[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