Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors, 27219-27260 [2016-10170]

Download as PDF Vol. 81 Thursday, No. 87 May 5, 2016 Part II Department of Energy mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors; Proposed Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27220 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0054] RIN 1904–AD43 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting. AGENCY: In this document, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to prescribe new definitions, sampling provisions, and test procedures for compressors in a new subpart of DOE regulations. The proposed test procedure would provide instructions for determining the full-load package isentropic efficiency for certain fixedspeed compressors and the part-load package isentropic efficiency for certain variable-speed compressors based on test methods described in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 1217:2009, ‘‘Displacement compressors—Acceptance tests,’’ (ISO 1217:2009). This document also proposes certain modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 to increase the specificity of certain testing methods and improve the repeatability of tested and measured values. In this notice, DOE also announces a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on issues presented in this notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than July 5, 2016. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on Monday, June 20, 2016 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. For more information, refer to section V, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 ‘‘Public Participation,’’ near the end of this document. Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for test procedures for compressors, and provide docket number EERE–2014– BT–TP–0054 and/or regulation identifier number (RIN) 1904–AD43. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Email: AirCompressors 2014TP0054@ee.doe.gov Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation). Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/appliance_standards/ product.aspx/productid/87. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this proposed rule on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information about how to submit comments through regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: compressors@ee.doe.gov. Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference into part 431 the testing methods contained in certain applicable sections of the following industry standard: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 1217:2009, ‘‘Displacement compressors— Acceptance tests,’’ sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C. This material is available from the International Organization for Standardization, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, www.iso.org. +41 22 749 01 11. It is also available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Suite 600, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to https://energy.gov/eere/ buildings/appliance-and-equipmentstandards-program. See section IV.M for additional information on this standard. Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Authority B. Background II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Discussion A. Definition of Covered Equipment B. Scope of Applicability of the Test Procedure 1. Summary of Scope of Applicability 2. Equipment System Boundary and Application a. Equipment System Boundary b. Application c. Definition of Air Compressor d. Definition of Air Compressor Components 3. Compression Principle 4. Styles of Drivers E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules a. Electric Motor- and Engine-Driven Compressors b. Styles of Electric Motor 5. Compressor Capacity (Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower) 6. Output Pressure Range C. Energy-Related Metrics 1. Specific Input Power and Isentropic Efficiency 2. Selected Metric: Package Isentropic Efficiency 3. Load Points and Weighting Factors for Calculating Full-Load and Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency 4. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency 5. Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency D. Test Method 1. Referenced Industry Test Method 2. Modifications, Additions, and Exclusions to ISO 1217:2009 a. Sections Not Included in DOE’s Incorporation by Reference b. Terminology c. Testing Conditions d. Equipment Configuration e. Data Collection and Sampling f. Allowable Deviations From Specified Load Points g. Calculations and Rounding h. Measurement Equipment i. Determination of Maximum Full-Flow Operating Pressure, Full-Load Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate E. Definition of Basic Model F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency G. Sampling Plans for Tested Data and AEDMs 1. Statistical Sampling Plan 2. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods a. Background b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must Satisfy c. Validation d. Records Retention Requirements e. Additional AEDM Requirements 3. Enforcement Provisions IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Small Business Determination a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities b. Air Compressor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition 2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Compressor Test Procedure C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 V. Public Participation A. Attendance at Public Meeting B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of Public Meeting D. Submission of Comments E. Issues About Which DOE Seeks Comment VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background Compressors are included in the list of ‘‘industrial equipment’’ that DOE may determine to include as ‘‘covered equipment,’’ and thus establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(L), 6311(2)(A)–(B), 6312(b)). Specifically, DOE issued a Proposed Determination of Coverage (2012 Proposed Determination) that proposed to establish compressors as covered equipment. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012). However, DOE has not yet exercised this authority and thus no Federal energy conservation standards or test procedures for compressors are currently in place. In this document, DOE proposes to establish test procedures for compressors. The following sections discuss DOE’s authority to establish test procedures for compressors and relevant background information regarding DOE’s consideration of test procedures for this equipment. A. Authority Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.1 Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was codified as Part A–1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), establishes the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. Under EPCA, DOE may include a type of industrial equipment, including compressors, as covered equipment if it determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A–1. (42 U.S. 6311(1)(L), 6311(2)(B)(i), and 6312(b)). The purpose of Part A–1 is to improve the efficiency of electric motors and pumps and certain other industrial equipment in order to conserve the energy resources of the Nation. (42 U.S.C 6312(a)) In DOE’s 2012 Proposed Determination, DOE proposed to determine that because (1) DOE may only prescribe energy conservation standards for covered equipment; and 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11 (Apr. 30, 2015). PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27221 (2) energy conservation standards for compressors would improve the efficiency of such equipment more than would be likely to occur in the absence of standards, including compressors as covered equipment is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A–1. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012). Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Specifically, subject to certain criteria and conditions, EPCA requires DOE to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each type of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure: (1) As the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)) and (2) when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with any relevant standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)) There are currently no DOE test procedures or energy conservation standards for compressors. However, DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for certain categories of compressors. (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0040) DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of such equipment, prior to establishing energy conservation standards for such equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) and 6316(a). EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Among other things, EPCA requires that test procedures must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary of Energy), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Furthermore, DOE is required to publish the proposed test procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days’ duration) to E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27222 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) Consistent with EPCA requirements, DOE proposes to prescribe a test procedure for certain categories of compressors to be used with its ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040). The test procedure, if adopted, would include the methods necessary to: (1) Measure certain performance parameters of the compressor (i.e., inlet and discharge pressures, flow rate, and packaged compressor power input); and (2) use the measured results to calculate the package isentropic efficiency 2 of the compressor, inclusive of all compressorpackage components. DOE proposes specific test procedures and metrics for fixed-speed versus variable-speed compressors: Full-load efficiency for fixed-speed compressors and a part-load efficiency for variable-speed compressors. DOE also proposes to establish the categories of compressors to which the proposed test method would apply. If DOE adopts an applicable test procedure, manufacturers would be required to use the adopted test procedure and performance metrics when making representations regarding the energy consumption of covered equipment beginning 180 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) (see section III.F). B. Background Consistent with DOE’s authority under EPCA, as discussed in section I.A, DOE issued the 2012 Proposed Determination that proposed to establish compressors as covered equipment. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012). Subsequently, in February 2014, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document to initiate an energy conservation standard rulemaking for compressors. 79 FR 6839 (Feb. 5, 2014). In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback from interested parties on multiple issues, including the definition of compressor, characteristics of different compressor categories, and how to test compressor efficiency. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the Framework Document on April 1, 2014, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Framework public meeting.’’ DOE received 15 2 Package isentropic efficiency is defined as the ratio of power required for an ideal isentropic compression process to the actual packaged compressor power input used at a given load point, as determined in accordance with the methods described in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 comments in response to the Framework Document. After the comment period, DOE held interviews with several interested parties to help gather additional information necessary to complete the regulatory analyses that were described in the Framework Document. Those recommendations received from interested parties in both comments on the Framework Document and during the Framework public meeting, as well as feedback provided during the preliminary manufacturer interviews, that are pertinent to the test procedure and performance metric are addressed in this NOPR and reflected in DOE’s proposed compressor test procedure. II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a new subpart T to 10 CFR part 431 that would contain, among other things, definitions and a test procedure applicable to compressors. However, DOE proposes to establish test procedures for only a specific subset of compressors. Specifically, this proposed test procedure would apply only to a subset of rotary and reciprocating compressors, as defined in section III.B of this NOPR. DOE intends this proposed test procedure to apply to the same equipment for which DOE is considering adopting energy conservation standards (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0054). However, DOE notes that the scope of any energy conservation standards would be established in that rulemaking. This proposed test procedure prescribes methods for measuring and calculating the energy performance of certain rotary and reciprocating compressors, inclusive of all compressor package components.3 DOE also proposes to describe the energy performance of certain rotary and reciprocating compressors using package isentropic efficiency. The package isentropic efficiency describes the ratio of the ideal isentropic power required for compression to the actual packaged compressor power input used for the same compression process. DOE proposes to use full-load package isentropic efficiency as the metric for rating certain fixed-speed compressors (hisen,FL) and part-load package isentropic efficiency as the metric for rating certain variable-speed compressors (hisen,PL). DOE believes 3 As discussed further in section III.B.2.c, DOE proposes to define air compressors as a ‘‘packaged compressor,’’ inclusive of a compression element (‘‘bare compressor’’), driver(s), and mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 these metrics would provide a representative measurement of the energy performance of the rated compressor under an average cycle of use. DOE’s proposed test method includes measurements of the inlet and discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and packaged compressor power input, as well as calculations of the theoretical power necessary for compression—all of which are required to calculate full- or part-load package isentropic efficiency. For reproducible and uniform measurement of these values, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test methods established in certain applicable sections of ISO Standard 1217:2009, ‘‘Displacement compressors—Acceptance tests,’’ sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C; along with certain modifications and additions, as noted in section III.D.2. Members of the compressor industry developed ISO 1217:2009, which contains methods for determining inlet and discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and packaged compressor power input for electrically driven packaged displacement compressors. DOE has reviewed the relevant sections of ISO 1217:2009 and has determined that ISO 1217:2009, in conjunction with the additional referenced test methods and calculations proposed in this test procedure (see sections III.D.2 and III.C, respectively), would produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of a compressor during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE has also reviewed the burdens associated with conducting the proposed test procedure, including ISO 1217:2009 and, based on the results of such analysis, has found that the proposed test procedure would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE’s analysis of the burdens associated with the proposed test procedure is presented in section IV.B. DOE also proposes to establish, in subpart B of part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requirements regarding the sampling plan for testing and allowable representations for certain rotary and reciprocating compressors. The proposed sampling plan requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial and industrial equipment (e.g., pumps) and are appropriate for compressors based on the expected range of measurement E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27223 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this equipment (see section III.G). DOE also proposes provisions regarding the representations of energy consumption, energy efficiency, and other relevant metrics manufacturers may make in their manufacturer literature (see section III.F). Any representations of the energy efficiency or energy use of compressors to which an adopted test procedure applies must be made based on the adopted compressor test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication date of any test procedure final rule establishing such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) III. Discussion In this NOPR, DOE proposes to place a new compressor test procedure and related definitions into a new subpart T of part 431, add new sampling plans for this equipment in a new section 429.61 of 10 CFR part 429, add a new alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for this equipment in 10 CFR 429.70, and add new enforcement provisions for compressors in 10 CFR 429.110 and 134. The proposed subpart T would contain definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure applicable to certain classes and configurations of compressors established as a result of this rulemaking, as shown in Table III.1. DOE would also incorporate in subpart T any energy conservation standards for compressors resulting from the concurrent energy conservation standard rulemaking. (See Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040) TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS IN THIS NOPR, THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE APPLICABLE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION Applicable Preamble Discussion Location Proposal Summary of Additions 10 CFR 429.61 .. Sampling Plan ............ 10 CFR 429.110 Enforcement Provisions. Purpose and Scope ... Definitions .................. Incorporation by Reference. Test Procedure .......... Minimum number of compressors to be tested to rate a compressor basic model. Method for determining compliance of basic models ..................................... 10 CFR 431.341 10 CFR 431.342 10 CFR 431.343 10 CFR 431.344 Scope of the proposed compressor regulations ............................................ Definitions pertinent to categorizing and testing of compressors .................. Description of industry standards incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure and related definitions. Instructions for determining the package isentropic efficiency for applicable categories of compressors. Section III.G Section III.G.3 Section III.B Section III.B.2 Section III.D Sections III.C and III.D * Note: DOE also proposes minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2 and 429.70; to apply the general definitions to the equipment-specific provisions proposed for compressors at 10 CFR 429.61 and propose AEDM requirements for compressors, respectively. The following sections discuss DOE’s proposals regarding establishing new testing and sampling requirements for compressors, including A) definition of covered equipment, B) scope of applicability of the test procedure, C) energy-related metrics, D) test method, E) definition of basic model, F) representations of energy use and energy efficiency, and G) sampling plans for testing and AEDMs. These sections also present any pertinent comments DOE received in response to the February 2014 Framework Document, as well as DOE’s responses to those comments. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Definition of Covered Equipment Although a compressor is listed as a type of industrial equipment in EPCA, the term is not defined. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(i)) In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback on a definition for the term ‘‘compressor,’’ taken from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Report 12942:2012, ‘‘Compressors—Classification— Complementary information to ISO 5390,’’ (‘‘ISO/TR 12942:2012’’). (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 3). Specifically, ISO Technical Report 12942:2012 defines compressor as a machine or apparatus converting VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 different types of energy into the potential energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of gaseous media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure with pressure-increase ratios exceeding 1.1. In response to the provided definition, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supported the use of the ISO/TR 12942:2012 definition. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs), the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), and a joint comment submitted by the American Council for an EnergyEfficiency Economy (ACEEE), the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (APSP), the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and the Alliance to Save Energy (ASE) (hereafter referred to as the Joint Commenters) recommended establishing the pressure ratio that defines compressors to align with the maximum ratio that will eventually be proposed for the DOE’s energy conservation standards rulemaking for fans and blowers (‘‘Fans and Blowers Rule,’’ Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– STD–0006, EEI, No. 0012 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 0019 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 0040 at p. 23; CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 2; SCGC, No. 0018 at p. 2; and Joint Comment, PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 No. 0016 at p. 1) The Compressed Air and Gas Institute (CAGI) commented that the pressure ratio was too low and suggested using a ratio of 2.5. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1; CAGI, No. 0040 at p.2) DOE agrees with the recommendations from interested parties suggesting alignment of the pressure ratio used to define compressors with any maximum pressure ratio adopted for fans and blowers. That is, DOE believes that, in order to ensure comprehensive and equitable coverage of equipment (i.e., prevent gaps in coverage and double coverage by two rules) it is critical that the maximum pressure ratio applicable to fans and blowers be mutually exclusive with the minimum pressure ratio proposed to define compressors. Although DOE intends to align the maximum pressure ratio for fans and blowers with the minimum pressure ratio for compressors, DOE notes that the Fans and Blowers Rules are currently in progress and that DOE has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for either a test procedure or energy conservation standards. As a result, DOE has not yet offered any formal proposals for a limiting maximum pressure ratio for fans and blowers. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27224 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules However, DOE discussed the use of pressure ratio limits in the Framework Document for its Fans and Blowers Rule. Specifically, DOE discussed a definition for the term ‘‘blower,’’ as ‘‘an axial or centrifugal fan with a ‘‘specific ratio,4 ’’ between 1.11 and 1.20’’ (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0001 at p. 9). DOE received comments in response to its discussion of specific ratio limits in the Fans and Blowers Rule Framework Document. Specifically, Ingersoll-Rand supported use of an upper limit of 25 kJ/kg for equipment being considered as a part of the Fans and Blowers Rule (Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0006–0153 at p. 6). DOE notes that ISO 13349:2010 5 also defines fans based on a maximum energy limit of 25 kJ/kg of air and indicates that 25 kJ/kg is equivalent to a specific ratio of 1.3. The CA IOUs, in response to the Fans and Blowers Framework Document, commented that they were aware of the ongoing compressors rulemaking, and that the respective pressure ratio limits of each rule should be aligned in order to prevent gaps in coverage (‘‘Fans and Blowers Rule,’’ Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006– 0011 at p. 3). Additionally, DOE notes that, following the completion of the Framework comment period, an ASRAC Working Group was established to negotiate proposed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359 (Apr. 1, 2015). Ultimately this Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015, with a supportive vote on several recommendations (‘‘a term sheet’’) for DOE regarding the testing and regulation this equipment. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006, No. 179) Although the Working Group’s term sheet did not explicitly include an upper limit on pressure ratio, the working group did discuss, and come to ‘‘general agreement’’ on a ‘‘maximum fan energy limit of 25 kJ/kg’’ (approximately 1.3 pressure ratio) as the appropriate cutoff to distinguish between fans and compressors. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006; Public Meeting, No. 84 at p. 11). As discussed previously, DOE agrees with the recommendations from NRDC, NEEA, CA IOUs, SCGC and the Joint Commenters, suggesting alignment of the pressure ratio used to define compressors with any maximum 4 Specific ratio is defined in ISO 13349:2010 as the total pressure at the outlet of the fan over the total inlet pressure. This term is synonymous to pressure ratio, as discussed in this document. 5 ISO 13349:2010 Fans—Vocabulary and definitions of categories. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 pressure ratio adopted for fans and blowers. Consequently, DOE proposes to incorporate into its definition of a compressor, a pressure ratio limit of greater than 1.3. DOE believes that, based on the most recent Fans and Blowers Rule public information (discussed above), a pressure ratio limit of 1.3 is the most appropriate cutoff to distinguish between fans and compressors, and this cutoff limit meets the intent of definitional alignment between the Fans and Blowers Rule and this rulemaking. DOE notes that it is proposing to limit the definition of a compressor using pressure ratio, rather than fan energy (in kJ/kg), as fan energy is not a commonly used parameter in the compressor industry and DOE is unaware of any compressor industry test standards that specify the calculation of such a parameter. Alternatively, pressure ratio is a commonly used, and well understood, parameter in the compressor industry, and is easily derived from test methods contained in common industry standards, such as ISO 1217:2009. In addition to the lower pressure ratio limit of ‘‘greater than 1.3’’, DOE proposes to base the remainder of its compressor definition on the ISO 12942:2012 definition of a compressor; which was discussed in the Compressors Framework Document and supported in previously discussed comments submitted by EEI. Ultimately, DOE proposes to define a compressor as a machine or apparatus that converts different types of energy into the potential energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of gaseous media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure and has a pressure ratio 6 greater than 1.3. DOE notes that proposing a pressure ratio of greater than 1.3, DOE intends to align the minimum pressure ratio for compressors to the maximum ratio proposed in the fans and blowers rule and create a continuous spectrum of coverage between the two equipment types. However, as discussed previously, the fans and blowers rulemaking is still in progress, and the limit of 25 kJ/kg (approximately a 1.3 pressure ratio) discussed during Working Group negotiations has not been proposed by DOE and is subject to change. As such, DOE reiterates that the 6 DOE proposes to use terminology consistent with ISO 1217:2009 in describing the ratio of discharge to inlet pressures as ‘‘pressure ratio,’’ as opposed to ‘‘pressure-increase ratio,’’ which is the term used in some other industry documents. However, for the purpose of this document ‘‘pressure-increase ratio’’ and ‘‘pressure ratio’’ are synonymous. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 primary intent of proposing a pressure ratio greater than 1.3 is to align with the fans and blowers rule and creates a continuous spectrum of coverage between the two equipment types. If the fans and blowers rulemaking ultimately proposes and adopts an upper limit other than 25 kJ/kg, DOE may alter the pressure ratio threshold of greater than 1.3 referenced in the compressor definition, in order to achieve the original intent of this proposal, either through this rulemaking, the fan and blowers rulemaking, or other subsequent rulemakings. In order to objectively and unambiguously determine whether equipment meets the definition of compressor, DOE also proposes to define the term ‘‘pressure ratio.’’ DOE proposes to define pressure ratio as the ratio of discharge pressure to inlet pressure, as determined at full-load operating pressure. This definition allows DOE to establish quantitatively which equipment meet the pressure ratio requirement proposed in the definition of compressor. This definition of pressure ratio relies on the terms discharge pressure and inlet pressure. Definitions and methods to calculate the discharge pressure and inlet pressure are established in ISO 1217:2009, certain sections of which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference (see section III.D). DOE also notes that in this NOPR DOE proposes methods to identify full-load operating pressure; such methods are discussed further in section III.D.2.i. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for compressor and pressure ratio, as well as the definitions referenced in ISO 1217:2009. DOE requests comment on the proposed lower limit of pressure ratio for compressors of ‘‘greater than 1.3.’’ B. Scope of Applicability of the Test Procedure 1. Summary of Scope of Applicability DOE notes that while the definition of compressor, as proposed in section III.A, is broad, the categories of compressors to which the proposed test procedure applies would be limited to a more narrow range of equipment. Specifically, after consideration of feedback from interested parties, as well as DOE research, DOE proposes to limit the applicability of this test procedure to compressors that meet the following criteria: • Are air compressors, as defined in section III.B.2; • Are rotary or reciprocating compressors, as defined in section III.B.3; E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules • Are driven by a brushless electric motor, as defined in section III.B.4; • Are distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 horsepower (hp) as defined in section III.B.5; and • Operate at a full-load operating pressure of greater than or equal to 31 and less than or equal to 225 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), as defined in section III.B.6. In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to limit the applicability of the test procedure to compressor equipment being analyzed in the energy conservation standard. However, DOE notes that the broad definition of compressor provides DOE with flexibility to consider establishing test procedures and energy conservation standards for compressors outside the scope of this test procedure in the future. 2. Equipment System Boundary and Application mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 a. Equipment System Boundary In the Framework Document for the compressor standards rulemaking, DOE considered three options for the equipment system boundary, based on the three different ways in which compressors are distributed in commerce: (1) As a bare compressor; (2) as a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor; and (3) as a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor, as well as all secondary equipment, componentry, and air conveyance equipment (i.e., a compressed air system (CAS)). DOE requested comment regarding the feasibility of covering each boundary level of compressor equipment. In the Framework Document, DOE proposed no formal definitions for these equipment configurations. However, DOE described the term ‘‘bare compressor’’ as a ‘‘singular machine responsible for the change in air pressure, which is sometimes referred to as an ‘air end,’ and which is the compression chamber where air is compressed.’’ DOE specifically noted that this term would be exclusive of any other devices, such as an electric motor. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 6). With respect to the ‘‘a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor ’’ option (a compressor package), DOE described a configuration of compressor components that includes ‘‘a driver, such as an electric motor, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 may include other equipment, such as gears, drains, air treatment (filtering) equipment, onboard controls, etc.’’ DOE noted that this ‘‘configuration is considered the single largest piece of equipment brought to market by an individual manufacturer.’’ 7 With respect to the ‘‘a bare compressor, inclusive of driver(s) and mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor, as well as all secondary equipment, componentry, and air conveyance equipment (i.e., a CAS)’’ option, DOE described a system ‘‘inclusive of all componentry that would be attached and would include components starting from the air intake and including the final ‘point-of-use.’ ’’ DOE noted that under this option, ‘‘the compressor could include the many configuration packages that could be attached such as the distribution (piping) network, air-treatment systems, sequencers, storage tanks, and any enduse equipment (e.g., pneumatic tools).’’ (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 7). In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on the different equipment system boundary options. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 11). In response, Saylor-Beall commented that ‘‘while it might be possible to rate the air compressor package, attention needs to be given to the entire compressed air system of the end user.’’ (Saylor-Beall, No. 0003 at p. 2)8 Alternatively, Jenny Compressors (‘‘Jenny’’) stated that ‘‘covering the entire ‘CAS’ may prove nearly impossible since many systems include components from many different manufacturers, and no two systems are the same.’’ (Jenny, No. 0005 at p. 2) CAGI and the Joint Commenters agreed that DOE should cover the compressor package as part of this rulemaking. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters also stated that, if DOE covers the compressor package, DOE would need to ensure companies that assemble packages from purchased components are also subject to proposals in this rulemaking. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2–3) 7 Ibid. 8 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for pumps (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0055, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by HI; (2) appearing in document number 8 of the docket; and (3) appearing on page 4 of that document. This final rule also contains comments submitted in response to the pumps ECS rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031) and such comments will be identified with that docket number. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27225 DOE considered these comments and reviewed the pros and cons of each equipment system boundary option. The following paragraphs discuss DOE’s finding and conclusions. DOE considers covering a bare compressor to represent significantly lower energy savings compared to the other two equipment system boundary options. Logically, because a bare compressor is a subset of the compressor package and CAS, any energy savings available in the bare compressor would also be available in the compressor package and CAS options. Additionally, some energy savings opportunities are related to the ability to optimize a bare compressor relative to other components of the compressor package or CAS. Covering the bare compressor only would forgo the opportunity to realize those additional savings opportunities. Furthermore, some of those additional components have a significant impact on the energy consumption of the bare compressor in the field and are required for the bare compressor to function as intended. Consequently, DOE believes that determining the energy performance of the bare compressor alone would not be representative of the energy consumption of the equipment under typical use conditions. For these reasons, DOE does not propose to include bare compressors within the scope of applicability of this test procedure. DOE also understands that, while the CAS represents the largest available energy savings, including the CAS in the scope of applicability of this rulemaking has significant drawbacks: • Often a CAS is unique to a specific installation; • Each CAS may include equipment from several different manufacturers; and • A single CAS can include several different compressors, of different categories, which may all have different full-load operating pressures. Implementing a broader, CAS-based approach to regulating compressor efficiency would require DOE to (1) establish a methodology for measuring losses in any arbitrary air-distribution network; and (2) assess what certification, compliance, and enforcement practices would be required for a potentially unlimited, and extremely variable, number of system designs. For these reasons, DOE does not propose to establish the scope of applicability of this test procedure to include CAS. Based on the considerations stated above, at this time, DOE proposes to establish test procedures only for E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27226 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 compressor packages, which contain bare compressors, driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the bare compressor, and any ancillary equipment. DOE believes that determining the energy performance of compressors as a ‘‘compressor package’’ is the most representative of the energy consumption of the equipment under an average cycle of use. b. Application Broadly, compressors are used to compress a wide variety of gases, including, among others, air, natural gas, and refrigerants. In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on limiting the scope to only ‘‘air compressors’’ and stated that information gathered to that point indicated that non-air compressing equipment accounted for a relatively small fraction of the overall compressors market, in terms of both shipments and annual energy consumption. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 4). In response, DOE received conflicting feedback on the topic from interested parties. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) recommended covering all compressor categories regardless of the gas that is compressed because natural gas compressor energy use is projected to increase, while CAGI stated that DOE should cover only air compressors. (EEI, No. 0012 at p. 1–2; CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) The AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) requested that compressors used in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment be specifically excluded. (AHRI No. 0015, at p. 1) After the publication of the Framework Document, DOE announced several new initiatives to modernize the country’s natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure, including one to explore establishing efficiency standards for natural gas compressors.9 As part of that effort, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI), on August 5, 2014, to help determine both the feasibility of energy conservation standards for natural gas compressors and whether they are similar enough to air compressors to be considered within the scope of this rulemaking. 79 FR 45377 (Aug. 5, 2014). Additionally, DOE announced the availability of a preliminary, high-level description of the market and available technology for natural gas compressors. (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0051, No. 5). DOE held a public meeting on December 17, 9 See: https://energy.gov/articles/departmentenergy-announces-steps-help-modernize-naturalgas-infrastructure VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 2014, to present and seek comment on the content of that data. Based upon the feedback DOE received in response to the RFI and the NODA, DOE has determined that natural gas compressors are a unique style of compressors that serve different applications and market utility, which would necessitate unique test procedures and standards. As such, DOE opted to consider natural gas compressors separately from air compressors. (Docket No. EERE–2014– BT–STD–0051) Regarding refrigerant compressors, DOE considers refrigerant compressors to have the same basic function as air compressors in that they both compress a working fluid to a higher pressure, but with the working fluid of refrigerant compressors being refrigerant instead of air. Refrigerant compressors are typically used in heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) equipment. Similar to natural gas compressors, DOE has determined that refrigerant compressors serve a specific and unique application and also necessitate unique test procedures and standards. As such, DOE has opted not to consider refrigerant compressors in this rulemaking. Furthermore, DOE’s research found no large market segments or applications for compressor equipment used with gases other than air, natural gas, and refrigerant. Information gathered during confidential manufacturer interviews also indicated that non-air and non-natural gas compressing equipment represented relatively low sales volume and annual energy consumption. Accordingly, for the forgoing reasons, DOE proposes to establish test procedures only for air compressors in this rulemaking. c. Definition of Air Compressor DOE proposes to define the term ‘‘air compressor’’ as a compressor designed to compress air that has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air, and is made up of a compression element (bare compressor), driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element, and any ancillary equipment. The first clause of this definition the application of the compressor. The portion of the definition that states, ‘‘. . . a compressor designed to compress air that has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air,’’ describes what is commonly known as an air compressor and establishes that this definition includes air compressors only. DOE includes language regarding the compressor inlet as a secondary identifier of air compressors that focuses on features, so that the definition is not PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 entirely reliant on assessment of design objectives. DOE notes that if this definition were to be adopted, DOE would refer to manufacturer literature, including operation and installation manuals, and any other representations made by the manufacturer when determining design intent. The second clause of this definition discusses the equipment system boundary. Specifically, the portion of the definition which states, ‘‘. . . made up of a compression element (bare compressor), driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element, and any ancillary equipment.’’ This clause describes the components that must be to be a regulated air compressor and subject to the proposed test procedure. These specific components are discussed and defined in section III.B.2.d. DOE also notes that the proposed definition of air compressor is similar to the European Union’s (EU’s) Ecodesign Lot 31 Draft Standard of ‘‘basic package compressor,’’ the ISO 1217:2009 definition of ‘‘packaged compressor,’’ and DOE’s own ‘‘compressor package’’ definition from the Framework Document, each of which is presented in the following paragraphs. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 6). EU Lot 31 Definition of ‘‘Basic Package Compressor’’ Basic package compressor means a compressor made up of compression element (‘air end’), electric motor(s) and transmission or coupling to drive the compression element, and which is fully piped and wired internally, including ancillary and auxiliary items of equipment that is considered essential for safe operation and required for functioning as intended; (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 3). ISO 1217:2009 Definition of ‘‘Packaged Compressor’’ Packaged compressor means a compressor with prime mover, transmission, fully piped and wired internally, including ancillary and auxiliary items of equipment and being stationary or mobile (portable unit) where these are within the scope of supply. Framework Document Definition of ‘‘Compressor Package’’ Compressor package refers to the bare compressor plus a driver, such as an electric motor, and may include ancillary equipment such as gears, drains, air-treatment (filtering) equipment, onboard controls, etc. A E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules compressor package is considered the single largest piece of equipment brought to market by an individual manufacturer. (Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 6). d. Definition of Air Compressor Components In order to explicitly establish the applicable components included in an air compressor, as defined, DOE must also define the terms ‘‘bare compressor,’’ ‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘mechanical equipment.’’ The following sections discuss DOE’s proposed definitions for those terms. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Definition of ‘‘Bare Compressor’’ In the Framework Document, DOE described a ‘‘bare compressor’’ as ‘‘[a] singular machine responsible for the change in air pressure and is sometimes referred to as an ‘‘air end,’’ which is the compression chamber where air is compressed.’’ In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes a similar definition for ‘‘bare compressor.’’ However, DOE’s proposed definition expands upon and clarifies the discussion presented in the Framework Document to reference several specific design characteristics of bare compressors. Specifically, DOE proposes to include specific language from the definition for mechanical compressor included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 10 to define the term bare compressor. DOE’s proposed definition of ‘‘bare compressor’’ reads as follows: Bare compressor 11 means the compression element and auxiliary devices (e.g., inlet and outlet valves, seals, lubrication system, and gas flow paths) required for performing the gas compression process, but does not include the driver; speed-adjusting gear(s); gas processing apparatuses and piping; or compressor equipment 10 The definition of ‘‘mechanical compressor’’ in ISO 12942:2012 includes ‘‘compressor machine constituting essentially one or several working members movable in compression chambers and common built-in mechanism for conversion of external energy supply motion of the driver to the required working member motion, and being operable by supply of external mechanical energy from the power output shaft, or motion rod or piston of the driver or speed-adjusting driving gear. NOTE 1 The mechanical compressor contains necessary auxiliary devices for performing the gas compression process in the working chambers: applicable gas inlet and outlet valves, gas flow paths, seals, lubrication system, capacity control means, measuring instruments etc., but it does not contain driver, speed-adjusting gear, gas processing apparatuses and piping or compressor equipment packaging and mounting facilities and enclosures.’’ 11 The compressors industry frequently uses the term ‘‘airend’’ or ‘‘air end’’ to refer to the bare compressor. DOE uses ‘‘bare compressor’’ in the regulatory text of this proposed rule but notes that, for the purposes of this rulemaking, it considers the terms to be synonymous. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 packaging and mounting facilities and enclosures. Definition of Driver As discussed previously, another fundamental element of an air compressor is the driver, which provides mechanical power to drive a bare compressor. Examples include an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas turbine. In the Framework Document, DOE described and used the term driver, but did not offer a specific definition. In the recent pumps test procedure final rule, DOE defined the term, as it applies to pumps. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). Specifically, the pumps test procedure final rule defines driver as ‘‘the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/ steam turbine.’’ Id. Due to the similarities between the equipment categories (i.e., equipment typically driven by electric motors and sometimes accompanied with variable frequency drives), in this NOPR, DOE proposes a definition for ‘‘driver’’ that is similar the one proposed in the pumps test procedure NOPR. DOE proposes a definition for the term ‘‘driver’’ to mean the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare compressor directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Definition of Mechanical Equipment An air compressor, as defined, may include mechanical equipment that serves to transfer energy from a driver to the bare compressor. In DOE’s pumps test procedure final rule, DOE adopted a definition for mechanical equipment as ‘‘any component of a pump that transfers energy from a driver to a bare pump.’’ 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). Again, due to the similarities between the equipment categories (i.e., equipment typically driven by electric motors and sometimes accompanied with variable frequency drives), DOE believes such a definition is also applicable to compressors and, as a result, in this NOPR, DOE proposes a definition for the term mechanical equipment as follows: Mechanical equipment means any component of an air compressor that transfers energy from the driver to the bare compressor. Definition of Ancillary Equipment DOE believes that the energy consumption of all components distributed in commerce with an air compressor should be considered when PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27227 evaluating the energy performance of the air compressor. Consequently, DOE proposes to define ancillary equipment as any equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor that is not a bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment. DOE notes that ancillary equipment would be considered to be part of a given air compressor model, regardless of whether the ancillary equipment is physically attached to the bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment at the time when the air compressor is distributed in commerce. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of air compressor and its use in limiting the scope of applicability of this test procedure. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for bare compressor, driver, and mechanical equipment. DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of ancillary equipment, and whether a comprehensive list of potential ancillary equipment is more appropriate. If a comprehensive list of potential ancillary equipment is preferred, DOE requests information on what equipment should be on that list. DOE requests comment on its position that all ancillary equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor be installed when testing to evaluate the energy performance of the air compressor. DOE requests comment on a potential alternative approach, in which DOE could generate a list of specific ancillary equipment that must be installed to ensure that the test result is representative of compressor performance; equipment on this list would not be optional, regardless of how that compressor model is distributed in commerce. If the alternative approach is preferred, DOE requests comments on what ancillary equipment be required to be installed to representatively measure compressor energy performance and how to evaluate compressor performance if an air compressor is distributed in commerce without certain items on the list. 3. Compression Principle Compressor equipment can use a variety of different compression mechanisms in order to increase the pressure of the gas. The three main compressor categories each rely on a different compression principle and include rotary compressors, reciprocating compressors, and dynamic compressors. In the Framework Document, DOE offered definitions for each of these compressor equipment categories as follows: E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27228 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules Dynamic compressor means a compressor in which the increase in gas pressure is achieved continuously by increasing the kinetic energy of the working fluid in the flow path of the equipment due to acceleration to high velocities by mechanical action of blades placed on a rapid rotating wheel and further transformation of the kinetic energy into potential energy by successive deceleration of the working fluid flow rate and associated pressure increase. Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors in a compressor casing. Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving member(s) in a compression chamber(s). In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on which compression categories should be considered for inclusion in the scope of DOE’s rulemaking efforts. In response, several interested parties agreed that DOE should cover all three compressor categories. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2; CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) Scales commented that DOE should focus on centrifugal and rotary screw compressors above 350 hp. (W. Scales, No. 0020 at p. 1) DOE also received annual shipments data, differentiated by these compressor categories, in industry stakeholder submittals. In response to the submitted comments, DOE researched the characteristics, typical usage and applications, and available test methods for the different compressor categories. DOE research indicated that dynamic compressors are typically larger in horsepower than positive displacement compressors, and commonly engineered specifically for a unique customer or application. In addition, DOE found that the standard international test procedure for dynamic compressors, ISO 5389, is considered too complicated and not widely used by industry. As a result of the specialization of dynamic compressor equipment and the complexity of the industry test procedure, very little application and performance data are publicly available, which makes it difficult for DOE to assess the feasibility or representativeness of ISO 5389 or other test procedures for this equipment. In addition, due to the unique industry test procedure and applications of dynamic VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 compressors, DOE believes it is most appropriate to apply a unique test procedure to such equipment. Conversely, ISO 1217:2009 is applicable to both rotary and reciprocating compressors and is currently widely used by the industry for testing and verifying equipment performance. For further details on ISO 1217:2009 see section III.D. Based on the shipments data submitted by interested parties in response to the Framework Document, DOE also estimated the overall size of the air compressors market for each configuration. The shipments data for 2013 provided to DOE suggest that rotary and reciprocating compressors account for the majority of the air compressors market by units shipped. By contrast, dynamic compressors account for fewer than 300 total units shipped, or roughly one percent of the total market. Because rotary and reciprocating compressors can be tested in the same manner and represent the majority of the market, DOE is electing to consider a test procedure that is applicable only to rotary and reciprocating compressors. DOE may create test procedures for dynamic compressors in the future and notes that, due to the differences from rotary and reciprocating compressors, it would be most appropriate to address the test procedure for dynamic compressors as part of a separate rulemaking. To establish the applicability of the test procedure proposed in this NOPR, DOE proposes the following definitions for rotary and reciprocating compressors, which are consistent with those discussed in the Framework Document: Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors in a compressor casing. This definition for rotary compressor is consistent with the definition included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is currently used within the compressor industry. Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving member(s) in a compression chamber(s). This definition for reciprocating compressor is consistent with the definition included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is currently used within the compressor industry. To support the previous definitions, DOE also proposes to define the term positive displacement compressor as a PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 compressor in which the admission and diminution of successive volumes of the gaseous medium are performed periodically by forced expansion and diminution of a closed space(s) in a working chamber(s) by means of displacement of a moving member(s) or by displacement and forced discharge of the gaseous medium into the highpressure area. This definition for positive displacement compressor is consistent with the definition included in ISO/TR 12942:2012 and is currently used within the compressor industry. DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of rotary compressor, reciprocating compressor, and positive displacement compressor and their use in defining the scope of applicability of this test procedure. 4. Styles of Drivers a. Electric Motor- and Engine-Driven Compressors Compressors can be powered using several different kinds of drivers, commonly including electric motors and internal combustion engines. Electric motor-driven equipment may use either single-phase or three-phase electric motors. Engine-driven 12 compressors can be powered by using different kinds of fuels, commonly including diesel, gasoline, and natural gas. In the Framework Document, DOE considered covering all compressors regardless of driver design and requested comments from interested parties. DOE received varying comments regarding the inclusion of engine-driven compressors. Jenny, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), and Sullair recommended excluding enginedriven compressors due to the burden imposed by current emissions regulations and overall low energy consumption by these products. (Jenny, No. 0005 at p. 2; AEM, No. 0011 at p. 1–2; Sullair, No. 0013 at p. 2) EEI and the CA IOUs urged DOE to include engine-driven compressors to avoid creating a market trend towards enginedriven compressors. (EEI, No. 0012 at p. 2–3; CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 2) The joint Commenters recommended that DOE examine engine-driven compressors to evaluate possible energy savings but noted that generally they are used in low-duty cycle applications. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2) In response to comments submitted by interested parties, DOE investigated engine-driven air compressors and 12 For the purposes of this document, the term ‘‘engine’’ means ‘‘combustion engine,’’ equipment which can convert chemical energy into mechanical energy by combusting fuel in the presence of air. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules found that they are generally portable and designed to be used in environments where access to electricity is limited or non-existent, particularly at the current or voltage levels required by comparable electric motor-driven compressors. Engine-driven air compressors are also typically used as on-demand units, with a low duty cycle and annual energy consumption. Additionally, engine-driven air compressors, by nature of their portability, are difficult to optimize for a specific set of operating conditions, which may affect their efficiency relative to a stationary unit that is designed or selected with a specific load profile in mind. Consequently, enginedriven and electric motor-driven air compressors do not serve the same applications or utility in the marketplace and are not mutual substitutes. DOE is aware that engine-driven air compressors are currently covered by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 4 emissions regulations (40 CFR 1039). DOE understands that these Tier 4 regulations have resulted in marketwide redesigns for the engines typically used in these compressors, which has required compressor manufacturers to redesign some aspects of the bare compressor as well. DOE recognizes that any regulations established for enginedriven compressors may result in incrementally more burdensome testing requirements for such equipment and potential design changes that conflict with those required for compliance with Tier 4 regulations. Additionally, the industry standard test method proposed for incorporation into this test procedure, Annex C of ISO 1217:2009, is the most widely-used test method for determining performance of electric motor-driven compressors. However, Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 does not apply to engine-driven compressors. DOE notes that Annex D of ISO 1217:2009, which is not proposed for incorporation into this test procedure, is intended to address engine-driven compressors. However, unlike Annex C of ISO 1217:2009, DOE currently lacks testing and performance data related to Annex D of ISO 1217:2009. Consequently, DOE is unable to verify the repeatability and applicability of Annex D of ISO 1217:2009 at this time. Due to the lack of testing and performance data from Annex D of ISO 1217:2009, as well as the difference in market, application, and applicable industry test procedure; DOE proposes to exclude engine-driven air compressors from the scope of applicability of the test procedure VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 proposed in this rulemaking. However, DOE may consider a test procedure for engine-driven compressors as part of a future rulemaking. b. Styles of Electric Motor Motors used in compressors broadly fall into two categories: brushed and brushless. Brushed motors perform ‘‘commutation’’—changing the direction of the electric field as the motor’s rotor turns—using a sliding electrical contact, or ‘‘brush.’’ Brushless motor technologies may vary widely in how they accomplish commutation, but have in common the absence of brushes. DOE is aware that some small compressors intended for very low duty cycle applications may be manufactured with motors which use brushes. Although brushes are simple to control and inexpensive to construct, they are rarely used in applications with significant operating hours for several reasons. First, brushes generally are less efficient than brushless technology, and are therefore suitable only for applications with low duty cycles. Second, brushes wear and require replacement at regular intervals, which may result in costly downtime in an industrial process. Third, brushes may create electrical arcing, rendering them unsuitable for certain industrial environments where combustible or explosive gases or dusts may exist. Finally, brushes may create more noise than brushless technology, and quieter equipment is often viewed as an important and attractive attribute by an end-user. All of these factors limit the applications suitable for compressors manufactured with brushed motors. However, DOE recognizes there is a unique market segment in which brushed motors are appropriate, such as specific applications in which operating life and durability are not important criteria. As a result, DOE believes that any test procedure designed for compressors sold with brushed electric motors would require a unique load profile in order to accurately reflect a representative average use cycle, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE also notes that, because compressors sold with brushed motors play a specialized and minor role in the compressors market, they are not associated with significant energy consumption. Consequently, DOE proposes to limit the scope of the test procedure to only those compressors that are driven by brushless motors. DOE may consider separate test procedures or energy conservation standards for compressors sold with brushed electric motors as part of a separate rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27229 For the purposes of establishing the applicability of this test procedure rulemaking, DOE proposes to define a brushless electric motor as a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power without use of sliding electrical contacts. DOE considers brushless motors to include, but not be limited to, what are commonly known as induction, brushless DC, permanent magnet, electrically commutated, and reluctance motors. The term brushless motors would not include what are commonly known as brushed DC and universal motors. DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish test procedures for only brushless electric motor-driven equipment and on its proposed definition of brushless electric motor. 5. Compressor Capacity (Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower) Compressors are sold in a very wide range of capacities. Compressor capacity refers to the overall rate at which a compressor can perform work. Although the ultimate end-user requirement is a specific output volume flow rate of air at a certain pressure, industry typically describes compressor capacity in terms of the ‘‘nominal’’ horsepower of the motor. As a result, in this rulemaking, DOE proposes to consider compressor capacity in terms of the ‘‘nominal’’ horsepower of the motor with which the compressor is distributed in commerce. DOE recognizes that although the term nominal motor horsepower is commonly used within the compressor industry, it is not explicitly defined in ISO 1217:2009. To alleviate any ambiguity associated with these terms, DOE proposes to define the term ‘‘compressor motor nominal horsepower’’ to mean the motor horsepower of the electric motor, as determined in accordance with the applicable procedures in subpart B and subpart X of part 431, with which the rated air compressor is distributed in commerce. In the Framework Document, DOE discussed limiting the scope of applicability based on compressor capacity as measured in horsepower (hp) to units with capacities of between 1 to 500 hp in order to align the scope of compressor standards with the scope of DOE’s electric motors standards. See 10 CFR 431.25. Commenters generally recommended expanding the scope to cover compressors larger than 500 hp, in order to capture the maximum possible energy savings that may result from the combined impacts of this test procedure rulemaking and the associated energy conservation standard rulemaking. (EEI, E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27230 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules No. 0012 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2; Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), No. 0019 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 2) Jenny and the Joint Commenters also recommended that the lower hp limit should be increased due to the low annual energy usage of compressors under 10 hp. (Jenny, No. 0005 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 2) DOE considered the comments of interested parties regarding the range of equipment capacities considered in this test procedure rulemaking. Shipment data, broken down by rated capacity and compressor style (i.e., rotary, reciprocating, and dynamic) indicate that units above 400 hp represent less than 1 percent of the rotary market and virtually none of the reciprocating market. Although it is possible to build positive displacement compressors above 500 hp, shipments are very low and the equipment is typically customordered. DOE notes that, above 500 hp, dynamic compressors are the dominant choice for industrial compressed air service. However, as discussed previously in section III.B.3, the proposed test procedure would not apply to dynamic compressors. Additionally, less performance data is available on units with capacities greater than 500 hp and therefore it is difficult to determine the suitability of the proposed test procedure provisions to such large equipment. Further, testing such large capacity equipment may require more specialized equipment that is less commonly available and would increase the burden associated with conducting the test procedure. Regarding the lower end of the capacity range (i.e., 1 hp), DOE notes that available shipment data indicates that compressors 10 hp and below, while consuming less power on a per-unit basis, account for more than a quarter of fixed-speed, rotary units shipped. DOE believes the proposed test procedures are suitable for measuring the performance of such units, and would not preclude the possibility of cost effective energy savings without performing analysis. As a result, DOE proposes limiting the scope of this test procedure to air compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 hp. Based on available shipment data, DOE’s proposal is expected to cover nearly the entirety of the rotary and reciprocating compressor market. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of compressor motor nominal horsepower. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether motors not currently subject to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 the test procedure requirements in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 are incorporated into air compressors within the scope of this proposed test procedure. If so, DOE requests comment on how prevalent these motors are, and whether the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 would be applicable to determine the compressor motor nominal horsepower of such motors. If the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 are not applicable to motors not subject to DOE’s current Federal test procedures for small electric or electric motors, DOE requests comment on what test methods could be used to determine their compressor motor nominal horsepower. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 within the scope of this test procedure. 6. Output Pressure Range DOE also proposes in this NOPR to limit the applicability of the test procedure based on the full-load operating pressure of the equipment. Specifically, DOE proposes that the test procedure only be applicable to compressors with full-load operating pressures greater than or equal to 31 psig and less than or equal to 225 psig. DOE believes this range represents the majority of the reciprocating and rotary compressor market. In the Framework Document, DOE discussed limiting the scope of this initial compressor test procedure based on the full-load operating pressure of the compressors. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 8). However, in the Framework Document, DOE used the comparable terms ‘‘absolute discharge pressure’’ and ‘‘absolute gauge output pressure.’’ (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 19). DOE also notes that the full-load operating pressure is related to the pressure ratio, discussed previously in section III.A, but describes the absolute increase in pressure, whereas the pressure ratio represents the pressure increase expressed as a multiple of the inlet pressure of the compressor. In response to the Framework Document, CAGI noted that industry generally considers compressors to have a pressure ratio of greater than 2.5. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 1) In a separate submission, CAGI provided the following more detailed breakdown of the rotary compressors market: • Approximately 4.4 to 30 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (pressure ratio greater than 1.3 and less than or equal PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to 3.0): The compressors industry generally refers to these products as blowers—a term DOE is considering defining as part of its fans and blowers rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–STD–0006). The majority of these units are typically distributed in commerce as bare compressors and do not include a driver, mechanical equipment, or controls. • 31 to 79 psig (pressure ratio greater than 3.1 and less than or equal to 6.4): There are relatively few compressed air applications in this pressure range, contributing to both low product shipment volume and low annual energy consumption. • 80 to 139 psig (pressure ratio greater than 6.4 and less than or equal to 10.5): This range represents the majority of general compressed air applications, shipments, and annual energy use. • 140 to 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 10.5 and less than or equal to 15.6): This range represents certain specialized applications, relatively lower sales volumes and annual energy consumption when compared to the 80 to 139 psig rotary compressor segment. • Greater than 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 15.6): This range represents even more specialized applications, which require highly engineered rotary compressors that vary based on each application. (CAGI, No. 0030 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any additional information that separated the market of reciprocating compressors by pressure. According to the Lot 31 preparatory study final report,13 single- and twostage reciprocating compressors typically operate from 0.8 to 12 bar (12 to 174 psig; pressure ratio 1.8 to 13), and multi-stage reciprocating compressors typically operate from 12 to 700 bar (174 to 10,152 psig; pressure ratio 13 to 701). However, based on market research and discussions with various compressor manufacturers, DOE believes that pressure ranges for reciprocating compressors are similar to rotary compressors. Based on DOE’s research and information from commenters, DOE proposes to apply the test procedure to compressors with full-load operating pressures of between 31 and 225 psig (pressure ratios greater than ∼3.1 and less than or equal to 16.3). DOE notes that while some commenters suggested an upper limit of 215 psig, full-load operating pressure values may be 13 For copies of the EU Lot 31 draft regulation: www.regulations.gov/conentStreamer?document =EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition= attachment&contentType=pdf. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules generated differently by each manufacturer and it is not clear that they are completely comparable between manufacturers.14 For example, a product listed at 215 psig from one manufacturer may compete with a product listed at 217 psig from another, which may compete with one listed at 212 psig from a third. Although DOE’s proposed test procedure seeks to eliminate this issue (see specifically, section III.D.2.i), DOE must still account for the current lack of consistent pressure rating methodology in the compressor industry. As a result, DOE proposes to adopt an upper limit of 225 psig to include the majority of nonspecial purpose equipment DOE could identify on the market. Compressor equipment with full-load operating pressures below 31 psig and above 225 psig generally serve applications that do not often overlap with the 31–225 psig compressor market and do not represent a significant volume of sales. DOE notes that equipment with full-load operating pressures below 31 psig and above 225 psig may still meet the proposed definition of air compressor. DOE may consider extending test procedure applicability to these compressors in a future rulemaking. DOE requests comment on its characterization of the rotary compressor market by pressure ranges, and whether the reciprocating compressor market is similarly characterized. As the full-load operating pressure would be used to determine the applicability of the proposed test procedure, it is important that the fullload operating pressure be established consistently amongst compressor models. To that end, DOE proposes to establish a specific definition and procedure for determining full-load operating pressure for applicable compressors, which is based on the maximum full-flow operating pressure. Specifically, DOE proposes to define the term full-load operating pressure as follows: Full-load operating pressure means the represented value of discharge pressure, which must be greater than or equal to 90 percent and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure. The term full-load operating pressure is commonly used in the compressors industry to characterize compressor output air pressure and appears as a listed parameter on CAGI’s voluntary 14 DOE notes that there is no universally accepted procedure for establishing full-load operating pressure and, thus, no assurances that values are comparable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 performance verification data sheets. Additionally, the EU Lot 31 draft standard 15 characterizes compressor output pressure using a nearly identical term, ‘‘full load outlet pressure.’’ DOE proposes this definition of full-load operating pressure in order to characterize compressor output pressure in a manner consistent with both the U.S. industry and the European standard, and to ensure reproducible and comparable representations among the different manufacturers and models. Specifically, DOE understands the fullload operating pressure to be a nominal term at which manufacturers elect to produce ratings. For example, the CAGI datasheets define the term as ‘‘the operating pressure at which the capacity and electrical consumption were measured for this data sheet.’’ 16 Therefore, DOE is defining the term ‘‘full-load operating pressure’’ to be a nominal, self-declared value that is within a certain range of the actual, measured maximum full-flow operating pressure. While DOE understands the need to provide manufacturers some discretion with regard to the selection of the fullload operating pressure, specifying that the selected nominal value is within 10 percent of the actual, tested maximum full-flow operating pressure ensures that the self-declared value is in fact representative of the equipment’s capacity and provides better consistency and comparability among ratings. As the proposed definition of full-load operating pressure references the maximum full-flow operating pressure, DOE also proposes a definition and test method (discussed in section III.D.2.i) for maximum full-flow operating pressure. Specifically, the maximum full-flow operating pressure is defined as the maximum discharge pressure at which the compressor is capable of operating as determined in accordance with the methods described in the applicable section of the compressor test procedure.17 This is the actual maximum operating pressure of the equipment, consistent with the CAGI definition of the term, which describes the maximum full-flow operating pressure as maximum pressure attainable at full flow, usually the unload pressure setting for load/no load 15 https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer? documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031 &disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf. 16 See, for example, https://www.cagi.org/pdfs/ Fixed%20Speed%20Datasheet%201011%20rev8.pdf. 17 In the definition proposed in section 10 CFR 431.344, this language refers to the appropriate section number of the regulatory text as it would appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27231 control or the maximum pressure attainable before capacity control begins. In the case of the term full-load operating pressure, there is a corresponding flow term, full-load actual volume flow rate, which DOE proposes to define as the actual volume flow rate of the compressor at the fullload operating pressure. The full-load actual volume flow rate is a dependent value and is determined through measurement at the full-load operating pressure, as determined in section III.D.2.i. The proposed definition of full-load actual volume flow rate mentions the actual volume flow rate of the equipment; therefore, DOE must also define the term actual volume flow rate. ISO 1217:2009 defines a similar term, actual volume flow rate of a compressor, as the actual volume flow rate of gas, compressed and delivered at the standard discharge point, referred to conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition prevailing at the standard inlet point.18 Assuming, as proposed, this test procedure applies only to air compressors, DOE’s proposes the following, similar definition: Actual volume flow rate means the volume flow rate of air, compressed and delivered at the standard discharge point, referred to conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition prevailing at the standard inlet point. DOE notes that the terms standard discharge point, total temperature, total pressure, and [gas] composition are explicitly defined in ISO 1217:2009, and DOE proposes to incorporate these definitions by reference. DOE also notes that the term ‘‘referred to,’’ which is common compressor industry parlance, is synonymous with the term ‘‘normalized to.’’ In both cases, the objective is to characterize measured values with respect to a common reference point so that they may be more easily compared. In this case, the reference point is the measured atmospheric conditions at the compressor inlet point. The compressor industry describes this practice as ‘‘referring’’ the values to inlet conditions. In the interest of harmonization with the definition supplied in ISO 1217:2009, DOE proposes to keep the term ‘‘referred to’’ in its definition of actual volume flow rate. DOE also proposes that actual volume flow rate be measured in accordance 18 This language also describes the parameter called ‘‘corrected volume flow rate,’’ which works out to be equivalent to ‘‘actual volume flow rate’’ and is addressed in this section. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27232 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules with section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009. DOE notes that section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to a parameter called ‘‘corrected volume flow rate;’’ for the purposes of this test procedure, DOE proposes that the terms corrected volume flow rate and actual volume flow rate be deemed equivalent and synonymous. Section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 also includes a correction factor for shaft speed, which is clarified in section C.4.2.2 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 as ‘‘only required when the electric motor drive is not supplied.’’ As described in section III.B.2, DOE is proposing to establish test procedures only for compressor packages, which always include a driver (i.e., electric motor). Therefore, DOE proposes to specify that the correction factor for shaft speed in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 is not to be used. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions of full-load operating pressure, maximum full-flow operating pressure, and full-load actual volume flow rate, and actual volume flow rate. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors with a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 31 psig and less than or equal to 225 psig within the scope of this test procedure. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Energy-Related Metrics 1. Specific Input Power and Isentropic Efficiency In the Framework Document, DOE discussed the two most common metrics used in the compressor industry today to describe the performance of air compressors: package specific power and package isentropic efficiency. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 10–11). Package specific power is the compressor power input at a given load point, divided by the actual volume flow rate at the same load point, as determined in accordance with the methods described in section III.C.1. Further discussion of the relevant portions of ISO 1217:2009 and DOE’s proposal to incorporate it by reference is found in section III.D of this document. DOE notes that section C.4.4 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to ‘‘specific energy consumption.’’ For the purposes of this test procedure, the terms specific energy consumption and package specific power are interchangeable. Package isentropic efficiency is the ratio of power required for an ideal 19 Or a weighted average of several, specified load points. 20 https://cagi.org/performance-verification/ overview.aspx. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 isentropic compression process at a given load point 19 to the actual packaged compressor power input used at the same load point, as determined in accordance with the methods described in section III.C.4 and III.C.5. The two metrics under consideration provide similar but different information. Package specific power provides users with a way to directly calculate the power required to deliver a particular flow rate of air; this metric is currently used by the CAGI Voluntary Performance Verification Program to characterize compressor performance.20 However, package specific power calculations are only valid at the output pressure at which a unit is tested and cannot be used to compare units operating at different pressures. Package isentropic efficiency measures how efficiently a compressor package delivers a given flow rate of air. Package isentropic efficiency is relative to an ideal isentropic process and therefore can be used to compare units across a wide range of pressures. DOE notes that the EU has adopted package isentropic efficiency as the regulatory metric in their draft air compressor regulation.21 In the Framework Document, DOE requested feedback regarding both metrics and which would be more appropriate for any potential compressors energy conservation standard. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 11). The Joint Commenters and NRDC commented that both package specific power and package isentropic efficiency should be considered to provide end users with the most information possible when making purchasing decisions. (Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 0019 at p.1; and NRDC, No. 0019 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended that a part-load test metric be used to assist in the design optimization of compressor systems with multiple compressors. (CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 3) The following section discusses DOE’s selected metric and DOE’s rationale for selecting it. 2. Selected Metric: Package Isentropic Efficiency After careful consideration of Framework Document comments and additional feedback received during interviews with manufacturers, DOE proposes to adopt package isentropic efficiency as the representative metric for describing the energy performance of certain compressors. However, DOE notes that package isentropic efficiency, as introduced in section III.C.1, is a generic metric applicable to all load points. Therefore, DOE must define a load point (or load points) for the purpose of determining a reproducible and comparable efficiency rating for each compressor model. Kaeser corroborated this idea in its comment, and stated that ISO 1217:2009 provides instructions for how to perform testing but does not specify at what points to perform said tests. (Kaeser Compressors, No. 0040 at p. 94) In relation to load points and the proposed metric, NEEA requested that the test procedure account for variablespeed compressors, while the CA IOUs recommended that DOE include a partload efficiency metric. (NEEA, No. 0040 at p. 92; and CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 3). DOE agrees that part-load performance may be valuable for users of variable-speed compressors. However, DOE believes that a part-load performance metric would not be applicable to all fixed-speed compressors, as many of these compressors are not designed to operate at part-load. Consequently, DOE proposes to establish two versions of package isentropic efficiency: full-load package isentropic efficiency and part-load package isentropic efficiency. Full-load package isentropic efficiency would apply only to fixed-speed compressors, whereas part-load package isentropic efficiency would apply only to variablespeed compressors. Full-load isentropic efficiency is evaluated at a single load point, while part-load isentropic efficiency is a weighted composite of performance at multiple load points (or rating points). This structure follows the structure of the draft EU compressors regulation and is consistent with the previously discussed interested party comments. DOE believes these metrics and load points provide the best representation of energy consumption for fixed- and variable-speed equipment, respectively. Equations 1 and 2 describe the fulland part-load package isentropic efficiency. Further details on the calculation of these metrics are contained in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. Further details on load points and weighting are discussed in section III.C.3. 21 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD0040-0031&disposition=attachment& contentType=pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 27233 Where: hisen,FL = package isentropic efficiency at fullload operating pressure, Pisen,100% = isentropic power required for compression at full-load operating pressure, and Preal,100% = packaged compressor power input at full-load operating pressure. Where: hisen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency, wi = weighting factor for rating point i, Pisen,i = isentropic power required for compression at rating point i, Preal,i = packaged compressor power input at rating point i, and i = selected rating points. control, respectively, as adopted in DOE’s pumps test procedure final rule, due to the similarities between compressors and pumps. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). The following section discusses load points for both full-load and part-load package isentropic efficiency. In order to clearly separate the two groups of compressors, DOE proposes the following definitions for fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors. Fixed-speed compressor means an air compressor that is not capable of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required compressor flow rate. Variable-speed compressor means an air compressor that is capable of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required compressor actual volume flow rate. The proposed definition for fixedspeed compressor encompasses compressors that use single speed and multi-speed drivers. Both definitions are based on the definitions for noncontinuous control and continuous 3. Load Points and Weighting Factors for Calculating Full-Load and Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency • minimum volume flow rate, and • no-load power. In contrast, the European Union’s draft air compressors regulation 23 specifies testing variable-speed compressors at only three designated load points; 40, 70, and 100 percent of the flow rate measured at full-load operating pressure (or maximum flow rate). DOE believes that the EU’s draft approach of requiring testing at only three load points would reduce the burden of testing while still providing an accurate representation of the unit’s part-load performance. Further, by stipulating specific load points for testing rather than evenly spaced load points, the EU method ensures that all variable-speed compressors are tested at the same load points, resulting in simple and accurate comparisons across equipment models. Consequently, DOE proposes to adopt the same load profiles for fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors as those published in the draft EU air compressors regulation. These load points are summarized in Table III.2. DOE reviewed the load points and weighting factors used by current industry programs. For fixed-speed compressors, the CAGI Performance Verification Program specifies testing at two load points: (1) flow rate at full-load operating pressure and (2) zero flow rate. In contrast, the European Union’s draft air compressors regulation 22 specifies testing fixed-speed compressors only at full-load. For variable-speed compressors, the CAGI Performance Verification Program references Annex E of ISO 1217:2009 and specifies testing at a minimum of six load points: • maximum volume flow rate, • three or more volume flow rates evenly spaced between the minimum and maximum volume flow rate, TABLE III.2—LOAD PROFILES BASED ON COMPRESSOR CONFIGURATION Load profile Load points Full-Load ........................................ Part-Load ....................................... Maximum flow rate. 40, 70, and 100 percent of maximum flow rate. As first discussed in section III.C.2, and shown in equation 2, the part-load package isentropic efficiency metric requires a weighting factor for each load point in order to calculate the final partload package isentropic efficiency. These weighting factors are meant to represent the percentage of operating time the compressor is operating at each load point. The draft EU air compressors regulation, after which DOE modeled its proposed part-load efficiency calculation, specifies weights of 25, 50, and 25 percent; at load points of 40, 70, and 100 percent of maximum flow, respectively. DOE notes that the CAGI 22 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD0040-0031&disposition=attachment& contentType=pdf. 23 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD0040-0031&disposition=attachment&content Type=pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Performance Verification Program does not use a weighted average part-load metric, and thus does not provide weighting factors. DOE found no other weighting factors currently in use within the compressor industry. Additionally, DOE was unable to find real-world, representative load E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.000</GPH> EP05MY16.001</GPH> Fixed-speed compressors ............... Variable-speed compressors .......... mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Compressor configuration 27234 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules profile data for equipment in the field. In the absence of representative load profile data, DOE proposes adopting the EU load weighting factors, which would allow for direct and equitable comparisons between equipment, since the weighting factors would be applicable to all variable-speed equipment. In addition, DOE believes these weighting factors adequately represent the operating range of variable-speed compressors and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, since compressor manufacturers may already perform such testing in support of compliance with the EU regulations. Table III.3 summarizes DOE’s proposal for weighting factors for the part-load package isentropic efficiency metric. TABLE III.3—WEIGHT VALUES FOR SPECIFIED PART-SPEED COMPRESSOR LOAD PROFILE Load point (percent of maximum flow rate) Weighting factors (wi as specified in equation 6) 40 ............................................................................................................................. 70 ............................................................................................................................. 100 ........................................................................................................................... DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting factors for package isentropic efficiency for both fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors. 0.25 0.50 0.25 As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE proposes to rate fixed-speed compressors with the full-load isentropic efficiency metric. This section discusses, in detail, the formulas needed to calculate full-load isentropic efficiency for fixed-speed compressors. DOE notes that certain inputs to these formulas are measured or calculated using ISO 1217:2009, certain sections of which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference (see section III.D). For these inputs, DOE has referenced the specific locations within ISO 1217:2009 where those values or procedures may be found. Complete details on ISO 1217:2009, and DOE’s justification for its use in this test procedure, are discussed in section III.D. As discussed in section III.C.3, fullload package isentropic efficiency is calculated at one load point: full-load operating pressure. The equation for full-load package isentropic efficiency is as follows: Where: hisen,FL = hisen,100% = package isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, Preal,100% = packaged compressor power input at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from equation 4,24 and Pisen,100% = isentropic power required for compression at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from equation 5. As referenced in equation 3, the packaged compressor power input at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate is determined in accordance with equation 4: and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). actual volume flow rate (Pisen,100%), shown in equation 5, is evaluated using measurements taken while the unit is operating at full-load operating pressure: 4. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency Where: EP05MY16.004</GPH> The isentropic power required for compression at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load 24 The correction factor for the shaft speed (K ) in 4 section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to this test procedure because the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 electric motor drive is included in the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation. 25 The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual values for inlet pressure. Since a PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 contractual value is not applicable to this test procedure, DOE proposes to use a value of 100 kPa from annex F in ISO 1217:2009. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.002</GPH> EP05MY16.003</GPH> mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,25 and PPR,100% = packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules Where: V1_m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at fullload operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), p2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which, for the purposes of this test procedure, is 1.400.26 DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for full-load package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for fixed-speed compressors. Where: hisen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency for a variable-speed compressor, hisen, 100% = package isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure, as determined in equation 3, hisen,70% = package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in equation 7, hisen,40% = package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in equation 9, w40% = weighting at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate (0.25), as described in section III.C.3, w70% = weighting at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate (0.5), as described in section III.C.3, and Where: hisen,70% = package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of maximum flow rate, Pisen,70% = isentropic power required for compression at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in equation 11, and Where: K5= correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,28 and PPR,70%= packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure Where: hisen,40% = package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, Pisen,40% = isentropic power required for compression at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in equation 12, and 26 The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations. 27 The correction factor for the shaft speed (K ) in 4 section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to this test procedure because the electric motor drive is included in the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation. 27235 w100% = weighting at 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate (0.25), as described in section III.C.3. The equation for full-load package isentropic efficiency is the same as noted in III.C.4, above (equation 3 through equation 5). Package isentropic efficiency at 40 and 70 percent of fullload actual volume flow rate are defined as follows: Preal,70% = packaged compressor power input at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from equation 8.27 and 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 EP05MY16.007</GPH> 28 The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual values for inlet pressure. Since a contractual value is not applicable to this test procedure, a value of 100 kPa from annex F in ISO 1217:2009 is used. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.005</GPH> EP05MY16.006</GPH> mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP05MY16.008</GPH> 5. Part-Load Isentropic Efficiency As discussed in section III.C.2, DOE proposes to rate variable-speed compressors with the part-load package isentropic efficiency metric. This section discusses, in detail, the formulas needed to calculate part-load isentropic efficiency for fixed-speed compressors. DOE notes that certain inputs to these formulas are measured or calculated using ISO 1217:2009, certain sections of which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference. For these inputs, DOE has referenced the specific location within ISO 1217:2009 where that value or calculation procedure is found. However, complete details on ISO 1217:2009, and DOE’s justification for its use in this test procedure, are discussed in section III.D. As discussed in section III.C.3, partload package isentropic efficiency is calculated using a weighted average of three load points: 40, 70, and 100 percent of maximum flow rate. The equation for part-load package isentropic efficiency is as follows: 27236 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules Preal,40% = packaged compressor power input at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined from equation 10.29 Finally, Pisen,70%, and Pisen,40% would then be calculated using values measured at each of the designated rating points, as shown in equations 11 and 12 respectively: Where: ˙ V1_m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), p2 = discharge pressure at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.31 Where: ˙ V1_m3/s = corrected volume flow rate at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, p1 = Atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), p2 = discharge pressure at 40 percent of fullload actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400.32 pressures, flow rate, and packaged compressor power input at given load point(s). Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test methods contained in certain, applicable sections of ISO 1217:2009 as the basis for the compressors test procedure. However, DOE notes that several modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 are required to determine the package isentropic efficiency of applicable compressors and improve the repeatability of ratings. These proposals are discussed in sections III.D.1 and III.D.2. parties on the potential use of several test procedures, including ISO 1217:2009, as a basis for the development of a DOE test procedure. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0040, No. 1 at p. 12). In response to the Framework Document, The Joint Commenters, CAGI, and the CA IOUs all recommended using ISO 1217:2009 for compressor package testing. (CAGI, No. 0009 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 0016 at p. 3; and CA IOUs, No. 0018 at p. 3) CAGI further commented during the Framework Public Meeting that it would evaluate ISO 1217:2009 to determine if additional changes were necessary. (CAGI, No. 0040 at p. 92) Ingersoll-Rand cautioned that ISO 1217:2009 may require changes in order to measure package isentropic efficiency but provided no specific recommendations regarding these changes. (IngersollRand, No. 0040 at p. 90) DOE agrees with Ingersoll-Rand, and DOE has proposed specific methods for calculating package isentropic mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for part-load package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for variable-speed compressors. D. Test Method This section discusses DOE’s proposal for a test method to measure, in a standardized and reproducible manner, all quantities needed to determine package isentropic efficiency. These quantities are: Inlet and discharge 1. Referenced Industry Test Method In the Framework Document, DOE noted the need to establish a test method capable of reliably measuring compressor performance for determining compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE stated that it was considering two industry standards (ISO 1217:2009 and ISO 5389:2005) as the basis for DOE’s compressor test procedure. DOE requested comments from interested 29 The correction factor for the shaft speed (K ) in 4 section C.4.3.1 of annex C in ISO 1217:2009 is not applicable to this test procedure because the electric motor drive is included in the package, and it is therefore omitted from this equation. 30 The correction factor for inlet pressure uses contractual values for inlet pressure. Since a contractual value is not applicable to this test procedure, a value of 100 kPa from annex F in ISO 1217:2009 is used. 31 The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 32 The isentropic exponent of air has some limited variability with atmospheric conditions. DOE chose a fixed value of 1.400 to align with the EU Lot 31 proposed metric calculations. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.011</GPH> PPR,40% = packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure and 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). EP05MY16.009</GPH> EP05MY16.010</GPH> Where: K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 at a contractual inlet pressure of 100 kPa,30 and mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules efficiency, as discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. DOE’s proposal uses the methods and results of ISO 1217:2009 as a basis for their proposed test procedure, but provides additional calculations and provisions that are necessary for determining package isentropic efficiency. In response to the comments regarding the use of ISO 1217:2009, DOE reviewed ISO 1217:2009 and ultimately determined that it (1) is the most widely used test standard in the compressor industry for evaluating positive displacement compressor performance; and (2) it attempts to define uniform methods for conducting laboratory tests to determine the inlet and discharge pressures, flow rate, and packaged compressor power input at a given load point—all of which are required to calculate part- and full-load package isentropic efficiency (as defined sections III.C.4 and III.C.5). ISO 1217:2009 also contains certain specifications regarding test equipment, instrument accuracy, and test tolerances. However, as discussed previously, DOE notes that several modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 are required to determine the package isentropic efficiency of applicable compressors and improve the repeatability and reproducibility of ratings. Generally, in DOE’s view, ISO 1217:2009 is an appropriate industry testing standard for evaluating performance of applicable compressors. However, DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 is written as a customer acceptance test. As such, DOE believes that several modifications and additions to ISO 1217:2009 are required in order to provide the specificity and repeatability required by DOE. These proposed modifications are discussed in detail in section III.D.2. Furthermore, DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 provides both ‘‘complete’’ and ‘‘simplified’’ test methods for a variety of compressor categories, only some of which are within the scope of applicability of DOE’s proposed test procedure. As such, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference only the sections of ISO 1217:2009 that are relevant to the equipment within the scope of applicability of DOE’s proposed test procedure. The specific sections proposed for incorporation, and well as the specific proposed modifications, are discussed further in III.D.2. Ultimately, by incorporating by reference much of ISO 1217:2009 into the proposed DOE test procedure, DOE believes that the resulting DOE test procedure will remain closely aligned with existing and widely used industry VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 procedures and limit testing burden on manufacturers. 2. Modifications, Additions, and Exclusions to ISO 1217:2009 As discussed previously, DOE believes that certain modifications, additions, and exclusions are necessary to ensure repeatable and reproducible test results and provide measurement methods and testing equipment specifications for the entire scope of compressors that DOE would address as part of this proposal. These specific modifications, additions and exceptions are discussed in the following sections III.D.2.a through III.D.2.i. a. Sections Not Included in DOE’s Incorporation by Reference While DOE proposes to incorporate by reference certain, applicable sections of ISO 1217:2009 as the basis for its compressor test procedure, DOE notes that the following sections, subsections, and annexes of the standard are not applicable to DOE’s regulatory framework: • Sections 1, 7, 8 and 9, in their entirety; • Section 6, in its entirety (except subsections 6.2(g), and 6.2(h), which would be incorporated by reference); • Subsections 5.1, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8; • Annexes A, B, D, E, F, and G in their entirety; and • Sections C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1 and C.4.5 of Annex C. Specifically, section 1 of ISO 1217:2009, titled ‘‘Scope,’’ discusses the scope of applicability of ISO 1217:2009. However, the scope discussed in section 1 of ISO 1217:2009 does not align with the specific proposed scope of applicability for DOE’s test procedure, as established in section III.B of this notice. Section 7 of ISO 1217:2009 is titled ‘‘Uncertainty of measurement’’ and simply refers the reader to Annex G for information on uncertainty of measurement. Section 7 of ISO 1217:2009 is not called upon by any other sections of ISO 1217:2009 relevant to the testing of compressors within the scope of this rulemaking. Section 8 of ISO 1217:2009 is titled ‘‘Comparison of test results with specified values’’ and discusses how to compare test results with contractually guaranteed performance values. Such methods would not be required for testing and rating compressors in accordance with DOE’s proposed test procedure. Furthermore, in section III.G, DOE proposes its own sampling and enforcement criteria for compressors included in the scope of applicability of this proposed test procedure. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27237 Section 9, titled ‘‘Test report,’’ contains requirements regarding the generation of a test report. These requirements are not relevant to the testing and rating of compressors in accordance with DOE’s proposed procedure. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to incorporate these sections of ISO 1217:2009 by reference. Section 6 of ISO 1217:2009 is titled ‘‘Test procedures’’ and discusses procedures for a compressor acceptance test. However, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference much of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, titled ‘‘Simplified acceptance test for electrically driven packaged displacement compressors.’’ Both Section 6 and Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 provide methods to calculate discharge pressure, inlet pressure, flow rate, and packaged compressor power input at a given load point. However, the methods contained in Annex C are more specifically optimized for the categories of compressors within the scope of applicability of this rulemaking, and are more widely used in the compressor industry. As a result, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the methods prescribed in Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, and not to incorporate by reference section 6 of ISO 1217:2009, with the following exceptions: • DOE proposes to incorporate by reference sections 6.2(g), and 6.2(h) of ISO 1217:2009, as they contain important testing configuration information that is not supplied in Annex C to ISO 1217:2009. • DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference sections C.1.2, C.2.1, C.3, C.4.2.2, C.4.3.1 and C.4.5 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, as these subsection provide instructions that are not relevant to the testing and rating of compressors in accordance with DOE’s proposed procedure. Subsection 5.1 of ISO 1217:2009 contains general statements related to measuring equipment, methods and accuracy; however, DOE finds most of the statements and instructions in this subsection to be general and ambiguous in nature. To avoid any confusion, DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference subsection 5.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Subsections 5.5 and 5.8 to ISO 1217:2009 provide instructions for how to measure quantities not relevant to DOE proposed test procedures. As a result, DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference subsections 5.5 and 5.8 of ISO 1217:2009. Subsection 5.7 provides instruction for how to measure power and energy; however, this information is also provided in Annex C to ISO 1217:2009. As discussed previously, DOE proposes to use the methods E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27238 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules established in Annex C rather than Section 5. Consequently, DOE proposes not to incorporate by reference subsection 5.7 of ISO 1217:2009. Annex A to ISO 1217:2009, ‘‘Acceptance test for liquid-ring compressors;’’ annex B to ISO 1217:2009, ‘‘Simplified acceptance test for bare compressors;’’ and annex D to ISO 1217:2009, ‘‘Simplified acceptance test for internal combustion enginedriven packaged displacement compressors;’’ are not required for, or applicable to, testing compressors within the proposed scope of this rulemaking. As such, DOE proposes to not incorporate annexes A, B, and D to ISO 1217:2009 by reference. Annex E to ISO 1217:2009, titled ‘‘Acceptance test for electrically driven packaged displacement variable speed drive compressors,’’ is currently used by CAGI to evaluate variable-speed compressors for their performance verification program. This annex stipulates a specific set of load points and states that a variable-speed compressor should be tested at each load point using the methods established in annex C of ISO 1217:2009. However, the load points identified in annex E are not the same as the variable-speed load points proposed by DOE in section III.C.3. Consequently, it is not necessary for DOE to include annex E within this proposed test procedure, and DOE is not proposing to incorporate annex E to ISO 1217:2009 by reference. Annex F to ISO 1217:2009 is titled ‘‘Reference conditions’’ and provides informative standard inlet conditions for a compressor test. However, DOE proposes to explicitly provide applicable standard inlet conditions in section III.D.2.c. Annex G to ISO 1217:2009 is not called upon by any other sections of ISO 1217:2009 relevant to the testing compressors within the scope of this rulemaking. As such, DOE proposes to not incorporate annexes F or G to ISO 1217:2009 by reference. After considering the sections and subsections listed in this section, and based on the reasoning provided, DOE ultimately proposes to incorporate by reference the following sections and subsections of ISO 1217:2009: • Sections 2, 3, and 4; • Subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and • Subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference certain applicable sections of ISO 1217: 2009 as the basis of the DOE test procedure for compressors. DOE VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 requests comment on the proposal not to incorporate by reference specific sections and annexes as explained in this section. b. Terminology DOE notes that, although section 3.4.1 of ISO 1217:2009 defines the term ‘‘actual volume flow rate,’’ the term ‘‘corrected volume flow rate’’ is used throughout the standard to refer to the same quantity. To clarify, DOE is proposing to use the term ‘‘actual volume flow rate’’ exclusively and to note that, where the ISO 1217:2009 refers to ‘‘corrected volume flow rate’’ the term would be deemed equivalent and synonymous with the term ‘‘actual volume flow rate.’’ c. Testing Conditions Subsection 6.2 of ISO 1217:2009 specifies test arrangements and accuracy requirements for testing compressors. However, as previously discussed, DOE finds that the information contained in this subsection is not sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results. As such DOE proposes to not incorporate the majority of this subsection by reference. Rather, DOE proposes to adopt several requirements regarding the ambient testing conditions and input power characteristics. Ambient Conditions DOE notes that section 6.2(d) of ISO 1217:2009 states that ‘‘test conditions shall be as close as reasonably possible to the conditions of guarantee. . .If no inlet conditions have been agreed, then the provisions of Annex F shall apply.’’ Because DOE is proposing to establish a performance test, rather than a customer acceptance test (i.e., there are no applicable conditions of guarantee), DOE proposes to not incorporate section 6.2(d) of ISO 1217:2009 by reference into its proposed test procedure. However, DOE recognizes that ambient conditions may affect test results; as such DOE proposes to specify relevant ambient test conditions as part of this test procedure, rather than rely on specification contained in ISO 1217:2009. DOE understands that the CAGI Performance Verification Program specifies that testing should occur with an ambient air temperature of 80–90 °F. DOE proposes to adopt this range of ambient air temperature (and specify that the range is inclusive of the endpoints) to remain consistent with current industry practices. DOE also proposes not to require certain ambient condition requirements for inlet pressure or relative humidity, as corrections for differences in these PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 values are accounted for in ISO 1217:2009. Finally, DOE proposes to specify that the inlet of the compressor under test must be open to ambient conditions and intake ambient air during testing. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed ambient conditions required for testing, and if they are sufficient to produce repeatable and reproducible test results. Power Supply Characteristics DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 does not specify the power supply characteristics required for testing. Because packaged compressor power input is a component of the proposed metric, measuring power is an important element of the test. The characteristics of the power supplied to the compressor will affect the repeatability and reproducibility of the measured packaged compressor power input. As a result, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of packaged compressor power input, DOE also proposes to specify nominal characteristics of the power supply. Namely, DOE proposes nominal values for voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and total harmonic distortion, as well as tolerances for each of these values that must be maintained at the input terminals to the compressor equipment. To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics for testing compressors, DOE examined applicable test methods for similar equipment (i.e., equipment typically driven by electric motors and sometimes accompanied with variable frequency drives). DOE reviewed the recently published pumps test procedure final rule, which adopts specific requirements for the voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and total harmonic distortion when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. These requirements are shown in Table III.4. DOE believes that, because compressors utilize similar electrical equipment (i.e., electric motors and drives) to pumps, such requirements should also apply when testing compressors. TABLE III.4—PROPOSED POWER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPRESSORS Characteristic Voltage .................. Frequency .............. Voltage Unbalance E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Tolerance ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor ±3 percent of the rated value of the motor Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 27239 number of readings and the intervals DOE requests comment on the TABLE III.4—PROPOSED POWER SUPshall be chosen to obtain the required PLY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPRES- proposed equipment configuration that the inlet of the air compressor under test accuracy.’’ Due to the lack of specificity SORS—Continued Characteristic Total Harmonic Distortion. Tolerance ≤12 percent DOE notes that, as discussed at length in the pumps test procedure final rule, these power supply requirements are generally consistent with the requirements and operating conditions for other, similar commercial equipment (i.e., that operate with electric motors and sometimes variable frequency drives) and with relevant industry test standards. In addition, DOE noted in the January 2016 general pumps test procedure final rule that these requirements are generally available on the national electric power grid and, therefore, not unduly burdensome to conduct. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). DOE believes the requirements, by extension, would present a similarly low level of burden with respect to compressors. DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and total harmonic distortion requirements when performing a compressor test. Specifically, DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical compressor test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment would be required. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Equipment Configuration ISO 1217:2009 does not specify how a unit under test should be configured for testing. As a result, DOE proposes to specify how equipment is to be configured to ensure repeatable results when conducting the DOE test procedure. The proposed definition for an air compressor includes ancillary equipment, and therefore DOE proposes to specify that all ancillary equipment that is distributed in commerce with the compressor must be present and installed for all tests. The proposed definition for an air compressor also specifies that the air compressor has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air. In addition, DOE is proposing ambient conditions for testing. Because an air compressor may have an inlet open to an ‘‘other source of air,’’ DOE proposes to specify that the inlet of the compressor under test must be open to the atmosphere and take in ambient air for all tests. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 be open to the atmosphere and take in ambient air, and whether all air compressors can be configured and tested in this manner. Finally, DOE notes that air compressors often require setup prior to testing. DOE proposes that a unit under test must be set up according to all manufacturer instructions for normal operation. Instructions from the manufacturer may include instructions on verifying oil levels and/or filling the unit with oil for lubrication, checking and connecting loose internal electrical connections, ensuring the bottom of the unit is closed from ambient air and in contact with the floor as intended, or installing forklift cover holes. DOE requests comment on the proposed requirements for equipment configuration. e. Data Collection and Sampling To ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the DOE compressor test procedure should provide instructions about how to sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data is taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely represent the performance of the compressor at that load point. Section 6.2(i) of ISO 1217:2009 states that ‘‘before readings are taken, the compressor shall be run long enough to ensure that steady-state conditions are reached so that no systematic changes occur in the instrument readings during the test.’’ However, ISO 1217:2009 does not clearly define, in a repeatable way, what steady-state conditions are, and how a test operator would know definitively that steady-state has been reached. As a result, DOE proposes to require that measurements be taken at steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the difference between two consecutive, unique, power measurements, taken at least 10 seconds apart and no more than 60 seconds apart and measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is less than or equal to 300 watts. DOE believes that this requirement is sufficient to ensure the measurement is accurate and precise for either manually or digitally recorded data points. Additionally, DOE understands that a similar 300-watt stability requirement is currently the standard industry practice. With regards to data sampling and frequency, section 6.2(k) of ISO 1217:2009 states that ‘‘for each load, a sufficient number of readings shall be taken to indicate that steady-state conditions have been reached. The PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 regarding the number and interval of data points required, DOE proposes to not incorporate section 6.2(k) of ISO 1217:2009 by reference into its proposed test procedure. Instead, DOE proposes that formal data recordings used to determine package isentropic efficiency, package specific power, and pressure ratio consist of at least 16 unique measurements, collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes. Each consecutive measurement must be spaced no more than 60 seconds apart, and not less than 10 seconds apart. To ensure that the compressor remains at steady state throughout the test, the difference in packaged compressor power input between the maximum and minimum measurement during the 15minute data recording time period must be less than or equal to 300 watts, as measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009. DOE proposes that all the unique measurements taken in each 15-minute data recording time period must meet the requirements in this section; if one or more measurements in each data recording time period do not meet the requirements, then a new data recording of at least 16 new unique measurements collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes must be performed. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed data collection requirements. f. Allowable Deviations From Specified Load Points DOE notes that Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009 specify maximum deviations from specified values of discharge pressures during an acceptance test and maximum deviations in volume flow rate at specified conditions permissible at test, respectively. DOE proposes to specify that when performing the DOE test procedure for package isentropic efficiency, the values listed in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 would serve as the maximum allowable deviations from the discharge pressure and volume flow rate load points specified in the proposed test procedure.33 DOE requests comment on the allowable deviations in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether air compressors are able to 33 DOE notes that Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 uses the term ‘‘volume flow rate.’’ For the purposes of the proposed DOE test procedure, the term ‘‘volume flow rate’’ in Table C.2 will be considered synonymous with the ‘‘actual volume flow rate’’ of the compressor under test. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27240 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules control discharge pressure and volume flow rate with more precision than as specified from values in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009. g. Calculations and Rounding DOE notes that ISO 1217:2009 does not specify how to round values when performing calculations or making representations. DOE recognizes that the order and manner in which values are rounded can affect the resulting value, and, for consistency, it is important that all represented values of package isentropic efficiency, package specific power, actual volume flow rate, and full-load operating pressure be represented consistently across the compressor industry. DOE proposes to require that all calculations be performed with the raw measured data, to ensure accuracy. DOE also proposes that the package isentropic efficiency be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.001,34 package specific power be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.01 kilowatt per 100 cubic feet per minute, pressure ratio be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.1, actual volume flow rate be rounded and represented to the nearest 0.1 acfm, and full-load operating pressure be rounded and represented to the nearest 1 psig. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 h. Measurement Equipment Packaged Compressor Power Input DOE reviewed section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 ‘‘Measurement of packaged compressor power input’’ and found that it did not contain clear and explicit tolerance requirements for equipment used to measure the power supplied to the compressor under test. In the absence of tolerance requirements established by the compressor industry, DOE evaluated accuracy requirements for electrical measurement equipment for similar commercial and industrial equipment—specifically, pumps. DOE considers commercial and industrial pumps to be similar and relevant, as these pumps are typically driven by the same electric motors and variablefrequency drives (if present) as compressors and have similar power supply requirements. In the pumps test procedure final rule, DOE adopted specific requirements for electrical measurement equipment used to measure input power to the motor, continuous controls, or noncontinuous controls. Specifically, DOE specified that the electrical measurement equipment in such cases 34 DOE’s proposal is consistent with CAGI’s current performance verification datasheet practice, which expresses energy consumption to three significant digits. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency and have an accuracy level of ±2.0 percent of the measured value when measured at the fundamental supply source frequency. DOE noted that such characteristics and requirements are consistent with other, similar industry test standards for applicable motors and controls and are necessary for determining compliance with the pump power supply requirements, which are the same as those proposed in section III.D.2.c for compressors. DOE notes that several interested parties commented throughout the pumps rulemaking that such measurement equipment was necessary due to the potential impact of the continuous control on line harmonics and other equipment on the circuit. (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031, CA IOUs, Framework public meeting transcript No. 19 at p. 236; Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031, HI, No. 25 at p. 35; Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– TP–0055, AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1–2) AHRI also indicated that any harmonics in the power system can affect the measured performance of the pump when tested with a motor or motor and continuous or non-continuous control. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0055, AHRI, No. 11 at pp. 1–2) DOE believes that, similarly, such equipment is necessary to accurately measure the input power to the compressors that would be subject to this test procedure. DOE also recognizes that current and voltage instrument transformers can be used in conjunction with electrical measurement equipment to measure current and voltage. Usage of instrument transformers can introduce additional losses and errors to the measurement system. Section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 recognizes this potential for losses and errors and states that ‘‘current and voltage transformers shall be chosen to operate as near to their rated loads as possible so that their ratio error is minimized.’’ However, this section does not specify precisely how to combine the individual errors of each transformer to determine the combined accuracy of the measurement system. To clarify this ambiguity, DOE reviewed applicable industry test procedures related to electrical power measurement. Section C.4.1 of AHRI 1210–2011 indicates that combined accuracy should be calculated by multiplying the accuracies of individual instruments. In contrast, section 5.7.2 of CSA C838–2013 indicates that if all components of the power measuring system cannot be calibrated together as PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a system, the total error must be calculated from the square root of the sum of the squares of all the errors. DOE understands that it is more accurate to combine independent accuracies (i.e., uncertainties or errors) by summing them in quadrature.35 DOE therefore proposes to use the root sum of squares to calculate the combined accuracy of multiple instruments used in a single measurement, consistent with conventional error propagation methods.36 Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes that the electrical measurement equipment used when measuring the input power to the compressor must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency and have a combined instrument accuracy level of ±2.0 percent of the measured value when measured at the fundamental supply source frequency. Combined instrument accuracy would be calculated by summing the individual accuracies in quadrature. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed packaged compressor power input measurement equipment requirements. Pressure Measurement DOE reviewed section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009, ‘‘Measurement of Pressure,’’ and concluded that certain language contained in this section requires clarification in order to achieve unambiguous, reproducible, and repeatable pressure measurements. Specifically, section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009 states that ‘‘Connecting piping shall be leak-free, as short as possible, of sufficient diameter and arranged so as to avoid blockage by dirt or condensed liquid.’’ While DOE recognizes the intent of this instruction, DOE prefers to provide quantitative instructions and measurements to determine if equipment is ‘‘leak-free and of sufficient diameter’’ and a quantitative definition of the term ‘‘short as possible.’’ Additionally, DOE finds the following terms and instruction to be ambiguous: ‘‘tightness shall be tested and all leaks eliminated;’’ 35 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results (https://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/sec5.html, accessed September 8, 2015). 36 DOE notes that section G.2.5.2 of Annex G to ISO 1217 also directs uncertainties to be summed in quadrature. However, Annex G to ISO 1217:2009 is not directly referenced by the applicable power measurement section of ISO 1217:2009 (section C.2.4 of Annex C), and therefore DOE is not proposing to incorporate Annex G by reference. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules ‘‘mounted so that they are not susceptible to disturbing vibrations;’’ ‘‘pressure waves in the inlet pipe or the discharge pipe are found to exceed 10% of the prevailing average absolute pressure, the piping installation shall be corrected before proceeding with the test;’’ ‘‘pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing during the test;’’ ‘‘shall be corrected for the gravitational acceleration at the location of the instrument;’’ ‘‘a receiver with inlet throttling shall be provided between the pressure tap and the instrument;’’ and ‘‘Oscillations of gauges shall not be reduced by throttling with a valve placed before the instrument, however, a restricting orifice may be used.’’ In an effort to address some of those ambiguities, DOE proposes several requirements related to measurement of pressure in this test procedure NOPR. First, DOE proposes to require that discharge piping must be equal in diameter to the discharge orifice of the compressor package, and extend in length a distance of at least 15 times that diameter with no transitions or turns. Second, DOE proposes to require that the pressure tap be placed in the discharge pipe, between 2’’ and 6’’ away from the discharge, at the highest point of the cross section of the pipe. DOE requests comment to help clarify these ambiguities contained in section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests potential quantitative explanations and instructions related to the following items: pressure tap installation locations; methods to verify ‘‘leak-free’’ pipe connections; ‘‘short as possible’’ and of ‘‘sufficient diameter’’; testing ‘‘tightness’’; mounting instruments so that the unit is ‘‘not susceptible to disturbing vibrations’’; how and where to test for ‘‘pressure waves’’ and how the piping installation can be ‘‘corrected;’’ how to calibrate transmitters and gauges under ‘‘pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing during the test’’; how to correct dead-weight gauges for ‘‘gravitational acceleration at the location of the instrument’’; where to install ‘‘a receiver with inlet throttling’’ to correct for flow pulsations; and how a restricting orifice may be used to reduce oscillation of gauges. Finally, DOE requests comment on its proposals regarding discharge piping and pressure taps. Additionally DOE proposes to clarify that any measurement of pressure used in a calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 Temperature Measurement DOE reviewed section 5.3 of ISO 1217:2009 and proposes that any measurement of temperature meet the requirements of this section. Additionally, DOE notes that any measurement of temperature used in a calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.3 of ISO 1217:2009. Density Measurement DOE reviewed ISO 1217:2009 and notes that it does not provide accuracy requirements for measurement of density, which may be measured to support the calculation of actual volume flow rate. In the absence of accuracy requirements established in ISO 1217:2009, DOE proposes any measurement of density must have an accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the measured value. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed density measurement equipment requirements. i. Determination of Maximum Full-Flow Operating Pressure, Full-Load Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate As part of this test procedure, DOE proposes to specify the load points for testing based on the actual volume flow rate at full-load operating pressure of the unit (full-load actual volume flow rate as discussed previously in section III.C.2). However, ISO 1217:2009 does not provide a method to determine fullload operating pressure of the tested unit. Rather, ISO 1217:2009 relies on manufacturer-specified full-load operating pressures. Similarly, CAGI specifies a ‘‘maximum full flow operating pressure,’’ which is explained on the CAGI data sheets as ‘‘the maximum pressure attainable at full flow, usually the unload pressure setting for load/no load control or the maximum pressure attainable before capacity control begins.’’ CAGI data sheets also specify a ‘‘full load operating pressure,’’ which is defined as ‘‘the operating pressure at which the capacity and electrical consumption were measured for this data sheet.’’ The CAGI specifications demonstrate that compressor manufacturers typically make performance representations at this nominal full-load operating pressure condition, rather than at the actual tested maximum operating pressure of the unit. In order to have a reproducible and repeatable test procedure and ensure comparability of test results, DOE PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27241 prefers to rely on objective rating point(s) determined through repeatable testing methods, as opposed to ‘‘nominal’’ values or arbitrarily selected rating conditions. Doing so allows for accurate comparison between compressors from different manufacturers and ensures reproducible testing for all equipment. However, DOE recognizes that testing at the actual tested maximum full-flow operating pressure may increase variability in test results and may be a less representative rating condition, as it is representative of the unload pressure just before the compressor shuts off. DOE also acknowledges that manufacturers may design their compressors to operate optimally at a nominal full-load operating pressure slightly less than the tested maximum. Further, DOE recognizes that the preponderance of manufacturer test data and performance information, such as CAGI performance data, exists at such nominal full-load operating pressure conditions and it would be extremely burdensome to retest all compressors to evaluate performance at the maximum full-load operating pressure instead of the nominal full-load operating pressure. Based on all of these considerations, DOE developed a quantitative and standardized method to determine the full-load operating pressure, while still preserving sufficient flexibility to allow most manufacturers to select an appropriate and representative full-load operating pressure within a narrow range. That is, DOE proposes to include a specific test method to determine the maximum full-flow operating pressure of the equipment, which is representative of the maximum discharge pressure at full-flow (i.e., the maximum discharge pressure attainable before capacity control begins, including unloading for load/no load controls), as described in this section. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to specify the full-load operating pressure that would be used for subsequent testing and determination of full-load actual volume flow rate, specific power, and package isentropic efficiency, provided the specified value is greater than or equal to 90 percent and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure. That is, DOE would allow manufacturers to selfdeclare the full-load operating pressure as between 90 and 100 percent of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure. The full-load operating pressure would then be used to determine the full-load actual volume flow rate, specific power, and package E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27242 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules isentropic efficiency values for that compressor model. DOE reviewed CAGI performance data to determine an appropriate range for manufacturer self-declared full-load operating pressure, based on maximum full-flow operating pressure. DOE found that 94 percent of units had a full-load operating pressure in the proposed range of 90 to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure. Additionally, DOE found that 59 percent of units had a full-load operating pressure within a narrower range of 95 to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure. DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow manufacturers to selfdeclare the full-load operating pressure between 90 and 100 percent of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure, and whether a smaller or larger range should be used. Therefore, DOE proposes a test procedure to determine maximum fullflow operating pressure for both fixedand variable-speed compressors. As no industry standard method exists, the method DOE proposes to determine maximum full-flow operating pressure is based on DOE’s current understanding of typical compressor operation. DOE proposes that, if units are distributed in commerce by the manufacturer equipped with any mechanism to adjust the maximum discharge pressure limit, to adjust this mechanism to the maximum pressure allowed for normal operation, according to the manufacturer’s operating instructions for these mechanisms. Mechanisms to adjust discharge pressure may include, but are not limited to, onboard digital or analog controls and user-adjustable inlet valves. DOE proposes that all tested discharge pressures must be within the manufacturer’s specified safe operating range of the compressor. Specifically, DOE proposes that the test must not violate any manufacturer-provided motor-operational guidelines for normal use, including any restriction on instantaneous and continuous input power draw and output shaft power (e.g., electric rating and service factor limits). DOE also proposes to require that the unit be tested at the maximum driver speed throughout the determination of maximum full-flow operating pressure and full-load operating pressure. For variable-speed compressors, this means that no speed reduction is allowed during testing to determine maximum full-flow operating pressure; speed reduction is still allowed when VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 conducting the remainder of the test procedure to determine package isentropic efficiency, package specific power, and other relevant parameters at the load points specified in section III.C.3. If the unit being tested is a fixedspeed compressor with a multi-speed driver, then all testing would occur at the maximum driver operating speed. DOE proposes measuring discharge pressure according to the methods described in section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009; compressor discharge pressure would be expressed in pounds per square inch, gauge (‘‘psig’’), in reference to ambient conditions, and reported to the nearest integer. Targeted discharge pressure test points would be specified in integer values only; and maximum allowable measured deviation from the targeted discharge pressure at each load point would be ±1 psig. DOE notes that the ±1 psig deviation tolerance established for this test method differs from, and is typically more stringent than, the discharge pressure deviation tolerances specified in the tests for full-load and part-load isentropic efficiency that are discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. However, this method requires discharge pressure to be measured in increments of 2 psig, and as a result, a fixed tolerance of ±1 psig is the largest practical tolerance that can still effectively differentiate the discrete pressure test point increments. DOE proposes that data recording (at each tested point) be conducted under steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the difference between two consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power input reading measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to or less than 300 watts. For the test methods discussed in this section, DOE proposes that each data recording consist of a minimum of two unique measurements collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart, and that the unique measurements be averaged. DOE also proposes that each consecutive measurement meet the stabilization requirement discussed in the previous paragraph. Finally, DOE notes that the data recording requirements proposed in this paragraph differ from those specified in the tests for full-load and part-load isentropic efficiency that are discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5. DOE believes that two unique measurements, collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart, are sufficient to characterize discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate, while the more burdensome PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16 unique measurements, collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes, is required to sufficiently characterize compressor input power and ultimately isentropic efficiency. DOE proposes that the unit under test shall be set up so that back-pressure on the unit can be adjusted (e.g., by valves) incrementally, causing the measured discharge pressure to change, until the compressor is in an unloaded condition. DOE proposes to consider a unit to be in an unloaded condition if capacity controls on the unit automatically reduce the actual volume flow rate from the compressor (e.g., shutting the motor off, or unloading by adjusting valves). As explained in section III.B.6, maximum full-flow operating pressure is defined conceptually as the maximum discharge pressure at which a compressor is capable of operating. Consequently, the practical goal of this method is to identify the maximum achievable discharge pressure before capacity controls begin. This method achieves this goal by increasing the discharge pressure by increments of 2 psig, by adjusting the system backpressure, while the unit is operating at full-speed until the unit goes into an unloaded condition. DOE proposes to begin the test method by adjusting the system backpressure to 90 percent of the certified maximum full-flow operating pressure (rounded to the nearest integer), or to 90 percent of an advertised or known maximum full-flow operating pressure (rounded to the nearest integer) if there is no certified value, or to 75 psig if there is no advertised or known value. DOE chose 75 psig as a potential starting discharge pressure because it was the lowest full-load operating pressure advertised of all available CAGI performance data. DOE propose to then allow the unit to remain at this setting for 15 minutes to allow the unit to thermally stabilize. This stabilization period allows time for elements within the unit under test to reach intended operating conditions (e.g., lubricant temperature, and thermal expansion of compression element). After this stabilization period, measurements for discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate are taken, as specified in this section. DOE proposes to then increase discharge pressure of the system (by adjusting the back-pressure of the system) by 2 psig, and allow the unit to remain at this setting for 2 minutes. The specified two minute time period is to allow time for the unit to reach steadystate and to ensure that the unit will not enter an unloaded condition, which may not occur immediately after E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules increasing the discharge pressure. After 2 minutes, if the unit is not in an unloaded condition, measurements for discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate are taken, as specified in this section. DOE proposes to then iteratively increase discharge pressure in increments of 2 psig, allow the compressor to stabilize, and then record the discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate, until the unit reaches an unloaded condition. The maximum discharge pressure recorded over all the test points that does not initiate the compressor capacity controls is the maximum full-flow operating pressure. As described previously the representative value of full-load operating pressure would then be determined, by the manufacturer, as a value greater than or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure and the full-load actual volume flow rate would be the resultant actual volume flow rate measured at the fullload operating pressure. DOE requests comment on the proposed method for determining maximum full-flow operating pressure, full-load operating pressure, and fullload actual volume flow rate of a compressor. DOE requests comment regarding whether any more specific instructions would be required to determine the maximum full-flow operating pressure for variable-speed compressors in addition to the proposal that testing is to be conducted at maximum speed, and no speed reduction is allowed during the test. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 E. Definition of Basic Model In the course of regulating products and equipment, DOE has developed the concept of a basic model to allow manufacturers to group similar equipment to minimize testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of compressors within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (Mar. 7, 2011).37 In 37 These provisions allow manufacturers to group individual models with essentially identical, but not exactly the same, energy performance characteristics into a basic model to reduce testing burden. Under DOE’s certification requirements, all the individual models within a basic model identified in a certification report as being the same basic model must have the same certified efficiency rating and use the same test data underlying the certified rating. The Compliance Certification and Enforcement final rule also establishes that the efficiency rating of a basic model must be based on the least efficient or most energy consuming individual model (i.e., put another way, all individual models within a basic model must be at least as energy efficient as the certified rating). 76 FR at 12428–29 (March 7, 2011). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 that rulemaking, DOE established that manufacturers may elect to group similar individual models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of individual models within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (Mar. 7, 2011). However, DOE notes that manufacturers make the decision to group models together with the understanding that there is increased risk associated with such model consolidation due to the potential for an expanded impact from a finding of noncompliance. Consolidation of models within a single basic model results in such increased risk because DOE compliance on a basic model basis. Id. In keeping with this practice, in this rulemaking DOE proposes a definition of basic model for compressors that defines the compressor models on which manufacturers must conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with any future energy conservation standard for compressors, while still enabling manufacturers to group individual models to reduce the burden of testing. For this rulemaking, DOE proposes to establish a definition of basic model that is similar to other commercial and industrial equipment. Specifically, DOE proposes to define a compressor basic model to include all units of a class of compressors manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or pneumatic) characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy efficiency. DOE notes that the requirement of ‘‘essentially identical electrical . . . characteristics’’ means that models with different compressor motor nominal horsepower ratings must be classified as separate basic models. Furthermore, DOE is aware that identical bare compressor, mechanical equipment, and driver combinations may be distributed in commerce with a variety of ancillary equipment, in a variety of configurations, depending on customer requirements. If these variations in ancillary equipment impact the energy use or energy efficiency characteristics of the compressor, then each variation would typically constitute a different basic model. However, as discussed previously, manufacturers may elect to group individual models of compressors into the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of individual models within that basic PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27243 model are identical and based on the energy performance of most consumptive unit, except that individual models cannot be grouped to span equipment classes or compressor motor nominal horsepower. DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of a basic model for compressors. F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency As noted previously, manufacturers of any compressors within the proposed scope of applicability of this rulemaking would be required to use the test procedure established through this rulemaking, if adopted, when determining the represented efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) requires that ‘‘no manufacturer . . . may make any representation . . . respecting the energy consumption of such equipment or cost of energy consumed by such equipment, unless such equipment has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.’’ DOE is proposing a test procedure for compressors that would provide a method to calculate full-load and partload isentropic efficiency for fixedspeed and variable-speed compressors, respectively. As such, and consistent with EPCA, DOE proposes that, beginning 180 days after the publication in the Federal Register of any final rule adopting a final test procedure for compressors, all representations of fullload and part-load isentropic efficiency of applicable compressors must be made in accordance with the adopted test procedure. DOE notes that representations include those to DOE as well as any other representations, including those made on the equipment packaging or in marketing materials. However, with respect to representations of compressor performance, generally, DOE understands that manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical form) of various metrics, including, for example, package specific power at various load points, actual volume flow rate at various load points, and discharge pressure. DOE does not propose to limit the type of representations manufacturers may make with regard to their equipment performance. However, DOE proposes to require that such values be generated using methods consistent with the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes that any representations of hisen,FL and hisen,PL, as defined in section III.C, must be made E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules according to the DOE test procedure. Furthermore, DOE proposes that the parameters hisen,40 and hisen,70, as precursors to the final part-load isentropic efficiency metric, hisen,PL, must be generated based on the same data, applicable test procedure provisions, and sampling plans. Additionally, DOE proposes that any representations of the full-load actual volume flow rate, full-load operating pressure, or pressure ratio also must be measured according to the DOE test procedure and sampling plans. DOE notes that these values are key characteristics of compressor performance and are used to determine how to apply the proposed test procedure and the scope of the proposed test procedure to certain compressors. In addition, DOE notes that the attainable efficiency of compressors varies with volume flow rate (i.e., compressors with lower flow rates typically achieve lower efficiencies than compressors with higher flow rates). Consequently, DOE believes that accurate, reproducible, and repeatable representations of these metrics would lead to more meaningful, valuable, and comparable metrics for customers and end-users of this equipment. DOE understands that, for variablespeed compressors, manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical form) of package isentropic efficiency and package specific power as functions of flow rate or rotational speed. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to continue making these representations. However, DOE notes that graphical or numerical representations of package isentropic efficiency or package specific power at 40, 70, and 100 percent of the full-load actual volume flow rate must represent values measured in accordance with the DOE test procedure. DOE also notes that graphical or numerical representations of these metrics at any other load points must be generated using methods consistent with the DOE test procedure. DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding applicable representations of energy and nonenergy metrics for compressors. DOE requests comment on any additional metrics that manufacturers often use when making representations of compressor energy use or efficiency. G. Sampling Plans for Tested Data and AEDMs DOE must provide uniform methods for manufacturers to determine representative values of energy- and non-energy-related metrics, for each basic model. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). These representative values are used VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 when making public representations (as discussed in section III.F) and when determining compliance with prescribed energy conservation standards. DOE proposes that manufacturers may use either a statistical sampling plan of tested data, in accordance with proposed section 10 CFR 429.61, or an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) in accordance with proposed amendments to section 10 CFR 429.70. The following two sections discuss sampling plans and AEDMs. 1. Statistical Sampling Plan DOE provides, in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429, sampling plans for all covered equipment. As mentioned previously, the purpose of a statistical sampling plan is to provide a method to determine a representative value of energy- and non-energy-related metrics, for each basic model. For compressors, DOE proposes to adopt statistical sampling plans similar to those used for other commercial and industrial equipment, such as pumps, as DOE believes that the variations in testing experienced in other mechanical commercial equipment would be similar to compressors. These requirements would be added in a new section 10 CFR 429.61. Under this proposal, for purposes of certification testing, the determination that a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard would be based on testing conducted using the proposed DOE test procedure and sampling plan. The general sampling requirement currently applicable to all covered products and equipment provides that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure compliance and that, unless otherwise specified, a minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as compliant. 10 CFR 429.11(b) DOE proposes to apply this same minimum sample size requirement to compressors. Thus, if a statistical sampling plan is used, DOE proposes that a sample of sufficient size be selected to ensure compliance and that at least two units must be tested to determine the representative values of applicable metrics for each basic model. Manufacturers may need to test a sample of more than two units depending on the variability of their sample, as provided by the statistical sampling plan. Specifically, DOE proposes to establish sampling plans for the following energy and non-energy metrics: • Full-load package isentropic efficiency (energy metric), PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 • Part-load package isentropic efficiency (energy metric), • Package specific power (energy metric), • Full-load actual volume flow rate (non-energy metric), • Full-load operating pressure (nonenergy metric), and • Pressure ratio (non-energy metric). The details of the sampling plan vary based on whether the metric is an energy metric or a non-energy metric. For the energy metrics, DOE employs a statistical process to account for variability in testing and manufacture, as is done with most other covered products and equipment. For many other types of commercial and industrial equipment, such as pumps, DOE has adopted an upper confidence limit (UCL) and lower confidence limit (LCL) of 0.95; which are divided by a de-rating factor of 1.05 and 0.95, respectively. DOE believes that compressors would realize similar performance variability to such other commercial and industrial equipment. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt a confidence limit of 0.95 and a de-rating factor of 0.95 for package isentropic efficiency, for compressors as part of this test procedure. For non-energy metrics and package specific power (an optional energy metric) DOE proposes that the represented value be the arithmetic mean of the measured value for each unit. DOE believes this more simplified approach is appropriate, since such values are not used to determine compliance of the basic model and, therefore, accounting for variability and allowing for conservative ratings is not as important. The proposed sampling details for each metric are discussed in the following subsections. DOE proposes the following sampling plan provisions be incorporated into new 10 CFR 429.61: Part- or Full-Load Package Isentropic Efficiency For each basic model of compressor selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any value of the full- or part-load package isentropic efficiency or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which customers would favor higher values is less than or equal to the lower of the following two values: (1) The mean of the sample, where: E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.012</GPH> mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27244 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules ¯ and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 percent one-tailed confidence interval with n–1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A of subpart B). In addition, DOE also allows for determination of package isentropic efficiency through application of an AEDM, as discussed in section III.G.1.b. Package Specific Power The representative value of package specific power of a basic model must be either the mean of the package specific power measured for each tested unit, or as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b. Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate The representative value of full-load actual volume flow rate of a basic model must be either the mean of the full-load actual volume flow rate measured for each tested unit, or as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b. Full-Load Operating Pressure The representative value of full-load operating pressure of a basic model must be either the mean of the full-load operating pressure measured for each tested unit, or as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Pressure Ratio The representative value of the pressure ratio of a basic model must be either the mean of the pressure ratio for each tested unit, or as determined through application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements proposed in section III.G.1.b. DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for certification of compressor models. b. Records Retention Requirements Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial equipment, DOE notes the applicability of certain requirements regarding retention of certain information related to the testing and certification of compressors, which VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 are detailed under 10 CFR 429.71. Generally, manufacturers must establish, maintain, and retain certification and test information, including underlying test data for all certification testing for two years from date on which the compressor is discontinued in commerce. 2. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods a. Background Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 429.70, DOE may permit use of an alternative efficiency determination method in lieu of testing for equipment for which testing burden may be considerable and for which performance may be well predicted by such alternative methods. Although specific requirements vary by product or equipment, use of an AEDM entails development of a mathematical model that estimates energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the basic model, as would be measured by the applicable DOE test procedure. The AEDM must be based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance data. A manufacturer must perform validation of an AEDM by demonstrating that performance, as predicted by the AEDM, is in agreement with performance as measured by actual testing in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure. The validation procedure and requirements, including the statistical tolerance, number of basic models, and number of units tested vary by product. Once developed, an AEDM may be used to certify performance of untested basic models in lieu of physical testing. However, use of an AEDM for any basic model is always at the option of the manufacturer. One potential advantage of AEDM use is that it may free a manufacturer from the burden of physical testing. One potential risk is that the AEDM may not perfectly predict performance, and the manufacturer could be found responsible for having an invalid rating for the equipment in question or for having distributed a noncompliant basic model of compressor. The manufacturer, by using an AEDM, bears the responsibility and risk of the validity of the ratings. During confidential interviews, several manufacturers noted that testing compressors is, in fact, costly and complex, and that in at least some cases, compressor performance could be reliably extrapolated using modeling. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to accommodate the application of AEDMs to determine performance ratings for compressors and proposes regulatory language that is consistent with most other commercial and industrial equipment that have AEDM provisions. The specific details are discussed in sections III.G.2.b through III.G.2.e. b. Basic Criteria Any AEDM Must Satisfy A manufacturer may not use an AEDM to determine the values of metrics unless the following three criteria are met: (1) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure; (2) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance data; and (3) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with the applicable validation requirements for such equipment (discussed in section III.G.2.c of this notice). c. Validation Validation is the process by which a manufacturer demonstrates that an AEDM meets DOE’s requirements for use as a certification tool by physically testing a certain number and style of compressor models and comparing the test results to the output of the AEDM. Before using an AEDM, a manufacturer must validate the AEDM’s accuracy and reliability as follows: Number of Tested Units Required for Validation A manufacturer must select a minimum number of basic models from each validation class to which the AEDM applies (validation classes are groupings of products based on equipment classes used for AEDM validation). The Department proposes the validation classes listed in Table III.5 be applicable to compressors. To validate an AEDM, the specified number of basic models from each validation class must be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure and sampling plan in effect at the time those basic models used for validation are distributed in commerce. Testing may be conducted at a manufacturer’s testing facility or a third-party testing facility. The resulting rating is directly compared to the result from the AEDM to determine the AEDM’s validity. A manufacturer may develop multiple E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.013</GPH> ¯ and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the measured value for the ith sample; (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95, where: 27245 27246 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules AEDMs per validation class, and each AEDM may span multiple validation classes; however, the minimum number of basic models must be validated per validation class for every AEDM a manufacturer chooses to develop. An AEDM may be applied to any basic model within the applicable validation classes at the manufacturer’s discretion. All documentation of testing, the AEDM results, and subsequent comparisons to the AEDM would be required to be maintained as part of both the test data underlying the certified rating and the AEDM validation package pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. TABLE III.5—PROPOSED AEDM VALIDATION CLASSES FOR COMPRESSORS Validation class Rotary, Fixed-speed .. Rotary, Variablespeed. Reciprocating, Fixedspeed. Reciprocating, Variable-speed. Minimum number of distinct basic models that must be tested 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. Tolerances for Validation DOE proposes that the AEDMpredicted result for a basic model must be (for energy consumption metrics) equal to or greater than 95 percent or (for energy efficiency metrics) less than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that same model. Additionally, the predicted energy efficiency for each basic model calculated by applying the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable federal energy conservation standard DOE adopts for compressors. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Records Retention Requirements Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial equipment, DOE also proposes requirements regarding retention of certain information related to validation and use of an AEDM to certify equipment. Specifically, any manufacturer using an AEDM to generate representative values must provide to DOE upon request records showing (1) the AEDM, itself, and any mathematical modeling, engineering or statistical analysis, or computer simulation that forms the AEDM’s basis; (2) equipment information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to validate the AEDM pursuant to section III.G.2.b; and (3) equipment information and AEDM VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 calculations for each basic model to which the AEDM has been applied. e. Additional AEDM Requirements Consistent with provisions for other commercial and industrial equipment, DOE proposes to require that, if requested by DOE, a manufacturer must perform at least one of the following activities: (1) conduct a simulation before a DOE representative to predict the performance of particular basic models of the equipment to which the AEDM was applied; (2) provide analysis of previous simulations conducted by the manufacturer; and (3) conduct certification testing of basic model(s) selected by DOE. In addition, DOE notes that, when making representations of values other than package isentropic efficiency based on the output of an AEDM, all other representations regarding package specific power, full-load actual volume flow rate, full-load operating pressure, and pressure ratio would be required to be based on the same AEDM results used to generate the represented value of package isentropic efficiency. DOE requests feedback regarding all aspects of its proposal to permit use of an AEDM for compressors, and any data or information comparing modeled performance with the results of physical testing. 3. Enforcement Provisions Enforcement provisions govern the process DOE would follow when performing its own assessment of basic model compliance with standards, as described under 10 CFR 429.110. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt similar requirements to those applied to other industrial equipment, specifically pumps. In the pumps test procedure final rule, DOE adopted provisions stating that DOE would assess compliance of any basic models undergoing enforcement testing based on the arithmetic mean of up to four units. 81 FR 4086 (Jan. 25, 2016). Therefore, for compressors, DOE proposes to use, when determining performance for a specific basic model, the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed four units. In addition, when determining compliance for enforcement purposes, DOE proposes to adopt provisions that specify how DOE would determine the full-load operating pressure for the purposes of measuring the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, and pressure ratio for any tested equipment. In addition, DOE proposes a method for determining the appropriate standard level for any tested equipment based on PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the tested full-load actual volume flow rate. Specifically, to verify the full-load operating pressure certified by the manufacturer, DOE proposes to perform the same procedure being proposed (see section III.D.2.i) for determining the maximum full-flow operating pressure of each unit tested, except that DOE would begin searching for maximum full-flow operating pressure at the manufacturer’s certified value of fullload operating pressure prior to increasing discharge pressure. As DOE has proposed to allow manufacturers to self-declare a full-load operating pressure value of between 90 and 100 percent (inclusive) of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure, DOE proposes to compare the measured value(s) of maximum full-flow operating pressure from a sample of one or more units to the certified value of full-load operating pressure. If a sample of more than one units is used, DOE proposes to calculate the mean of the measurements. If the certified value of full-load operating pressure is greater than or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 100 percent of the maximum full-flow operating pressure determined through DOE’s testing (i.e., within the tolerance allowed by DOE in the test procedure), then DOE would use the certified value of full-load operating pressure certified by the manufacturer as the basis for determining full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, and other applicable values. Otherwise, DOE would use the maximum full flow operating pressure as the basis for determining the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, and other applicable values. That is, if the certified value of full-load operating pressure is found to be valid, DOE will set the compressor under test to that operating pressure to determine the fullload actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, and pressure ratio in accordance with the DOE test procedure. If the certified full-load operating pressure is found to be invalid, DOE will use the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure resulting from DOE’s testing as the basis for determining the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, and pressure ratio for any tested equipment. Similarly, DOE proposes a procedure to verify the full-load actual volume flow rate of any certified equipment and determine the applicable full-load actual volume flow rate DOE will use when determining the standard level for any tested equipment. Specifically, DOE proposes to use the full-load actual volume flow rate determined based on E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules verification of full-load operating pressure and compare such value to the certified value of full-load actual volume flow rate certified by the manufacturer. If DOE found the fullload operating pressure to be valid, DOE will use the full-load actual volume flow rate determined at the full-load operating pressure certified by the manufacturer. If the full-load operating pressure was found to be invalid, DOE will use the actual volume flow rate measured at the maximum full flow operating pressure as the full-load actual volume flow rate. DOE would compare the measured full-load actual volume flow rate (determined at the applicable operating pressure) from an appropriately sized sample to the certified value of full-load actual volume flow rate. If the full-load actual volume flow rate measured be DOE is within the allowances of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate specified in Table III.6, then DOE would use the manufacturer-certified value of full-load actual volume flow rate as the basis for determining the standard level for tested equipment. Otherwise, DOE would use the measured actual volume flow rate resulting from DOE’s testing when determining the standard level for tested equipment. DOE believes such an approach would result in more reproducible and equitable rating of equipment and compliance determinations among DOE, manufacturers, and test labs. TABLE III.6—ENFORCEMENT ALLOWANCES FOR FULL-LOAD ACTUAL VOLUME FLOW RATE Allowable percent of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate (%) 0 < and ≤ 8.3 ........ 8.3 < and ≤ 25 ...... 25 < and ≤ 250 ..... > 250 .................... mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Manufacturer certified full-load actual volume flow rate (m3/s) × 10¥3 ±7 ±6 ±5 ±4 DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct enforcement proceedings using performance calculated as the arithmetic mean of a tested sample, not to exceed four units. In addition, DOE requests comment on its proposed provisions that specify how DOE would determine the full-load operating pressure for determination of the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, pressure ratio, and the appropriate standard level (if applicable) for any tested equipment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s Web site: https:// energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this proposed rule, which would establish new test procedures for compressors, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE notes that certification of compressors models is not currently required because energy conservation standards do not currently exist for compressors. That is, any burden associated with testing compressors in accordance with the requirements of this test procedure would not be required until the promulgation of any energy conservation standards for compressors. On this basis, DOE maintains that the proposed test procedure has no incremental burden associated with it and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The factual basis is set forth below. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27247 1. Small Business Determination For the compressors manufacturing industry, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as small businesses for the purpose of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s size standards to determine whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at https:// www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Compressor manufacturers are classified under NAICS 333912, ‘‘Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities To estimate the number of small business manufacturers of equipment applicable to by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using available public information. DOE’s research involved industry trade association membership directories (including CAGI), individual company and online retailer Web sites, and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture products applicable to this rulemaking. DOE presented its list to manufacturers in MIA interviews and asked industry representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly-available data and contacted select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA’s definition of a small business manufacturer. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products applicable to this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a small business, or are foreign-owned and operated. b. Air Compressor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition DOE identified a total of 37 manufacturers of applicable air compressor products sold in the United States. Seventeen of these manufacturers met the 500-employee threshold defined by the SBA to qualify as a small business, but only 13 were domestic companies. All 13 domestic small businesses manufacture reciprocating air compressors, while E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27248 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules only five of the 13 manufacture rotary air compressors. Within the air compressor industry, manufacturers can be classified into two categories; original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and compressor packagers. OEMs manufacturer their own air-ends and assemble them with other components to create complete package air compressors. Packagers assemble motors and other accessories with air-ends purchased from other companies, resulting in a complete air compressor. Within the rotary air compressor industry, DOE identified 20 manufacturers; 15 are OEMs and five are packagers of compressors. Of the 20 total manufacturers, seven large OEMs supply approximately 80 percent of shipments and revenues. Of the five domestic small rotary air compressor businesses identified, DOE’s research indicates that two are OEMs and three are packagers. The reciprocating air compressor market has a significantly different structure than the rotary market. The reciprocating market is highly fragmented, consisting of approximately 16 large and 17 small OEMs and packagers. Five of the 16 large businesses are members of CAGI. Eight of the 16 large manufacturers are believed to be packagers. Of the 18 identified small businesses, 13 are domestic. DOE notes that some interviewed manufacturers stated that there are potentially a large number of domestic small reciprocating air compressor manufacturers who assemble compressor packages from nearly complete components. These unidentified small manufacturers are not members of CAGI and typically have a limited marketing presence. DOE was not able to identify these small businesses. Based on this information, it is possible that DOE’s list of 13 small domestic players may not include all small U.S. manufacturers in the industry. Of the 13 identified domestic reciprocating air compressor manufacturers, three are believed to be OEMs and 10 are believed to be packagers. Table IV.1 presents both the total number of domestic small businesses offering products in each equipment class grouping as well as the breakdown between domestic small business OEMs and domestic small business packagers. TABLE IV.1—NUMBER OF DOMESTIC SMALL BUSINESSES MANUFACTURING AIR COMPRESSORS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS GROUPING Number of domestic small original equipment manufacturers Equipment class grouping Number of domestic small packagers Total number of domestic small businesses Rotary Air Compressors ............................................................................................ Reciprocating Air Compressors ................................................................................. 2 3 3 10 5 13 Total .................................................................................................................... 3 10 * 13 * ‘‘Total’’ may not equal the sum of the other rows because one manufacturer may participate in both markets but does not get counted twice. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Compressor Test Procedure Compressors would be newly regulated equipment—accordingly, DOE currently has no test procedures or standards for this equipment. As such, compressors within the scope of DOE’s proposal would be required to be tested, and this may result in an accompanying burden on the manufacturers of those compressors. As discussed in the proposed sampling provisions in section III.F, this test procedure would require manufacturers to either test at least two units of each compressor model, or use an AEDM to develop a certified rating. DOE notes that certification of compressors models is not currently required because energy conservation standards do not currently exist for compressors. That is, any burden associated with testing compressors in accordance with the requirements of this test procedure would not be required until the promulgation of any energy conservation standards for compressors. On this basis, DOE maintains that the proposed test procedure has no incremental burden associated with it and a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 DOE also notes that EPCA requires manufacturers of covered equipment to use the DOE test procedure, if applicable, to make representations regarding energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. As such, DOE is also estimating the burden of testing to determine the potential burden to manufacturers of updating associated literature or marketing materials. However, DOE notes that making representations in marketing literature regarding the energy efficiency or energy use of applicable compressor models is voluntary. As such, manufacturers that do not currently make representations of energy efficiency or energy use may continue to elect not to do so; thus incurring no additional burden. During its market survey, DOE performed research and requested information regarding the energy efficiency or energy use representations currently being made by manufacturers of compressors. DOE found that for rotary compressors, the majority of those making any representation of energy efficiency or energy use were manufacturers already participating in CAGI’s voluntary Performance Verification Program. Of the small PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 businesses identified by DOE, only one manufacturer currently participates in this program. Both the CAGI Performance Verification Program and the test procedure proposed in this NOPR are based on the same industry test procedure, ISO 1217:2009. DOE believes the modifications to ISO 1217:2009 (as described in section III.D.2 of this document) do not represent significant changes and would not result in any incremental burden for those manufacturers already performing testing as part of CAGI’s program. Consequently, DOE believes that manufacturers participating in the CAGI Performance Verification Program would not incur any incremental burden associated with conducting DOE’s proposed test procedure. For manufacturers of rotary compressor equipment that make representations of compressor energy use or energy efficiency but are not currently participating in CAGI’s program, DOE’s research indicates such manufacturers typically test to ISO 1217:2009 using internal test facilities, rather than utilizing a third-party laboratory, as specified by the CAGI program. As such, DOE believes that the E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 proposed use of ISO 1217:2009, including any modifications, would not result in any incremental burden for manufacturers of rotary compressors that do not participate in CAGI’s program. However, DOE notes that CAGI’s voluntary performance verification program does not include provisions for the testing and certification of reciprocating compressors. Furthermore, DOE’s research indicates that manufacturers of reciprocating compressors do not typically make representations of the energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Based on its research and discussions presented in this section, DOE believes that the proposed test procedure does not represent a significant incremental burden for any of the identified small entities, and the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. DOE would transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). However, DOE notes that it has prepared a full assessment of testing and compliance cost, as they related to potential energy conservation standards, in DOE’s concurrent compressors energy conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD– 0040). In that rulemaking, DOE assesses costs to both small domestic manufacturers and the industry as a whole. DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework Document considering energy conservation standards for compressors on February 5, 2014. 79 FR 6839 (Feb. 5, 2014). In an application to renew the OMB information collection approval for DOE’s certification and recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated burden for manufacturers of compressors in case DOE ultimately sets energy conservation standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the revised information collection for DOE’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). DOE estimated that it would take each respondent approximately 30 hours total per company per year to comply with the certification and recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours of technician/technical work and 10 hours clerical work to submit the Compliance and Certification Management System templates. This rulemaking would include recordkeeping requirements on manufacturers that are associated with executing and maintaining the test data for this equipment. DOE notes that the certification requirements would be established in a final rule establishing energy conservation standards for compressors. DOE recognizes that recordkeeping burden may vary substantially based on company preferences and practices. DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for compressors. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would create a new test procedure without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that creates a new rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27249 or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it would follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products and equipment that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27250 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997); also available at https://energy.gov/gc/ office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of compressors is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in ISO Standard 1217:2009, ‘‘Displacement compressors—Acceptance tests,’’ sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C. The DOE has evaluated the ISO 1217:2009 standard and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE would consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule. M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the testing methods contained in certain applicable sections of ISO Standard 1217:2009, ‘‘Displacement compressors—Acceptance tests,’’ sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), and 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C. Members of the compressors industry developed ISO 1217:2009, which contains methods for determining inlet E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules and discharge pressures, actual volume flow rate, and packaged compressor power input for electrically driven packaged displacement compressors. Copies of ISO 1217 can be obtained from the International Organization for Standardization at Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11, or by going to www.iso.org. V. Public Participation mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Attendance at Public Meeting The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by email: Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov so that the necessary procedures can be completed. DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor’s desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security. Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver’s licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. DHS has determined that regular driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s License); a military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card. In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE’s Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/appliance_standards/ rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/58. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software. B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed. C. Conduct of Public Meeting DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking. The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27251 before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements. At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting. A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. D. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 27252 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. See 10 CFR 429.7. It is DOE’s policy that all comments be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). E. Issues About Which DOE Seeks Comment Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues: 1. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for compressor and pressure ratio, as well as the definitions referenced in ISO 1217:2009. 2. DOE requests comment on the proposed lower limit of pressure ratio for compressors of ‘‘greater than 1.3.’’ 3. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of air compressor and its use in limiting the scope of applicability of this test procedure. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for bare compressor, driver, and mechanical equipment. 5. DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of ancillary equipment, and whether a comprehensive list of potential ancillary equipment is more appropriate. If a comprehensive list of potential ancillary equipment is preferred, DOE requests information on what equipment should be on that list. 6. DOE requests comment on its position that all ancillary equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor be installed when testing to evaluate the energy performance of the air compressor. DOE requests comment on a potential alternative approach, in which DOE could generate a list of specific ancillary equipment that must be installed to ensure that the test result is representative of compressor performance; equipment on this list would not be optional, regardless of how that compressor model is distributed in commerce. If the alternative approach is preferred, DOE requests comments on what ancillary equipment be required to be installed to representatively measure compressor energy performance and how to evaluate compressor performance if an air compressor is distributed in commerce without certain items on the list. 7. DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of rotary compressor, reciprocating compressor, and positive displacement compressor and their use in defining the scope of applicability of this test procedure. 8. DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish test procedures for only brushless electric motor-driven equipment and on its proposed definition of brushless electric motor. 9. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of compressor motor nominal horsepower. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether motors not covered in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 (‘‘uncovered motors’’) are incorporated into air compressors within the scope of this proposed test procedure. If so, DOE requests comment on how prevalent these uncovered motors are, and whether the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of part 431 would be applicable to determine the compressor motor nominal horsepower of these uncovered motors. If the test methods described in subpart B and subpart X of 10 CFR part 431 are not applicable to uncovered motors, DOE requests comment on what test methods could be used to determine their compressor motor nominal horsepower. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 10. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 within the scope of this test procedure. 11. DOE requests comment on its characterization of the rotary compressor market by pressure ranges, and whether the reciprocating compressor market is similarly characterized. 12. DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions of full-load operating pressure, maximum full-flow operating pressure, and full-load actual volume flow rate, and actual volume flow rate. 13. DOE requests comment on the proposal to include only compressors with a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 31 psig and less than or equal to 225 psig within the scope of this test procedure. 14. DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting factors for package isentropic efficiency for both fixed-speed and variable-speed compressors. 15. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for full-load package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for fixed-speed compressors. 16. DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for part-load package isentropic efficiency, and its use as the metric for variable-speed compressors. 17. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference certain applicable sections of ISO 1217: 2009 as the basis of the DOE test procedure for compressors. DOE requests comment on the proposal not to incorporate by reference specific sections and annexes as explained in this section. 18. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed ambient conditions required for testing, and if they are sufficient to produce repeatable and reproducible test results. 19. DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, and total harmonic distortion requirements when performing a compressor test. Specifically, DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical compressor test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment would be required. 20. DOE requests comment on the proposed equipment configuration: That the inlet of the air compressor under test be open to the atmosphere and take in ambient air, and whether all air VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 compressors can be configured and tested in this manner. 21. DOE requests comment on the proposed requirements for equipment configuration. 22. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed packaged compressor power input measurement equipment requirements. 23. DOE requests comment to help clarify these ambiguities contained in section 5.2.1 of ISO 1217:2009. Specifically, DOE requests potential quantitative explanations and instructions related to the following items: Pressure tap installation locations; methods to verify ‘‘leak-free’’ pipe connections; ‘‘short as possible’’ and of ‘‘sufficient diameter’’; testing ‘‘tightness’’; mounting instruments so that the unit is ‘‘not susceptible to disturbing vibrations’’; how and where to test for ‘‘pressure waves’’ and how the piping installation can be ‘‘corrected;’’ how to calibrate transmitters and gauges under ‘‘pressure and temperature conditions similar to those prevailing during the test’’; how to correct dead-weight gauges for ‘‘gravitational acceleration at the location of the instrument’’; where to install ‘‘a receiver with inlet throttling’’ to correct for flow pulsations; and how a restricting orifice may be used to reduce oscillation of gauges. Finally, DOE requests comment on its proposals regarding discharge piping and pressure taps. 24. DOE requests comment regarding the proposed density measurement equipment requirements. 25. DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow manufacturers to selfdeclare the full-load operating pressure between 90 and 100 percent of the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure, and whether a smaller or larger range should be used. 26. DOE requests comment on the proposed method for determining maximum full-flow operating pressure, full-load operating pressure, and fullload actual volume flow rate of a compressor. 27. DOE requests comment regarding whether any more specific instructions would be required to determine the maximum full-flow operating pressure for variable-speed compressors in addition to the proposal that testing is to be conducted at maximum speed, and no speed reduction is allowed during the test. 28. DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding applicable representations of energy and nonenergy metrics for compressors. 29. DOE requests comment on any additional metrics that manufacturers PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27253 often use when making representations of compressor energy use or efficiency. 30. DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for certification of compressor models. 31. DOE requests feedback regarding all aspects of its proposal to permit use of an AEDM for compressors, and any data or information comparing modeled performance with the results of physical testing. 32. DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct enforcement proceedings using performance calculated as the arithmetic mean of a tested sample, not to exceed four units. 33. DOE requests comment on its proposed provisions that specify how DOE would determine the full-load operating pressure for determination of the full-load actual volume flow rate, isentropic efficiency, specific power, pressure ratio, and the appropriate standard level (if applicable) for any tested equipment. 34. DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 35. DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements. VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. 10 CFR Part 431 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27254 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 2. In § 429.2 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ § 429.2 Definitions. (a) The definitions found in §§ 430.2, 431.2, 431.62, 431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.192, 431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322, 431.342, 431.442, and 431.462 of this chapter apply for purposes of this part. * * * * * ■ 3. Add § 429.61 to read as follows: § 429.61 Compressors. (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each basic model of compressor either by testing in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an AEDM. (1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value is determined through testing, the general requirements of § 429.11 apply; and (ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that— (A) Any represented value of the fullor part-load package isentropic efficiency or other measure of energy efficiency of a basic model for which customers would favor higher values is less than or equal to the lower of: (1) The mean of the sample, where: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 ¯ and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the measured value for the ith sample; Or, (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95, where: ¯ and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 percent one-tailed VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 And (B) Package Specific Power. The representative value(s) of package specific power of a basic model must be the mean of the package specific power measurement(s) for each tested unit of the basic model. (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of testing, any represented value of efficiency, consumption, or other nonenergy metrics listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for a basic model may be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where: (i) Any represented values of package isentropic efficiency or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which customers would favor higher values must be less than or equal to the value determined through the application of the AEDM, and (ii) Any represented values of package specific power, pressure ratio, full-load actual volume flow rate, or full-load operating pressure must be the value determined through the application of the AEDM that corresponds to the represented value of package isentropic efficiency determined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. (3) Representations of non-energy metrics. (i) Full-load actual volume flow rate. The representative value of fullload actual volume flow rate of a basic model must be either: (A) The mean of the full-load actual volume flow rate for the units in the sample; or (B) The value determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70. (ii) Full-load operating pressure. The representative value of full-load operating pressure of a basic model must be greater than or equal to 90perent of: (A) The mean of the maximum fullflow operating pressure for the units in the sample, or (B) The value determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70. (iii) Pressure Ratio. The representative value of pressure ratio of a basic model must be either the mean of the pressure ratio for the units in the sample, or the value determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70. ■ 4. Section 429.70 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and energy use. * * * * * (h) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for compressors. (1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an AEDM to a basic model to determine its efficiency pursuant to this section, unless: (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure; (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of performance data; and (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer must validate the AEDM’s accuracy and reliability as follows: (i) The manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of basic models for each validation class specified in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies. Using the AEDM, calculate the energy use or energy efficiency for each of the selected basic models. Test each basic model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.61(a) and determine the represented value(s). Compare the results from the testing and the AEDM output according to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and repeatability of the AEDM. (ii) Individual Model Tolerances: (A) The predicted representative values for each model calculated by applying the AEDM may not be more than five percent greater (for measures of efficiency) or less (for measures of consumption) than the values determined from the corresponding test of the model. (B) The predicted package isentropic efficiency for each model calculated by applying the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable federal energy conservation standard. (iii) Additional Test Unit Requirements: (A) Each AEDM must be supported by test data obtained from physical tests of current models; and (B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this chapter; E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.014</GPH> EP05MY16.015</GPH> confidence interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A of subpart B); PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules (C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure with which compliance is required at the time the basic models used for validation are distributed in commerce; and (iv) Compressor Validation Classes Validation class Rotary, Fixed-speed .. Rotary, Variablespeed. Reciprocating, Fixedspeed. Reciprocating, Variable-speed. Minimum number of distinct models that must be tested 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. (3) AEDM Records Retention Requirements. If a manufacturer has used an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this section, the manufacturer must have available upon request for inspection by the Department records showing: (i) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is the basis of the AEDM; (ii) Equipment information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section; and (iii) Equipment information and AEDM calculations for each basic model to which the AEDM has been applied. (4) Additional AEDM Requirements. If requested by the Department, the manufacturer must: (i) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to predict the performance of particular basic models of the equipment to which the AEDM was applied; (ii) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the manufacturer; and/or (iii) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the Department. ■ 5. Section 429.110 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as follows: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 429.110 Enforcement testing. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) * * * (iv) For pumps and compressors, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic mean of the sample. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 6. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (k) as follows: TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE DEVIATION FROM THE CERTIFIED FULL-LOAD ACTUAL VOLUME FLOW RATE ■ § 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions. * * * * * (k) Compressors—(1) Verification of full-load operating pressure. The maximum full flow operating pressure of each tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements of appendix A to subpart T of part 431, where the value of fullload operating pressure certified by the manufacturer will be the starting point of the test method prior to increasing discharge pressure. The certified rating for full-load operating pressure will be considered valid only if the certified rating for full-load operating pressure is greater than or equal to 90 percent of and less than or equal to the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure (either the measured maximum full flow operating pressure for a single unit sample or the mean of the measured maximum full flow operating pressures for a multiple unit sample). (i) If the certified full-load operating pressure is found to be valid, then the certified value will be used as the fullload operating pressure and will be the basis for determination of full-load actual volume flow rate, pressure ratio, specific power, and isentropic efficiency. (ii) If the rated value of full-load operating pressure is found to be invalid, then the measured maximum full-flow operating pressure will be used as the full-load operating pressure and will be the basis for determination of full-load actual volume flow rate, pressure ratio, specific power, and isentropic efficiency. (2) Verification of full-load actual volume flow rate. The measured fullload actual volume flow rate will be measured, pursuant to the test requirements of appendix A to subpart T of part 431, at the full-load operating pressure determined in paragraph (j)(1) of this section. The certified full-load actual volume flow rate will be considered valid only if the measurement(s) (either the measured full-load actual volume flow rate for a single unit sample or the average of the measured values for a multiple unit sample) are within the percentage of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate specified in Table 1 of this paragraph: PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 27255 Manufacturer certified full-load actual volume flow rate (m3/s) × 10¥3 Allowable percent of the certified full-load actual volume flow rate (%) 0< and ≤8.3 .......... 8.3< and ≤25 ........ 25< and ≤250 ....... >250 ...................... ±7 ±6 ±5 ±4 (i) If the representative value of fullload actual volume flow rate is found to be valid, the full-load actual volume flow rate certified by the manufacturer will be used as the basis for determination of the applicable standard. (ii) If the representative value of fullload actual volume flow rate is found to be invalid, the mean of all the measured full-load actual volume flow rate values determined from the tested unit(s) will serve as the basis for determination of the applicable standard. PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 7. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 8. Add subpart T to part 431 to read as follows: ■ Subpart T—Compressors Sec. 431.341 Purpose and scope. 431.342 Definitions concerning compressors. 431.343 Materials incorporated by reference. 31.344 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy consumption of compressors. 431.345 Energy conservation standards and effective dates 431.346 Labeling requirements Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for Certain Air Compressors Subpart T—Compressors § 431.341 Purpose and scope. This subpart contains definitions, materials incorporated by reference, test procedures, and energy conservation requirements for compressors, pursuant to Part A–1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 431.342 Definitions concerning compressors. The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including appendix A. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the definitions adopted in this section take precedence over any descriptions or definitions found in any other source, including in the 2009 version of ISO Standard 1217, ‘‘Displacement compressors— Acceptance tests’’ (ISO 1217:2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343). In cases where definitions reference design intent, DOE will consider all relevant information, including marketing materials, labels and certifications, and equipment design, to determine design intent. Actual volume flow rate means the volume flow rate of air, compressed and delivered at the standard discharge point, referred to conditions of total temperature, total pressure and composition prevailing at the standard inlet point, and as determined in accordance with the test procedures prescribed in § 431.344. Air compressor means a compressor designed to compress air that has an inlet open to the atmosphere or other source of air, and is made up of a compression element (bare compressor), driver(s), mechanical equipment to drive the compressor element, and any ancillary equipment. Ancillary equipment means any equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor that is not a bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment. Ancillary equipment is considered to be part of a given air compressor, regardless of whether the ancillary equipment is physically attached to the bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment at the time when the air compressor is distributed in commerce. Bare compressor means the compression element and auxiliary devices (e.g., inlet and outlet valves, seals, lubrication system, and gas flow paths) required for performing the gas compression process, but does not include the driver; speed-adjusting gear(s); gas processing apparatuses and piping; or compressor equipment packaging and mounting facilities and enclosures. Basic model means all units of a class of compressors manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, the same compressor motor nominal horsepower, and essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or pneumatic) characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy efficiency. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 Brushless electric motor means a machine that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power without use of sliding electrical contacts. Compressor means a machine or apparatus that converts different types of energy into the potential energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of gaseous media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure and has a pressure ratio greater than 1.3. Driver means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare compressor directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Fixed-speed compressor means an air compressor that is not capable of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required compressor flow rate. Full-load actual volume flow rate means the actual volume flow rate of the compressor at the full-load operating pressure. Maximum full-flow operating pressure means the maximum discharge pressure at which the compressor is capable of operating, as determined in accordance with the test procedure prescribed in § 431.344. Mechanical equipment means any component of an air compressor that transfers energy from the driver to the bare compressor. Compressor motor nominal horsepower means the motor horsepower of the electric motor, as determined in accordance with the applicable procedures in subpart B and subpart X of part 431, with which the rated air compressor is distributed in commerce. Package isentropic efficiency means the ratio of power required for an ideal isentropic compression process to the actual packaged compressor power input used at a given load point, as determined in accordance with the test procedures prescribed in § 431.344. Package specific power means the compressor power input at a given load point, divided by the actual volume flow rate at the same load point, as determined in accordance with the test procedures prescribed in § 431.344. Positive displacement compressor means a compressor in which the admission and diminution of successive volumes of the gaseous medium are performed periodically by forced expansion and diminution of a closed space(s) in a working chamber(s) by means of displacement of a moving member(s) or by displacement and PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 forced discharge of the gaseous medium into the high-pressure area. Pressure ratio means the ratio of discharge pressure to inlet pressure, determined at full-load operating pressure in accordance with the test procedures prescribed in § 431.344. Reciprocating compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes are performed cyclically by straight-line alternating movements of a moving member(s) in a compression chamber(s). Rotary compressor means a positive displacement compressor in which gas admission and diminution of its successive volumes or its forced discharge are performed cyclically by rotation of one or several rotors in a compressor casing. Variable-speed compressor means an air compressor that is capable of adjusting the speed of the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response to incremental changes in the required compressor actual volume flow rate. § 431.343 Materials incorporated by reference. (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following standard into part 431. The material listed has been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not affect the DOE test procedures unless and until amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ federal_register/ code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/appliance_standards/. The following standards can be obtained from the sources below. (b) ISO. International Organization for Standardization, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules Switzerland+41 22 749 01 11, www.iso.org. (1) ISO Standard 1217:2009, (‘‘ISO 1217:2009’’), ‘‘Displacement compressors—Acceptance tests,’’ sections 2, 3, and 4; subsections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2(g), and 6.2(h); and subsections C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, C.4.4 of Annex C; approved 2009, IBR approved for appendix A to subpart T of part 431. (2) [Reserved] § 431.344 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy consumption of compressors. (a) Scope. (1) This section a test method that is applicable to a compressor that meets the following criteria: (i) Is an air compressor, (ii) Is a rotary or reciprocating compressor, (iii) Is driven by a brushless electric motor, (iv) Is distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 horsepower (hp), and (v) Has a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 31 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and less than or equal to 225 psig. (b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the applicable full-load package isentropic efficiency (hisen,FL), part-load package isentropic efficiency (hisen,PL), package specific power, fullload operating pressure, full-load actual volume flow rate, and pressure ratio using the test procedure set forth in appendix A of this subpart T. Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for Certain Air Compressors mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Note: Starting on [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], any representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of compressors subject to testing pursuant to 10 CFR 431.344 must be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this appendix. I. Measurements, Test Conditions, and Equipment Configuration A. Measurement Equipment. For the purposes of measuring air compressor performance, the equipment necessary to measure flow rate, inlet and discharge pressure, temperature, condensate, power, and energy must comply with the equipment and accuracy requirements specified in ISO 1217:2009 sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, C.2.3, and C.2.4 of Annex C (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343). In addition: A.1. Electrical measurement equipment must be capable of measuring true RMS current, true RMS voltage, and real power up VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency. A.2. Any instruments used to measure a particular parameter specified in paragraph (A.1.) must have a combined accuracy of ±2.0 percent of the measured value at the fundamental supply source frequency, where combined accuracy is the square root of the sum of the squares of individual instrument accuracies. A.3. Any instruments used to directly measure the density of air must have an accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the measured value. A.4. Any pressure measurement equipment used in a calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009. A.5. Any temperature measurement equipment used in a calculation of another variable (e.g., actual volume flow rate) must also meet all accuracy and measurement requirements of section 5.3 of ISO 1217:2009. A.6. Where ISO 1217:2009 refers to ‘‘corrected volume flow rate,’’ the term is deemed synonymous with the term ‘‘actual volume flow rate,’’ as defined in section 3.4.1 of ISO 1217:2009. B. Test Conditions and Configuration of Unit Under Test. B.1. For both fixed-speed and variablespeed compressors, conduct testing in accordance with the test conditions, unit configuration, and specifications of subsections 6.2(g), 6.2(h), of ISO 1217:2009 and C.1.1, C.2.2, C.2.3, C.2.4, C.4.1, C.4.2.1, C.4.2.3, C.4.3.2, and C.4.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, Annex C (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343). In addition, the test conditions and configuration must meet the following requirements: B.1.1. Regarding the power supply: (1) Maintain the voltage within ±5 percent of the rated value of the motor, (2) maintain the frequency within ±1 percent of the rated value of the motor, (3) maintain the voltage unbalance of the power supply within ±3 percent of the rated values of the motor, and (4) maintain total harmonic distortion below 12 percent throughout the test. B.1.2. Ambient Conditions. The ambient air temperature must be greater than or equal to 80 °F and less than or equal to 90 °F for the duration of testing. There are no ambient condition requirements for inlet pressure or relative humidity. B.1.3. Discharge Piping. The piping connected to the discharge orifice of the compressor must be of a diameter at least equal to that of the compressor discharge orifice to which it is connected. That piping must also be of a length at least fifteen times that diameter. B.1.3.1. Discharge Piping Pressure Transducers. Transducers used to record compressor discharge pressure must be located on the discharge piping between 2 inches and 6 inches, inclusive, from the discharge orifice of the compressor. C. Equipment Configuration. C.1. All ancillary equipment that is distributed in commerce with the compressor under test must be present and installed for all tests specified in this appendix. C.2. The inlet of the compressor under test must be open to the atmosphere and take in PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 27257 ambient air for all tests specified in this appendix. C.3. The compressor under test must be set up according to all manufacturer instructions for normal operation (e.g., verify oil-level, connect all loose electrical connections, close off bottom of unit to floor, cover forklift holes). II. Determination of Package Isentropic Efficiency, Package Specific Power, and Pressure Ratio A. Data Collection and Analysis. A.1. Stabilization. Record data (at each tested point) under steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the difference between two consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power input reading measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to or less than 300 watts. A.2. Data Sampling and Frequency. At each load point, record a minimum of 16 unique measurements, collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes. Each consecutive measurement must be no more than 60 seconds apart, and not less than 10 seconds apart. The difference in packaged compressor power input between the maximum and minimum measurement must be equal to or less than 300 watts, as measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009. Each measurement within the 15minute data recording time period must meet the requirements in this section; if one or more measurements do not meet the requirements then perform a new data recording of at least 16 new unique measurements collected over a minimum time of 15 minutes. Average the measurements to determine the value of each parameter to be used in subsequent calculations. A.3. Calculations and Rounding. Perform all calculations using raw measured values. Round the final result for package isentropic efficiency to the thousandth (i.e., 0.001), for package specific power in kilowatt per 100 cubic feet per minute to the nearest hundredth (i.e., 0.01), for pressure ratio to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), for full-load actual volume flow rate in actual cubic feet per minute to the nearest tenth (i.e., 0.1), and for full-load operating pressure in psig to the nearest integer (i.e., 1). All terms and quantities refer to values determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in this appendix for the tested unit. B. Full-Load Operating Pressure and FullLoad Actual Volume Flow Rate. Determine the full-load operating pressure and full-load actual volume flow rate (referenced throughout this appendix) in accordance with the procedures prescribed in section III of this appendix. C. Full-Load Isentropic Efficiency for Fixed- and Variable-Speed Air Compressors. Use this test method to test fixed-speed air compressors and variable-speed air compressors. C.1. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For the purposes of sections II.C.2, II.C.2.1, and II.C.2.2 of this appendix, maximum allowable deviations from the specified discharge pressure and E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 27258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules flow rate’’ in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to the actual volume flow rate of the compressor under test. C.2. Calculate the package isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load volume flow rate (full-load package isentropic efficiency) using the following equation: Where: hisen,FL = hisen,100% = package isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, Pisen,100% = isentropic power required for compression at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.C.2.1 of this appendix, and Preal,100% = packaged compressor power input at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.C.2.2 of this appendix. C.2.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression at full-load operating pressure and at 100 percent of fullload actual volume flow rate using the following equation: Where: ˙ V1_m3/s = actual volume flow rate at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), P2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which, for the purposes of this test procedure, is 1.400. C.2.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: Where: K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for contractual inlet pressure, and PPR,100% = packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure and 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). D. Part-Load Package Isentropic Efficiency for Variable-Speed Air Compressors. Use this test method to test variable-speed air compressors only. D.1. For variable-speed compressors, calculate the part-load package isentropic efficiency using the following equation: hisen,PL = w40% × hisen,40% + w70% × hisen,70% + w100% × hisen,100% rate, as determined in section II.D.4 of this appendix, w40% = weighting at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate and is 0.25, w70% = weighting at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate and is 0.50, and w100% = weighting at 100 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate and is 0.25. Where: hisen,PL = part-load package isentropic efficiency for a variable-speed compressor, hisen,100% = package isentropic efficiency at full-load operating pressure, as determined in section II.C.2 of this appendix, hisen,70% = package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.D.3 of this appendix, hisen,40% = package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow Where: hisen,70% = package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, Pisen,70% = isentropic power required for compression at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.D.3.1 of this appendix, and Preal,70% = packaged compressor power input at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.D.3.2 of this appendix. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 D.3.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.018</GPH> D.2. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For the purposes of sections II.D.3, II.D.3.1, II.D.3.2, II.D.4, II.D.4.1 and II.D.4.2 of this appendix, the maximum allowable deviations from the specified volume flow rate specified in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343) apply. For the purposes of sections II.D.3, II.D.3.1, II.D.3.2, II.D.4, II.D.4.1 and II.D.4.2 of this appendix, the term volume flow rate in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 refers to the actual volume flow rate of the compressor under test. D.3. To determine the package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, adjust the speed of the driver to reach the specified load point (70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate). Calculate package isentropic efficiency at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: EP05MY16.016</GPH> EP05MY16.017</GPH> mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 volume rate in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343) apply. For the purposes of sections II.C.2, II.C.2.1, and II.C.2.2 of this appendix, the term ‘‘volume Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 27259 volume flow rate, adjust the speed of the driver to reach the specified load point (40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate). Calculate package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: volume flow rate, as determined in section II.D.4.1 of this appendix, and Preal,40% = packaged compressor power input at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section II.D.4.2 of this appendix. D.4.1. Calculate the isentropic power required for compression at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: Where: ˙ V1_m3/s = actual volume actual volume flow rate at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), p2 = discharge pressure at 40 percent of fullload actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400. D.4.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: Preal,40% = K5 · PPR,40% (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343) and other values measured pursuant to this appendix. F. Determination of Pressure Ratio F.1. Maximum allowable deviation from specified load points. For the purposes of section II.F.2 of this appendix, do not exceed the maximum allowable deviations from the specified discharge pressure and volume flow rate specified in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343). For the purposes of sections II.F.2 of this appendix, the term volume flow rate, in Table C.2 of Annex C of ISO 1217: 2009 refers to the actual volume flow rate of the compressor under test. F.2. Pressure ratio, as defined in § 431.342, is determined at full-load operating pressure. Calculate pressure ratio using the following equation: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 Where: K5 = correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for contractual inlet pressure, and PPR,40% = packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure and 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). E. Determination of Package Specific Power. For both fixed- and variable-speed air compressors, determine the package specific power, at any load point, using the equation for specific energy consumption in section C.4.4 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2 EP05MY16.022</GPH> hisen,40% = package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, Pisen,40% = isentropic power required for compression at 40 percent of full-load actual EP05MY16.021</GPH> PPR,70%= packaged compressor power input reading at full-load operating pressure and 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.2.4 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009 (watts). D.4. To determine the package isentropic efficiency at 40 percent of full-load actual EP05MY16.023</GPH> k = isentropic exponent (ratio of specific heats) of air, which for the purposes of this test procedure is 1.400. D.3.2. Calculate packaged compressor power input at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate using the following equation: EP05MY16.019</GPH> EP05MY16.020</GPH> p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), p2 = discharge pressure at 70 percent of fullload actual volume flow rate, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and Where: K5= correction factor for inlet pressure and pressure ratio, as determined in section C.4.3.2 of annex C to ISO 1217:2009. For calculations of this variable use a value of 100 kPa for contractual inlet pressure, and mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: ˙ V1_m3/s = actual volume flow rate at 70 percent of full-load actual volume flow rate, as determined in section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (cubic meters per second) with no corrections made for shaft speed, 27260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules Where: PR = pressure ratio, p1 = atmospheric pressure, as determined in section 5.2.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa), and p2 = discharge pressure at full-load operating pressure, determined in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (Pa). III. Method to Determine Maximum FullFlow Operating Pressure, Full-Load Operating Pressure, and Full-Load Actual Volume Flow Rate A. Principal Strategy The principal strategy of this method is to incrementally increase discharge pressure by 2 psig relative to a starting point, and identify the maximum full-flow operating pressure at which the compressor is capable of operating. The maximum discharge pressure achieved is the maximum full-flow operating pressure. The full-load operating pressure and full-load actual volume flow rate are determined based on the maximum full-flow operating pressure. B. Pre-Test Instructions mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS2 B.1. Safety For the method presented in section III.C.1 of this appendix, only test discharge pressure within the safe operating range of the compressor, as specified by the manufacturer in the installation and operation manual shipped with the unit. Make no changes to safety limits or equipment. Do not violate any manufacturer-provided, motor operational guidelines for normal use, including any restriction on instantaneous and continuous input power draw and output shaft power (e.g., electrical rating and service factor limits). B.2. Adjustment of Discharge Pressure B.2.1. If the air compressor is not equipped, as distributed in commerce by the manufacturer, with any mechanism to adjust the maximum discharge pressure output limit, proceed to section III.B.3 of this appendix. B.2.2. If the air compressor is equipped, as distributed in commerce by the manufacturer, with any mechanism to adjust the maximum discharge pressure output limit, then adjust this mechanism to the maximum pressure allowed, according to the manufacturer’s operating instructions for these mechanisms. Mechanisms to adjust discharge pressure may include, but are not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 May 04, 2016 Jkt 238001 limited to, onboard digital or analog controls, and user-adjustable inlet valves. parameter to be used in subsequent calculations. B.3. Driver-Speed B.5. Adjusting System Back-Pressure If the unit under test is a variable-speed compressor, maintain maximum driver speed throughout the test. If the unit under test is a fixed-speed compressor with a multi-speed driver, maintain driver speed at the maximum speed throughout the test. Set up the unit under test so that backpressure on the unit can be adjusted (e.g., by valves) incrementally, causing the measured discharge pressure to change, until the compressor is in an unloaded condition. B.4. Measurements and Tolerances A unit is considered to be in an unloaded condition if capacity controls on the unit automatically reduce the actual volume flow rate from the compressor (e.g., shutting the motor off, or unloading by adjusting valves). B.4.1. Recording Record data by electronic means such that the requirements of section B.4.5 of section III of this appendix are met. B.4.2. Discharge Pressure Measure discharge pressure in accordance with section 5.2 of ISO 1217:2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.343). Express compressor discharge pressure in pounds per square inch, gauge (‘‘psig’’), in reference to ambient conditions, and record it to the nearest integer. Specify targeted discharge pressure points in integer values only. The maximum allowable measured deviation from the targeted discharge pressure at each tested point is ±1 psig. B.4.3. Actual Volume Flow Rate Measure actual volume flow rate in accordance with section C.4.2.1 of annex C of ISO 1217:2009 (where it is called ‘‘corrected volume flow rate’’) with no corrections made for shaft speed. Express compressor actual volume flow rate in actual cubic feet per minute at inlet conditions (‘‘acfm’’). B.4.4. Stabilization Record data (at each tested point) under steady-state conditions, which are achieved when the difference between two consecutive, unique, packaged compressor power input reading measurements, taken at a minimum of 10 seconds apart and measured per section C.2.4 of Annex C to ISO 1217:2009, is equal to or less than 300 watts. B.4.5. Data Sampling and Frequency At each load point, record a minimum of two separate measurements, collected at a minimum of 10 seconds apart. Each consecutive measurement must meet the stabilization requirement established in section III.B.4.4 of this appendix. Average the measurement to determine the value of each PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 B.6. Unloaded Condition C. Test Instructions C.1. Adjust the back-pressure of the system so the measured discharge pressure is 90 percent of the certified maximum full-flow operating pressure, rounded to the nearest integer, in psig. If the expected maximum full-flow operating pressure is not known, then adjust the back-pressure of the system so that the measured discharge pressure is 75 psig. Allow the unit to remain at this setting for 15 minutes to allow the unit to thermally stabilize. Then measure and record discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate at the starting pressure. C.2. Adjust the back-pressure of the system to increase the discharge pressure by 2 psig from the previous value, allow the unit to remain at this setting for a minimum of 2 minutes, and proceed to section IV.C.3 of this appendix. C.3. If the unit is now in an unloaded condition, end the test and proceed to section III.C.4 of this appendix. If the unit is not in an unloaded condition, measure discharge pressure and actual volume flow rate, and repeat section III.C.2 of this appendix. C.4. Of the discharge pressures recorded under stabilized conditions in sections III.C.1 through III.C.3 of this appendix, identify the largest. This is the maximum full-flow operating pressure. Determine the full-load operating pressure as a self-declared value greater than or equal to 90 percent of and less than or equal to the measured maximum fullflow operating pressure. The full-load actual volume flow rate is the actual volume flow rate measured at the full-load operating pressure. [FR Doc. 2016–10170 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P E:\FR\FM\05MYP2.SGM 05MYP2

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27219-27260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10170]

[[Page 27219]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 87

May 5, 2016

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors; Proposed
Rule

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

[[Page 27220]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

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

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors

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

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. Persons may also attend the public meeting via
webinar. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945.
For more information, refer to section V, ``Public Participation,''
near the end of this document.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Any comments
submitted must identify the NOPR for test procedures for compressors,
and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054 and/or regulation
identifier number (RIN) 1904-AD43. Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: AirCompressors2014TP0054@ee.doe.gov Include the
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on
a compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/87. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this
proposed rule on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov
Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for
information about how to submit comments through regulations.gov.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 27221]]

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

I. Authority and Background

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

A. Authority

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

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

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

[[Page 27222]]

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

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

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

B. Background

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

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

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

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

[[Page 27223]]

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

III. Discussion

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

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

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

A. Definition of Covered Equipment

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

[[Page 27224]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Scope of Applicability of the Test Procedure

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

[[Page 27225]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27226]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27227]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27228]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27229]]

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

[[Page 27230]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27231]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27232]]

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

C. Energy-Related Metrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.000

Where:

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.001

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27234]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27235]]

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.007

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.008

Where:

[[Page 27236]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.011

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

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

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

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

D. Test Method

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

[[Page 27237]]

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

[[Page 27238]]

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

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

[[Page 27239]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27240]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27241]]

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

[[Page 27242]]

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

[[Page 27243]]

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

E. Definition of Basic Model

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

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

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

F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency

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

[[Page 27244]]

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

G. Sampling Plans for Tested Data and AEDMs

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.012

[[Page 27245]]

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.013

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

[[Page 27246]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27247]]

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

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

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

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 27248]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27249]]

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

[[Page 27250]]

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

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

[[Page 27251]]

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

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

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

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution

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

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

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

D. Submission of Comments

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

[[Page 27252]]

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

E. Issues About Which DOE Seeks Comment

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

[[Page 27253]]

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

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 431

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

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

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

[[Page 27254]]

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

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

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

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

Sec. 429.2 Definitions.

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

Sec. 429.61 Compressors.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.014

and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi
is the measured value for the i^th sample;

Or,

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 27255]]

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

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

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

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

Sec. 429.110 Enforcement testing.

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

Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart T--Compressors

Sec. 431.341 Purpose and scope.

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

[[Page 27256]]

Sec. 431.342 Definitions concerning compressors.

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

Sec. 431.343 Materials incorporated by reference.

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

[[Page 27257]]

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

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

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

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

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

I. Measurements, Test Conditions, and Equipment Configuration

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

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

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

[[Page 27258]]

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.016

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

[[Page 27259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.019

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.020

Where:

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.021

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY16.023

[[Page 27260]]

Where:

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

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

A. Principal Strategy

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

B. Pre-Test Instructions

B.1. Safety

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

B.2. Adjustment of Discharge Pressure

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

B.3. Driver-Speed

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

B.4. Measurements and Tolerances

B.4.1. Recording

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

B.4.2. Discharge Pressure

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

B.4.3. Actual Volume Flow Rate

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

B.4.4. Stabilization

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

B.4.5. Data Sampling and Frequency

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

B.5. Adjusting System Back-Pressure

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

B.6. Unloaded Condition

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

C. Test Instructions

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.