Measurement
    DOE reviewed section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009, ``Measurement of 
Pressure,'' and concluded that certain language contained in this 
section requires clarification in order to achieve unambiguous, 
reproducible, and repeatable pressure measurements. Specifically, 
section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009 states that ``Connecting piping shall be 
leak-free, as short as possible, of sufficient diameter and arranged so 
as to avoid blockage by dirt or condensed liquid.'' While DOE 
recognizes the intent of this instruction, DOE prefers to provide 
quantitative instructions and measurements to determine if equipment is 
``leak-free and of sufficient diameter'' and a quantitative definition 
of the term ``short as possible.'' Additionally, DOE finds the 
following terms and instruction to be ambiguous: ``tightness shall be 
tested and all leaks eliminated;''

[[Page 27241]]

``mounted so that they are not susceptible to disturbing vibrations;'' 
``pressure waves in the inlet pipe or the discharge pipe are found to 
exceed 10% of the prevailing average absolute pressure, the piping 
installation shall be corrected before proceeding with the test;'' 
``pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing 
during the test;'' ``shall be corrected for the gravitational 
acceleration at the location of the instrument;'' ``a receiver with 
inlet throttling shall be provided between the pressure tap and the 
instrument;'' and ``Oscillations of gauges shall not be reduced by 
throttling with a valve placed before the instrument, however, a 
restricting orifice may be used.''
    In an effort to address some of those ambiguities, DOE proposes 
several requirements related to measurement of pressure in this test 
procedure NOPR. First, DOE proposes to require that discharge piping 
must be equal in diameter to the discharge orifice of the compressor 
package, and extend in length a distance of at least 15 times that 
diameter with no transitions or turns. Second, DOE proposes to require 
that the pressure tap be placed in the discharge pipe, between 2'' and 
6'' away from the discharge, at the highest point of the cross section 
of the pipe.
    DOE requests comment to help clarify these ambiguities contained in 
section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests potential 
quantitative explanations and instructions related to the following 
items: pressure tap installation locations; methods to verify ``leak-
free'' pipe connections; ``short as possible'' and of ``sufficient 
diameter''; testing ``tightness''; mounting instruments so that the 
unit is ``not susceptible to disturbing vibrations''; how and where to 
test for ``pressure waves'' and how the piping installation can be 
``corrected;'' how to calibrate transmitters and gauges under 
``pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing 
during the test''; how to correct dead-weight gauges for 
``gravitational acceleration at the location of the instrument''; where 
to install ``a receiver with inlet throttling'' to correct for flow 
pulsations; and how a restricting orifice may be used to reduce 
oscillation of gauges. Finally, DOE requests comment on its proposals 
regarding discharge piping and pressure taps.
    Additionally DOE proposes to clarify that any measurement of 
pressure used in a calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume 
flow rate) must also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of 
section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009.
Temperature Measurement
    DOE reviewed section 5.3 of ISO 1217:2009 and proposes that any 
measurement of temperature meet the requirements of this section. 
Additionally, DOE notes that any measurement of temperature used in a 
calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must 
also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.3 of 
ISO 1217:2009.
Density Measurement
    DOE reviewed ISO 1217:2009 and notes that it does not provide 
accuracy requirements for measurement of density, which may be measured 
to support the calculation of actual volume flow rate. In the absence 
of accuracy requirements established in ISO 1217:2009, DOE proposes any 
measurement of density must have an accuracy of 1.0 percent 
of the measured value.
    DOE requests comment regarding the proposed density measurement 
equipment requirements.
i. Determination of Maximum Full-Flow Operating Pressure, Full-Load 
Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate
    As part of this test procedure, DOE proposes to specify the load 
points for testing based on the actual volume flow rate at full-load 
operating pressure of the unit (full-load actual volume flow rate as 
discussed previously in section III.C.2). However, ISO 1217:2009 does 
not provide a method to determine full-load operating pressure of the 
tested unit. Rather, ISO 1217:2009 relies on manufacturer-specified 
full-load operating pressures. Similarly, CAGI specifies a ``maximum 
full flow operating pressure,'' which is explained on the CAGI data 
sheets as ``the maximum pressure attainable at full flow, usually the 
unload pressure setting for load/no load control or the maximum 
pressure attainable before capacity control begins.'' CAGI data sheets 
also specify a ``full load operating pressure,'' which is defined as 
``the operating pressure at which the capacity and electrical 
consumption were measured for this data sheet.'' The CAGI 
specifications demonstrate that compressor manufacturers typically make 
performance representations at this nominal full-load operating 
pressure condition, rather than at the actual tested maximum operating 
pressure of the unit.
    In order to have a reproducible and repeatable test procedure and 
ensure comparability of test results, DOE prefers to rely on objective 
rating point(s) determined through repeatable testing methods, as 
opposed to ``nominal'' values or arbitrarily selected rating 
conditions. Doing so allows for accurate comparison between compressors 
from different manufacturers and ensures reproducible testing for all 
equipment. However, DOE recognizes that testing at the actual tested 
maximum full-flow operating pressure may increase variability in test 
results and may be a less representative rating condition, as it is 
representative of the unload pressure just before the compressor shuts 
off. DOE also acknowledges that manufacturers may design their 
compressors to operate optimally at a nominal full-load operating 
pressure slightly less than the tested maximum. Further, DOE recognizes 
that the preponderance of manufacturer test data and performance 
information, such as CAGI performance data, exists at such nominal 
full-load operating pressure conditions and it would be extremely 
burdensome to retest all compressors to evaluate performance at the 
maximum full-load operating pressure instead of the nominal full-load 
operating pressure.
    Based on all of these considerations, DOE developed a quantitative 
and standardized method to determine the full-load operating pressure, 
while still preserving sufficient flexibility to allow most 
manufacturers to select an appropriate and representative full-load 
operating pressure within a narrow range. That is, DOE proposes to 
include a specific test method to determine the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure of the equipment, which is representative of the 
maximum discharge pressure at full-flow (i.e., the maximum discharge 
pressure attainable before capacity control begins, including unloading 
for load/no load controls), as described in this section. DOE proposes 
to allow manufacturers to specify the full-load operating pressure that 
would be used for subsequent testing and determination of full-load 
actual volume flow rate, specific power, and package isentropic 
efficiency, provided the specified value is greater than or equal to 90 
percent and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure. That is, DOE would allow manufacturers to self-
declare the full-load operating pressure as between 90 and 100 percent 
of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure. The full-load 
operating pressure would then be used to determine the full-load actual 
volume flow rate, specific power, and package

[[Page 27242]]

isentropic efficiency values for that compressor model.
    DOE reviewed CAGI performance data to determine an appropriate 
range for manufacturer self-declared full-load operating pressure, 
based on maximum full-flow operating pressure. DOE found that 94 
percent of units had a full-load operating pressure in the proposed 
range of 90 to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure. 
Additionally, DOE found that 59 percent of units had a full-load 
operating pressure within a narrower range of 95 to 100 percent of the 
maximum full-flow operating pressure.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow manufacturers to 
self-declare the full-load operating pressure between 90 and 100 
percent of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure, and 
whether a smaller or larger range should be used.
    Therefore, DOE proposes a test procedure to determine maximum full-
flow operating pressure for both fixed- and variable-speed compressors. 
As no industry standard method exists, the method DOE proposes to 
determine maximum full-flow operating pressure is based on DOE's 
current understanding of typical compressor operation.
    DOE proposes that, if units are distributed in commerce by the 
manufacturer equipped with any mechanism to adjust the maximum 
discharge pressure limit, to adjust this mechanism to the maximum 
pressure allowed for normal operation, according to the manufacturer's 
operating instructions for these mechanisms. Mechanisms to adjust 
discharge pressure may include, but are not limited to, onboard digital 
or analog controls and user-adjustable inlet valves.
    DOE proposes that all tested discharge pressures must be within the 
manufacturer's specified safe operating range of the compressor. 
Specifically, DOE proposes that the test must not violate any 
manufacturer-provided motor-operational guidelines for normal use, 
including any restriction on instantaneous and continuous input power 
draw and output shaft power (e.g., electric rating and service factor 
limits).
    DOE also proposes to require that the unit be tested at the maximum 
driver speed throughout the determination of maximum full-flow 
operating pressure and full-load operating pressure. For variable-speed 
compressors, this means that no speed reduction is allowed during 
testing to determine maximum full-flow operating pressure; speed 
reduction is still allowed when conducting the remainder of the test 
procedure to determine package isentropic efficiency, package specific 
power, and other relevant parameters at the load points specified in 
section III.C.3. If the unit being tested is a fixed-speed compressor 
with a multi-speed driver, then all testing would occur at the maximum 
driver operating speed.
    DOE proposes measuring discharge pressure according to the methods 
described in section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009; compressor discharge 
pressure would be expressed in pounds per square inch, gauge 
(``psig''), in reference to ambient conditions, and reported to the 
nearest integer. Targeted discharge pressure test points would be 
specified in integer values only; and maximum allowable measured 
deviation from the targeted discharge pressure at each load point would 
be 1 psig. DOE notes that the 1 psig deviation 
tolerance established for this test method differs from, and is 
typically more stringent than, the discharge pressure deviation 
tolerances specified in the tests for full-load and part-load 
isentropic efficiency that are discussed in sections III.C.4 and 
III.C.5. However, this method requires discharge pressure to be 
measured in increments of 2 psig, and as a result, a fixed tolerance of 
1 psig is the largest practical tolerance that can still 
effectively differentiate the discrete pressure test point increments.
    DOE proposes that data recording (at each tested point) be 
conducted under steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the 
difference between two consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power 
input reading measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and 
measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to or 
less than 300 watts.
    For the test methods discussed in this section, DOE proposes that 
each data recording consist of a minimum of two unique measurements 
collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart, and that the unique 
measurements be averaged. DOE also proposes that each consecutive 
measurement meet the stabilization requirement discussed in the 
previous paragraph. Finally, DOE notes that the data recording 
requirements proposed in this paragraph differ from those specified in 
the tests for full-load and part-load isentropic efficiency that are 
discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. DOE believes that two unique 
measurements, collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart, are 
sufficient to characterize discharge pressure and actual volume flow 
rate, while the more burdensome 16 unique measurements, collected over 
a minimum time of 15 minutes, is required to sufficiently characterize 
compressor input power and ultimately isentropic efficiency.
    DOE proposes that the unit under test shall be set up so that back-
pressure on the unit can be adjusted (e.g., by valves) incrementally, 
causing the measured discharge pressure to change, until the compressor 
is in an unloaded condition. DOE proposes to consider a unit to be in 
an unloaded condition if capacity controls on the unit automatically 
reduce the actual volume flow rate from the compressor (e.g., shutting 
the motor off, or unloading by adjusting valves).
    As explained in section III.B.6, maximum full-flow operating 
pressure is defined conceptually as the maximum discharge pressure at 
which a compressor is capable of operating. Consequently, the practical 
goal of this method is to identify the maximum achievable discharge 
pressure before capacity controls begin. This method achieves this goal 
by increasing the discharge pressure by increments of 2 psig, by 
adjusting the system back-pressure, while the unit is operating at 
full-speed until the unit goes into an unloaded condition.
    DOE proposes to begin the test method by adjusting the system back-
pressure to 90 percent of the certified maximum full-flow operating 
pressure (rounded to the nearest integer), or to 90 percent of an 
advertised or known maximum full-flow operating pressure (rounded to 
the nearest integer) if there is no certified value, or to 75 psig if 
there is no advertised or known value. DOE chose 75 psig as a potential 
starting discharge pressure because it was the lowest full-load 
operating pressure advertised of all available CAGI performance data. 
DOE propose to then allow the unit to remain at this setting for 15 
minutes to allow the unit to thermally stabilize. This stabilization 
period allows time for elements within the unit under test to reach 
intended operating conditions (e.g., lubricant temperature, and thermal 
expansion of compression element). After this stabilization period, 
measurements for discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate are 
taken, as specified in this section.
    DOE proposes to then increase discharge pressure of the system (by 
adjusting the back-pressure of the system) by 2 psig, and allow the 
unit to remain at this setting for 2 minutes. The specified two minute 
time period is to allow time for the unit to reach steady-state and to 
ensure that the unit will not enter an unloaded condition, which may 
not occur immediately after

[[Page 27243]]

increasing the discharge pressure. After 2 minutes, if the unit is not 
in an unloaded condition, measurements for discharge pressure and 
actual volume flow rate are taken, as specified in this section. DOE 
proposes to then iteratively increase discharge pressure in increments 
of 2 psig, allow the compressor to stabilize, and then record the 
discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate, until the unit reaches 
an unloaded condition. The maximum discharge pressure recorded over all 
the test points that does not initiate the compressor capacity controls 
is the maximum full-flow operating pressure.
    As described previously the representative value of full-load 
operating pressure would then be determined, by the manufacturer, as a 
value greater than or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 100 percent 
of the maximum full-flow operating pressure and the full-load actual 
volume flow rate would be the resultant actual volume flow rate 
measured at the full-load operating pressure.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed method for determining maximum 
full-flow operating pressure, full-load operating pressure, and full-
load actual volume flow rate of a compressor.
    DOE requests comment regarding whether any more specific 
instructions would be required to determine the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure for variable-speed compressors in addition to the 
proposal that testing is to be conducted at maximum speed, and no speed 
reduction is allowed during the test.

E. Definition of Basic Model

    In the course of regulating products and equipment, DOE has 
developed the concept of a basic model to allow manufacturers to group 
similar equipment to minimize testing burden, provided all 
representations regarding the energy use of compressors within that 
basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit. See 
76 FR 12422, 12423 (Mar. 7, 2011).\37\ In that rulemaking, DOE 
established that manufacturers may elect to group similar individual 
models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to 
reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the 
energy use of individual models within that basic model are identical 
and based on the most consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (Mar. 7, 
2011). However, DOE notes that manufacturers make the decision to group 
models together with the understanding that there is increased risk 
associated with such model consolidation due to the potential for an 
expanded impact from a finding of noncompliance. Consolidation of 
models within a single basic model results in such increased risk 
because DOE compliance on a basic model basis. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ These provisions allow manufacturers to group individual 
models with essentially identical, but not exactly the same, energy 
performance characteristics into a basic model to reduce testing 
burden. Under DOE's certification requirements, all the individual 
models within a basic model identified in a certification report as 
being the same basic model must have the same certified efficiency 
rating and use the same test data underlying the certified rating. 
The Compliance Certification and Enforcement final rule also 
establishes that the efficiency rating of a basic model must be 
based on the least efficient or most energy consuming individual 
model (i.e., put another way, all individual models within a basic 
model must be at least as energy efficient as the certified rating). 
76 FR at 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with this practice, in this rulemaking DOE proposes a 
definition of basic model for compressors that defines the compressor 
models on which manufacturers must conduct testing to demonstrate 
compliance with any future energy conservation standard for 
compressors, while still enabling manufacturers to group individual 
models to reduce the burden of testing. For this rulemaking, DOE 
proposes to establish a definition of basic model that is similar to 
other commercial and industrial equipment. Specifically, DOE proposes 
to define a compressor basic model to include all units of a class of 
compressors manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary 
energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, physical, 
and functional (or pneumatic) characteristics that affect energy 
consumption and energy efficiency. DOE notes that the requirement of 
``essentially identical electrical . . . characteristics'' means that 
models with different compressor motor nominal horsepower ratings must 
be classified as separate basic models.
    Furthermore, DOE is aware that identical bare compressor, 
mechanical equipment, and driver combinations may be distributed in 
commerce with a variety of ancillary equipment, in a variety of 
configurations, depending on customer requirements. If these variations 
in ancillary equipment impact the energy use or energy efficiency 
characteristics of the compressor, then each variation would typically 
constitute a different basic model. However, as discussed previously, 
manufacturers may elect to group individual models of compressors into 
the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all 
representations regarding the energy use of individual models within 
that basic model are identical and based on the energy performance of 
most consumptive unit, except that individual models cannot be grouped 
to span equipment classes or compressor motor nominal horsepower.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of a basic model 
for compressors.

F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency

    As noted previously, manufacturers of any compressors within the 
proposed scope of applicability of this rulemaking would be required to 
use the test procedure established through this rulemaking, if adopted, 
when determining the represented efficiency or energy use of their 
equipment. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) requires that ``no 
manufacturer . . . may make any representation . . . respecting the 
energy consumption of such equipment or cost of energy consumed by such 
equipment, unless such equipment has been tested in accordance with 
such test procedure and such representation fairly discloses the 
results of such testing.''
    DOE is proposing a test procedure for compressors that would 
provide a method to calculate full-load and part-load isentropic 
efficiency for fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors, 
respectively. As such, and consistent with EPCA, DOE proposes that, 
beginning 180 days after the publication in the Federal Register of any 
final rule adopting a final test procedure for compressors, all 
representations of full-load and part-load isentropic efficiency of 
applicable compressors must be made in accordance with the adopted test 
procedure. DOE notes that representations include those to DOE as well 
as any other representations, including those made on the equipment 
packaging or in marketing materials.
    However, with respect to representations of compressor performance, 
generally, DOE understands that manufacturers often make 
representations (graphically or in numerical form) of various metrics, 
including, for example, package specific power at various load points, 
actual volume flow rate at various load points, and discharge pressure. 
DOE does not propose to limit the type of representations manufacturers 
may make with regard to their equipment performance. However, DOE 
proposes to require that such values be generated using methods 
consistent with the DOE test procedure.
    Specifically, DOE proposes that any representations of 
[eta]isen,FL and [eta]isen,PL, as defined in 
section III.C, must be made

[[Page 27244]]

according to the DOE test procedure. Furthermore, DOE proposes that the 
parameters [eta]isen,40 and [eta]isen,70, as 
precursors to the final part-load isentropic efficiency metric, 
[eta]isen,PL, must be generated based on the same data, 
applicable test procedure provisions, and sampling plans.
    Additionally, DOE proposes that any representations of the full-
load actual volume flow rate, full-load operating pressure, or pressure 
ratio also must be measured according to the DOE test procedure and 
sampling plans. DOE notes that these values are key characteristics of 
compressor performance and are used to determine how to apply the 
proposed test procedure and the scope of the proposed test procedure to 
certain compressors. In addition, DOE notes that the attainable 
efficiency of compressors varies with volume flow rate (i.e., 
compressors with lower flow rates typically achieve lower efficiencies 
than compressors with higher flow rates). Consequently, DOE believes 
that accurate, reproducible, and repeatable representations of these 
metrics would lead to more meaningful, valuable, and comparable metrics 
for customers and end-users of this equipment.
    DOE understands that, for variable-speed compressors, manufacturers 
often make representations (graphically or in numerical form) of 
package isentropic efficiency and package specific power as functions 
of flow rate or rotational speed. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers 
to continue making these representations. However, DOE notes that 
graphical or numerical representations of package isentropic efficiency 
or package specific power at 40, 70, and 100 percent of the full-load 
actual volume flow rate must represent values measured in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure. DOE also notes that graphical or numerical 
representations of these metrics at any other load points must be 
generated using methods consistent with the DOE test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding applicable 
representations of energy and non-energy metrics for compressors.
    DOE requests comment on any additional metrics that manufacturers 
often use when making representations of compressor energy use or 
efficiency.

G. Sampling Plans for Tested Data and AEDMs

    DOE must provide uniform methods for manufacturers to determine 
representative values of energy- and non-energy-related metrics, for 
each basic model. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). These representative values 
are used when making public representations (as discussed in section 
III.F) and when determining compliance with prescribed energy 
conservation standards. DOE proposes that manufacturers may use either 
a statistical sampling plan of tested data, in accordance with proposed 
section 10 CFR 429.61, or an alternative efficiency determination 
method (AEDM) in accordance with proposed amendments to section 10 CFR 
429.70. The following two sections discuss sampling plans and AEDMs.
1. Statistical Sampling Plan
    DOE provides, in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429, sampling plans for 
all covered equipment. As mentioned previously, the purpose of a 
statistical sampling plan is to provide a method to determine a 
representative value of energy- and non-energy-related metrics, for 
each basic model. For compressors, DOE proposes to adopt statistical 
sampling plans similar to those used for other commercial and 
industrial equipment, such as pumps, as DOE believes that the 
variations in testing experienced in other mechanical commercial 
equipment would be similar to compressors. These requirements would be 
added in a new section 10 CFR 429.61.
    Under this proposal, for purposes of certification testing, the 
determination that a basic model complies with the applicable energy 
conservation standard would be based on testing conducted using the 
proposed DOE test procedure and sampling plan. The general sampling 
requirement currently applicable to all covered products and equipment 
provides that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and 
tested to ensure compliance and that, unless otherwise specified, a 
minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as 
compliant. 10 CFR 429.11(b)
    DOE proposes to apply this same minimum sample size requirement to 
compressors. Thus, if a statistical sampling plan is used, DOE proposes 
that a sample of sufficient size be selected to ensure compliance and 
that at least two units must be tested to determine the representative 
values of applicable metrics for each basic model. Manufacturers may 
need to test a sample of more than two units depending on the 
variability of their sample, as provided by the statistical sampling 
plan. Specifically, DOE proposes to establish sampling plans for the 
following energy and non-energy metrics:
     Full-load package isentropic efficiency (energy metric),
     Part-load package isentropic efficiency (energy metric),
     Package specific power (energy metric),
     Full-load actual volume flow rate (non-energy metric),
     Full-load operating pressure (non-energy metric), and
     Pressure ratio (non-energy metric).
    The details of the sampling plan vary based on whether the metric 
is an energy metric or a non-energy metric. For the energy metrics, DOE 
employs a statistical process to account for variability in testing and 
manufacture, as is done with most other covered products and equipment. 
For many other types of commercial and industrial equipment, such as 
pumps, DOE has adopted an upper confidence limit (UCL) and lower 
confidence limit (LCL) of 0.95; which are divided by a de-rating factor 
of 1.05 and 0.95, respectively. DOE believes that compressors would 
realize similar performance variability to such other commercial and 
industrial equipment. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt a confidence 
limit of 0.95 and a de-rating factor of 0.95 for package isentropic 
efficiency, for compressors as part of this test procedure.
    For non-energy metrics and package specific power (an optional 
energy metric) DOE proposes that the represented value be the 
arithmetic mean of the measured value for each unit. DOE believes this 
more simplified approach is appropriate, since such values are not used 
to determine compliance of the basic model and, therefore, accounting 
for variability and allowing for conservative ratings is not as 
important. The proposed sampling details for each metric are discussed 
in the following subsections.
    DOE proposes the following sampling plan provisions be incorporated 
into new 10 CFR 429.61:
Part- or Full-Load Package Isentropic Efficiency
    For each basic model of compressor selected for testing, a sample 
of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that 
any value of the full- or part-load package isentropic efficiency or 
other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which 
customers would favor higher values is less than or equal to the lower 
of the following two values:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.012
    


[[Page 27245]]


and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi 
is the measured value for the ith sample;
    (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.013


and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 
(from appendix A of subpart B).
    In addition, DOE also allows for determination of package 
isentropic efficiency through application of an AEDM, as discussed in 
section III.G.1.b.
Package Specific Power
    The representative value of package specific power of a basic model 
must be either the mean of the package specific power measured for each 
tested unit, or as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant 
to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b.
Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate
    The representative value of full-load actual volume flow rate of a 
basic model must be either the mean of the full-load actual volume flow 
rate measured for each tested unit, or as determined through 
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section 
III.G.1.b.
Full-Load Operating Pressure
    The representative value of full-load operating pressure of a basic 
model must be either the mean of the full-load operating pressure 
measured for each tested unit, or as determined through application of 
an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b.
Pressure Ratio
    The representative value of the pressure ratio of a basic model 
must be either the mean of the pressure ratio for each tested unit, or 
as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant to the 
requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for 
certification of compressor models.
b. Records Retention Requirements
    Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial 
equipment, DOE notes the applicability of certain requirements 
regarding retention of certain information related to the testing and 
certification of compressors, which are detailed under 10 CFR 429.71. 
Generally, manufacturers must establish, maintain, and retain 
certification and test information, including underlying test data for 
all certification testing for two years from date on which the 
compressor is discontinued in commerce.
2. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods
a. Background
    Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 429.70, DOE may permit use 
of an alternative efficiency determination method in lieu of testing 
for equipment for which testing burden may be considerable and for 
which performance may be well predicted by such alternative methods. 
Although specific requirements vary by product or equipment, use of an 
AEDM entails development of a mathematical model that estimates energy 
efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the basic model, as 
would be measured by the applicable DOE test procedure. The AEDM must 
be based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or 
modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance data. A 
manufacturer must perform validation of an AEDM by demonstrating that 
performance, as predicted by the AEDM, is in agreement with performance 
as measured by actual testing in accordance with the applicable DOE 
test procedure. The validation procedure and requirements, including 
the statistical tolerance, number of basic models, and number of units 
tested vary by product.
    Once developed, an AEDM may be used to certify performance of 
untested basic models in lieu of physical testing. However, use of an 
AEDM for any basic model is always at the option of the manufacturer. 
One potential advantage of AEDM use is that it may free a manufacturer 
from the burden of physical testing. One potential risk is that the 
AEDM may not perfectly predict performance, and the manufacturer could 
be found responsible for having an invalid rating for the equipment in 
question or for having distributed a noncompliant basic model of 
compressor. The manufacturer, by using an AEDM, bears the 
responsibility and risk of the validity of the ratings.
    During confidential interviews, several manufacturers noted that 
testing compressors is, in fact, costly and complex, and that in at 
least some cases, compressor performance could be reliably extrapolated 
using modeling. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to accommodate 
the application of AEDMs to determine performance ratings for 
compressors and proposes regulatory language that is consistent with 
most other commercial and industrial equipment that have AEDM 
provisions. The specific details are discussed in sections III.G.2.b 
through III.G.2.e.
b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must Satisfy
    A manufacturer may not use an AEDM to determine the values of 
metrics unless the following three criteria are met:
    (1) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the 
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
    (2) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of 
performance data; and
    (3) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with the 
applicable validation requirements for such equipment (discussed in 
section III.G.2.c of this notice).
c. Validation
    Validation is the process by which a manufacturer demonstrates that 
an AEDM meets DOE's requirements for use as a certification tool by 
physically testing a certain number and style of compressor models and 
comparing the test results to the output of the AEDM. Before using an 
AEDM, a manufacturer must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability 
as follows:
Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    A manufacturer must select a minimum number of basic models from 
each validation class to which the AEDM applies (validation classes are 
groupings of products based on equipment classes used for AEDM 
validation). The Department proposes the validation classes listed in 
Table III.5 be applicable to compressors. To validate an AEDM, the 
specified number of basic models from each validation class must be 
tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure and sampling plan in 
effect at the time those basic models used for validation are 
distributed in commerce. Testing may be conducted at a manufacturer's 
testing facility or a third-party testing facility. The resulting 
rating is directly compared to the result from the AEDM to determine 
the AEDM's validity. A manufacturer may develop multiple

[[Page 27246]]

AEDMs per validation class, and each AEDM may span multiple validation 
classes; however, the minimum number of basic models must be validated 
per validation class for every AEDM a manufacturer chooses to develop. 
An AEDM may be applied to any basic model within the applicable 
validation classes at the manufacturer's discretion. All documentation 
of testing, the AEDM results, and subsequent comparisons to the AEDM 
would be required to be maintained as part of both the test data 
underlying the certified rating and the AEDM validation package 
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71.

      Table III.5--Proposed AEDM Validation Classes for Compressors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Minimum number of distinct
             Validation class                 basic models that must be
                                                       tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary, Fixed-speed.......................  2 Basic Models.
Rotary, Variable-speed....................  2 Basic Models.
Reciprocating, Fixed-speed................  2 Basic Models.
Reciprocating, Variable-speed.............  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolerances for Validation
    DOE proposes that the AEDM-predicted result for a basic model must 
be (for energy consumption metrics) equal to or greater than 95 percent 
or (for energy efficiency metrics) less than or equal to 105 percent of 
the tested results for that same model. Additionally, the predicted 
energy efficiency for each basic model calculated by applying the AEDM 
must meet or exceed the applicable federal energy conservation standard 
DOE adopts for compressors.
d. Records Retention Requirements
    Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial 
equipment, DOE also proposes requirements regarding retention of 
certain information related to validation and use of an AEDM to certify 
equipment. Specifically, any manufacturer using an AEDM to generate 
representative values must provide to DOE upon request records showing 
(1) the AEDM, itself, and any mathematical modeling, engineering or 
statistical analysis, or computer simulation that forms the AEDM's 
basis; (2) equipment information, complete test data, AEDM 
calculations, and the statistical comparisons from the units tested 
that were used to validate the AEDM pursuant to section III.G.2.b; and 
(3) equipment information and AEDM calculations for each basic model to 
which the AEDM has been applied.
e. Additional AEDM Requirements
    Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial 
equipment, DOE proposes to require that, if requested by DOE, a 
manufacturer must perform at least one of the following activities: (1) 
conduct a simulation before a DOE representative to predict the 
performance of particular basic models of the equipment to which the 
AEDM was applied; (2) provide analysis of previous simulations 
conducted by the manufacturer; and (3) conduct certification testing of 
basic model(s) selected by DOE.
    In addition, DOE notes that, when making representations of values 
other than package isentropic efficiency based on the output of an 
AEDM, all other representations regarding package specific power, full-
load actual volume flow rate, full-load operating pressure, and 
pressure ratio would be required to be based on the same AEDM results 
used to generate the represented value of package isentropic 
efficiency.
    DOE requests feedback regarding all aspects of its proposal to 
permit use of an AEDM for compressors, and any data or information 
comparing modeled performance with the results of physical testing.
3. Enforcement Provisions
    Enforcement provisions govern the process DOE would follow when 
performing its own assessment of basic model compliance with standards, 
as described under 10 CFR 429.110. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 
adopt similar requirements to those applied to other industrial 
equipment, specifically pumps. In the pumps test procedure final rule, 
DOE adopted provisions stating that DOE would assess compliance of any 
basic models undergoing enforcement testing based on the arithmetic 
mean of up to four units. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). Therefore, for 
compressors, DOE proposes to use, when determining performance for a 
specific basic model, the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed 
four units.
    In addition, when determining compliance for enforcement purposes, 
DOE proposes to adopt provisions that specify how DOE would determine 
the full-load operating pressure for the purposes of measuring the 
full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific 
power, and pressure ratio for any tested equipment. In addition, DOE 
proposes a method for determining the appropriate standard level for 
any tested equipment based on the tested full-load actual volume flow 
rate. Specifically, to verify the full-load operating pressure 
certified by the manufacturer, DOE proposes to perform the same 
procedure being proposed (see section III.D.2.i) for determining the 
maximum full-flow operating pressure of each unit tested, except that 
DOE would begin searching for maximum full-flow operating pressure at 
the manufacturer's certified value of full-load operating pressure 
prior to increasing discharge pressure. As DOE has proposed to allow 
manufacturers to self-declare a full-load operating pressure value of 
between 90 and 100 percent (inclusive) of the measured maximum full-
flow operating pressure, DOE proposes to compare the measured value(s) 
of maximum full-flow operating pressure from a sample of one or more 
units to the certified value of full-load operating pressure. If a 
sample of more than one units is used, DOE proposes to calculate the 
mean of the measurements. If the certified value of full-load operating 
pressure is greater than or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 100 
percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure determined through 
DOE's testing (i.e., within the tolerance allowed by DOE in the test 
procedure), then DOE would use the certified value of full-load 
operating pressure certified by the manufacturer as the basis for 
determining full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, 
and other applicable values. Otherwise, DOE would use the maximum full 
flow operating pressure as the basis for determining the full-load 
actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, and other applicable 
values. That is, if the certified value of full-load operating pressure 
is found to be valid, DOE will set the compressor under test to that 
operating pressure to determine the full-load actual volume flow rate, 
isentropic efficiency, specific power, and pressure ratio in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure. If the certified full-load operating 
pressure is found to be invalid, DOE will use the measured maximum 
full-flow operating pressure resulting from DOE's testing as the basis 
for determining the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic 
efficiency, specific power, and pressure ratio for any tested 
equipment.
    Similarly, DOE proposes a procedure to verify the full-load actual 
volume flow rate of any certified equipment and determine the 
applicable full-load actual volume flow rate DOE will use when 
determining the standard level for any tested equipment. Specifically, 
DOE proposes to use the full-load actual volume flow rate determined 
based on

[[Page 27247]]

verification of full-load operating pressure and compare such value to 
the certified value of full-load actual volume flow rate certified by 
the manufacturer. If DOE found the full-load operating pressure to be 
valid, DOE will use the full-load actual volume flow rate determined at 
the full-load operating pressure certified by the manufacturer. If the 
full-load operating pressure was found to be invalid, DOE will use the 
actual volume flow rate measured at the maximum full flow operating 
pressure as the full-load actual volume flow rate. DOE would compare 
the measured full-load actual volume flow rate (determined at the 
applicable operating pressure) from an appropriately sized sample to 
the certified value of full-load actual volume flow rate. If the full-
load actual volume flow rate measured be DOE is within the allowances 
of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate specified in Table 
III.6, then DOE would use the manufacturer-certified value of full-load 
actual volume flow rate as the basis for determining the standard level 
for tested equipment. Otherwise, DOE would use the measured actual 
volume flow rate resulting from DOE's testing when determining the 
standard level for tested equipment. DOE believes such an approach 
would result in more reproducible and equitable rating of equipment and 
compliance determinations among DOE, manufacturers, and test labs.

  Table III.6--Enforcement Allowances for Full-Load Actual Volume Flow
                                  Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Allowable percent of
 Manufacturer certified full-load actual volume  the certified full-load
           flow rate (m\3\/s) x 10-3             actual volume flow rate
                                                           (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 < and <= 8.3.................................            7
8.3 < and <= 25................................            6
25 < and <= 250................................            5
> 250..........................................            4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct enforcement 
proceedings using performance calculated as the arithmetic mean of a 
tested sample, not to exceed four units. In addition, DOE requests 
comment on its proposed provisions that specify how DOE would determine 
the full-load operating pressure for determination of the full-load 
actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, 
pressure ratio, and the appropriate standard level (if applicable) for 
any tested equipment.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 
2003). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office 
of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule, which would establish new test 
procedures for compressors, under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. DOE notes that certification of compressors models is 
not currently required because energy conservation standards do not 
currently exist for compressors. That is, any burden associated with 
testing compressors in accordance with the requirements of this test 
procedure would not be required until the promulgation of any energy 
conservation standards for compressors. On this basis, DOE maintains 
that the proposed test procedure has no incremental burden associated 
with it and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. 
The factual basis is set forth below.
1. Small Business Determination
    For the compressors manufacturing industry, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as small businesses for the purpose of the statute. 
DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size standards 
are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Compressor manufacturers are 
classified under NAICS 333912, ``Air and Gas Compressor 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    To estimate the number of small business manufacturers of equipment 
applicable to by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using 
available public information. DOE's research involved industry trade 
association membership directories (including CAGI), individual company 
and online retailer Web sites, and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers 
reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture products 
applicable to this rulemaking. DOE presented its list to manufacturers 
in MIA interviews and asked industry representatives if they were aware 
of any other small manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at 
DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly-available data and contacted 
select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they 
met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened 
out companies that do not offer products applicable to this rulemaking, 
do not meet the definition of a small business, or are foreign-owned 
and operated.
b. Air Compressor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
    DOE identified a total of 37 manufacturers of applicable air 
compressor products sold in the United States. Seventeen of these 
manufacturers met the 500-employee threshold defined by the SBA to 
qualify as a small business, but only 13 were domestic companies. All 
13 domestic small businesses manufacture reciprocating air compressors, 
while

[[Page 27248]]

only five of the 13 manufacture rotary air compressors.
    Within the air compressor industry, manufacturers can be classified 
into two categories; original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and 
compressor packagers. OEMs manufacturer their own air-ends and assemble 
them with other components to create complete package air compressors. 
Packagers assemble motors and other accessories with air-ends purchased 
from other companies, resulting in a complete air compressor.
    Within the rotary air compressor industry, DOE identified 20 
manufacturers; 15 are OEMs and five are packagers of compressors. Of 
the 20 total manufacturers, seven large OEMs supply approximately 80 
percent of shipments and revenues. Of the five domestic small rotary 
air compressor businesses identified, DOE's research indicates that two 
are OEMs and three are packagers.
    The reciprocating air compressor market has a significantly 
different structure than the rotary market. The reciprocating market is 
highly fragmented, consisting of approximately 16 large and 17 small 
OEMs and packagers. Five of the 16 large businesses are members of 
CAGI. Eight of the 16 large manufacturers are believed to be packagers. 
Of the 18 identified small businesses, 13 are domestic. DOE notes that 
some interviewed manufacturers stated that there are potentially a 
large number of domestic small reciprocating air compressor 
manufacturers who assemble compressor packages from nearly complete 
components. These unidentified small manufacturers are not members of 
CAGI and typically have a limited marketing presence. DOE was not able 
to identify these small businesses. Based on this information, it is 
possible that DOE's list of 13 small domestic players may not include 
all small U.S. manufacturers in the industry. Of the 13 identified 
domestic reciprocating air compressor manufacturers, three are believed 
to be OEMs and 10 are believed to be packagers.
    Table IV.1 presents both the total number of domestic small 
businesses offering products in each equipment class grouping as well 
as the breakdown between domestic small business OEMs and domestic 
small business packagers.

    Table IV.1--Number of Domestic Small Businesses Manufacturing Air Compressors by Equipment Class Grouping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                                                           domestic small       Number of       Total number of
                Equipment class grouping                      original        domestic small     domestic small
                                                             equipment          packagers          businesses
                                                           manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary Air Compressors.................................                  2                  3                  5
Reciprocating Air Compressors..........................                  3                 10                 13
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................                  3                 10               * 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Total'' may not equal the sum of the other rows because one manufacturer may participate in both markets but
  does not get counted twice.

2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Compressor Test Procedure
    Compressors would be newly regulated equipment--accordingly, DOE 
currently has no test procedures or standards for this equipment. As 
such, compressors within the scope of DOE's proposal would be required 
to be tested, and this may result in an accompanying burden on the 
manufacturers of those compressors. As discussed in the proposed 
sampling provisions in section III.F, this test procedure would require 
manufacturers to either test at least two units of each compressor 
model, or use an AEDM to develop a certified rating.
    DOE notes that certification of compressors models is not currently 
required because energy conservation standards do not currently exist 
for compressors. That is, any burden associated with testing 
compressors in accordance with the requirements of this test procedure 
would not be required until the promulgation of any energy conservation 
standards for compressors. On this basis, DOE maintains that the 
proposed test procedure has no incremental burden associated with it 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    DOE also notes that EPCA requires manufacturers of covered 
equipment to use the DOE test procedure, if applicable, to make 
representations regarding energy efficiency or energy use of their 
equipment. As such, DOE is also estimating the burden of testing to 
determine the potential burden to manufacturers of updating associated 
literature or marketing materials. However, DOE notes that making 
representations in marketing literature regarding the energy efficiency 
or energy use of applicable compressor models is voluntary. As such, 
manufacturers that do not currently make representations of energy 
efficiency or energy use may continue to elect not to do so; thus 
incurring no additional burden.
    During its market survey, DOE performed research and requested 
information regarding the energy efficiency or energy use 
representations currently being made by manufacturers of compressors. 
DOE found that for rotary compressors, the majority of those making any 
representation of energy efficiency or energy use were manufacturers 
already participating in CAGI's voluntary Performance Verification 
Program. Of the small businesses identified by DOE, only one 
manufacturer currently participates in this program.
    Both the CAGI Performance Verification Program and the test 
procedure proposed in this NOPR are based on the same industry test 
procedure, ISO 1217:2009. DOE believes the modifications to ISO 
1217:2009 (as described in section III.D.2 of this document) do not 
represent significant changes and would not result in any incremental 
burden for those manufacturers already performing testing as part of 
CAGI's program. Consequently, DOE believes that manufacturers 
participating in the CAGI Performance Verification Program would not 
incur any incremental burden associated with conducting DOE's proposed 
test procedure.
    For manufacturers of rotary compressor equipment that make 
representations of compressor energy use or energy efficiency but are 
not currently participating in CAGI's program, DOE's research indicates 
such manufacturers typically test to ISO 1217:2009 using internal test 
facilities, rather than utilizing a third-party laboratory, as 
specified by the CAGI program. As such, DOE believes that the

[[Page 27249]]

proposed use of ISO 1217:2009, including any modifications, would not 
result in any incremental burden for manufacturers of rotary 
compressors that do not participate in CAGI's program.
    However, DOE notes that CAGI's voluntary performance verification 
program does not include provisions for the testing and certification 
of reciprocating compressors. Furthermore, DOE's research indicates 
that manufacturers of reciprocating compressors do not typically make 
representations of the energy efficiency or energy use of their 
equipment.
    Based on its research and discussions presented in this section, 
DOE believes that the proposed test procedure does not represent a 
significant incremental burden for any of the identified small 
entities, and the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. DOE would transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    However, DOE notes that it has prepared a full assessment of 
testing and compliance cost, as they related to potential energy 
conservation standards, in DOE's concurrent compressors energy 
conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040). In 
that rulemaking, DOE assesses costs to both small domestic 
manufacturers and the industry as a whole.
    DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule does 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency 
must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations 
for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered 
consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. 
DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the 
Framework Document considering energy conservation standards for 
compressors on February 5, 2014. 79 FR 6839 (Feb. 5, 2014). In an 
application to renew the OMB information collection approval for DOE's 
certification and recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated 
burden for manufacturers of compressors in case DOE ultimately sets 
energy conservation standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the 
revised information collection for DOE's certification and 
recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). DOE 
estimated that it would take each respondent approximately 30 hours 
total per company per year to comply with the certification and 
recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours of technician/technical 
work and 10 hours clerical work to submit the Compliance and 
Certification Management System templates. This rulemaking would 
include recordkeeping requirements on manufacturers that are associated 
with executing and maintaining the test data for this equipment. DOE 
notes that the certification requirements would be established in a 
final rule establishing energy conservation standards for compressors. 
DOE recognizes that recordkeeping burden may vary substantially based 
on company preferences and practices.
    DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for compressors. DOE has determined that this 
rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this proposed rule would create a new test procedure 
without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, 
and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, 
this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR 
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that creates a 
new rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it would follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has examined this 
proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products and equipment that are the subject of 
this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to

[[Page 27250]]

review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and 
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule 
meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997); 
also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE 
examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of 
policy and determined that the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements 
do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). 
DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines 
and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in 
those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for 
measuring the energy efficiency of compressors is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in ISO 
Standard 1217:2009, ``Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests,'' 
sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 
6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, 
C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C.
    The DOE has evaluated the ISO 1217:2009 standard and is unable to 
conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 
32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that 
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE 
would consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC 
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to 
prescribing a final rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference the testing methods contained in certain applicable sections 
of ISO Standard 1217:2009, ``Displacement compressors--Acceptance 
tests,'' sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 
6.2(g), and 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, 
C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C.
    Members of the compressors industry developed ISO 1217:2009, which 
contains methods for determining inlet

[[Page 27251]]

and discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and packaged 
compressor power input for electrically driven packaged displacement 
compressors.
    Copies of ISO 1217 can be obtained from the International 
Organization for Standardization at Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 
1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, or by going to 
www.iso.org.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you 
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance 
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national 
wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this 
fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 
586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the 
necessary procedures can be completed.
    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as 
tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to 
bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to 
obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, 
or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the 
visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through 
security.
    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID 
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from 
specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the 
following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry 
and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS 
has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the 
following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE 
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. 
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued 
by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 
issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's 
License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID 
card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/58. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this document. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the 
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only

[[Page 27252]]

first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing 
comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. 
See 10 CFR 429.7.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues About Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    1. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for compressor 
and pressure ratio, as well as the definitions referenced in ISO 
1217:2009.
    2. DOE requests comment on the proposed lower limit of pressure 
ratio for compressors of ``greater than 1.3.''
    3. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of air 
compressor and its use in limiting the scope of applicability of this 
test procedure.
    4. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for bare 
compressor, driver, and mechanical equipment.
    5. DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of ancillary 
equipment, and whether a comprehensive list of potential ancillary 
equipment is more appropriate. If a comprehensive list of potential 
ancillary equipment is preferred, DOE requests information on what 
equipment should be on that list.
    6. DOE requests comment on its position that all ancillary 
equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor be installed 
when testing to evaluate the energy performance of the air compressor. 
DOE requests comment on a potential alternative approach, in which DOE 
could generate a list of specific ancillary equipment that must be 
installed to ensure that the test result is representative of 
compressor performance; equipment on this list would not be optional, 
regardless of how that compressor model is distributed in commerce. If 
the alternative approach is preferred, DOE requests comments on what 
ancillary equipment be required to be installed to representatively 
measure compressor energy performance and how to evaluate compressor 
performance if an air compressor is distributed in commerce without 
certain items on the list.
    7. DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of rotary 
compressor, reciprocating compressor, and positive displacement 
compressor and their use in defining the scope of applicability of this 
test procedure.
    8. DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish test 
procedures for only brushless electric motor-driven equipment and on 
its proposed definition of brushless electric motor.
    9. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of compressor 
motor nominal horsepower. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether 
motors not covered in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 (``uncovered 
motors'') are incorporated into air compressors within the scope of 
this proposed test procedure. If so, DOE requests comment on how 
prevalent these uncovered motors are, and whether the test methods 
described in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 would be applicable to 
determine the compressor motor nominal horsepower of these uncovered 
motors. If the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of 10 
CFR part 431 are not applicable to uncovered motors, DOE requests 
comment on what test methods could be used to determine their 
compressor motor nominal horsepower.

[[Page 27253]]

    10. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only 
compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than 
or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 within the scope of this 
test procedure.
    11. DOE requests comment on its characterization of the rotary 
compressor market by pressure ranges, and whether the reciprocating 
compressor market is similarly characterized.
    12. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions of full-load 
operating pressure, maximum full-flow operating pressure, and full-load 
actual volume flow rate, and actual volume flow rate.
    13. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only 
compressors with a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal 
to 31 psig and less than or equal to 225 psig within the scope of this 
test procedure.
    14. DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting 
factors for package isentropic efficiency for both fixed-speed and 
variable-speed compressors.
    15. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for full-load 
package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for fixed-
speed compressors.
    16. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for part-load 
package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for variable-
speed compressors.
    17. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by 
reference certain applicable sections of ISO 1217: 2009 as the basis of 
the DOE test procedure for compressors. DOE requests comment on the 
proposal not to incorporate by reference specific sections and annexes 
as explained in this section.
    18. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed ambient conditions 
required for testing, and if they are sufficient to produce repeatable 
and reproducible test results.
    19. DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, 
voltage unbalance, and total harmonic distortion requirements when 
performing a compressor test. Specifically, DOE requests comments on 
whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical compressor test 
labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning 
equipment would be required.
    20. DOE requests comment on the proposed equipment configuration: 
That the inlet of the air compressor under test be open to the 
atmosphere and take in ambient air, and whether all air compressors can 
be configured and tested in this manner.
    21. DOE requests comment on the proposed requirements for equipment 
configuration.
    22. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed packaged compressor 
power input measurement equipment requirements.
    23. DOE requests comment to help clarify these ambiguities 
contained in section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests 
potential quantitative explanations and instructions related to the 
following items: Pressure tap installation locations; methods to verify 
``leak-free'' pipe connections; ``short as possible'' and of 
``sufficient diameter''; testing ``tightness''; mounting instruments so 
that the unit is ``not susceptible to disturbing vibrations''; how and 
where to test for ``pressure waves'' and how the piping installation 
can be ``corrected;'' how to calibrate transmitters and gauges under 
``pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing 
during the test''; how to correct dead-weight gauges for 
``gravitational acceleration at the location of the instrument''; where 
to install ``a receiver with inlet throttling'' to correct for flow 
pulsations; and how a restricting orifice may be used to reduce 
oscillation of gauges. Finally, DOE requests comment on its proposals 
regarding discharge piping and pressure taps.
    24. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed density measurement 
equipment requirements.
    25. DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow manufacturers to 
self-declare the full-load operating pressure between 90 and 100 
percent of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure, and 
whether a smaller or larger range should be used.
    26. DOE requests comment on the proposed method for determining 
maximum full-flow operating pressure, full-load operating pressure, and 
full-load actual volume flow rate of a compressor.
    27. DOE requests comment regarding whether any more specific 
instructions would be required to determine the maximum full-flow 
operating pressure for variable-speed compressors in addition to the 
proposal that testing is to be conducted at maximum speed, and no speed 
reduction is allowed during the test.
    28. DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding applicable 
representations of energy and non-energy metrics for compressors.
    29. DOE requests comment on any additional metrics that 
manufacturers often use when making representations of compressor 
energy use or efficiency.
    30. DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for 
certification of compressor models.
    31. DOE requests feedback regarding all aspects of its proposal to 
permit use of an AEDM for compressors, and any data or information 
comparing modeled performance with the results of physical testing.
    32. DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct enforcement 
proceedings using performance calculated as the arithmetic mean of a 
tested sample, not to exceed four units.
    33. DOE requests comment on its proposed provisions that specify 
how DOE would determine the full-load operating pressure for 
determination of the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic 
efficiency, specific power, pressure ratio, and the appropriate 
standard level (if applicable) for any tested equipment.
    34. DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule 
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    35. DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, 
Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2016.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 
429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

[[Page 27254]]

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. In Sec.  429.2 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.2  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions found in Sec. Sec.  430.2, 431.2, 431.62, 
431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.192, 431.202, 
431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322, 431.342, 
431.442, and 431.462 of this chapter apply for purposes of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  429.61 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.61  Compressors.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must 
determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating, 
for each basic model of compressor either by testing in conjunction 
with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an AEDM.
    (1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value is determined 
through testing, the general requirements of Sec.  429.11 apply; and
    (ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (A) Any represented value of the full- or part-load package 
isentropic efficiency or other measure of energy efficiency of a basic 
model for which customers would favor higher values is less than or 
equal to the lower of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.014
    


and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi 
is the measured value for the ith sample;


Or,

    (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.015


and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 
(from appendix A of subpart B);


And

    (B) Package Specific Power. The representative value(s) of package 
specific power of a basic model must be the mean of the package 
specific power measurement(s) for each tested unit of the basic model.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, any represented value of efficiency, consumption, or other 
non-energy metrics listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for a 
basic model may be determined through the application of an AEDM 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70 and the provisions of this 
section, where:
    (i) Any represented values of package isentropic efficiency or 
other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which 
customers would favor higher values must be less than or equal to the 
value determined through the application of the AEDM, and
    (ii) Any represented values of package specific power, pressure 
ratio, full-load actual volume flow rate, or full-load operating 
pressure must be the value determined through the application of the 
AEDM that corresponds to the represented value of package isentropic 
efficiency determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) Representations of non-energy metrics. (i) Full-load actual 
volume flow rate. The representative value of full-load actual volume 
flow rate of a basic model must be either:
    (A) The mean of the full-load actual volume flow rate for the units 
in the sample; or
    (B) The value determined through the application of an AEDM 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70.
    (ii) Full-load operating pressure. The representative value of 
full-load operating pressure of a basic model must be greater than or 
equal to 90-perent of:
    (A) The mean of the maximum full-flow operating pressure for the 
units in the sample, or
    (B) The value determined through the application of an AEDM 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70.
    (iii) Pressure Ratio. The representative value of pressure ratio of 
a basic model must be either the mean of the pressure ratio for the 
units in the sample, or the value determined through the application of 
an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70.
0
4. Section 429.70 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and 
energy use.

* * * * *
    (h) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for 
compressors. (1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer may not 
apply an AEDM to a basic model to determine its efficiency pursuant to 
this section, unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the 
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of 
performance data; and
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as follows:

    (i) The manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of 
basic models for each validation class specified in paragraph 
(h)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies. Using 
the AEDM, calculate the energy use or energy efficiency for each of the 
selected basic models. Test each basic model in accordance with 10 CFR 
429.61(a) and determine the represented value(s). Compare the results 
from the testing and the AEDM output according to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) 
of this section. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the 
accuracy and repeatability of the AEDM.
    (ii) Individual Model Tolerances:
    (A) The predicted representative values for each model calculated 
by applying the AEDM may not be more than five percent greater (for 
measures of efficiency) or less (for measures of consumption) than the 
values determined from the corresponding test of the model.
    (B) The predicted package isentropic efficiency for each model 
calculated by applying the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable 
federal energy conservation standard.
    (iii) Additional Test Unit Requirements:
    (A) Each AEDM must be supported by test data obtained from physical 
tests of current models; and
    (B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed 
current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this 
chapter;

[[Page 27255]]

    (C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the 
applicable DOE test procedure with which compliance is required at the 
time the basic models used for validation are distributed in commerce; 
and
(iv) Compressor Validation Classes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Minimum number of distinct
             Validation class                models that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary, Fixed-speed.......................  2 Basic Models.
Rotary, Variable-speed....................  2 Basic Models.
Reciprocating, Fixed-speed................  2 Basic Models.
Reciprocating, Variable-speed.............  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) AEDM Records Retention Requirements. If a manufacturer has used 
an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this section, 
the manufacturer must have available upon request for inspection by the 
Department records showing:
    (i) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or 
statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is 
the basis of the AEDM;
    (ii) Equipment information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, 
and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to 
validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section; and
    (iii) Equipment information and AEDM calculations for each basic 
model to which the AEDM has been applied.

    (4) Additional AEDM Requirements. If requested by the Department, 
the manufacturer must:
    (i) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to 
predict the performance of particular basic models of the equipment to 
which the AEDM was applied;
    (ii) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer; and/or
    (iii) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the 
Department.
0
5. Section 429.110 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  429.110  Enforcement testing.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) For pumps and compressors, DOE will use an initial sample size 
of not more than four units and will determine compliance based on the 
arithmetic mean of the sample.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (k) as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (k) Compressors--(1) Verification of full-load operating pressure. 
The maximum full flow operating pressure of each tested unit of the 
basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements of 
appendix A to subpart T of part 431, where the value of full-load 
operating pressure certified by the manufacturer will be the starting 
point of the test method prior to increasing discharge pressure. The 
certified rating for full-load operating pressure will be considered 
valid only if the certified rating for full-load operating pressure is 
greater than or equal to 90 percent of and less than or equal to the 
measured maximum full-flow operating pressure (either the measured 
maximum full flow operating pressure for a single unit sample or the 
mean of the measured maximum full flow operating pressures for a 
multiple unit sample).

    (i) If the certified full-load operating pressure is found to be 
valid, then the certified value will be used as the full-load operating 
pressure and will be the basis for determination of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, pressure ratio, specific power, and isentropic 
efficiency.

    (ii) If the rated value of full-load operating pressure is found to 
be invalid, then the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure will 
be used as the full-load operating pressure and will be the basis for 
determination of full-load actual volume flow rate, pressure ratio, 
specific power, and isentropic efficiency.
    (2) Verification of full-load actual volume flow rate. The measured 
full-load actual volume flow rate will be measured, pursuant to the 
test requirements of appendix A to subpart T of part 431, at the full-
load operating pressure determined in paragraph (j)(1) of this section. 
The certified full-load actual volume flow rate will be considered 
valid only if the measurement(s) (either the measured full-load actual 
volume flow rate for a single unit sample or the average of the 
measured values for a multiple unit sample) are within the percentage 
of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate specified in Table 1 
of this paragraph:

  Table 1--Allowable Percentage Deviation From the Certified Full-Load
                         Actual Volume Flow Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Allowable percent of
 Manufacturer certified full-load actual volume  the certified full-load
           flow rate (m\3\/s) x 10-3             actual volume flow rate
                                                           (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0< and <=8.3...................................            7
8.3< and <=25..................................            6
25< and <=250..................................            5
>250...........................................            4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) If the representative value of full-load actual volume flow 
rate is found to be valid, the full-load actual volume flow rate 
certified by the manufacturer will be used as the basis for 
determination of the applicable standard.
    (ii) If the representative value of full-load actual volume flow 
rate is found to be invalid, the mean of all the measured full-load 
actual volume flow rate values determined from the tested unit(s) will 
serve as the basis for determination of the applicable standard.

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
7. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
8. Add subpart T to part 431 to read as follows:
Subpart T--Compressors
Sec.
431.341 Purpose and scope.
431.342 Definitions concerning compressors.
431.343 Materials incorporated by reference.
31.344 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy 
consumption of compressors.
431.345 Energy conservation standards and effective dates
431.346 Labeling requirements
Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Certain 
Air Compressors

Subpart T--Compressors


Sec.  431.341  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains definitions, materials incorporated by 
reference, test procedures, and energy conservation requirements for 
compressors, pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.

[[Page 27256]]

Sec.  431.342  Definitions concerning compressors.

    The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including 
appendix A. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the 
definitions adopted in this section take precedence over any 
descriptions or definitions found in any other source, including in the 
2009 version of ISO Standard 1217, ``Displacement compressors--
Acceptance tests'' (ISO 1217:2009) (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.343). In cases where definitions reference design intent, DOE 
will consider all relevant information, including marketing materials, 
labels and certifications, and equipment design, to determine design 
intent.
    Actual volume flow rate means the volume flow rate of air, 
compressed and delivered at the standard discharge point, referred to 
conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition 
prevailing at the standard inlet point, and as determined in accordance 
with the test procedures prescribed in Sec.  431.344.
    Air compressor means a compressor designed to compress air that has 
an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air, and is made up 
of a compression element (bare compressor), driver(s), mechanical 
equipment to drive the compressor element, and any ancillary equipment.
    Ancillary equipment means any equipment distributed in commerce 
with an air compressor that is not a bare compressor, driver, or 
mechanical equipment. Ancillary equipment is considered to be part of a 
given air compressor, regardless of whether the ancillary equipment is 
physically attached to the bare compressor, driver, or mechanical 
equipment at the time when the air compressor is distributed in 
commerce.
    Bare compressor means the compression element and auxiliary devices 
(e.g., inlet and outlet valves, seals, lubrication system, and gas flow 
paths) required for performing the gas compression process, but does 
not include the driver; speed-adjusting gear(s); gas processing 
apparatuses and piping; or compressor equipment packaging and mounting 
facilities and enclosures.
    Basic model means all units of a class of compressors manufactured 
by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, the same 
compressor motor nominal horsepower, and essentially identical 
electrical, physical, and functional (or pneumatic) characteristics 
that affect energy consumption and energy efficiency.
    Brushless electric motor means a machine that converts electrical 
power into rotational mechanical power without use of sliding 
electrical contacts.
    Compressor means a machine or apparatus that converts different 
types of energy into the potential energy of gas pressure for 
displacement and compression of gaseous media to any higher pressure 
values above atmospheric pressure and has a pressure ratio greater than 
1.3.
    Driver means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare 
compressor directly or through the use of mechanical equipment.
    Fixed-speed compressor means an air compressor that is not capable 
of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver 
operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the 
required compressor flow rate.
    Full-load actual volume flow rate means the actual volume flow rate 
of the compressor at the full-load operating pressure.
    Maximum full-flow operating pressure means the maximum discharge 
pressure at which the compressor is capable of operating, as determined 
in accordance with the test procedure prescribed in Sec.  431.344.
    Mechanical equipment means any component of an air compressor that 
transfers energy from the driver to the bare compressor.
    Compressor motor nominal horsepower means the motor horsepower of 
the electric motor, as determined in accordance with the applicable 
procedures in subpart B and subpart X of part 431, with which the rated 
air compressor is distributed in commerce.
    Package isentropic efficiency means the ratio of power required for 
an ideal isentropic compression process to the actual packaged 
compressor power input used at a given load point, as determined in 
accordance with the test procedures prescribed in Sec.  431.344.
    Package specific power means the compressor power input at a given 
load point, divided by the actual volume flow rate at the same load 
point, as determined in accordance with the test procedures prescribed 
in Sec.  431.344.
    Positive displacement compressor means a compressor in which the 
admission and diminution of successive volumes of the gaseous medium 
are performed periodically by forced expansion and diminution of a 
closed space(s) in a working chamber(s) by means of displacement of a 
moving member(s) or by displacement and forced discharge of the gaseous 
medium into the high-pressure area.
    Pressure ratio means the ratio of discharge pressure to inlet 
pressure, determined at full-load operating pressure in accordance with 
the test procedures prescribed in Sec.  431.344.
    Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor 
in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are 
performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving 
member(s) in a compression chamber(s).
    Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which 
gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced 
discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors 
in a compressor casing.
    Variable-speed compressor means an air compressor that is capable 
of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver 
operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the 
required compressor actual volume flow rate.


Sec.  431.343  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following standard 
into part 431. The material listed has been approved for incorporation 
by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 
6 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a 
standard by the standard-setting organization will not affect the DOE 
test procedures unless and until amended by DOE. Material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of 
any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. 
All approved material is available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The following 
standards can be obtained from the sources below.
    (b) ISO. International Organization for Standardization, Chemin de 
Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva,

[[Page 27257]]

Switzerland+41 22 749 01 11, www.iso.org.
    (1) ISO Standard 1217:2009, (``ISO 1217:2009''), ``Displacement 
compressors--Acceptance tests,'' sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 
5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), and 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, 
C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C; 
approved 2009, IBR approved for appendix A to subpart T of part 431.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  431.344  Test procedure for measuring and determining energy 
consumption of compressors.

    (a) Scope. (1) This section a test method that is applicable to a 
compressor that meets the following criteria:
    (i) Is an air compressor,
    (ii) Is a rotary or reciprocating compressor,
    (iii) Is driven by a brushless electric motor,
    (iv) Is distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal 
horsepower greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 
horsepower (hp), and
    (v) Has a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 31 
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and less than or equal to 225 psig.
    (b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the applicable full-load 
package isentropic efficiency ([eta]isen,FL), part-load 
package isentropic efficiency ([eta]isen,PL), package 
specific power, full-load operating pressure, full-load actual volume 
flow rate, and pressure ratio using the test procedure set forth in 
appendix A of this subpart T.

Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Certain 
Air Compressors

    Note:  Starting on [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], any 
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
compressors subject to testing pursuant to 10 CFR 431.344 must be 
made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this 
appendix.

I. Measurements, Test Conditions, and Equipment Configuration

    A. Measurement Equipment. For the purposes of measuring air 
compressor performance, the equipment necessary to measure flow 
rate, inlet and discharge pressure, temperature, condensate, power, 
and energy must comply with the equipment and accuracy requirements 
specified in ISO 1217:2009 sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, C.2.3, 
and C.2.4 of Annex C (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343). 
In addition:
    A.1. Electrical measurement equipment must be capable of 
measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to 
the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency.
    A.2. Any instruments used to measure a particular parameter 
specified in paragraph (A.1.) must have a combined accuracy of 
2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental 
supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the square root 
of the sum of the squares of individual instrument accuracies.
    A.3. Any instruments used to directly measure the density of air 
must have an accuracy of 1.0 percent of the measured 
value.
    A.4. Any pressure measurement equipment used in a calculation of 
another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet all 
accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.2 of ISO 
1217:2009.
    A.5. Any temperature measurement equipment used in a calculation 
of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet 
all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.3 of ISO 
1217:2009.
    A.6. Where ISO 1217:2009 refers to ``corrected volume flow 
rate,'' the term is deemed synonymous with the term ``actual volume 
flow rate,'' as defined in section 3.4.1 of ISO 1217:2009.
    B. Test Conditions and Configuration of Unit Under Test.
    B.1. For both fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors, 
conduct testing in accordance with the test conditions, unit 
configuration, and specifications of subsections 6.2(g), 6.2(h), of 
ISO 1217:2009 and C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, 
C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, and C.4.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, Annex C 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343). In addition, the 
test conditions and configuration must meet the following 
requirements:
    B.1.1. Regarding the power supply: (1) Maintain the voltage 
within 5 percent of the rated value of the motor, (2) 
maintain the frequency within 1 percent of the rated 
value of the motor, (3) maintain the voltage unbalance of the power 
supply within 3 percent of the rated values of the 
motor, and (4) maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent 
throughout the test.
    B.1.2. Ambient Conditions. The ambient air temperature must be 
greater than or equal to 80[emsp14][deg]F and less than or equal to 
90[emsp14][deg]F for the duration of testing. There are no ambient 
condition requirements for inlet pressure or relative humidity.
    B.1.3. Discharge Piping. The piping connected to the discharge 
orifice of the compressor must be of a diameter at least equal to 
that of the compressor discharge orifice to which it is connected. 
That piping must also be of a length at least fifteen times that 
diameter.
    B.1.3.1. Discharge Piping Pressure Transducers. Transducers used 
to record compressor discharge pressure must be located on the 
discharge piping between 2 inches and 6 inches, inclusive, from the 
discharge orifice of the compressor.
    C. Equipment Configuration.
    C.1. All ancillary equipment that is distributed in commerce 
with the compressor under test must be present and installed for all 
tests specified in this appendix.
    C.2. The inlet of the compressor under test must be open to the 
atmosphere and take in ambient air for all tests specified in this 
appendix.
    C.3. The compressor under test must be set up according to all 
manufacturer instructions for normal operation (e.g., verify oil-
level, connect all loose electrical connections, close off bottom of 
unit to floor, cover forklift holes).

II. Determination of Package Isentropic Efficiency, Package Specific 
Power, and Pressure Ratio

    A. Data Collection and Analysis.
    A.1. Stabilization. Record data (at each tested point) under 
steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the difference 
between two consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power input 
reading measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and 
measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to 
or less than 300 watts.
    A.2. Data Sampling and Frequency. At each load point, record a 
minimum of 16 unique measurements, collected over a minimum time of 
15 minutes. Each consecutive measurement must be no more than 60 
seconds apart, and not less than 10 seconds apart. The difference in 
packaged compressor power input between the maximum and minimum 
measurement must be equal to or less than 300 watts, as measured per 
section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009. Each measurement within 
the 15-minute data recording time period must meet the requirements 
in this section; if one or more measurements do not meet the 
requirements then perform a new data recording of at least 16 new 
unique measurements collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes. 
Average the measurements to determine the value of each parameter to 
be used in subsequent calculations.
    A.3. Calculations and Rounding. Perform all calculations using 
raw measured values. Round the final result for package isentropic 
efficiency to the thousandth (i.e., 0.001), for package specific 
power in kilowatt per 100 cubic feet per minute to the nearest 
hundredth (i.e., 0.01), for pressure ratio to the nearest tenth 
(i.e., 0.1), for full-load actual volume flow rate in actual cubic 
feet per minute to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), and for full-load 
operating pressure in psig to the nearest integer (i.e., 1). All 
terms and quantities refer to values determined in accordance with 
the procedures set forth in this appendix for the tested unit.
    B. Full-Load Operating Pressure and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow 
Rate. Determine the full-load operating pressure and full-load 
actual volume flow rate (referenced throughout this appendix) in 
accordance with the procedures prescribed in section III of this 
appendix.
    C. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency for Fixed- and Variable-Speed 
Air Compressors. Use this test method to test fixed-speed air 
compressors and variable-speed air compressors.
    C.1. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For 
the purposes of sections II.C.2, II.C.2.1, and II.C.2.2 of this 
appendix, maximum allowable deviations from the specified discharge 
pressure and

[[Page 27258]]

volume rate in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343) apply. For the 
purposes of sections II.C.2, II.C.2.1, and II.C.2.2 of this 
appendix, the term ``volume flow rate'' in Table C.2 of Annex C of 
ISO 1217:2009 refers to the actual volume flow rate of the 
compressor under test.
    C.2. Calculate the package isentropic efficiency at full-load 
operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load volume flow rate 
(full-load package isentropic efficiency) using the following 
equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.016

Where:

[eta]isen,FL = [eta]isen,100 = package 
isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure and 100 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate,
Pisen,100 = isentropic power required for 
compression at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.C.2.1 of 
this appendix, and
Preal,100 = packaged compressor power input at 
full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section II.C.2.2 of this 
appendix.

    C.2.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression 
at full-load operating pressure and at 100 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.017

Where:

V1\m3/s = actual volume flow rate at full-load operating pressure 
and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined 
in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per 
second) with no corrections made for shaft speed,
p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
P2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure 
and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, determined in 
accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and
[kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which, for the purposes of this test procedure, is 1.400.

    C.2.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at full-load 
operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow 
rate using the following equation:

Where:

K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. 
For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for 
contractual inlet pressure, and
PPR,100 = packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).
    D. Part-Load Package Isentropic Efficiency for Variable-Speed 
Air Compressors. Use this test method to test variable-speed air 
compressors only.
    D.1. For variable-speed compressors, calculate the part-load 
package isentropic efficiency using the following equation:

[eta]isen,PL = [omega]40 x 
[eta]isen,40 + [omega]70 x 
[eta]isen,70 + [omega]100 x 
[eta]isen,100

Where:

[eta]isen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency 
for a variable-speed compressor,
[eta]isen,100 = package isentropic efficiency at 
full-load operating pressure, as determined in section II.C.2 of 
this appendix,
[eta]isen,70 = package isentropic efficiency at 
70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
section II.D.3 of this appendix,
[eta]isen,40 = package isentropic efficiency at 
40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
section II.D.4 of this appendix,
[omega]40 = weighting at 40 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate and is 0.25,
[omega]70 = weighting at 70 percent of full-load 
actual volume flow rate and is 0.50, and
[omega]100 = weighting at 100 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate and is 0.25.

    D.2. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For 
the purposes of sections II.D.3, II.D.3.1, II.D.3.2, II.D.4, 
II.D.4.1 and II.D.4.2 of this appendix, the maximum allowable 
deviations from the specified volume flow rate specified in Table 
C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.343) apply. For the purposes of sections II.D.3, II.D.3.1, 
II.D.3.2, II.D.4, II.D.4.1 and II.D.4.2 of this appendix, the term 
volume flow rate in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to 
the actual volume flow rate of the compressor under test.
    D.3. To determine the package isentropic efficiency at 70 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, adjust the speed of 
the driver to reach the specified load point (70 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate). Calculate package isentropic 
efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.018

Where:

[eta]isen,70 = package isentropic efficiency at 
70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate,
Pisen,70 = isentropic power required for 
compression at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as 
determined in section II.D.3.1 of this appendix, and
Preal,70 = packaged compressor power input at 70 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
section II.D.3.2 of this appendix.

    D.3.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression 
at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the 
following equation:

[[Page 27259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.019

Where:
V1_m3/s = actual volume flow rate at 70 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of 
annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no 
corrections made for shaft speed,
p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
p2 = discharge pressure at 70 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 
1217:2009 (Pa), and
[kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.

    D.3.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at 70 percent 
of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.020

Where:

K5= correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. 
For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for 
contractual inlet pressure, and
PPR,70= packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 70 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).

    D.4. To determine the package isentropic efficiency at 40 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, adjust the speed of 
the driver to reach the specified load point (40 percent of full-
load actual volume flow rate). Calculate package isentropic 
efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using 
the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.021

    [eta]isen,40 = package isentropic efficiency 
at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate,
    Pisen,40 = isentropic power required for 
compression at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as 
determined in section II.D.4.1 of this appendix, and
    Preal,40 = packaged compressor power input at 
40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
section II.D.4.2 of this appendix.
    D.4.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression 
at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.022

Where:

V1_m3/s = actual volume actual volume flow rate at 40 
percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in 
section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per 
second) with no corrections made for shaft speed,
p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa),
p2 = discharge pressure at 40 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 
1217:2009 (Pa), and
[kappa] = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, 
which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.

    D.4.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at 40 percent 
of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation:
Preal,40 = K5 [middot] 
PPR,40

Where:

K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure 
ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. 
For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for 
contractual inlet pressure, and
PPR,40 = packaged compressor power input reading 
at full-load operating pressure and 40 percent of full-load actual 
volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 
1217:2009 (watts).

    E. Determination of Package Specific Power. For both fixed- and 
variable-speed air compressors, determine the package specific 
power, at any load point, using the equation for specific energy 
consumption in section C.4.4 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343) and other values 
measured pursuant to this appendix.
    F. Determination of Pressure Ratio
    F.1. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For 
the purposes of section II.F.2 of this appendix, do not exceed the 
maximum allowable deviations from the specified discharge pressure 
and volume flow rate specified in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of 
ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343). For 
the purposes of sections II.F.2 of this appendix, the term volume 
flow rate, in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217: 2009 refers to the 
actual volume flow rate of the compressor under test.
    F.2. Pressure ratio, as defined in Sec.  431.342, is determined 
at full-load operating pressure. Calculate pressure ratio using the 
following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.023


[[Page 27260]]


Where:

PR = pressure ratio,
p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 
of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and
p2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure, 
determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa).

III. Method to Determine Maximum Full-Flow Operating Pressure, Full-
Load Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate

A. Principal Strategy

    The principal strategy of this method is to incrementally 
increase discharge pressure by 2 psig relative to a starting point, 
and identify the maximum full-flow operating pressure at which the 
compressor is capable of operating. The maximum discharge pressure 
achieved is the maximum full-flow operating pressure. The full-load 
operating pressure and full-load actual volume flow rate are 
determined based on the maximum full-flow operating pressure.

B. Pre-Test Instructions

B.1. Safety

    For the method presented in section III.C.1 of this appendix, 
only test discharge pressure within the safe operating range of the 
compressor, as specified by the manufacturer in the installation and 
operation manual shipped with the unit. Make no changes to safety 
limits or equipment. Do not violate any manufacturer-provided, motor 
operational guidelines for normal use, including any restriction on 
instantaneous and continuous input power draw and output shaft power 
(e.g., electrical rating and service factor limits).

B.2. Adjustment of Discharge Pressure

    B.2.1. If the air compressor is not equipped, as distributed in 
commerce by the manufacturer, with any mechanism to adjust the 
maximum discharge pressure output limit, proceed to section III.B.3 
of this appendix.
    B.2.2. If the air compressor is equipped, as distributed in 
commerce by the manufacturer, with any mechanism to adjust the 
maximum discharge pressure output limit, then adjust this mechanism 
to the maximum pressure allowed, according to the manufacturer's 
operating instructions for these mechanisms. Mechanisms to adjust 
discharge pressure may include, but are not limited to, onboard 
digital or analog controls, and user-adjustable inlet valves.

B.3. Driver-Speed

    If the unit under test is a variable-speed compressor, maintain 
maximum driver speed throughout the test. If the unit under test is 
a fixed-speed compressor with a multi-speed driver, maintain driver 
speed at the maximum speed throughout the test.

B.4. Measurements and Tolerances

B.4.1. Recording

    Record data by electronic means such that the requirements of 
section B.4.5 of section III of this appendix are met.

B.4.2. Discharge Pressure

    Measure discharge pressure in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 
1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.343). Express 
compressor discharge pressure in pounds per square inch, gauge 
(``psig''), in reference to ambient conditions, and record it to the 
nearest integer. Specify targeted discharge pressure points in 
integer values only. The maximum allowable measured deviation from 
the targeted discharge pressure at each tested point is 1 psig.

B.4.3. Actual Volume Flow Rate

    Measure actual volume flow rate in accordance with section 
C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (where it is called ``corrected 
volume flow rate'') with no corrections made for shaft speed. 
Express compressor actual volume flow rate in actual cubic feet per 
minute at inlet conditions (``acfm'').

B.4.4. Stabilization

    Record data (at each tested point) under steady-state 
conditions, which are achieved when the difference between two 
consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power input reading 
measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and measured 
per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to or less 
than 300 watts.

B.4.5. Data Sampling and Frequency

    At each load point, record a minimum of two separate 
measurements, collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart. Each 
consecutive measurement must meet the stabilization requirement 
established in section III.B.4.4 of this appendix. Average the 
measurement to determine the value of each parameter to be used in 
subsequent calculations.

B.5. Adjusting System Back-Pressure

    Set up the unit under test so that back-pressure on the unit can 
be adjusted (e.g., by valves) incrementally, causing the measured 
discharge pressure to change, until the compressor is in an unloaded 
condition.

B.6. Unloaded Condition

    A unit is considered to be in an unloaded condition if capacity 
controls on the unit automatically reduce the actual volume flow 
rate from the compressor (e.g., shutting the motor off, or unloading 
by adjusting valves).

C. Test Instructions

    C.1. Adjust the back-pressure of the system so the measured 
discharge pressure is 90 percent of the certified maximum full-flow 
operating pressure, rounded to the nearest integer, in psig. If the 
expected maximum full-flow operating pressure is not known, then 
adjust the back-pressure of the system so that the measured 
discharge pressure is 75 psig. Allow the unit to remain at this 
setting for 15 minutes to allow the unit to thermally stabilize. 
Then measure and record discharge pressure and actual volume flow 
rate at the starting pressure.
    C.2. Adjust the back-pressure of the system to increase the 
discharge pressure by 2 psig from the previous value, allow the unit 
to remain at this setting for a minimum of 2 minutes, and proceed to 
section IV.C.3 of this appendix.
    C.3. If the unit is now in an unloaded condition, end the test 
and proceed to section III.C.4 of this appendix. If the unit is not 
in an unloaded condition, measure discharge pressure and actual 
volume flow rate, and repeat section III.C.2 of this appendix.
    C.4. Of the discharge pressures recorded under stabilized 
conditions in sections III.C.1 through III.C.3 of this appendix, 
identify the largest. This is the maximum full-flow operating 
pressure. Determine the full-load operating pressure as a self-
declared value greater than or equal to 90 percent of and less than 
or equal to the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure. The 
full-load actual volume flow rate is the actual volume flow rate 
measured at the full-load operating pressure.

[FR Doc. 2016-10170 Filed 5-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P