[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9199-9215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019]
RIN 1904-AF08


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Compressors

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the 
test procedure for compressors to correct an error. DOE also proposes 
to amend the definition of air compressor to include a minor 
clarification and revise a typographical error. DOE is seeking comment 
from interested parties on the proposals.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposal no later than April 14, 2023. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.
    DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, March 22, 
2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
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 this 
process, see section V of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a 
public meeting is held), comments, and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section V for information on how to submit comments through 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain the previously 
approved incorporation by reference of the testing methods contained in 
the following commercial standards into 10 CFR part 431:
    ISO 1217:2009(E), ``Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests,'' 
July 1, 2009, sections 2, 3, and 4; sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9; 
paragraphs 6.2(g), and 6.2(h) including Table 1; Annex C (excluding 
C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1, and C.4.5). ISO 1217:2009/
Amd.1:2016(E), Displacement compressors--Acceptance tests (Fourth 
edition); Amendment 1: ``Calculation of isentropic efficiency and 
relationship with specific energy,'' April 15, 2016, sections 3.5.1 and 
3.6.1; sections H.2 and H.3 of Annex H.

[[Page 9200]]

    Copies of ISO 1217:2009(E) and of ISO 1217:2009/Amendment 1:2016(E) 
may be purchased from ISO at Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 
Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland +41 22 749 01 11, or by going to 
www.iso.org.
    See section IV.M of this document for additional information about 
ISO 1217:2009(E) and ISO 1217:2009/Amendment 1:2016(E).

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Scope of Applicability
    1. Reciprocating Compressors
    2. Centrifugal Compressors
    3. Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower
    4. Lubricant-Free Compressors
    5. Compressors With Brushed Motors
    6. Medium-Voltage Compressors
    7. Compressors With Output Pressure Less Than 75 psig
    B. Industry Standards
    1. ISO 1217 as the Basis for This Test Procedure
    2. Ambient Temperature Range Requirement
    C. Definitions
    1. General
    2. Multi-Element Air Compressors
    3. Air Compressor Package
    D. Test Method
    1. K6 Correction Factor
    2. Correction of Pressure Ratio at Full-Load Operating Pressure 
Formula
    E. Representations of Energy Efficiency or Energy Use
    1. Operating Costs
    F. Reporting
    G. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
    1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
    2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
    H. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    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. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\1\ added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Under EPCA, DOE may 
include a type of industrial equipment, including compressors, as 
covered equipment if it determines that doing so is necessary to carry 
out the purposes of Part A-1. (42 U.S.C. 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 to 
conserve the energy resources of the Nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)). On 
November 15, 2016, DOE published a final rule, which determined that 
coverage for compressors is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part 
A-1 of Title III of EPCA. 81 FR 79991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test 
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 
U.S.C. 6296).
    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable 
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about 
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE 
must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment 
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297). DOE may, 
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws 
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions 
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297)
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 
annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate 
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including 
compressors, to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
    In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure 
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish a proposed test 
procedure in the Federal Register and afford interested persons an 
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and 
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedure. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not 
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
    DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in 
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

B. Background

    DOE's existing test procedure for compressors appears at Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

[[Page 9201]]

431, subpart T, appendix A (``Uniform Test Method for Certain Air 
Compressors'').
    As stated, DOE published a final rule on November 15, 2016, in 
which DOE determined that coverage of compressors is necessary to carry 
out the purposes of Part A-1 of Title III of EPCA. 81 FR 79991. DOE's 
test procedure for determining compressor energy efficiency of certain 
varieties of compressors was established in a final rule published on 
January 4, 2017 (hereafter, the ``January 2017 Final Rule''). 82 FR 
1052.
    On May 17, 2019, DOE published a notice of petition for rulemaking 
and request for comment regarding the test procedure for compressors in 
response to a petition from Atlas Copco North America (``Atlas 
Copco''). 84 FR 22395. Atlas Copco's petition was received on April 17, 
2019 and requested that DOE amend the compressors test procedure to 
specify that manufacturers could satisfy the test procedure 
requirements by using the industry test method for rotary air 
compressor energy efficiency, ISO 1217:2009. In the notice of petition 
for rulemaking, DOE sought comment regarding the petition as to whether 
to proceed with the petition, but took no position at the time 
regarding the merits of the suggested rulemaking or the assertions made 
by Atlas Copco. 84 FR 22395.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Associated documents are available in the rulemaking docket 
at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-PET-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2020, DOE published a final rule for energy 
conservation standards for air compressors (hereafter, the ``January 
2020 ECS Final Rule''). 85 FR 1504. Compliance with the energy 
conservation standards established in the January 2020 ECS Final Rule 
is required for compressors manufactured starting on January 10, 2025. 
10 CFR 431.345.
    On May 6, 2022, DOE issued a Request for Information (``RFI'') for 
a test procedure for compressors to consider whether to amend DOE's 
test procedure for compressors (hereafter, the ``May 2022 RFI''). 87 FR 
27025. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE 
identified certain issues associated with the currently applicable test 
procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. On June 6, 
2022, DOE granted a 14-day extension to the public comment period, 
allowing comments to be submitted until June 20, 2022. 87 FR 34220.
    In general, representations of compressor performance must be in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). However, 
DOE guidance (issued Dec. 6, 2017; revised Jun. 8, 2018) stated that it 
would discretionarily not enforce this requirement until compliance 
with a standard is required or a labeling requirement is established. 
On May 2, 2022, DOE announced that it was suspending the enforcement 
policy regarding the test procedure for air compressors and removed the 
policy from the DOE enforcement website.
    Following retraction of the enforcement policy and to aid 
manufacturers in understanding DOE's regulatory requirements regarding 
the test procedure and forthcoming energy conservation standards, DOE 
held a ``Compressors Regulations 101'' webinar on May 24, 2022. The 
webinar reviewed testing, rating, certification, and compliance 
responsibilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The slide material presented during the webinar has been 
published on DOE's website: www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/compressors-101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received comments in response to the May 2022 RFI from the 
interested parties listed in Table I.1.

             Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2022 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Reference in this   Comment No. in
           Commenter(s)                     NOPR            the docket                Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saylor-Beall Air Compressors......  Saylor-Beall........               2  Manufacturer.
Compressed Air & Gas Institute....  CAGI................           3, 11  Trade Association.
Jenny Products Inc................  Jenny Products......               4  Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,   CA IOU's............           5, 14  Utility Companies.
 San Diego Gas and Electric,
 Southern California Edison.
Northwest Energy Efficiency         NEEA................           5, 16  Efficiency Organization.
 Alliance.
CASTAIR Inc.......................  CASTAIR.............               6  Manufacturer.
The People's Republic of China....  People's Republic of               8  Foreign Government.
                                     China.
Compressed Air Systems............  Compressed Air                    10  Manufacturer.
                                     Systems.
Appliance Standard Awareness        ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC,                12  Efficiency Organizations.
 Project, American Council for an    and NYSERDA.
 Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
 Resources Defense Council, and
 New York State Energy Research
 and Development Authority.
Ingersoll Rand....................  Ingersoll Rand......              13  Manufacturer.
Northwest Power and Conservation    NPCC................              16  Efficiency Organization.
 Council.
Kaeser Compressors................  Kaeser Compressors..              17  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
test procedures for compressors. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-TP-0019, 
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov.) The references are 
arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page 
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend subpart T of title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431), which contains 
definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test 
procedure for determining the energy efficiency of certain varieties of 
compressors as follows:
    1. Revise the formula for pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure currently in 10 CFR part 431, subpart T to correct a 
typographical error, and
    2. Modify the current definition of ``air compressor'' to clarify 
that compressors with more than one compression element are still 
within the scope of this test procedure, and to revise the 
typographical error of ``compressor element'' to ``compression 
elements.''
    DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the 
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.

[[Page 9202]]



          Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Current DOE test procedure             Proposed test procedure                   Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure ratio at full-load operating     Correct the pressure ratio at    Error Correction.
 pressure formula in 10 CFR part 431,      full-load operating pressure
 subpart T contains an error, as the       formula in 10 CFR part 431,
 wrong formula is presented.               subpart T.
Air Compressor Definition: A compressor   Air Compressor Definition: A     Clarification.
 designed to compress air that has an      compressor designed to
 inlet open to the atmosphere or other     compress air that has an inlet
 source of air, and is made up of a        open to the atmosphere or
 compression element (bare compressor),    other source of air, and is
 driver(s), mechanical equipment to        made up of one or more
 drive the compressor element, and any     compression elements (bare
 ancillary equipment.                      compressors), driver(s),
                                           mechanical equipment to drive
                                           the compression elements, and
                                           any ancillary equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments 
described in section III of this NOPR would more accurately or fully 
comply with the requirements that test procedures be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which reflect energy use during a 
representative average use cycle and are not unduly burdensome to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE has also tentatively determined 
that these proposed amendments, if made final, would not alter the 
measured efficiency of compressors, require retesting or 
recertification, or alter the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE's 
proposed actions and discussion of additional topics raised in or in 
response to the May 2022 RFI are included in section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

    In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its 
test procedure for compressors. For each proposed amendment, DOE 
provides relevant background information, explains why the amendment 
merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments, and proposes 
a potential approach.

A. Scope of Applicability

    DOE's test procedure applies to a compressor that meets all of the 
following criteria: is an air compressor; is a rotary compressor; is 
not a liquid ring compressor; is driven by a brushless electric motor; 
is a lubricated compressor; has a full-load operating pressure of 75-
200 psig; is not designed and tested to the requirements of the 
American Petroleum Institute Standard 619; has full-load actual volume 
flow rate greater than or equal to 35 cubic feet per minute (cfm), or 
is distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower 
greater than or equal to 10 horsepower (hp); and has a full-load actual 
volume flow rate less than or equal to 1,250 cfm, or is distributed in 
commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower less than or equal 
to 200 hp. 10 CFR 431.344.
    DOE received comments both supporting and opposing scope changes. 
CAGI, supported by Kaeser Compressors, stated that the current scope is 
adequate and supported maintaining the current scope of the Test 
Procedure. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1) 
Ingersoll Rand commented that no changes or developments in the 
industry or to usage patterns of air compressors would warrant changing 
the scope, and recommended that the current scope be re-affirmed. 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at p. 1) ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, on the 
other hand, encouraged DOE to consider expanding the scope of the test 
procedure to include additional air compressor types. (ASAP, ACEEE, 
NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 1)
    As discussed in more detail in the following sections, DOE is not 
proposing changes to the scope of test procedures as there is 
uncertainty around whether the test procedure would produce 
representative results for these additional compressor types. OE may 
consider test procedure scope expansion, including related comments 
discussed in this NOPR, in a future test procedure rulemaking.
    DOE responds to specific scope expansion topics in sections III.A.1 
through III.A.7 of this NOPR.
1. Reciprocating Compressors
    As stated in section III.A of this document, the current test 
procedure for compressors applies to rotary compressors (and therefore 
does not apply to reciprocating compressors). 10 CFR 431.344. In 
response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received comments regarding the 
continued exclusion of reciprocating air compressors from the scope of 
the test procedure pertaining to compressors.
    Several parties commented in support of maintaining the test 
procedure scope with respect to reciprocating compressors. Saylor-Beall 
stated that reciprocating air compressors should remain out of scope 
and should not be tested using the current test procedure because 
operating a reciprocating compressor at full load increases its heat 
above what would be expected in normal intermittent use, causing 
reduced air flow, leading to potentially understated efficiency 
measurements in normal operation, which could lead to erroneous 
judgements. (Saylor-Beall, No. 2 at p. 1-2) Jenny Products commented 
that reciprocating compressors will require a completely different set 
of test criteria and procedures, are inherently different from rotary 
compressors, and that any attempt to apply isentropic efficiency 
standards to reciprocating compressors will result in highly inaccurate 
results. (Jenny Products, No. 4 at p. 1-2) CASTAIR commented that it 
would not make sense to apply an efficiency test using a continuous 
duty cycle when most reciprocating compressors are meant for 
intermittent duty. CASTAIR also mentioned that requiring reciprocating 
compressors to use the current DOE test procedure would inevitably 
force customers into machines that do not accurately fit their 
applications, resulting in an overall efficiency decrease. (CASTAIR, 
No. 6 at p. 1-2) Compressed Air Systems commented that that there is no 
industry support for applying the current DOE test procedure to 
reciprocating air compressors, and that this test procedure is not 
appropriate nor effective for evaluating reciprocating air compressors. 
(Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at p. 5)
    Conversely, NEEA and NPCC commented that reciprocating air 
compressors should be included in the scope of this test procedure 
rulemaking. NEEA and NPCC stated that the ISO 1217:2009 standard 
includes both rotary and reciprocating compressors, and by not 
including reciprocating compressors, DOE is overlooking an opportunity 
to gather data on the most common compressor type. NEEA and NPCC also 
mentioned that there is

[[Page 9203]]

notable energy savings potential in regulating reciprocating air 
compressors. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 16 at p. 2-3)
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the test 
procedure to include reciprocating compressors. DOE will continue 
reviewing potential test procedures for reciprocating compressors, 
including existing test methods, and may consider expanding the scope 
of the test procedure to include these compressors in a future test 
procedure rulemaking.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include 
reciprocating compressors within the scope of test procedure 
applicability.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
2. Centrifugal Compressors
    As stated in section III.A of this document, the current test 
procedure for compressors applies to rotary compressors (and therefore 
does not apply to centrifugal air compressors). 10 CFR 431.344. In 
response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received comments regarding 
centrifugal compressors.
    In a joint comment, ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA encouraged DOE 
to consider expanding the scope of the test procedure to include 
centrifugal compressors, because such inclusion would ensure that 
purchasers have access to consistent information about compressor 
efficiency. (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 1-2) The CA 
IOU's also encouraged DOE to evaluate expanding the scope of the test 
procedure to cover centrifugal air compressors, and to evaluate their 
suitability when incorporated into the uniform test method. (CA IOU's, 
No. 14 at p. 6-7)
    The CA IOU's encouraged DOE to evaluate expanding the scope of the 
test procedure to cover centrifugal air compressors, and to evaluate 
their suitability when incorporated into the uniform test method. (CA 
IOU's, No. 14 at p. 6-7).
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the test 
procedure to include centrifugal compressors. DOE continues to review 
and consider potential test methods for centrifugal compressors and may 
consider developing test procedures for centrifugal compressors as part 
of a future rulemaking process.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal not to include centrifugal 
compressors within the scope of test procedure applicability.
    DOE seeks comment regarding whether other dynamic compressor 
varieties than centrifugal compete with the air compressor categories 
discussed in this NOPR.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
3. Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower
    As stated in section III.A of this document, the current test 
procedure for compressors applies to compressors that have a full-load 
operating pressure of between 75 to 200 psig (inclusive) and either (1) 
a full-load actual volume flow rate of between 35 cfm and 1,250 cfm 
(inclusive) or (2) compressor motor nominal horsepower of between 10 hp 
and 200 hp. 10 CFR 431.344.
    Because compressor full-load actual volume flow rate scales 
(approximately) linearly with compressor motor nominal horsepower and 
(approximately) inversely with full-load operating pressure, the 
compressor motor nominal horsepower at which the upper flow-based limit 
of 1,250 cfm would be reached is a function of output pressure. 
Specifically, 1,250 cfm would include all of the applicable compressor 
market within the scope of the compressors test procedure at all but 
the lower end of the pressure-based range (i.e., 75 psig).
    ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA also stated that DOE should consider 
expanding the scope of the test procedure to include compressors 
greater than 200 HP, because this additional category represents a 
significant portion of the market (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 
12 at p. 1-2). The CA IOU's also encouraged DOE to evaluate expanding 
the scope of the Test Procedure to cover rotary lubricated models up to 
500 HP. They presented a table mentioning that the range of 201 hp to 
500 hp contributes to 25 percent of total air compressor energy 
consumption (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 6-7).
    Because of the direct mathematical relationship between the three 
values in question (i.e., output pressure, output flow, motor power), 
changing one would likely require changing at least one other. Although 
not explicitly stated, DOE interprets the comments supporting a change 
in the motor-based capacity scope threshold to also be implicitly 
supporting a corresponding adjustment to either the flow- or pressure-
based capacity limits.
    In the January 2017 Final Rule, DOE stated that the 
representations, sampling, and enforcement provisions required by the 
test procedure may cause significant burden for compressors greater 
than 200 hp, as many of the larger horsepower models are custom or 
infrequently built and typically not available for testing. 82 FR 1052, 
1061. Additionally, DOE stated that the proposed inclusion of larger 
(greater than 200 hp) rotary compressors could create a competitive 
disadvantage for manufacturers of these compressors, as centrifugal, 
reciprocating, and scroll compressors of the same horsepower do not 
have the same testing and representation requirements. 82 FR 1052, 
1061-1062. DOE concluded that this competitive advantage could 
incentivize users to switch from a regulated (rotary) to an unregulated 
(centrifugal and reciprocating) compressor, thus creating an unfair and 
undue burden on certain manufacturers. 82 FR 1052, 1062. Finally, DOE 
concluded that the burden of testing certain larger compressors 
outweighs the benefits. 82 FR 1052, 1062.
    DOE has tentatively determined that the same burden concerns as 
discussed in the January 2017 Final Rule would continue to exist for 
the current compressor market. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any 
changes to the current horsepower range of 10 to 200 hp for the 
existing test procedure.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to not 
include compressors with a horsepower rating above 200 hp within the 
scope of test procedure applicability.
    See section V.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
4. Lubricant-Free Compressors
    As stated in section III.A of this document, the current test 
procedure for compressors applies to lubricated compressors (and 
therefore does not apply to lubricant-free compressors). 10 CFR 
431.344. In response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received comments 
regarding lubricant-free compressors.
    ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA encouraged DOE to consider expanding 
the scope of the test procedure to include lubricant-free compressors, 
citing that these compressors represent a significant portion of the 
market. (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 1-2)
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the test 
procedure to include lubricant-free compressors. DOE discussed 
lubricant-free compressors in both the January 2017 Final Rule (82 FR 
1052 at 1063) and the January 2020 ECS Final Rule (85 FR 1504 at 1519-
1520), concluding that justification did not exist at the time to 
support extending the scope of either test procedures or energy 
conservation standards to apply to lubricant-free compressors. DOE has 
tentatively determined that the conclusion made in

[[Page 9204]]

the 2017 and 2020 final rules still applies for lubricant-free 
compressors. DOE may evaluate the justification for developing test 
procedures for lubricant-free compressors as part of a future 
rulemaking process.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include lubricant-
free compressors within the scope of test procedure applicability.
    See section V.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
5. Compressors With Brushed Motors
    As stated in section III.A, the current test procedure for 
compressors applies only to compressors with brushless motors. 10 CFR 
431.344. In response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received comments 
regarding compressors with brushed motors.
    ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA encourage DOE to consider expanding 
the scope of the test procedure to include compressors with brushed 
motors, citing that these compressors represent a significant portion 
of the market (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 1-2).
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the test 
procedure to include compressors with brushed motors. DOE discussed 
compressors with brushed motors in both the January 2017 Final Rule (82 
FR 1052 at 1060) and the January 2020 ECS Final Rule (85 FR 1504 at 
1515), concluding that justification did not exist at the time to 
support extending the scope of either test procedures or energy 
conservation standards to apply to compressors with brushed motors. DOE 
has tentatively determined that the conclusion made in the 2017 and 
2020 final rules still applies for compressors with brushed motors. DOE 
may evaluate the justification for developing test procedures for 
compressors with brushed motors as part of a future rulemaking process.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include compressors 
with brushed motors within the scope of test procedure applicability.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
6. Medium-Voltage Compressors
    As stated in section III.A, the current test procedure for 
compressors does not restrict applicability by electrical input power 
voltage. 10 CFR 431.344. In response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received 
comments regarding medium-voltage compressors.
    The CA IOU's encouraged DOE to evaluate the current exemption for 
medium-voltage compressors based on electrical input power load 
profiles for air compressors ranging in size from 300 to 600 HP that 
they present. The CA IOUs stated that, in the context of the comment, 
``medium-voltage'' refers to input voltages greater than 1,000 and that 
the specific data upon which their comment is based contains medium-
voltage compressors of input voltage range 2,300-4,160. (CA IOU's, No. 
14 at p. 4) They commented that, if medium-voltage compressors were 
included, their presented electrical input power load distribution 
would be more uniform. The CA IOUs stated that, if medium-voltage 
compressors were rated, load-unload behavior would be significant for 
understanding the product operation in some specific installations, 
while full-load would be suitable for others. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 
5) The CA IOU's encouraged DOE to evaluate expanding the scope of the 
test procedure to cover rotary lubricated models up to 500 HP, and to 
evaluate their suitability when incorporated into the uniform test 
method. The CA IOUs presented a table illustrating that the compressors 
of motor power in the range of 201-500 HP account for 25 percent of 
total air compressor energy consumption (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 6-7).
    The current test procedure scope of applicability is not limited by 
voltage. 10 CFR 431.344. DOE recognizes the potential correlation 
between motor input voltage and motor output power, and may consider 
the two factors jointly if weighing the consequences of expanding the 
scope of test procedure applicability by compressors nominal motor 
horsepower.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
7. Compressors With Output Pressure Less Than 75 psig
    As stated in section III.A, the current test procedure for 
compressors applies only to rotary compressors, a category which 
excludes all varieties of dynamic compressors, of which centrifugal 
compressors are a member. 10 CFR 431.344. In response to the May 2022 
RFI, DOE received comments regarding centrifugal blowers and equipment 
of output pressure of less than 75 psig, which would generally include 
what are commonly referred to as centrifugal blowers.
    The CA IOU's encouraged DOE to develop test procedures for 
centrifugal blowers and positive-displacement equipment, and to 
consider air applications for pressures under 75 psig (CA IOU's, No. 14 
at p. 8).
    At this time, DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the test 
procedure to include compressors with output pressure of less than 75 
psig. DOE discussed compressors with output pressure of less than 75 
psig in both the January 2017 Final Rule (82 FR 1052 at 1062-1063) and 
the January 2020 ECS Final Rule (85 FR 1504 at 1519), concluding that 
justification did not exist at the time to support extending the scope 
of either test procedures or energy conservation standards to apply to 
compressors with output pressure of less than 75 psig. DOE has 
tentatively determined that the conclusion made in the 2017 and 2020 
final rules still applies for compressors with output pressure of less 
than 75 psig. DOE may evaluate the justification for developing test 
procedures for compressors with output pressure of less than 75 psig as 
part of a future rulemaking process.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include equipment 
for compressed air applications for pressures under 75 psig within the 
scope of test procedure applicability.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.

B. Industry Standards

1. ISO 1217 as the Basis for This Test Procedure
    DOE's current test procedure incorporates by reference certain 
sections of ISO 1217:2009 for test methods and acceptance tests 
regarding volume rate of flow and power requirements of displacement 
compressors, in addition to the operating and testing conditions which 
apply when a full performance test is specified.
    DOE received comments supporting the continued use of ISO 1217 as 
the basis for the DOE air compressor test procedure. CAGI, supported by 
Kaeser Compressors, commented that they support maintaining ISO 1217 as 
the basis for the compressor test procedure, since this standard has 
been used by industry for decades and is a proven means of accurately 
measuring positive displacement compressor performance. (CAGI, No. 11 
at p. 3; Kaeser Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1) Similarly, Ingersoll Rand 
commented that they are satisfied with continuing to use ISO 1217:2009 
and ISO 1217 Amendment 1:2016 as the basis of the compressors test 
procedure. They stated that there is no current work to revise ISO 1217 
and it remains current as the adopted national standard in the United 
States. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at p. 2)

[[Page 9205]]

    DOE tentatively agrees with the comments received and is not 
proposing any amendments to the existing reference to ISO 1217:2009(E) 
as amended through Amendment 1:2016 as the basis for the compressors 
test procedure.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to continue 
to use ISO 1217:2009(E) as amended through Amendment 1:2016 as the 
basis for the compressors test procedure.
    See section V.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
2. Ambient Temperature Range Requirement
    DOE adopted the ambient temperature range for testing of 68 to 90 
[deg]F in the January 2017 Final Rule partially in response to concern 
that creating a climate-controlled space for testing compressors could 
be a significant burden on small businesses. DOE stated that this 
temperature range provides representative measurements without unduly 
burdening manufacturers. 82 FR 1052, 1079, 1080. DOE received a comment 
about re-defining the range of ambient temperatures for measured 
isentropic efficiency values. The People's Republic of China commented 
that ISO 1217:2009 does not specify a specific ambient temperature 
range for testing, but only the ambient temperature tolerance (2K). The People's Republic of China stated that the wide range of 
ambient temperature specified by the standard inevitably leads to a 
wider range of fluctuations in test results. The People's Republic of 
China proposed that DOE re-define the range of tolerances for measured 
energy efficiency values to avoid obstacles to trade. (People's 
Republic of China, No. 8 at p. 3)
    The energy efficiency metric for compressors, package isentropic 
efficiency, expresses tested compressor power consumption as a ratio 
and relative to that of an ideal isentropic compression at a given load 
point. ISO 1217:2009/Amd.1:2016(E) includes a derivation of an 
expression for isentropic power, which is incorporated by reference at 
10 CFR 431.343(b)(2). The resulting expression, labeled (H.6) is a 
function of inlet pressure, discharge pressure, and volume flow rate, 
but not inlet temperature, indicating invariance. This invariance alone 
does not establish that a real compressor under test would be similarly 
insensitive to temperature. However, it does illustrate that the 
compression process, itself, does not inherently depend on inlet 
temperature. Additionally, ISO 1217:2009, which is the industry 
accepted test method, does not specify a required ambient temperature 
range for testing.
    DOE received comments related to inlet (or ambient) temperature in 
the January 2017 Final Rule, which are discussed therein. 82 FR 1052, 
1080. In that discussion, DOE notes that no commenters provided data 
characterizing the effect of inlet temperature on measured compressor 
performance. Similarly, the People's Republic of China has not provided 
such data. DOE has not obtained such data from other sources. As a 
result, DOE is not able to evaluate the magnitude of the effect of 
inlet temperature on measured compressor performance and weigh the 
potential challenges of narrowing the permitted temperature range 
against the corresponding improvement in test procedure repeatability. 
Consequently, DOE is not proposing to amend the current ambient 
temperature range requirement of 68 to 90 [deg]F for testing air 
compressors in this NOPR.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to maintain the current 
ambient temperature range requirement of 68-90 [deg]F for testing air 
compressors.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to continue to use the 
tolerances for measured energy efficiency values specified in ISO 
1217:2009(E).
    See section V.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

C. Definitions

1. General
    DOE defines terms in 10 CFR 431.342 that identify and describe 
various varieties of compressors and their components, various values 
that would be measured when conducting the test procedure, and general 
compressor terminology.
    In response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received multiple comments 
supporting the current definitions. CAGI, supported by Kaeser 
Compressors, commented in support of keeping the current definitions as 
they are, saying that they sufficiently identify the scope equipment 
and need no further clarification. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 2; Kaeser 
Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1) Ingersoll Rand commented that the current 
definitions related to the scope of the test procedure are sufficient 
and do not need to be changed. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at p. 1)
    DOE has initially determined that the existing definitions in 10 
CFR 431.342 are appropriate for applying the test procedure for air 
compressors and is not proposing to amend the existing definitions, 
except for the definition of ``air compressor'' as discussed in the 
following section.
2. Multi-Element Air Compressors
    Air compressors may include multiple compression elements to 
increase compression efficiency or to generate a greater pressure 
increase than would be possible with a single compression element. The 
current definition of ``air compressor'' specifies inclusion of a 
compression element, but does not exclude air compressors that include 
more than one compression element.
    DOE discussed the current definition of ``air compressor'' as 
applying to multi-element air compressors in both the January 2017 
Final Rule (82 FR 1052, 1068) and in the January 2020 ECS Final Rule, 
in which multi-staging was identified as a technology option for 
improving the energy efficiency of compressors. 85 FR 1504, 1537.
    In response to the May 2022 RFI, DOE received one comment 
recommending changes to the definition of ``air compressor.'' 
Specifically, the People's Republic of China recommended revising the 
definition of ``air compressor'' to a compressor designed to compress 
air that has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air, 
and is made up of one or more compression elements (bare compressors), 
driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element, and 
any ancillary equipment. (People's Republic of China, No. 8 at p. 3). 
In other words, the People's Republic of China recommends making 
explicit that compressors with more than one compression element would 
meet the definition of ``air compressor''.
    DOE tentatively concurs with the People's Republic of China that 
revising the definition of ``air compressor'' to explicitly include air 
compressors with more than one compression element would reduce the 
probability that the definition is misinterpreted to exclude air 
compressors with more than one compression element. The current 
formulation of the definition of air compressor does not exclude air 
compressors with more than one compression element; nonetheless, 
stating expressly that multi-element compressors meet the definition of 
``air compressor'' limits the potential for misinterpretation. 
Accordingly, DOE proposes to amend the definition of ``air compressor'' 
such that ``compression element (bare compressor)'' is replaced by 
``one or more compression elements (bare compressors).''
    DOE additionally identified a typographical error in the definition 
of ``air compressor.'' Specifically, the

[[Page 9206]]

current definition of ``air compressor'' includes ``compressor 
element'' where it should instead have referred to ``compression 
element.'' This can be logically inferred by examining other uses of 
``compression element'' in the regulations. For example, the term 
``rotor'', which is a particular variety of compression element, is 
defined at 10 CFR 431.342 as a compression element that rotates 
continually in a single direction about a single shaft or axis.
    Accordingly, to correct a typographical error in the definition of 
``air compressor,'' DOE proposes to substitute ``compression element'' 
for ``compressor element'' therein.
    The complete definition of ``air compressor'' as proposed in this 
NOPR is ``a compressor designed to compress air that has an inlet open 
to the atmosphere or other source of air, and is made up of one or more 
compression elements (bare compressors), driver(s), mechanical 
equipment to drive the compression elements, and any ancillary 
equipment.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposed amendment of the 
definition of ``air compressor.''
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
3. Air Compressor Package
    A compressor package may include a variety of components which 
provide differing functions as required by a specific application. In 
response to the May 2022 RFI, Compressed Air Systems commented that the 
elements of an air compressor package are not defined, leaving the test 
procedure unusable. In addition, Compressed Air Systems stated that 
there is no measure to gauge the differences between different air 
compressor package designs, and there is confusion on how DOE will 
measure package efficiency with components aside from the compressor 
pump and electric motor. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at p. 2, 4) 
Compressed Air Systems also commented that it is not clear how the test 
procedure would factor in different drivers that can be used to 
compress air, as well as what types of drivers are included in the 
scope of the test procedure NOPR (Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at p. 
2, 3). Compressed Air Systems states that the test procedure is 
unusable because elements of an air compressor package are not defined. 
Conversely, Ingersoll Rand, and CAGI, supported by Kaeser Compressors 
all stated that the existing definitions language is sufficiently 
clear, as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document.
    In response to Compressed Air Systems' statement, Table 1 and Table 
2 of appendix A to subpart T of part 431 respectively list equipment 
required during test (in any case) and equipment required during test 
if the equipment is distributed in commerce with the basic model. The 
elements of each list are components of an air compressor package, 
which DOE assumes to be sufficiently clear absent specific description 
of an ambiguity. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing a definition of 
``air compressor package'' in this NOPR.
    With regards to Compressed Air System's concerns about there being 
confusion on how DOE will measure package efficiency with components 
aside from the compressor pump and the electric motor, DOE's metric is 
package isentropic efficiency, which characterizes the ratio of the 
ideal isentropic power required for compression to the actual packaged 
compressor power input used for the same compression process. Table 1 
of appendix A to subpart T of part 431 lists the equipment that must be 
present and installed for all tests. Similarly, Table 2 of appendix A 
to subpart T of part 431, lists equipment required during testing if 
distributed in commerce with the basic model. DOE has initially 
concluded that these metrics continue to provide a representative 
measurement of the energy performance of a rated compressor under an 
average cycle of use.
    Finally, regarding the Compressed Air Systems comment pertaining to 
different drivers that can be used to compress air, DOE has considered 
different drivers for air compressors, such as engine-driven 
compressors, and has concluded that they would be more appropriately 
addressed as part of a separate rulemaking specifically considering 
such equipment. As a result, DOE is not proposing to update the scope 
of this compressors test procedure NOPR to include different types of 
drivers for air compressors. Only compressors driven by brushless 
electric motors, as stated in the scope of applicability of the current 
test procedure, will be subject to the air compressors test procedure.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to continue 
to limit the scope of applicability of this test procedure to 
compressors driven by brushless electric motors.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.

D. Test Method

1. K6 Correction Factor
    The K6 correction factor in ISO 1217:2009 is the 
correction factor for the isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) 
of air (see section 4.1 of ISO 1217:2009). DOE received comments about 
potentially needing to use the K6 correction factor in 
certain situations. CAGI, supported by Kaeser Compressors, commented 
that if testing is conducted at sites significantly above sea level, 
DOE may need to use a K6 correction factor that was omitted 
from the test procedure to obtain accurate results. They also commented 
that the measurements taken as a result of the DOE test procedure, and 
ISO 1217, are the most accurate data that can be obtained practically, 
as the use of onsite flowmeters or similar equipment without 
standardized methodologies does not provide a consistent, accurate 
means of determining performance or energy use. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 2; 
Kaeser Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1).
    DOE deliberately omitted the K6 correction factor during 
the January 2017 Final Rule. As listed in the footnotes of the January 
2017 Final Rule, the isentropic exponent of air has some limited 
variability with atmospheric conditions, and DOE adopted a fixed value 
of 1.400 to align with the EU Lot 31 draft standard's metric 
calculations.\5\ 82 FR 1052, 1084. As such, DOE is not proposing to 
amend the current fixed value of 1.400 for isentropic exponent in this 
test procedure NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The referenced draft standard was published to the January 
2020 ECS Final Rule's rulemaking docket and is available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to continue 
to use a fixed value of 1.400 for the isentropic exponent, as opposed 
to incorporating a K6 correction factor.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
2. Correction of Pressure Ratio at Full-Load Operating Pressure Formula
    Section II.F of appendix A to subpart T of part 431 specifies a 
formula for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure. The formula 
for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure is used to classify 
whether a machine or apparatus qualifies as a compressor, as the 
definition of ``compressor'' stated in 10 CFR 431.342 states that the 
machine or apparatus must have a pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure greater than 1.3. Pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure does not factor directly into the

[[Page 9207]]

measured values of compressor performance. CAGI, supported by Kaeser 
Compressors, commented that there is an apparent error in the formula 
for pressure ratio. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 2, 4; Kaeser Compressors, No. 
17 at p. 1).
    DOE concurs with the commenters that the current formula is an 
error, as it both does not match the discussion in the preamble of the 
January 2017 Final Rule and does not contain terms related to the 
calculation of pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure.
    The current formula for pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure inadvertently duplicates a formula used in a calculation 
related to determining a represented value of performance for a 
compressor basic model from a tested sample of units. Specifically, the 
current formula of pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure 
exactly matches the formula for the lower 95 percent confidence limit 
(LCL) of the true test mean divided by 0.95.
    As a result, in this test procedure NOPR, DOE is proposing to 
change the formula for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure 
in section II.F of appendix A to subpart T of part 431 to rectify this 
error and reflect the proper pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure equation that will be utilized in the test procedure.
    Because the erroneous text did not include the accompanying 
variables (PR, P1 and PFL), it is unlikely that 
it would have been misinterpreted as the formula for pressure ratio at 
full-load operating pressure during the testing of compressors. In the 
January 2017 Final Rule, DOE adopted this revised method for measuring 
pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure to remove dependence on 
atmospheric pressure. This method uses a standard atmospheric pressure, 
100 kPa, and uses the full-load operating pressure declared for the 
compressor. As a result, this method creates results that are 
independent of the atmospheric pressure at which testing is performed. 
82 FR 1085. The correct calculation for pressure ratio at full-load 
operating pressure is shown below in equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE23.002


Where:

PR = pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure;
P1 = 100 kPa; and
PFL = full-load operating pressure, determined in section 
III.C.4 of appendix A to subpart T of part 431 (Pa gauge).

    This change is proposed exclusively to fix a typographical error 
and has no effect on the scope of compressors subject to the test 
procedure, or the calculated values of isentropic efficiency.
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to correct the equation 
for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure to amend a previous 
typographical error.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.

E. Representations of Energy Efficiency or Energy Use

    DOE received a number of comments regarding the representative 
average use cycle applied in the current air compressor test procedure. 
Compressed Air Systems commented saying that the current test procedure 
does not represent the average use cycle of an air compressor, and the 
results of the test procedure are not reflective of the actual industry 
application of air compressors. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at p. 
1, 3-4) It elaborated that the DOE test procedure results obtained from 
average use are inconsistent with the reality of air compressor usage, 
because all air compressors do not run at 100 percent duty cycle. In 
addition, Compressed Air Systems commented that the usage of fixed 
speed and variable speed compressors is impossible to determine. For 
variable speed compressors, Compressed Air Systems stated that the 
compressor may meet the DOE energy conservation standards when tested 
at 100 percent load but yield a much different result when tested 
reduced output. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at p. 4) The CA IOU's 
recommended that DOE alter the current 100 percent duty testing cycle 
to an intermittent duty cycle that more accurately represents how 
certain air compressors are used. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 7-8) ASAP, 
ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA also encouraged DOE to explore testing air 
compressors at the fully unloaded state as well as fully loaded, since 
this would be more representative of typical usage. (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, 
and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 3)
    DOE also received comments in support of keeping the existing test 
procedure requirements. CAGI, supported by Kaeser Compressors, 
commented in support of maintaining the current requirements, as there 
is no single average use cycle that could simulate all of the varied 
compressor applications and industries. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 3; Kaeser 
Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1) Ingersoll Rand commented saying that it is 
impossible to accurately represent typical energy use in service with a 
single usage pattern. Ingersoll Rand stated that ISO 1217 Annex C/E 
provides a valid, practical, and repeatable approach in steady state 
conditions, and defining steady state conditions with metrics is the 
only way to accomplish this. Ingersoll Rand commented that although the 
current metric does not mimic a particular operating cycle, it does 
provide a consistent and repeatable method that can be used by 
manufacturers and regulators. Ingersoll Rand supported the current test 
procedure, establishing energy efficiency testing requirements for 
fixed speed machines at full-load operating pressure and full-load 
volume flow rate, and variable-speed machines using a blended metric of 
efficiencies determined at 40, 70, and 100 percent of full-load volume 
flow rate and full-load operating pressure. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at 
p. 2)
    As commenters have noted, operating patterns in service vary 
considerably, by not only application and industry but also by site, by 
unit, and over time. But that is the case for many products and 
equipment covered by DOE's energy conservation standards. And DOE is 
not tasked with creating test procedures that measure energy efficiency 
for every possible application or pattern of use. Instead, DOE is 
tasked with developing a test procedure that is, among other things, 
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy 
efficiency or use during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) To that end, the current energy efficiency metric for 
compressors is designed to be representative of compressor operating 
patterns at-large. The CA IOUs' comment includes reference to load 
factor data measured from in-service compressors, which the CA IOUs 
state suitably aligns with the current metric for variable-speed 
compressors (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 2)

[[Page 9208]]

    Analogous data for fixed-speed compressors depicts most operation 
close to 100 percent of full-output, which corresponds to DOE's test 
metric for fixed-speed compressors. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 3) The CA 
IOUs observe that the fixed-speed load factor distribution is bimodal 
with a second, smaller peak occurring at 40 percent of full-load, and 
note that this may correspond to unloaded (i.e., supplying no 
compressed air to the application). Because the fixed-speed load factor 
shows operation close to 100 percent of full output as the most common 
usage, DOE has determined that the existing test metric that reflects 
this operation, rather than 40 percent of full load, is appropriate.
    Additionally, the CA IOUs comment cites an estimate by Natural 
Resources Canada that unloaded operation consumes approximately 15-35 
percent of full-load operating power. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 3) 
Integrating that estimate with the observed apparent unloaded peak 
value of 40 percent cited by the CA IOUs produces an estimate of 
aggregate unloaded energy consumption fraction of 6-14 percent, a 
minority of the total and, thus, correspondingly less representative of 
fixed-speed compressor operation than the current requirement to test 
fixed-speed compressors at full load.
    By contrast and as stated, comments by CAGI supported by Kaeser 
Compressors, and Ingersoll Rand express skepticism of the potential to 
improve the representativeness of the current metrics in view of the 
diversity of compressor operating patterns and support retaining the 
current metrics unmodified. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 3; Kaeser Compressors, 
No. 17 at p. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at p. 2)
    Based on available data, DOE has initially determined that 
modifying either the variable- or fixed-speed metrics would not 
significantly improve representativeness as compared to the existing 
metric. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to alter the current metric 
for compressors.
    Regarding the CA IOU's suggestion of altering the current 100 
percent duty testing cycle to an intermittent duty cycle, DOE 
reiterates the two different package isentropic efficiency metrics 
depending on equipment configuration: (1) Full-load package isentropic 
efficiency for certain fixed-speed compressors, and (2) part-load 
package isentropic efficiency for certain variable-speed compressors. 
In this NOPR, DOE tentatively concludes that these metrics provide a 
representative measurement of the energy performance of the rated 
compressor under an average cycle of use, as required by EPCA, and 
accurately represent how fixed-speed and variable-speed air compressors 
are used when considering the practicality and repeatability of the 
requirements of the test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As a result, 
DOE is not proposing to alter the current duty testing cycle to an 
intermittent duty cycle in this test procedure NOPR.
    Regarding ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA's recommendation of 
testing at the fully-unloaded state, while DOE agrees that information 
describing unloaded states of operation could be useful to the end 
user, their recommendation represents testing and reporting that is not 
essential to the output of the test procedure. Requiring such testing 
and reporting would represent an incremental burden beyond what DOE is 
proposing in this test procedure NOPR. To minimize undue incremental 
burden of this test procedure NOPR, as required by EPCA, DOE is not 
proposing mandatory testing or reporting of no-load power at this time. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    DOE also received comments regarding the current test procedure 
requirements and the accuracy of their resultant measurements. 
Compressed Air Systems commented asking how DOE will provide accurate 
load data to establish a proper baseline. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 
10 at p. 6) Alternatively, CAGI, supported by Kaeser Compressors, 
commented in support of the current test procedure requirements, saying 
that the test procedure accurately measures energy use, and that the 
measurements taken as a result of these requirements are the most 
accurate data that can be obtained practically. (CAGI, No. 11 at p. 2; 
Kaeser Compressors, No. 17 at p. 1) Similarly, Ingersoll Rand commented 
that the current test methods in the test procedure are the industry 
standard to produce accurate measurements of energy use and efficiency, 
and that they support the current test procedure requirements and 
recommend that they be reaffirmed. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 13 at p. 2)
    The existing DOE test procedure is intended to produce results 
equivalent to those produced historically under ISO 1217:2009(E), as 
amended. For any future energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
would consider the results of this test procedure, as amended through 
this rulemaking, to establish a proper baseline. Given the other 
industry support for the current test procedure requirements, DOE is 
not proposing to amend the general test procedure requirements in this 
NOPR, except for the specific proposed amendments as discussed.
    Additionally, DOE received comments regarding the loading states at 
which compressors should be tested. ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA 
jointly commented encouraging DOE to consider requiring fixed speed 
compressors with variable air flow controls to be tested at part-load. 
They stated that this would make it easier to compare part-load 
efficiency between fixed and variable speed compressors and would allow 
buyers to have more data to select the best compressor for their 
application. (ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and NYSERDA, No. 12 at p. 3)
    To assess a part-load package isentropic efficiency metric for 
fixed-speed variable airflow compressors, DOE reviewed the scope and 
applicability of relevant, comparable testing and rating programs, 
namely, the CAGI Performance Verification Program and the EU Lot 31 
draft standard for compressors.\5\ The CAGI Performance Verification 
Program separates rotary compressors into only two groupings: (1) 
``rotary compressors,'' and (2) ``rotary variable frequency drive 
compressors.'' The former rates compressors at only full-load operating 
pressure, while the latter allows for multiple ratings at reduced 
flows. However, as indicated by the name of the latter grouping, it 
encompasses only compressors driven by variable-frequency drives. 
Consequently, fixed-speed variable airflow compressors are considered 
``rotary compressors'' by the CAGI Performance Verification Program and 
are rated at only full-load operating pressure. Similar to the CAGI 
program, the EU Lot 31 draft standard considers a fixed-speed variable 
airflow compressor to be a fixed-speed rotary standard air compressor, 
which is rated at only full-load operating pressure. Considering the 
precedent established by CAGI and the EU, the lack of a verified test 
method, and the lack of verified historical performance data, DOE 
concludes that it is not warranted to establish part-load package 
isentropic efficiency as the rating metric for non-speed-varying 
variable airflow compressors at this time. Consequently, in this NOPR, 
DOE tentatively reaffirms that full-load package isentropic efficiency 
applies to fixed-speed compressors, and part-load package isentropic 
efficiency applies to variable-speed compressors.
    Finally, DOE received a comment regarding the number of test points 
for variable frequency drive (VFD)-equipped air compressors. In their 
comment, the CA IOU's provided a load distribution for in-scope VFD-
controlled air compressor equipment, showing that it is generally lower 
in load factor

[[Page 9209]]

relative to out-of-scope VFD-controlled compressors, and stated that 
VFD-equipped air compressors would benefit from additional load points 
(CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 2). The CA IOU's also recommended that DOE 
consider including overload test points since loads above a 1.0 load 
factor are observed in the dataset. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 3-4) The CA 
IOUs also state that the current test procedure's measurement points 
are sufficiently representative for in-scope compressors.
    DOE concurs with the CA IOUs characterization of the current test 
points as being sufficiently representative for in-scope compressors. 
As discussed in section III.A, DOE is proposing not to expand the scope 
of the compressors test procedure in this NOPR. Accordingly, adding 
load points for variable-speed compressors would increase testing 
burden without significantly improving the representativeness of the 
test procedure. As such, DOE is not proposing to revise the required 
test load points for variable-speed compressors in this NOPR. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to maintain the number of 
test points for VFD-equipped air compressors, and to not include 
overload test points above a 1.0 load factor.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.
1. Operating Costs
    Compressed Air Systems commented that compressor operating costs 
and associated emissions were incorrectly calculated due to having been 
based on a 100% duty cycle, or a compressor that operates continuously 
at maximum output until the end of its life. (Compressed Air Systems, 
No. 10 at p. 4) Compressed Air Systems states that this is not an 
accurate representation of actual compressor operating patterns.
    DOE concurs with Compressed Air System that compressors vary widely 
in operating patterns and duty cycle. However, that the test procedure 
measures performance of fixed-speed compressors at full-load does not 
require a corresponding assumption in the analysis supporting DOE's 
January 2020 ECS Final Rule that compressors may only ever be operated 
that way. Table IV.15 of the January 2020 ECS Final Rule presents 
average annual hours of operating as a function of compressor capacity, 
which range from a minimum of 3,385 (for the lowest-capacity 
compressors) to a maximum of 4,248 (for the highest-capacity 
compressors). 85 FR 1504, 1550. Those figures equate to respective 
annualized duty cycles of 39 percent and 48 percent, and are used as 
inputs into subsequent operating cost calculations used in the analysis 
of the January 2020 ECS Final Rule. Accordingly, DOE is proposing not 
to revise the requirement to measure the performance of fixed-speed 
compressors at full load, or more specifically, full-load actual volume 
flow rate at full-load operating pressure, as described in paragraph 
C.1 of appendix A to subpart T of part 431.
    DOE seeks comment regarding if the test procedure reflects actual 
operating costs for compressors based on their realistic average use 
cycles.
    See section V.E of this document for a list of issues on which DOE 
seeks comment.

F. Reporting

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For compressors, 
the certification template reflects the general certification 
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific 
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.63. As discussed in the previous 
paragraphs, DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific 
certification requirements for these products.
    DOE received a comment regarding the availability of compressor 
rating data. The CA IOU's commented encouraging DOE to ensure that 
unloaded air compressor rating data is loaded into the DOE Compliance 
Certification Management System database so that the data is accessible 
to end users. (CA IOU's, No. 14 at p. 3-4) As discussed in section 
III.E of this NOPR, DOE is not proposing any mandatory testing of no-
load power. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to require reporting of 
such metrics. Manufacturers may choose to voluntarily measure and 
provide no-load power as part of their model literature.

G. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
    EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The following sections 
discuss DOE's evaluation of estimated costs associated with the 
proposed amendments.
    DOE received comments regarding the overall financial impact of 
this test procedure NOPR on domestic manufacturers. Compressed Air 
Systems commented wondering how DOE will remove the significant effects 
that will place an undue burden on small domestic manufacturers, and 
how DOE will protect small manufacturers from substantial financial 
impacts due to this test procedure. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 10 at 
p. 3) Also, Compressed Air Systems stated that the current testing 
method has provided a competitive advantage to large U.S. companies, as 
well as foreign air compressor manufacturers, and has placed an undue 
burden on small U.S. air compressor manufacturers. (Compressed Air 
Systems, No. 10 at p. 4) Compressed Air Systems also stated that there 
is only 1 lab in the United States that can perform the DOE test 
method, and it would take 155 days to test and provide the results, 
noting that the test procedure is unduly burdensome. (Compressed Air 
Systems, No. 10 at p. 4)
    Though not addressing burden per se, CAGI noted in its comment that 
the ISO 1217 standard has been used within the compressor industry for 
decades, predating the January 2017 Final Rule, and is a proven means 
of accurately measuring positive-displacement compressor performance. 
(CAGI, No. 11 at p. 3)
    That ISO 1217 was widely used by industry prior to incorporation by 
reference by DOE as part of its own test procedure rulemaking calls 
into question the difficulty of implementing it, since the industry can 
be presumed unlikely to create and voluntarily use a procedure that was 
unduly burdensome. Although Compressed Air Systems states that only a 
single laboratory is capable of conducting the DOE test procedure, it 
is unclear whether that reflects inherent difficulty in conducting it 
or a relative absence of demand for third-party testing. Also, 
Compressed Air Systems does not address whether any manufacturers, 
themselves, are capable of testing compressors.
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to: (1) update the formula for pressure 
ratio at full-load operating pressure currently presented in 10 CFR 
part 431, subpart T to rectify a previous error and (2) modify the 
current definition of ``air compressor'' to clarify that compressors 
with more than one compression element are still within the scope of 
this test procedure, and to revise the typographical error of 
``compressor element'' to ``compression elements.''
    DOE does not anticipate any added test burden from this change, nor 
does it anticipate any associated costs with this proposed amendment. 
Additionally, the only thing manufacturers would need to do

[[Page 9210]]

differently based on this proposed change is use the corrected formula 
for the determination of pressure ratio at full-load operating 
pressure, which will be updated and provided by DOE in appendix A to 
subpart T of part 431.
    DOE has initially determined that this proposed amendment would not 
impact the representations of energy efficiency/energy use for 
compressors. Based on the initial determination manufacturers would be 
able to rely on data generated under the current test procedure should 
the proposed amendments be finalized. As a result, retesting of 
compressors would not be required solely as a result of DOE's adoption 
of the proposed amendments to the test procedure.
    DOE has concluded that the test procedure and associated 
representation requirements established in this test procedure NOPR are 
not unduly burdensome, as: (1) the test method follows accepted 
industry practice, and (2) no models would need to be retested in order 
to continue to make representations. DOE notes that impact to each 
manufacturer will be different, and manufacturers may petition DOE for 
an extension of the 180-day representations requirement, for up to an 
additional 180 days, if manufacturers feel it represents an undue 
hardship. (42 U.S.C. 6314 (d)(2)) However, as any representations are 
voluntary prior to the compliance date of any energy conservations 
standards for compressors, there is no direct burden associated with 
any of the testing requirements established in this NOPR.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
    DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards 
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly 
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect 
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or 
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative 
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 8(c) of appendix A of 10 CFR 
part 430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet 
EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures DOE will make modifications 
through the rulemaking process to these standards as the DOE test 
procedure.
    The test procedure for compressors at appendix A to subpart T of 
part 431 is based on, and incorporates by reference, much of ISO 
Standard 1217:2009(E), (ISO 1217:2009(E)), ``Displacement compressors--
Acceptance tests,'' as amended through Amendment 1:2016. DOE does not 
propose to incorporate any new industry standards by reference via 
amendment in this NOPR. The industry standards DOE has incorporated by 
reference for the test procedure for compressors are located in 10 CFR 
431.343.
    DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed 
updates to the test procedure for compressors.

H. Compliance Date

    EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all 
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those 
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in 
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after 
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1).
    If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure EPCA provides an 
allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension 
of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship 
in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2). To receive such an 
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days 
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the 
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), 
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or 
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least 
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, 
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, 
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); 
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than 
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities 
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to 
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage 
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or 
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action 
is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under 
E.O. 12866.

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 (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will 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 (August 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. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE 
reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003.
    For manufacturers of compressors, the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those entities 
classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE 
used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any 
small entities would be

[[Page 9211]]

subject to the requirements of the rule. 13 CFR part 121. The size 
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Compressor 
manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333912, ``air and gas 
compressor manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees 
or less for an entity to be considered as a small business in this 
category. This employment figure is enterprise-wide, encompassing 
employees at all parent, subsidiary, and sister corporations.
    To identify and estimate the number of small business manufacturers 
of equipment within the scope of this proposed 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 websites, and 
market research tools (e.g., Hoovers reports) to create a list of 
companies that manufacture equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE 
additionally reviewed publicly-available data, data available through 
market research tools, 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 equipment within the scope of this proposed rulemaking, do not 
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and 
operated.
    DOE identified a total of 12 domestic small businesses 
manufacturing compressors. However, as previously stated, the 
amendments proposed in this NOPR revise certain definitions and 
formulas to ensure the clarity and accuracy of existing requirements 
and procedures. DOE has determined that the proposed test procedure 
amendments would not impact testing costs otherwise experienced by 
manufacturers.
    Therefore, DOE initially concludes that the impacts of the proposed 
test procedure amendments would not have a ``significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that the 
preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will 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).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of compressors must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To 
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their 
products according to the DOE test procedure, including any amendments 
adopted for the test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including compressors. (See 
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement 
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and 
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This 
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to 
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    The amendments adopted in this final rule do not impact the 
certification and reporting requirements for compressors.
    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 NOPR, 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 
proposed 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, DOE has determined that adopting a test 
procedure for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and 
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR 
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 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 (Aug. 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 will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. 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 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 review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to

[[Page 9212]]

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. Public Law 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; also available 
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. 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 modifications to the test procedure for compressors 
would incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the 
following commercial standards: ISO 1217:2009(E), as amended through 
ISO 1217:2009(E)/Amd.1:2016. While this test procedure is not 
exclusively based on this industry testing standard, some components of 
the DOE test procedure adopt definitions, test parameters, measurement 
techniques, and additional calculations from them without amendment. 
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it 
fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA 
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review.) In the January 2017 Final 
Rule, DOE consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of 
the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained 
in these standards and received no comments objecting to their use. 82 
FR 1099.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    The following standards were previously approved for incorporation

[[Page 9213]]

by reference in subpart T, appendix A, and no change is being proposed:
    1. ISO 1217:2009(E), ``Displacement compressors--Acceptance 
tests,'' July 1, 2009, sections 2, 3, and 4; sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 
5.6, 5.9; paragraphs 6.2(g), and 6.2(h) including Table 1; Annex C 
(excluding C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1, and C.4.5).
    2. ISO 1217:2009/Amd.1:2016(E), Displacement compressors--
Acceptance tests (Fourth edition); Amendment 1: ``Calculation of 
isentropic efficiency and relationship with specific energy,'' April 
15, 2016, sections 3.5.1 and 3.6.1; sections H.2 and H.3 of Annex H.

V. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=6&action=viewlive. 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 an interest in the topics addressed in this 
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons 
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to 
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this proposed rulemaking and the topics 
they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime 
telephone number where they can be reached.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/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 webinar/public meeting. There shall not be 
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, 
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 
the webinar/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 webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this 
proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this proposed 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. 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 proposed 
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/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 webinar/public meeting.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this proposed rule. 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.\6\ Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for 
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended 
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and 
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United 
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30, 
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect, 
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA 
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the 
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for 
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the 
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment 
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a 
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.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 itself 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. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.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 www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.

[[Page 9214]]

    DOE processes submissions made through www.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 www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.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 in 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 postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``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 that are 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. Pursuant 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 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. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may 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 on 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 seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include 
reciprocating compressors within the scope of test procedure 
applicability.
    (2) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal not to include 
centrifugal compressors within the scope of test procedure 
applicability.
    (3) DOE seeks comment regarding whether other dynamic compressor 
varieties than centrifugal compete with the air compressor categories 
discussed in this NOPR.
    (4) DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to not 
include compressors with a horsepower rating above 200 hp within the 
scope of test procedure applicability.
    (5) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include 
lubricant-free compressors within the scope of test procedure 
applicability.
    (6) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include 
compressors with brushed motors within the scope of test procedure 
applicability.
    (7) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to not include 
equipment for compressed air applications for pressures under 75 psig 
within the scope of test procedure applicability.
    (8) DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to 
continue to use ISO 1217:2009(E) as amended through Amendment 1:2016 as 
the basis for the compressors test procedure.
    (9) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to maintain the 
current ambient temperature range requirement of 68-90 [deg]F for 
testing air compressors.
    (10) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to continue to use 
the tolerances for measured energy efficiency values specified in ISO 
1217:2009(E).
    (11) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposed amendment of the 
definition of ``air compressor.''
    (12) DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to 
continue to limit the scope of applicability of this test procedure to 
compressors driven by brushless electric motors.
    (13) DOE seeks comment regarding its initial determination to 
continue to use a fixed value of 1.400 for the isentropic exponent, as 
opposed to incorporating a K6 correction factor.
    (14) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to correct the 
equation for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure to amend a 
previous typographical error.
    (15) DOE seeks comment regarding its proposal to maintain the 
number of test points for VFD-equipped air compressors, and to not 
include overload test points above a 1.0 load factor.
    (16) DOE seeks comment regarding if the test procedure reflects 
actual operating costs for compressors based on their realistic average 
use cycles.
    (17) DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the 
proposed updates to the test procedure for compressors.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 2, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.


[[Page 9215]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
part 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 
forth below:

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

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 431.342 is amended by revising the definition of ``Air 
compressor'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.342  Definitions concerning compressors.

* * * * *
    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 one or more compression elements (bare compressors), driver(s), 
mechanical equipment to drive the compression elements, and any 
ancillary equipment.
* * * * *
0
3. Appendix A to subpart T of part 431 is amended by revising section 
II.F. to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
II. * * *
F. Determination of Pressure Ratio at Full-Load Operating Pressure

    Pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure, as defined in 
Sec.  431.342, is calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE23.003

Where:

PR = pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure;
P1 = 100 kPa; and
PFL = full-load operating pressure, determined in section 
III.C.4 of this appendix (Pa gauge).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-02589 Filed 2-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P