Energy Conservation Program: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to LG Electronics USA, Inc. From the Department of Energy Room Air Conditioner Test Procedure, 20111-20121 [2019-09438]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
submitted electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov by selecting the
Docket ID number or via postal mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery.
If the regulations.gov site is not
available to the public for any reason,
ED will temporarily accept comments at
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please include the
docket ID number and the title of the
information collection request when
requesting documents or submitting
comments. Please note that comments
submitted by fax or email and those
submitted after the comment period will
not be accepted. Written requests for
information or comments submitted by
postal mail or delivery should be
addressed to the Director of the
Information Collection Clearance
Division, U.S. Department of Education,
550 12th Street SW, PCP, Room 9086,
Washington, DC 20202–0023.
For
specific questions related to collection
activities, please contact Amanda
Ognibene, 202–453–6637.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
Department of Education (ED), in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general
public and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed,
revised, and continuing collections of
information. This helps the Department
assess the impact of its information
collection requirements and minimize
the public’s reporting burden. It also
helps the public understand the
Department’s information collection
requirements and provide the requested
data in the desired format. ED is
soliciting comments on the proposed
information collection request (ICR) that
is described below. The Department of
Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Impact Aid
Program—Application for Section 7003
Assistance.
OMB Control Number: 1810–0687.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Type of Review: A revision of an
existing information collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: State,
Local, and Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 301,079.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 87,656.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of
Education is requesting approval for the
Application for Assistance under
Section 7003 of Title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This
application is for a grant program
otherwise known as Impact Aid Basic
Support Payments. Local Educational
Agencies (LEAs) whose enrollments and
revenues are adversely impacted by
Federal activities use this form to
request financial assistance. Regulations
for the Impact Aid Program are found at
34 CFR 222.
The statute and regulations for this
program require a variety of data from
applicants annually to determine
eligibility for the grants and the amount
of grant payment under the statutory
formula. The least burdensome method
of collecting this required information is
for each applicant to submit these data
through a web-based electronic
application hosted on the Impact Aid
Grant System (IAGS) website.
The Impact Aid Program, authorized
by Title VII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
provides financial assistance to local
educational agencies (LEAs) whose
enrollment or revenues are adversely
affected by Federal activities.
The statute and implementing
regulations (34 CFR part 222) require
information from applicants annually to
determine eligibility for and the amount
of payments. The least burdensome
method of collecting this required
information is for each applicant to
submit it as part of its annual Impact
Aid application, previously approved
under OMB 1810–0687.
ED is now requesting to revise this
collection. Previously, applicants
submitted applications through ED’s G5
website. Now, the Impact Aid Program
is developing its own online grants
management system to better serve the
local educational agencies who receive
Impact Aid funds. Grantees will now be
able to submit the annual application
through the Impact Aid Grant System.
The program has revised the application
to be more user-friendly and reduce
burden. The data collected on the
application is largely the same. All
changes are summarized below.
• The program regulations at 34 CFR
222.33 require that LEAs survey their
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20111
Federally connected children ‘‘no
earlier than the fourth day of the regular
school year.’’ In order to monitor this,
we will have each applicant enter the
first day of school for students.
• We now require first-time Charter
School LEA applicants to submit their
charter and their annual financial report
at the time of application. The program
has always required new charter school
applicants to submit this information in
order to verify that the school is
financially independent and able to
apply on its own behalf as an LEA, per
the statutory definition in 20 U.S.C.
7713; however, they were requested
after the charter school submitted the
application. We are now asking for these
documents with the application to
speed the review process.
• Another change requires applicants
to affirm they have enough children to
qualify for categories F and G before
being allowed to enter child counts in
those categories. This is intended to
save them effort in data entry. This does
not require any additional submissions
with the data collection.
• We no longer require the Housing
Official Certification form. We ask only
for the Housing Official’s contact
information so that we may obtain data
required to calculate housing renovation
claims directly from the official.
• We have eliminated the
requirement to upload a signed cover
page and assurances page, and will
permit applicants to sign the required
attestations and certifications
electronically.
Dated: May 3, 2019.
Kate Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Information Collection
Clearance Program, Information Management
Branch, Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–09456 Filed 5–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Case Number 2018–003; EERE–2018–BT–
WAV–0006]
Energy Conservation Program:
Decision and Order Granting a Waiver
to LG Electronics USA, Inc. From the
Department of Energy Room Air
Conditioner Test Procedure
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of decision and order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) gives notice of a
Decision and Order (Case Number
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
20112
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
2018–003) that grants LG Electronics
USA, Inc. (‘‘LG’’) a waiver from
specified portions of the DOE test
procedure for determining the energy
efficiency of specified room air
conditioners. Under the Decision and
Order, LG is required to test and rate the
specified basic models of its room air
conditioners in accordance with the
alternate test procedure specified in the
Decision and Order.
DATES: The Decision and Order is
effective on May 8, 2019. The Decision
and Order will terminate upon the
compliance date of any future
amendment to the test procedure for
room air conditioners located in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix F that
addresses the issues presented in this
waiver. At such time, LG must use the
relevant test procedure for this product
for any testing to demonstrate
compliance with standards, and any
other representations of energy use.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, 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. Email: AS_Waiver_
Requests@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Mail Stop GC–33, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0103.
Telephone: (202) 586–1777. Email:
Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR
430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the
issuance of its Decision and Order as set
forth below. The Decision and Order
grants LG a waiver from the applicable
test procedure in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix F (‘‘Appendix F’’)
for specified basic models of room air
conditioners, if LG tests and rates such
products using the alternate test
procedure specified in the Decision and
Order. LG’s representations concerning
the energy efficiency of the specified
basic models must be based on testing
according to the provisions and
restrictions in the alternate test
procedure set forth in the Decision and
Order, and the representations must
fairly disclose the test results.
Distributors, retailers, and private
labelers are held to the same
requirements when making
representations regarding the energy
efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c))
Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not
later than July 8, 2019, any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
manufacturer currently distributing in
commerce in the United States a
product employing a technology or
characteristic that results in the same
need for a waiver from the applicable
test procedure must submit a petition
for waiver. Manufacturers not currently
distributing such products in commerce
in the United States must petition for
and be granted a waiver prior to the
distribution in commerce of those
products in the United States.
Manufacturers may also submit a
request for interim waiver pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2019.
Steven Chalk,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
Case # 2018–003
Decision and Order
I. Background and Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among other
things, authorizes the U.S. Department
of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer
products and industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles,
which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency
for certain types of consumer products.
These products include room air
conditioners, the focus of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(2))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to
DOE that their products comply with
the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the America’s
Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–
270 (October 23, 2018).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
representations about the efficiency of
that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)).
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the
product complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE is
required to follow when prescribing or
amending test procedures for covered
products. EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended
under this section must be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for
room air conditioners is contained in
the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’)
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
F, Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Room Air
Conditioners (‘‘Appendix F’’).
Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested
person may submit a petition for waiver
from DOE’s test procedure
requirements. DOE will grant a waiver
from the test procedure requirements if
DOE determines either that the basic
model for which the waiver was
requested contains a design
characteristic that prevents testing of the
basic model according to the prescribed
test procedures, or that the prescribed
test procedures evaluate the basic model
in a manner so unrepresentative of its
true energy consumption characteristics
as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).
DOE may grant the waiver subject to
conditions, including adherence to
alternate test procedures. Id.
II. LG’s Petition for Waiver: Assertions
and Determinations
By letter dated April 6, 2018, LG
submitted a petition for waiver and
application for an interim waiver from
the applicable room air conditioner test
procedure set forth in Appendix F. LG
requested relief for the following room
air conditioner basic models:
LW2217IVSM, LW1817IVSM, and
LW1517IVSM.3 According to LG,
Appendix F, which provides for testing
at full-load performance only (i.e., at a
single indoor and high-temperature
outdoor operating condition), does not
take into account the benefits of
variable-speed room air conditioners,
with their part-load performance
3 LG provided these basic model numbers in its
April 6, 2018 petition.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
characteristics, and misrepresents their
actual energy consumption. Appendix F
requires room air conditioners be tested
only with full-load performance as a
result of DOE’s having previously
concluded that widespread use of partload technology in room air
conditioners was not likely to be
stimulated by the development of a partload metric, and insufficient
information available at that time
regarding the cost effectiveness of partload technologies as compared to
currently [at the time] available
technologies. 76 FR 972, 1016 (January
6, 2011).
LG stated that variable-speed room air
conditioners use frequency controls to
constantly adjust the compressor
rotation speed to maintain the desired
temperature in the home without
turning the motor on and off; that the
compressor responds automatically to
surrounding conditions to operate in the
most efficient possible manner; and that
this results in both significant energy
savings and faster cooling compared to
a typical room air conditioner, which
does not have a variable-speed
compressor. LG further stated that
variable-speed room air conditioners
also have a higher/lower operating range
(10 Hz to 120 Hz) than room air
conditioners without variable-speed
compressors. LG asserted that because
the DOE test procedure does not
account for part-load performance, the
results of the test procedure are not
representative of the actual energy
consumption of variable-speed room air
conditioners. DOE agrees that the
current test procedure produces test
results that are unrepresentative of
actual energy use, and accordingly
energy efficiency, for variable-speed
room air conditioners. The current test
procedure’s single full-load test
condition does not account for such
products automatically adjusting
compressor or fan speed during
performance under part-load conditions.
As a result, the current test procedure
does not capture the relative efficiency
gains of variable-speed technology
under part-load conditions, as would be
experienced during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. Also,
an alternate test procedure, similar to
LG’s requested approach but with
modifications, will appropriately reflect
operation under part-load conditions
and provide results that are
representative of actual energy
efficiency for variable-speed room air
conditioners during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, as
discussed further below.
In its petition, LG requested an
alternate test procedure, which would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
provide for testing the specified basic
models according to Appendix F, except
that the variable-speed room air
conditioners would be tested at four
different outdoor temperature rating
conditions 4 (95 degrees Fahrenheit
(‘‘°F’’) and 92 °F with maximum
compressor speed, 87 °F with
intermediate compressor speed, and
82 °F with minimum compressor speed)
instead of the single outdoor
temperature rating condition (95 °F)
required by Appendix F. Under the
suggested alternate test procedure, the
variable-speed room air conditioner
combined energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘CEER’’) would be calculated by
multiplying the unit’s measured CEER
value at the 95 °F rating condition by a
‘‘performance adjustment factor.’’ The
performance adjustment factor would
reflect the average performance
improvement relative to a comparable
single-speed unit resulting from the
implementation of a variable-speed
compressor across previously described
multiple rating conditions. To
determine the performance adjustment
factor, individual CEER values would be
measured at each of the four rating
conditions, and the four CEER values
would be averaged using weighting
factors based on fractional temperature
bin hours for each rating temperature.5
This weighted-average value would be
adjusted to normalize it against the
expected weighted-average CEER under
the same four rating conditions of a
comparable single-speed room air
conditioner that has the same
performance as the variable-speed test
unit at the 95 °F test condition. The
performance adjustment factor would be
calculated as the percent improvement
of the weighted CEER value of the
variable speed room air conditioner
compared to the weighted CEER value
of the comparable single-speed room air
conditioner.
As discussed, the current test
procedure relies on a single operating
condition, defined by the dry-bulb and
wet-bulb temperatures in the indoor and
outdoor side test chambers. The
suggested alternate approach for
variable-speed room air conditioners
involves measuring performance over a
range of four operating conditions,
4 Each rating condition is expressed as a set of
indoor and outdoor dry-bulb temperatures, with
corresponding wet-bulb temperatures to specify the
sensible and latent heat conditions in both sides of
the test chamber, as shown in Table 1 of the
alternate test procedure in the Order. As a
condensed notation when discussing the rating
conditions in this Order, only the outdoor dry-bulb
temperature is stated.
5 The fractional temperature bin hours for each
rating temperature are derived from those provided
in Table 16 of AHRI 210/240–2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20113
including reduced outdoor temperature
conditions at which variable-speed
room air conditioners would perform
more efficiently than single-speed room
air conditioners, and that better reflect
representative use. Although a singlespeed air conditioner also would
operate more efficiently at reduced
outdoor temperatures, the marginal
improvement of a variable-speed room
air conditioner exceeds that of a singlespeed room air conditioner. There are
several reasons for this: Unlike singlespeed room air conditioners, variablespeed units match the load, avoid
cycling losses, and use conditionspecific control strategies. Because the
current test procedure tests only under
a single operating condition, comparing
variable-speed room air conditioner
performance based on testing at four
operating conditions against a singlespeed room air conditioner tested at the
highest-temperature operating condition
would not provide an appropriate
comparison.
A performance adjustment factor
allows a more appropriate comparison
between a variable-speed room air
conditioner tested according to the
alternate test procedure and a singlespeed room air conditioner tested
according to the current test procedure.
The performance adjustment factor
represents the average relative benefit of
variable-speed units over single-speed
units across the range of operating
conditions. It represents the benefit
compared to a theoretical comparable
single-speed room air conditioner. It is
applied to the measured variable-speed
room air conditioner performance only
at the high-temperature operating
condition (the same operating condition
under which single-speed room air
conditioners are tested) to provide a
more appropriate comparison to the
existing CEER metric for single-speed
room air conditioners.
On June 29, 2018, DOE published a
notice that announced its receipt of the
petition for waiver and granted LG an
interim waiver. 83 FR 30717 (‘‘June
2018 notice’’). In the June 2018 notice,
DOE presented LG’s claim that the
results of the test procedure in
Appendix F are not representative of the
actual energy consumption of the
variable-speed room air conditioners
specified in LG’s petition for waiver and
the requested alternate test procedure
described above.
In the June 2018 notice, DOE
specified an alternate test procedure as
suggested by LG that must be followed
for testing and certifying the specific
basic models for which LG requested a
waiver. For the reasons explained here
and in the Notice of Petition for Waiver,
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
20114
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
without a waiver, the three room air
conditioner basic models identified in
the interim waiver, and included in this
Order, contain a design characteristic,
variable-speed compressors, that yields
test results unrepresentative of their true
energy efficiency.
By letter dated March 11, 2019, LG
requested DOE extend the scope of the
interim waiver to include an additional
basic model, LW1019IVSM. LG stated
that basic model LW1019IVSM employs
the same technology as the basic models
addressed by the interim waiver.
DOE has reviewed LG’s waiver
extension request and based on that
review, determined that the room air
conditioner basic model identified in
LG’s request incorporates the same
design characteristics as those basic
models covered under the interim
waiver in Case Number 2018–003 such
that the test procedure evaluates that
basic model in a manner that is
unrepresentative of its actual energy
use. DOE has also determined that the
alternate test procedure will evaluate
the additional basic model,
LW1019IVSM, in a manner that is
representative of its actual energy use.
As such, DOE is including LG’s basic
model LW1019IVSM in this Decision
and Order along with the three basic
models that were listed in the interim
waiver.
Thus, DOE is requiring LG to test and
rate the four room air conditioner basic
models identified in today’s Order
according to the alternate test procedure
in today’s Order. The alternate test
procedure in this Order is a modified
version of the procedure in the interim
waiver.
In the June 2018 notice, DOE also
solicited comments from interested
parties on all aspects of the petition. Id.
DOE received comments from various
entities, all opposing LG’s petition for
various reasons. DOE received
comments from the Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (‘‘ASAP’’),
Friedrich Air Conditioning
(‘‘Friedrich’’), and a jointly submitted
comment from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (‘‘PG&E’’), San Diego Gas and
Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’), and Southern
California Edison (‘‘SCE’’) (hereinafter
the ‘‘California IOUs’’). On August 13,
2018, LG subsequently submitted a
rebuttal statement (pursuant to 10 CFR
430.27(d)(3)) in response to these
comments.6
Although ASAP agreed with LG’s
assertion that the current test procedure
6 Comments submitted by ASAP, Friedrich, and
the Joint Commenters, and the rebuttal statement
submitted by LG can be accessed at: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BTWAV-0006.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
for room air conditioners does not
capture part-load performance and the
potential benefits of variable-speed
technology, they believe that a test
procedure waiver is not the appropriate
approach to address the concern. They
stated that, instead of granting a waiver
for an alternate test with fixed
temperature, humidity, and compressor
speeds, DOE should amend the current
test procedure to use a load-based
testing approach. ASAP contended that
room air conditioners likely spend a
significant amount of time during the
cooling season operating under partload conditions, which require less
cooling. ASAP stated that the existing
full-load test at an external temperature
of 95 °F both does not reflect these
actual operating conditions and does
not capture inefficiencies and
performance degradation due to a
single-speed unit’s cycling on and off
under part-load operating conditions.
ASAP suggested that a load-based test
would better reflect how both singlespeed and variable-speed room air
conditioners perform in the field and
would capture not only the benefits of
variable-speed compressors, in that they
are able to provide cooling that matches
the load, but also other important
factors that affect efficiency, including
the avoidance of cycling losses and
condition-specific control strategies.
ASAP referenced recent work by the
CSA Group in developing a load-based
test for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps that it
suggested could serve as a model for a
load-based test for room air
conditioners. ASAP further believes that
a load-based approach would provide
better information to consumers,
encourage the adoption of new
technologies that may improve
efficiency, and, while also providing
additional benefits to consumers and
the electric grid (e.g., quieter operation
and the ability to reduce power
consumption during periods of peak
demand). (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1–2) 7
In response to ASAP’s comments, LG
noted that DOE’s regulations specify
that a granted waiver must be followed,
as soon as practicable, by a test
procedure rulemaking to amend DOE’s
regulations and eliminate any need for
continuation of the waiver. LG asserted
that a waiver is appropriate to address
any misrepresentation of energy
consumption immediately and
expressed support for a subsequent
rulemaking to establish such an
approach in the DOE room air
conditioner test procedure. LG also
asserted that ASAP’s preference for a
dynamic load-based test would not be
appropriate grounds for denying LG’s
petition for waiver, which it claimed
has met all waiver criteria and is
thereby warranted. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 2–
3)
DOE agrees with the concept that a
load-based test may be more
representative of typical operation,
where the conditions within a room
vary and the room air conditioner
operates based on the set point and
monitored conditions. However, there
are substantial issues with setting up
and maintaining conditions in existing
test chambers that are not designed for
this type of test. These require
significantly more technician
involvement and time, thereby greatly
increasing the test cost. In addition,
because the specific equipment in the
calorimeter chamber will affect the
variation in chamber temperature as a
function of the cooling load, ensuring
the reproducibility of the test would
substantially increase the test burden in
relation to the potential improved
representativeness of the test. As a
result, DOE has decided not to establish
a load-based test. This understanding is
based in part on investigative room air
conditioner testing that DOE recently
conducted.8 The purposes of the testing
were to determine the magnitude of
changes to the existing test procedure
that would be required under a loadbased approach and to identify any
issues arising from using calorimeter
chambers (which would be necessary
under a load-based approach) that were
designed for fixed-temperature testing.
DOE preliminarily found that
calorimeter chambers typically used for
room air conditioner testing are not
designed to provide a fixed amount of
cooling or heating to the chambers, but
rather are designed to maintain a fixed
temperature and relative humidity
while the test unit operates
continuously. DOE also is concerned
that a load-based test for room air
conditioners may not be as repeatable as
the existing test procedure because
room air conditioner set points and
deadband thresholds 9 are typically not
7 A notation in the form ‘‘ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1–
2’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made by the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project; (2)
recorded in document number 5 that is filed in the
docket of this waiver (Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–
WAV–0006) and available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov; and (3) which appears on
pages 1 and 2 of document number 5.
8 A summary of the results of the investigative
room air conditioner testing can be accessed at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2018-BT-WAV-0006-0008.
9 The term ‘‘deadband’’ refers to the range of
ambient air temperatures around the set point for
which the compressor remains off, and above which
cooling mode is triggered on.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
as accurate or precise as typical
calorimeter chamber instrumentation,
and therefore would also not be
reproducible with existing test
chambers whose varying designs and
reconditioning equipment could result
in different chamber sensible and latent
heating during testing.
In addition to preferring a load-based
test, ASAP expressed concern regarding
the fixed compressor speeds in the LGsuggested alternate test procedure,
stating that such test conditions do not
reflect how variable-speed room air
conditioners operate in the field. ASAP
asserted that control strategies
significantly impact efficiency and
performance, and that by fixing the
compressor speeds, the alternate test
procedure would not capture the impact
of a unit’s control strategy for adjusting
the compressor (and potentially fan)
speed(s) in response to varying
conditions. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2)
DOE agrees that variable-speed room
air conditioners in the field are likely to
adjust their compressor speed in realtime in response to variations in the
cooling load. However, EPCA requires
developing a test procedure that is
reasonably designed to produce results
that measure performance during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use, without undue burden.
Because of the large variation in cooling
loads, both for rooms within a house,
and among different housing types and
geographical areas, identifying a single
or multiple representative cooling loads
would not be feasible at this time.
Furthermore, load-based testing would
impose undue cost and burden on
manufacturers and test laboratories due
to the unique construction and
capabilities of existing calorimeter
chambers and unit response variability
during load-based testing. In contrast,
DOE concludes that the approach
suggested by LG to measure
performance for the full range of
variable-speed operation (i.e., from low
to full compressor speed under relevant
operating conditions) would provide a
sufficient performance determination of
variable-speed room air conditioners.
Friedrich raised concerns about the
suggested alternate test procedure. First,
they questioned why the test conditions
specified in the interim waiver were
those suggested by LG instead of the full
set of seasonal energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘SEER’’) test conditions in American
National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’)/
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute ‘‘AHRI’’ 2017
Standard 210/240, ‘‘Performance Rating
of Unitary Air-Conditioning & AirSource Heat Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI
210/240–2017’’). According to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Friedrich, the bin hours and test
methodology in AHRI 210/240–2017
have been thoroughly vetted. (Friedrich,
No. 4 at p. 1)
In response to Friedrich’s comments,
LG noted that, where appropriate, the
test conditions in the waiver test
procedure are based on those in AHRI
210/240–2017 considering that AHRI
210/240–2017 applies to central air
conditioners, whereas the petition for
waiver is for room air conditioners. LG
stated, for example, that the required
test conditions in AHRI 210/240–2017
for central air conditioners having
variable-speed compressors include a
fifth condition, the F1 test, which is at
an outdoor temperature of 67 ßF, which
LG stated is an unlikely temperature for
room air conditioner operation. (LG, No.
7 at pp. 5–6)
DOE reviewed the full set of five
required and two optional test
conditions in AHRI 210/240–2017 and
concludes that those four selected by LG
apply to room air conditioners, but the
three remaining conditions do not.
Specifically, the outdoor test conditions
for the required FLow test 10 (and the
optional GLow and ILow tests) in Tables
7 and 8 of AHRI 210/240–2017, while
applicable to central air conditioners,
are not compatible with the room air
conditioner test procedure, as the drybulb temperature of 67 °F is below the
indoor set point of 80 °F prescribed by
the test procedure. DOE notes that LG
suggested using the remaining required
test conditions in Tables 7 and 8 of
AHRI 210/240–2017 (i.e., those
designated as AFull, BFull, EInt, and BLow).
In addition, DOE notes that the
fractional temperature bin hours used in
the waiver for each rating condition
were derived from the industryaccepted values provided in Table 16 of
AHRI 210/240–2017.
Friedrich also questioned whether the
capacity and power adjustment factors
used to calculate the performance of a
comparable single-speed room air
conditioner are representative of the
range of single-speed room air
conditioners on the market. (Friedrich,
No. 4 at p. 1) DOE conducted testing
and modeling to estimate performance
of room air conditioners at varying
outdoor ambient conditions. DOE
reviewed the capacity and power
adjustment factors suggested by LG and
notes that they largely align with the
data from DOE’s testing and modeling.
Therefore, DOE is confident that the
capacity and power adjustment factor
10 F
Low is the same test as the F1 test referred to
by LG above, as noted in Table 7 of AHRI 210/240–
2017. AHRI 210/240–2017 changed the terminology
used to refer to tests from the previous version of
the standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20115
values suggested by LG to estimate
performance of a comparable singlespeed room air conditioner at reduced
ambient conditions are appropriate and
representative of expected performance.
Friedrich also suggested that an
alternate test for variable-speed room air
conditioners should use a building load
and operating hours at specific
operating conditions, as is done for the
SEER metric in AHRI 210/240–2017.
Friedrich disagrees with LG’s approach
that instead assumes a room air
conditioner operates for 750 hours in
every condition. (Friedrich, No. 4 at p.
1) In response to Friedrich’s comment,
LG noted that DOE has previously
determined that 750 operating hours is
the representative average-use cycle per
year for room air conditioners. (LG, No.
7 at pp. 6–7)
DOE reviewed Table 16 in AHRI 210/
240–2017 and determined that the full
set of conditions are likely not
applicable to room air conditioner
operation. Table 16 contains data
describing the fraction of the cooling
season during which the temperature is
within each of eight temperature bins,
with representative temperatures for
each bin ranging from 67 °F to 102 °F in
increments of 5 °F. Specifically, DOE
agrees that only bins 4 through 7 of
Table 16 are appropriate for room air
conditioner operation because these are
the ranges of temperatures that span the
current indoor and outdoor temperature
conditions of 80 °F and 95 °F,
respectively. DOE notes that
normalizing those fractional bin hours
results in the weighting factors
suggested in LG’s petition for waiver,
with each weighting factor representing
the fraction of 750 hours during the
cooling season that would be associated
with each outdoor temperature bin.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the
weighting factors suggested by LG are
appropriate for variable-speed room air
conditioners.
Friedrich also stated that the alternate
test procedure compares the weighted
variable-speed CEER to the weighted
single-speed CEER, which is higher than
the CEER value at which the comparable
single-speed unit would currently be
rated (e.g., Friedrich commented that a
non-weighted CEER of 12, as
determined according to Appendix F,
would correspond to a weighted CEER
of 12.8 when calculated according to the
alternate test procedure). Friedrich
contends that a different metric should
be used to rate variable-speed units,
because if CEER is used, a variablespeed unit rated at 14.0 CEER would
actually have a performance adjustment
factor of 9.3 percent (as compared with
the weighted single-speed CEER metric
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
20116
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
of 12.8), while the alternate test
procedure would indicate that the
performance adjustment factor would be
16.5 percent (as compared to a nonweighted 12.0 CEER). (Friedrich, No. 4
at p. 1) LG stated in response to
Friedrich’s comment that an alternate
energy efficiency metric could be
addressed by DOE in a subsequent test
procedure rulemaking. (LG, No. 7 at p.
7)
DOE notes that only the final CEER
metric calculated in section 5.4.9 of the
waiver test procedure (i.e., the nonweighted CEER value resulting from
testing according to Appendix F,
adjusted by the performance adjustment
factor determined according to the
waiver test procedure) would be used to
compare efficiencies among different
basic models of room air conditioners.
The performance adjustment factor is
defined as the percent difference
between the weighted single-speed
CEER metric adjusted for cycling losses
and the weighted variable-speed CEER
metric. This represents the relative
difference between single-speed and
variable-speed room air conditioner
performance and efficiency. By
comparison, the weighted CEER value is
an interim value used to calculate the
performance adjustment factor; it is not
a reported performance metric.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate
to compare the variable-speed CEER
metric resulting from the alternate test
procedure to the interim weighted CEER
value, as suggested by Friedrich. DOE
concludes that the performance
adjustment factor as implemented in
this Decision and Order maintains a
single metric for all room air
conditioners (CEER), while capturing
the efficiency improvements associated
with variable-speed models.
The California IOUs recommended
that DOE deny LG’s waiver request and
rescind the interim waiver because the
CEER weighting scheme in the alternate
test procedure represents too significant
a change to the CEER performance
metric and its calculation methodology.
The California IOUs noted that under 10
CFR 430.27, a waiver shall not be
granted if it will ‘‘change the energy use
or efficiency metric that the
manufacturer must use to certify
compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standard.’’ They believe
that the alternate testing procedure
represents a change in the efficiency
metric calculation because it
incorporates a weighting approach.
Instead of a waiver, the California IOUs
suggested that DOE conduct a test
procedure rulemaking to allow
opportunities for proper consideration,
evaluation, and review before a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
manufacturer conducts testing and
certification using an alternate test
procedure. The California IOUs noted
that the proposed testing conditions
could then be evaluated to determine
whether they accurately capture the
energy consumption of the listed and
comparable models. They asserted that
because LG did not submit any data to
justify the chosen testing conditions or
weighting factors, the validity of these
values cannot be verified. The California
IOUs further asserted that if the
alternate test procedure in this waiver is
granted, the CEER metric for the
identified LG models would no longer
be comparable to those of room air
conditioners from other manufacturers,
resulting in an unfair marketplace and
misleading information for consumers.
(California IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 1–2)
In response to the comment from the
CA IOUs, LG stated that its suggested
alternate test procedure does not change
the metric, but rather maintains the
CEER metric and would not alter the
minimum standard applicable to these
products. LG further stated that it is
preferable to provide better information
to consumers as soon as possible, rather
than waiting until a new test procedure
rulemaking is completed. (LG, No. 7 at
pp. 3–4)
DOE notes that the LG interim waiver
approach assesses the performance
improvements associated with variablespeed room air conditioners as
compared to single-speed room air
conditioners, on the basis of adjusted
operation at varying, reducedtemperature operating conditions and
accounting for savings associated with
eliminating cycling losses. DOE
recognizes that neither the intermediate
individual CEER values nor the
weighted CEER value calculated for a
variable-speed room air conditioner unit
and comparable single-speed room air
conditioner at the different operating
conditions are comparable to the CEER
determined using Appendix F.
However, the alternate test procedure
does not prescribe either of these values
for determining compliance or for
comparison with the CEER determined
using Appendix F. Under the alternate
test procedure, the intermediate CEER
values are used to determine a
performance adjustment factor that
reflects the relative performance
improvement associated with variablespeed operation. That performance
adjustment factor is then applied to the
Appendix F CEER metric. In that way,
the efficiency metric for variable-speed
room air conditioners remains
comparable to the current CEER metric,
which would continue to reflect
performance of single-speed room air
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conditioners. Thus, consumers are
informed of the relative efficiency
improvements provided by variablespeed room air conditioners. As
discussed above, the weighting factors
and test conditions suggested by LG are
based on the applicable values in Table
16 of AHRI 210/240–2017, which has
been verified and validated and is an
industry accepted standard.
Additionally, the California IOUs
objected to DOE’s assertion in the
interim waiver that LG would suffer
economic hardship and be at a
competitive disadvantage if it were
required to rate the identified models
for which it requested a waiver
according to the current room air
conditioner test procedure. The
California IOUs stated that following a
review of product literature, they found
that all three LG models listed in the
interim waiver (LW2217IVSM,
LW1817IVSM, and LW1517IVSM)
currently exceed the minimum Federal
standards for room air conditioners in
their respective product classes, and
would therefore not be precluded from
entering the market. (California IOUs,
No. 6 at p. 2)
LG stated that even though LG’s
products would not be barred from the
market, it would suffer economic
hardship and be at a competitive
disadvantage without the waiver,
because the DOE test procedure does
not capture the relative efficiency
improvements achieved by variablespeed room air conditioners over a
range of operating conditions compared
to single-speed room air conditioners.
LG asserted that, without an alternate
test procedure, the CEER values of
variable-speed room air conditioners
would be inaccurately low, despite the
improved performance under part-load
conditions. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 4–5)
For the reasons explained here and in
the June 2018 notice, without a waiver,
the basic models identified in the Order
cannot be tested and rated for energy
consumption on a basis representative
of their true energy consumption
characteristics. DOE has reviewed the
recommended procedure suggested by
LG and concludes that it will allow for
generally accurate measurement of the
energy use of the listed models, while
alleviating the problems associated with
testing these models following DOE’s
room air conditioner test procedure. LG
must test and rate the four listed room
air conditioner basic models according
to the alternate test procedure specified
in the Decision and Order. This
alternate test procedure is substantively
consistent with the interim waiver’s
alternate test procedure but makes some
modifications.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
Based on further review of the
alternate test procedure required under
the interim waiver order and subsequent
investigative testing performed by DOE,
the alternate test procedure required
under today’s Decision and Order: (1)
Does not permit use of a psychrometric
chamber instead of a calorimeter
chamber, (2) provides definitions for
each fixed compressor speed, and (3)
specifies that compressor speeds will be
set in accordance with instructions that
LG will provide. DOE has determined
that these changes are necessary to
ensure better repeatability and
reproducibility of the alternate test
procedure, as well as representativeness
of the results.
DOE is removing the option provided
in the interim waiver order to test using
the air-enthalpy method, which relies
on use of a psychrometric chamber, as
opposed to a calorimeter chamber. Use
of a psychrometric chamber requires the
installation of test ducts on the
evaporator and condenser exhausts to
measure the air-enthalpy and calculate
cooling capacity, which may impact the
air flow, particularly on the evaporator
side where room air conditioners
typically locate the inlet and outlet in
close proximity. As such, the results
from using a psychrometric chamber
may not be representative of typical
installations. Further, unlike the
calorimeter method, the air-enthalpy
method does not address heat loss
through the chassis to the room, and
may not capture possible heat transfer
due to internal air leakage through the
chassis between the indoor and outdoor
test chambers. DOE’s investigative
testing of 9 room air conditioners
suggested that the air-enthalpy and
calorimeter methods are not
interchangeable: DOE’s results varied up
to 11 percent in cooling capacity and
efficiency between the two methods.
To capture the efficiency gains
associated with variable-speed
technology, the alternate test procedure
requires testing variable-speed room air
conditioners at different fixed
compressor speeds under various
reduced outdoor operating
temperatures. To harmonize the
alternate test procedure with industry
standards and ensure the compressor
speeds are representative of the
expected load at each of the outdoor test
conditions, DOE is providing definitions
for the three compressor speeds
outlined in the Interim Waiver Order
and revising the nomenclature for these
speeds based on AHRI 210/240–2017.
To ensure that the low and intermediate
compressor speeds result in adequate
cooling capacity under reduced loads,
the low compressor speed definition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
requires that the test unit’s measured
cooling capacity at the low temperature
(82 °F) rating condition must be within
47 percent to 57 percent of the
measured cooling capacity when
operating with the full compressor
speed at the 95 °F rating condition. DOE
developed this range based on the
building load calculation, equation 11.6,
in AHRI 210/240–2017, which relates
the building load to the unit full-load
cooling capacity and the outdoor
temperature. DOE normalized this
equation for room ACs so that full load
operation occurs at a 95 °F outdoor
temperature, rather than 98 °F under the
existing equation, and then used the
normalized equation to estimate the
cooling load as a percentage of the fullload cooling capacity at the 82 °F
outdoor temperature rating condition.
Based on this analysis, DOE expects
that, if a variable-speed room AC’s
cooling capacity at low compressor
speed is higher than 57 percent of the
unit’s cooling capacity at the 95 °F
rating condition, the cooling capacity
would exceed the cooling load when the
outdoor temperature is 82 °F. Thus, such
a unit in the field would cycle the
compressor under a cooling load
corresponding to the rating condition
because more cooling than necessary
would be provided to the room, thereby
incurring cycling losses and not
providing the full performance benefits
associated with variable-speed
operation. Conversely, if a variablespeed room AC’s cooling capacity at the
low compressor speed is significantly
lower than 57 percent of the unit’s
cooling capacity at the 95 °F rating
condition, the unit would not provide
sufficient cooling (based on the
expected cooling load at the 82 °F rating
condition) and would thereby impact
consumer acceptance of the product.
For this reason, and because variablespeed room ACs may use compressors
that vary speed in discrete steps without
the capability to directly operate at a
speed that meets the 57 percent
requirement precisely, the low speed
definition allows for a minimum cooling
capacity at the low compressor speed of
47 percent of the cooling capacity at the
95 °F rating condition. This range
ensures that the unit’s cooling capacity
at the representative low cooling load,
as determined using the building load
calculation in AHRI 210/240–2017, is
achieved while maintaining the
performance benefits of variable-speed
compressors.
Setting and maintaining a specific
room air conditioner compressor speed
is not typically possible without specific
control instructions from the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20117
manufacturer. Because fixed compressor
speeds are critical to the repeatability of
this alternate test procedure, DOE is
requiring that the manufacturer provide
DOE all necessary instructions to
maintain the compressor speed required
for each test condition.11
DOE also recognizes that
corresponding changes are needed to
the calculation that provides the basis of
the annual energy consumption and
operating cost information presented to
consumers on the EnergyGuide Label.
These changes will allow for an
appropriate comparison of the annual
energy consumption and operating costs
between single-speed room air
conditioners and the four variable-speed
room air conditioner basic models listed
in today’s Order. As such, the alternate
test procedure specifies two values of
electrical power input. One is used in
calculating the average annual energy
consumption in 10 CFR 430.23(f)(3),
which in turn is used to calculate the
combined annual energy consumption
and estimated annual operating cost in
10 CFR 430.23(f)(4) and (f)(1),
respectively. This value is the weighted
average of the input power measured at
each of the four test conditions plus the
annual energy consumption in inactive
mode or off mode. The second value is
the value measured at the 95 °F rating
condition and reported to DOE through
certification reports, as required in 10
CFR 429.15(b)(2), and is used to
calculate the unit’s measured CEER
value in 10 CFR 430.23(f)(5) before
applying the performance adjustment
factor. DOE concludes that, although a
different value of electrical power input
is appropriate for calculating the FTC
EnergyGuide values, reporting of the
electrical power input at the 95 °F rating
condition ensures consistency with the
cooling capacity measured under the
same condition.
DOE further requires in today’s
Decision and Order testing of the
specified basic models in accordance
with the instructions submitted by LG
on April 2, 2019, regarding the
compressor frequencies and control
11 Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, if the
manufacturer submits information that it believes to
be confidential and exempt by law from public
disclosure, the manufacturer should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two wellmarked copies: One copy of the document marked
‘‘confidential’’ including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the
information believed to be confidential deleted.
DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
20118
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
settings used at each test condition for
each basic model.12
The Decision and Order applies only
to the four basic models listed in the
Order and does not extend to any other
basic models. LG may request that DOE
extend the scope of this waiver to
include additional basic models that
employ the same technology as those
listed in the Order. 10 CFR 430.27(g).
LG may also submit another petition for
waiver from the test procedure for
additional basic models that employ a
different technology and meet the
criteria for test procedure waivers. 10
CFR 430.27(a)(1).
DOE notes that it may rescind or
modify the waiver at any time upon a
determination that the factual basis
underlying the petition for waiver is
incorrect, or that the results from the
alternate test procedure are
unrepresentative of the basic models’
true energy consumption characteristics.
10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, LG may
request that DOE rescind or modify the
waiver if the company discovers an
error in the information provided to
DOE as part of its petition, determines
that the waiver is no longer needed, or
for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR
430.27(k)(2).
III. Consultations With Other Agencies
In accordance with 10 CFR
430.27(f)(2), DOE consulted with the
Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) staff
concerning the LG petition for waiver.
The FTC staff did not have any
objections to DOE’s granting a waiver to
LG for the four specified basic models.
IV. Order
After careful consideration of all the
material that was submitted by LG and
commenters in this matter, public facing
materials, and the testing conducted by
DOE, it is ordered that:
(1) LG must, as of the date of
publication of this Order in the Federal
Register, test the following room air
conditioner basic models with the
alternate test procedure as set forth in
paragraph (2):
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Brand
LG
LG
LG
LG
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Basic model No.
LW2217IVSM
LW1817IVSM
LW1517IVSM
LW1019IVSM
12 The instructions provided by LG were marked
as confidential and, as such, the instructions will
be treated as confidential. The document is located
in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006-0010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
(2) The alternate test procedure for the
LG basic models referenced in
paragraph (1) of this Order is the test
procedure for room air conditioners
prescribed by DOE at appendix F to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430
(‘‘Appendix F’’) and 10 CFR 430.23(f),
except: (i) Determine the combined
energy efficiency ratio (‘‘CEER’’) as
detailed below, and (ii) calculate the
average annual energy consumption
referenced in 10 CFR 430.23(f)(3) as
detailed below. In addition, for each
basic model listed in paragraph (1),
maintain compressor speeds at each test
condition and set control settings for the
variable components, according to the
instructions submitted to DOE by LG.
All other requirements of Appendix F
and DOE’s regulations remain
applicable.
In 10 CFR 430.23, in paragraph (f)
revise paragraph (3)(i) to read as
follows: The electrical power input in
kilowatts as calculated in section 5.2.1
of appendix F to this subpart, and
In 10 CFR 430.23, in paragraph (f)
revise paragraph (5) to read as follows:
(5) Calculate the combined energy
efficiency ratio for room air
conditioners, expressed in Btu’s per
watt-hour, as follows:
(i) Calculate the quotient of:
(A) The cooling capacity as
determined at the 95 °F outdoor test
condition, Capacity95, in Btus per hour,
as determined in accordance with
section 5.1 of appendix F to this subpart
multiplied by the representative
average-use cycle of 750 hours of
compressor operation per year, divided
by
(B) The combined annual energy
consumption, in watt hours, which is
the sum of the annual energy
consumption for cooling mode,
calculated in section 5.4.2 of appendix
F to this subpart for test condition 1 in
Table 1 of appendix F to this subpart,
and the standby mode and off mode
energy consumption, as determined in
accordance with section 5.3 of appendix
F to this subpart. The sum of the annual
energy consumption in cooling mode
and standby mode and off mode energy
consumption is then multiplied by a
conversion factor of 1,000 to convert
kilowatt-hours to watt-hours.
(ii) Multiply the quotient calculated
in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this section by
(1 + Fp), where Fp is the variable-speed
room air conditioner performance
adjustment factor as determined in
section 5.4.8 of appendix F to this
subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(iii) Round the resulting value from
paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this section to the
nearest 0.1 Btu per watt-hour.
In Appendix F:
Add in Section 1, Definitions:
1.8 ‘‘Single-speed’’ means a type of
room air conditioner that cannot
automatically adjust the compressor
speed based on detected conditions.
1.9 ‘‘Variable-speed’’ means a type
of room air conditioner that can
automatically adjust compressor speed
based on detected conditions.
1.10 ‘‘Full compressor speed (full)’’
means the compressor speed specified
by the manufacturer at which the unit
operates at full load testing conditions.
1.11 ‘‘Intermediate compressor
speed (intermediate)’’ means the
compressor speed higher than the low
compressor speed by one third of the
difference between low compressor
speed and full compressor speed with a
tolerance of plus 5 percent (designs with
non-discrete compressor speed stages)
or the next highest inverter frequency
step (designs with discrete compressor
speed steps).
1.12 ‘‘Low compressor speed (low)’’
means the compressor speed specified
by the manufacturer at which the unit
operates at low load test conditions,
such that the measured cooling capacity
at Temperature Condition 4 in Table 1
of this appendix, Capacity4, is not less
than 47 percent and not greater than 57
percent of the measured cooling
capacity with the full compressor speed
at Temperature Condition 1 in Table 1
of this appendix, Capacity1.
Add to the end of Section 2.1 Cooling:
For the purposes of this waiver, all
units must conduct the cooling mode
test a total of four times: One test at each
of the test conditions listed in Table 1,
consistent with section 3.1 of this
appendix.
Revise Section 3.1, Cooling mode, to
read as follows:
Cooling mode. Establish the test
conditions described in sections 4 and
5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC–1 (incorporated
by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3) and in
accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 16
(incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR
430.3), with the following exceptions:
Conduct the set of four cooling mode
tests with the test conditions in Table 1.
Set the compressor speed required for
each test condition in accordance with
instructions provided to DOE.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
20119
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
TABLE 1—INDOOR AND OUTDOOR INLET AIR TEST CONDITIONS—VARIABLE-SPEED ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Dry bulb
Test
Test
Test
Test
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
1
2
3
4
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
..................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Replace Section 5.1 to read as follows:
Calculate the condition-specific
cooling capacity (expressed in Btu/hr),
Capacitytc, for each of the four cooling
mode rating test conditions (tc), as
required in section 6.1 of ANSI/AHAM
RAC–1 (incorporated by reference; see
10 CFR 430.3) and in accordance with
ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by
reference; see 10 CFR 430.3).
Notwithstanding the requirements of 10
CFR 430.23(f), when reporting cooling
capacity pursuant to 10 CFR
429.15(b)(2) and calculating energy
consumption and costs pursuant to 10
CFR 430.23(f), use the cooling capacity
determined for test condition 1 in Table
1 of this appendix.
Replace Section 5.2 to read as follows:
Determine the condition-specific
electrical power input (expressed in
watts), Ptc, for each of the four cooling
mode rating test conditions, as required
by section 6.5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC–1
(incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR
430.3) and in accordance with ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by reference;
see 10 CFR 430.3). Notwithstanding the
requirements of 10 CFR 430.23(f), when
reporting electrical power input
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.15(b)(2) and
calculating energy consumption and
costs pursuant to 10 CFR 430.23(f)(5),
use the electrical power input value
measured for test condition 1 in Table
1 of this appendix. Notwithstanding the
requirements of 10 CFR 430.23(f), when
calculating energy consumption and
costs pursuant to 10 CFR 430.23(f)(3),
use the weighted electrical power input,
Pwt, calculated in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix, as the electrical power input.
Insert a new Section 5.2.1:
5.2.1 Weighted electrical power
input. Calculate the weighted electrical
power input in cooling mode, Pwt,
expressed in watts, as follows:
Where:
Pwt = weighted electrical power input, in
watts, in cooling mode.
Ptc = electrical power input, in watts, in
cooling mode for each test condition in
Table 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Condenser inlet
(outdoor) air, °F
Wet bulb
80
80
80
80
Dry bulb
67
67
67
67
Wtc = weighting factors for each cooling
mode test condition: 0.05 for test
condition 1, 0.16 for test condition 2,
0.31 for test condition 3, and 0.48 for test
condition 4.
tc represents the cooling mode test condition:
‘‘1’’ for test condition 1 (95 °F condenser
inlet dry-bulb temperature), ‘‘2’’ for test
condition 2 (92 °F), ‘‘3’’ for test condition
3 (87 °F), and ‘‘4’’ for test condition 4
(82 °F).
Add a new Section 5.4, following
Section 5.3, Standby mode and off mode
annual energy consumption:
5.4 Variable-speed room air
conditioner performance adjustment
factor. Calculate the performance
adjustment factor (Fp) as follows:
5.4.1 Theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner. Calculate
the cooling capacity, expressed in
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h),
and electrical power input, expressed in
watts, for a theoretical comparable
single-speed room air conditioner at all
cooling mode test conditions. A
theoretical comparable single-speed
room air conditioner has the same
cooling capacity and electrical power
input, with no cycling losses, as the
variable-speed room air conditioner
under test at test condition 1 in Table
1.
Capacityss_tc = Capacity1 × (1 + (Mc × (95
¥ Ttc))) Pss_tc = P1 × (1—(Mp × (95—
Ttc)))
Where:
Capacityss_tc = comparable single-speed room
air conditioner cooling capacity, in
Btu/h, calculated for each of the cooling
mode test conditions in Table 1.
Capacity1 = variable-speed room air
conditioner cooling capacity, in Btu/h,
determined in section 5.1 of this
appendix for test condition 1 in Table 1.
Pss_tc = comparable single-speed room air
conditioner electrical power input, in
watts, calculated for each of the cooling
mode test conditions in Table 1.
P1 = variable-speed room air conditioner
electrical power input, in watts,
determined in section 5.2 of this
appendix for test condition 1 in Table 1.
Mc = adjustment factor to determine the
increased capacity at lower outdoor test
conditions, 0.0099.
Mp = adjustment factor to determine the
reduced electrical power input at lower
outdoor test conditions, 0.0076.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Compressor
speed
Wet bulb
95
92
87
82
75
72.5
69
65
Full.
Full.
Intermediate.
Low.
Ttc = condenser inlet dry-bulb temperature
for each of the test conditions in Table
1 (in °F).
95 is the condenser inlet dry-bulb
temperature for test condition 1 in Table
1, 95 °F.
tc as defined in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
5.4.2 Variable-speed annual energy
consumption for cooling mode at each
cooling mode test condition. Calculate
the annual energy consumption for
cooling mode under each test condition,
AECtc, expressed in kilowatt-hours per
year (kWh/year), as follows:
AECtc = 0.75 × Ptc
Where:
AECtc = variable-speed room air conditioner
annual energy consumption, in kWh/
year, in cooling mode for each test
condition in Table 1.
Ptc and tc are as defined in section 5.2.1 of
this appendix.
0.75 is 750 annual operating hours in cooling
mode multiplied by a 0.001 kWh/Wh
conversion factor from watt-hours to
kilowatt-hours
5.4.3 Theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner annual
energy consumption for cooling mode at
each cooling mode test condition.
Calculate the annual energy
consumption for a theoretical
comparable single-speed room air
conditioner for cooling mode under
each test condition, AECss_tc, expressed
in kWh/year.
AECss_tc = 0.75 × Pss_tc
Where:
AECss_tc = theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner annual
energy consumption, in kWh/year, in
cooling mode for each test condition in
Table 1.
Pss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed
room air conditioner electrical power
input, in watts, in cooling mode for each
test condition in Table 1, determined in
section 5.4.1 of this appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this
appendix.
5.4.4 Variable-speed room air
conditioner combined energy efficiency
ratio at each cooling mode test
condition. Calculate the variable-speed
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
EN08MY19.000</GPH>
Evaporator inlet
(indoor) air, °F
Test condition
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
Where:
CEERtc = variable-speed room air conditioner
combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/
Wh, for each test condition in Table 1.
Capacitytc = variable-speed room air
conditioner cooling capacity, in Btu/h,
for each test condition in Table 1,
determined in section 5.1 of this
appendix.
AECtc = variable-speed room air conditioner
annual energy consumption, in kWh/yr,
in cooling mode for each test condition
in Table 1, determined in section 5.4.2
of this appendix.
ETSO = standby mode and off mode annual
energy consumption for room air
conditioners, in kWh/year, determined
in section 5.3 of this appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this
appendix.
Where:
CEERss_tc = theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for
each test condition in Table 1.
Capacityss_tc = theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner cooling
capacity, in Btu/h, for each test
condition in Table 1, in Btu/h,
determined in section 5.4.1 of this
appendix.
AECss_tc = theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner annual
energy consumption for each test
condition in Table 1, in kWh/year,
determined in section 5.4.3 of this
appendix.
ETSO = standby mode and off mode annual
energy consumption for room air
conditioners, in kWh/year, determined
in section 5.3 of this appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this
appendix.
5.4.5 Theoretical comparable singlespeed room air conditioner combined
energy efficiency ratio at each cooling
mode test condition. Calculate the
combined energy efficiency ratio for a
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Where:
CEERwt = variable-speed room air conditioner
weighted combined energy efficiency
ratio, in Btu/Wh.
CEERss_wt = comparable single-speed room
air conditioner weighted combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh.
CEERtc = variable-speed room air conditioner
Where:
Fp = variable-speed room air conditioner
performance adjustment factor.
CEERwt = variable-speed room air conditioner
weighted combined energy efficiency
ratio, in Btu/Wh, determined in section
5.4.7 of this appendix.
CEERss_wt = comparable single-speed room
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
5.4.6 Comparable single-speed room
air conditioner adjusted combined
combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/
Wh, at each test condition in Table 1,
determined in section 5.4.4 of this
appendix.
CEERss_tc_adj = comparable single-speed room
air conditioner adjusted combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, at
each test condition in Table 1,
determined in section 5.4.6 of this
air conditioner weighted combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh,
determined in section 5.4.7 of this
appendix.
(3) Representations. LG may not make
representations about the efficiency of
any basic model in paragraph (1) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
energy efficiency ratio for each cooling
mode test condition. Calculate the
adjusted combined energy efficiency
ratio for a comparable single-speed
room air conditioner, CEERss_tc_adj, with
cycling losses considered, expressed in
Btu/Wh.
CEERss_tc_adj = CEERss_tc× CLFtc
Where:
CEERss_tc_adj = comparable single-speed room
air conditioner adjusted combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for
each test condition in Table 1.
CEERss_tc = comparable single-speed room air
conditioner adjusted combined energy
efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for each test
condition in Table 1, determined in
section 5.4.5 of this appendix.
CLFtc = cycling loss factor for each cooling
mode test condition: 1 for test condition
1, 0.971 for test condition 2, 0.923 for
test condition 3, and 0.875 for test
condition 4.
tc as defined in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
5.4.7 Weighted combined energy
efficiency ratio. Calculate the weighted
combined energy efficiency ratio for the
variable-speed room air conditioner,
CEERwt, and comparable single-speed
room air conditioner, CEERss_wt,
expressed in Btu/Wh.
appendix.
Wtc and tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of
this appendix.
5.4.8 Variable-speed room air
conditioner performance adjustment
factor. Calculate the variable-speed
room air conditioner performance
adjustment factor, Fp.
Order for compliance, marketing, or
other purposes unless the basic model
has been tested in accordance with the
provisions set forth above and such
representations fairly disclose the
results of such testing in accordance
with 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
EN08MY19.004</GPH>
theoretical comparable single-speed
room air conditioner, CEERss_tc, for each
test condition, expressed in Btu/Wh.
EN08MY19.002</GPH> EN08MY19.003</GPH>
room air conditioner combined energy
efficiency ratio, CEERtc, for each test
condition, expressed in Btu/Wh.
EN08MY19.001</GPH>
20120
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices
appendix F and 10 CFR 429.15, as
specified in this Order.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect
according to the provisions of 10 CFR
430.27.
(5) This waiver is issued on the
condition that the statements,
representations, and documents
provided by LG are valid. Any
modifications to the controls or
configurations of a basic model subject
to this waiver will render the waiver
invalid with respect to that basic model,
and LG will either be required to use the
current Federal test procedure or submit
a new application for a test procedure
waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this
waiver at any time if it determines the
factual basis underlying the petition for
waiver is incorrect, or the results from
the alternate test procedure are
unrepresentative of the basic model’s
true energy consumption characteristics.
10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, LG may
request that DOE rescind or modify the
waiver if LG discovers an error in the
information provided to DOE as part of
its petition, determines that the waiver
is no longer needed, or for other
appropriate reasons. 10 CFR
430.27(k)(2).
(6) LG remains obligated to fulfill the
certification requirements set forth at 10
CFR part 429.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2019.
Steven Chalk,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
[FR Doc. 2019–09438 Filed 5–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
I. General Information
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0192; FRL–9992–45]
Dinotefuran; Receipt of Application for
Emergency Exemptions, Solicitation of
Public Comment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
EPA has received specific
exemption requests from the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (VDACS) to use the
insecticide dinotefuran (CAS No.
165252–70–0) to treat up to 29,000 acres
of pome fruits and stone fruits to control
the brown marmorated stinkbug. The
applicant proposes uses which are
supported by the Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) and have been
requested in 5 or more previous years,
and petitions for tolerances have not yet
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
been submitted to the Agency.
Therefore, EPA is soliciting public
comment before making the decision
whether to grant the exemptions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0192, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; main telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20121
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When preparing and submitting your
comments, see the commenting tips at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to
achieve environmental justice, the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of any group, including minority and/or
low income populations, in the
development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice
issues, the Agency seeks information on
any groups or segments of the
population who, as a result of their
location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or
disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental
effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared
to the general population.
II. What action is the Agency taking?
Under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the
discretion of the EPA Administrator, a
Federal or State agency may be
exempted from any provision of FIFRA
if the EPA Administrator determines
that emergency conditions exist which
require the exemption. The VDACS has
requested the EPA Administrator to
issue specific exemptions for the use of
dinotefuran on pome fruits and stone
fruits to control the brown marmorated
stinkbug. Information in accordance
with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as
part of the requests. In addition to
VDACS, several other states have
previously requested specific
exemptions for the same uses and are
expected to submit similar requests.
As part of the requests, the applicant
asserts that the rapid spread of large
outbreaks of the brown marmorated
stinkbug (a recent invasive species)
resulted in an urgent and non-routine
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20111-20121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09438]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Case Number 2018-003; EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006]
Energy Conservation Program: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver
to LG Electronics USA, Inc. From the Department of Energy Room Air
Conditioner Test Procedure
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of decision and order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') gives notice of a
Decision and Order (Case Number
[[Page 20112]]
2018-003) that grants LG Electronics USA, Inc. (``LG'') a waiver from
specified portions of the DOE test procedure for determining the energy
efficiency of specified room air conditioners. Under the Decision and
Order, LG is required to test and rate the specified basic models of
its room air conditioners in accordance with the alternate test
procedure specified in the Decision and Order.
DATES: The Decision and Order is effective on May 8, 2019. The Decision
and Order will terminate upon the compliance date of any future
amendment to the test procedure for room air conditioners located in 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix F that addresses the issues presented
in this waiver. At such time, LG must use the relevant test procedure
for this product for any testing to demonstrate compliance with
standards, and any other representations of energy use.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, 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. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR 430.27(f)(2)), DOE gives notice of the
issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. The Decision and
Order grants LG a waiver from the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix F (``Appendix F'') for specified basic
models of room air conditioners, if LG tests and rates such products
using the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order.
LG's representations concerning the energy efficiency of the specified
basic models must be based on testing according to the provisions and
restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision
and Order, and the representations must fairly disclose the test
results. Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the
same requirements when making representations regarding the energy
efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c))
Consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(j), not later than July 8, 2019, any
manufacturer currently distributing in commerce in the United States a
product employing a technology or characteristic that results in the
same need for a waiver from the applicable test procedure must submit a
petition for waiver. Manufacturers not currently distributing such
products in commerce in the United States must petition for and be
granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of those
products in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request
for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2019.
Steven Chalk,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Case # 2018-003
Decision and Order
I. Background and Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA''),\1\ among
other things, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') to
regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of consumer
products. These products include room air conditioners, the focus of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated as Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of that
product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the product complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed
or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce
test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test
procedure for room air conditioners is contained in the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix F,
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Room Air
Conditioners (``Appendix F'').
Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition
for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a
waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either
that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a
design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model
according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed
test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so
unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to
provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).
DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to
alternate test procedures. Id.
II. LG's Petition for Waiver: Assertions and Determinations
By letter dated April 6, 2018, LG submitted a petition for waiver
and application for an interim waiver from the applicable room air
conditioner test procedure set forth in Appendix F. LG requested relief
for the following room air conditioner basic models: LW2217IVSM,
LW1817IVSM, and LW1517IVSM.\3\ According to LG, Appendix F, which
provides for testing at full-load performance only (i.e., at a single
indoor and high-temperature outdoor operating condition), does not take
into account the benefits of variable-speed room air conditioners, with
their part-load performance
[[Page 20113]]
characteristics, and misrepresents their actual energy consumption.
Appendix F requires room air conditioners be tested only with full-load
performance as a result of DOE's having previously concluded that
widespread use of part-load technology in room air conditioners was not
likely to be stimulated by the development of a part-load metric, and
insufficient information available at that time regarding the cost
effectiveness of part-load technologies as compared to currently [at
the time] available technologies. 76 FR 972, 1016 (January 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ LG provided these basic model numbers in its April 6, 2018
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG stated that variable-speed room air conditioners use frequency
controls to constantly adjust the compressor rotation speed to maintain
the desired temperature in the home without turning the motor on and
off; that the compressor responds automatically to surrounding
conditions to operate in the most efficient possible manner; and that
this results in both significant energy savings and faster cooling
compared to a typical room air conditioner, which does not have a
variable-speed compressor. LG further stated that variable-speed room
air conditioners also have a higher/lower operating range (10 Hz to 120
Hz) than room air conditioners without variable-speed compressors. LG
asserted that because the DOE test procedure does not account for part-
load performance, the results of the test procedure are not
representative of the actual energy consumption of variable-speed room
air conditioners. DOE agrees that the current test procedure produces
test results that are unrepresentative of actual energy use, and
accordingly energy efficiency, for variable-speed room air
conditioners. The current test procedure's single full-load test
condition does not account for such products automatically adjusting
compressor or fan speed during performance under part-load conditions.
As a result, the current test procedure does not capture the relative
efficiency gains of variable-speed technology under part-load
conditions, as would be experienced during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. Also, an alternate test procedure, similar to
LG's requested approach but with modifications, will appropriately
reflect operation under part-load conditions and provide results that
are representative of actual energy efficiency for variable-speed room
air conditioners during a representative average use cycle or period of
use, as discussed further below.
In its petition, LG requested an alternate test procedure, which
would provide for testing the specified basic models according to
Appendix F, except that the variable-speed room air conditioners would
be tested at four different outdoor temperature rating conditions \4\
(95 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') and 92 [deg]F with maximum
compressor speed, 87 [deg]F with intermediate compressor speed, and 82
[deg]F with minimum compressor speed) instead of the single outdoor
temperature rating condition (95 [deg]F) required by Appendix F. Under
the suggested alternate test procedure, the variable-speed room air
conditioner combined energy efficiency ratio (``CEER'') would be
calculated by multiplying the unit's measured CEER value at the 95
[deg]F rating condition by a ``performance adjustment factor.'' The
performance adjustment factor would reflect the average performance
improvement relative to a comparable single-speed unit resulting from
the implementation of a variable-speed compressor across previously
described multiple rating conditions. To determine the performance
adjustment factor, individual CEER values would be measured at each of
the four rating conditions, and the four CEER values would be averaged
using weighting factors based on fractional temperature bin hours for
each rating temperature.\5\ This weighted-average value would be
adjusted to normalize it against the expected weighted-average CEER
under the same four rating conditions of a comparable single-speed room
air conditioner that has the same performance as the variable-speed
test unit at the 95 [deg]F test condition. The performance adjustment
factor would be calculated as the percent improvement of the weighted
CEER value of the variable speed room air conditioner compared to the
weighted CEER value of the comparable single-speed room air
conditioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Each rating condition is expressed as a set of indoor and
outdoor dry-bulb temperatures, with corresponding wet-bulb
temperatures to specify the sensible and latent heat conditions in
both sides of the test chamber, as shown in Table 1 of the alternate
test procedure in the Order. As a condensed notation when discussing
the rating conditions in this Order, only the outdoor dry-bulb
temperature is stated.
\5\ The fractional temperature bin hours for each rating
temperature are derived from those provided in Table 16 of AHRI 210/
240-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, the current test procedure relies on a single
operating condition, defined by the dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures
in the indoor and outdoor side test chambers. The suggested alternate
approach for variable-speed room air conditioners involves measuring
performance over a range of four operating conditions, including
reduced outdoor temperature conditions at which variable-speed room air
conditioners would perform more efficiently than single-speed room air
conditioners, and that better reflect representative use. Although a
single-speed air conditioner also would operate more efficiently at
reduced outdoor temperatures, the marginal improvement of a variable-
speed room air conditioner exceeds that of a single-speed room air
conditioner. There are several reasons for this: Unlike single-speed
room air conditioners, variable-speed units match the load, avoid
cycling losses, and use condition-specific control strategies. Because
the current test procedure tests only under a single operating
condition, comparing variable-speed room air conditioner performance
based on testing at four operating conditions against a single-speed
room air conditioner tested at the highest-temperature operating
condition would not provide an appropriate comparison.
A performance adjustment factor allows a more appropriate
comparison between a variable-speed room air conditioner tested
according to the alternate test procedure and a single-speed room air
conditioner tested according to the current test procedure. The
performance adjustment factor represents the average relative benefit
of variable-speed units over single-speed units across the range of
operating conditions. It represents the benefit compared to a
theoretical comparable single-speed room air conditioner. It is applied
to the measured variable-speed room air conditioner performance only at
the high-temperature operating condition (the same operating condition
under which single-speed room air conditioners are tested) to provide a
more appropriate comparison to the existing CEER metric for single-
speed room air conditioners.
On June 29, 2018, DOE published a notice that announced its receipt
of the petition for waiver and granted LG an interim waiver. 83 FR
30717 (``June 2018 notice''). In the June 2018 notice, DOE presented
LG's claim that the results of the test procedure in Appendix F are not
representative of the actual energy consumption of the variable-speed
room air conditioners specified in LG's petition for waiver and the
requested alternate test procedure described above.
In the June 2018 notice, DOE specified an alternate test procedure
as suggested by LG that must be followed for testing and certifying the
specific basic models for which LG requested a waiver. For the reasons
explained here and in the Notice of Petition for Waiver,
[[Page 20114]]
without a waiver, the three room air conditioner basic models
identified in the interim waiver, and included in this Order, contain a
design characteristic, variable-speed compressors, that yields test
results unrepresentative of their true energy efficiency.
By letter dated March 11, 2019, LG requested DOE extend the scope
of the interim waiver to include an additional basic model, LW1019IVSM.
LG stated that basic model LW1019IVSM employs the same technology as
the basic models addressed by the interim waiver.
DOE has reviewed LG's waiver extension request and based on that
review, determined that the room air conditioner basic model identified
in LG's request incorporates the same design characteristics as those
basic models covered under the interim waiver in Case Number 2018-003
such that the test procedure evaluates that basic model in a manner
that is unrepresentative of its actual energy use. DOE has also
determined that the alternate test procedure will evaluate the
additional basic model, LW1019IVSM, in a manner that is representative
of its actual energy use. As such, DOE is including LG's basic model
LW1019IVSM in this Decision and Order along with the three basic models
that were listed in the interim waiver.
Thus, DOE is requiring LG to test and rate the four room air
conditioner basic models identified in today's Order according to the
alternate test procedure in today's Order. The alternate test procedure
in this Order is a modified version of the procedure in the interim
waiver.
In the June 2018 notice, DOE also solicited comments from
interested parties on all aspects of the petition. Id. DOE received
comments from various entities, all opposing LG's petition for various
reasons. DOE received comments from the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (``ASAP''), Friedrich Air Conditioning (``Friedrich''), and a
jointly submitted comment from Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(``PG&E''), San Diego Gas and Electric (``SDG&E''), and Southern
California Edison (``SCE'') (hereinafter the ``California IOUs''). On
August 13, 2018, LG subsequently submitted a rebuttal statement
(pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d)(3)) in response to these comments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Comments submitted by ASAP, Friedrich, and the Joint
Commenters, and the rebuttal statement submitted by LG can be
accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although ASAP agreed with LG's assertion that the current test
procedure for room air conditioners does not capture part-load
performance and the potential benefits of variable-speed technology,
they believe that a test procedure waiver is not the appropriate
approach to address the concern. They stated that, instead of granting
a waiver for an alternate test with fixed temperature, humidity, and
compressor speeds, DOE should amend the current test procedure to use a
load-based testing approach. ASAP contended that room air conditioners
likely spend a significant amount of time during the cooling season
operating under part-load conditions, which require less cooling. ASAP
stated that the existing full-load test at an external temperature of
95 [deg]F both does not reflect these actual operating conditions and
does not capture inefficiencies and performance degradation due to a
single-speed unit's cycling on and off under part-load operating
conditions. ASAP suggested that a load-based test would better reflect
how both single-speed and variable-speed room air conditioners perform
in the field and would capture not only the benefits of variable-speed
compressors, in that they are able to provide cooling that matches the
load, but also other important factors that affect efficiency,
including the avoidance of cycling losses and condition-specific
control strategies. ASAP referenced recent work by the CSA Group in
developing a load-based test for residential central air conditioners
and heat pumps that it suggested could serve as a model for a load-
based test for room air conditioners. ASAP further believes that a
load-based approach would provide better information to consumers,
encourage the adoption of new technologies that may improve efficiency,
and, while also providing additional benefits to consumers and the
electric grid (e.g., quieter operation and the ability to reduce power
consumption during periods of peak demand). (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1-2)
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A notation in the form ``ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1-2'' identifies
a written comment: (1) Made by the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project; (2) recorded in document number 5 that is filed in the
docket of this waiver (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006) and
available for review at https://www.regulations.gov; and (3) which
appears on pages 1 and 2 of document number 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to ASAP's comments, LG noted that DOE's regulations
specify that a granted waiver must be followed, as soon as practicable,
by a test procedure rulemaking to amend DOE's regulations and eliminate
any need for continuation of the waiver. LG asserted that a waiver is
appropriate to address any misrepresentation of energy consumption
immediately and expressed support for a subsequent rulemaking to
establish such an approach in the DOE room air conditioner test
procedure. LG also asserted that ASAP's preference for a dynamic load-
based test would not be appropriate grounds for denying LG's petition
for waiver, which it claimed has met all waiver criteria and is thereby
warranted. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 2-3)
DOE agrees with the concept that a load-based test may be more
representative of typical operation, where the conditions within a room
vary and the room air conditioner operates based on the set point and
monitored conditions. However, there are substantial issues with
setting up and maintaining conditions in existing test chambers that
are not designed for this type of test. These require significantly
more technician involvement and time, thereby greatly increasing the
test cost. In addition, because the specific equipment in the
calorimeter chamber will affect the variation in chamber temperature as
a function of the cooling load, ensuring the reproducibility of the
test would substantially increase the test burden in relation to the
potential improved representativeness of the test. As a result, DOE has
decided not to establish a load-based test. This understanding is based
in part on investigative room air conditioner testing that DOE recently
conducted.\8\ The purposes of the testing were to determine the
magnitude of changes to the existing test procedure that would be
required under a load-based approach and to identify any issues arising
from using calorimeter chambers (which would be necessary under a load-
based approach) that were designed for fixed-temperature testing. DOE
preliminarily found that calorimeter chambers typically used for room
air conditioner testing are not designed to provide a fixed amount of
cooling or heating to the chambers, but rather are designed to maintain
a fixed temperature and relative humidity while the test unit operates
continuously. DOE also is concerned that a load-based test for room air
conditioners may not be as repeatable as the existing test procedure
because room air conditioner set points and deadband thresholds \9\ are
typically not
[[Page 20115]]
as accurate or precise as typical calorimeter chamber instrumentation,
and therefore would also not be reproducible with existing test
chambers whose varying designs and reconditioning equipment could
result in different chamber sensible and latent heating during testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A summary of the results of the investigative room air
conditioner testing can be accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006-0008.
\9\ The term ``deadband'' refers to the range of ambient air
temperatures around the set point for which the compressor remains
off, and above which cooling mode is triggered on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to preferring a load-based test, ASAP expressed concern
regarding the fixed compressor speeds in the LG-suggested alternate
test procedure, stating that such test conditions do not reflect how
variable-speed room air conditioners operate in the field. ASAP
asserted that control strategies significantly impact efficiency and
performance, and that by fixing the compressor speeds, the alternate
test procedure would not capture the impact of a unit's control
strategy for adjusting the compressor (and potentially fan) speed(s) in
response to varying conditions. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2)
DOE agrees that variable-speed room air conditioners in the field
are likely to adjust their compressor speed in real-time in response to
variations in the cooling load. However, EPCA requires developing a
test procedure that is reasonably designed to produce results that
measure performance during a representative average use cycle or period
of use, without undue burden. Because of the large variation in cooling
loads, both for rooms within a house, and among different housing types
and geographical areas, identifying a single or multiple representative
cooling loads would not be feasible at this time. Furthermore, load-
based testing would impose undue cost and burden on manufacturers and
test laboratories due to the unique construction and capabilities of
existing calorimeter chambers and unit response variability during
load-based testing. In contrast, DOE concludes that the approach
suggested by LG to measure performance for the full range of variable-
speed operation (i.e., from low to full compressor speed under relevant
operating conditions) would provide a sufficient performance
determination of variable-speed room air conditioners.
Friedrich raised concerns about the suggested alternate test
procedure. First, they questioned why the test conditions specified in
the interim waiver were those suggested by LG instead of the full set
of seasonal energy efficiency ratio (``SEER'') test conditions in
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ``AHRI'' 2017 Standard 210/240,
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment'' (``AHRI 210/240-2017''). According to Friedrich, the bin
hours and test methodology in AHRI 210/240-2017 have been thoroughly
vetted. (Friedrich, No. 4 at p. 1)
In response to Friedrich's comments, LG noted that, where
appropriate, the test conditions in the waiver test procedure are based
on those in AHRI 210/240-2017 considering that AHRI 210/240-2017
applies to central air conditioners, whereas the petition for waiver is
for room air conditioners. LG stated, for example, that the required
test conditions in AHRI 210/240-2017 for central air conditioners
having variable-speed compressors include a fifth condition, the
F1 test, which is at an outdoor temperature of 67 [ordm]F,
which LG stated is an unlikely temperature for room air conditioner
operation. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 5-6)
DOE reviewed the full set of five required and two optional test
conditions in AHRI 210/240-2017 and concludes that those four selected
by LG apply to room air conditioners, but the three remaining
conditions do not. Specifically, the outdoor test conditions for the
required FLow test \10\ (and the optional GLow
and ILow tests) in Tables 7 and 8 of AHRI 210/240-2017,
while applicable to central air conditioners, are not compatible with
the room air conditioner test procedure, as the dry-bulb temperature of
67 [deg]F is below the indoor set point of 80 [deg]F prescribed by the
test procedure. DOE notes that LG suggested using the remaining
required test conditions in Tables 7 and 8 of AHRI 210/240-2017 (i.e.,
those designated as AFull, BFull,
EInt, and BLow). In addition, DOE notes that the
fractional temperature bin hours used in the waiver for each rating
condition were derived from the industry-accepted values provided in
Table 16 of AHRI 210/240-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FLow is the same test as the F1 test
referred to by LG above, as noted in Table 7 of AHRI 210/240-2017.
AHRI 210/240-2017 changed the terminology used to refer to tests
from the previous version of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedrich also questioned whether the capacity and power adjustment
factors used to calculate the performance of a comparable single-speed
room air conditioner are representative of the range of single-speed
room air conditioners on the market. (Friedrich, No. 4 at p. 1) DOE
conducted testing and modeling to estimate performance of room air
conditioners at varying outdoor ambient conditions. DOE reviewed the
capacity and power adjustment factors suggested by LG and notes that
they largely align with the data from DOE's testing and modeling.
Therefore, DOE is confident that the capacity and power adjustment
factor values suggested by LG to estimate performance of a comparable
single-speed room air conditioner at reduced ambient conditions are
appropriate and representative of expected performance.
Friedrich also suggested that an alternate test for variable-speed
room air conditioners should use a building load and operating hours at
specific operating conditions, as is done for the SEER metric in AHRI
210/240-2017. Friedrich disagrees with LG's approach that instead
assumes a room air conditioner operates for 750 hours in every
condition. (Friedrich, No. 4 at p. 1) In response to Friedrich's
comment, LG noted that DOE has previously determined that 750 operating
hours is the representative average-use cycle per year for room air
conditioners. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 6-7)
DOE reviewed Table 16 in AHRI 210/240-2017 and determined that the
full set of conditions are likely not applicable to room air
conditioner operation. Table 16 contains data describing the fraction
of the cooling season during which the temperature is within each of
eight temperature bins, with representative temperatures for each bin
ranging from 67 [deg]F to 102 [deg]F in increments of 5 [deg]F.
Specifically, DOE agrees that only bins 4 through 7 of Table 16 are
appropriate for room air conditioner operation because these are the
ranges of temperatures that span the current indoor and outdoor
temperature conditions of 80 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F, respectively. DOE
notes that normalizing those fractional bin hours results in the
weighting factors suggested in LG's petition for waiver, with each
weighting factor representing the fraction of 750 hours during the
cooling season that would be associated with each outdoor temperature
bin. Therefore, DOE concludes that the weighting factors suggested by
LG are appropriate for variable-speed room air conditioners.
Friedrich also stated that the alternate test procedure compares
the weighted variable-speed CEER to the weighted single-speed CEER,
which is higher than the CEER value at which the comparable single-
speed unit would currently be rated (e.g., Friedrich commented that a
non-weighted CEER of 12, as determined according to Appendix F, would
correspond to a weighted CEER of 12.8 when calculated according to the
alternate test procedure). Friedrich contends that a different metric
should be used to rate variable-speed units, because if CEER is used, a
variable-speed unit rated at 14.0 CEER would actually have a
performance adjustment factor of 9.3 percent (as compared with the
weighted single-speed CEER metric
[[Page 20116]]
of 12.8), while the alternate test procedure would indicate that the
performance adjustment factor would be 16.5 percent (as compared to a
non-weighted 12.0 CEER). (Friedrich, No. 4 at p. 1) LG stated in
response to Friedrich's comment that an alternate energy efficiency
metric could be addressed by DOE in a subsequent test procedure
rulemaking. (LG, No. 7 at p. 7)
DOE notes that only the final CEER metric calculated in section
5.4.9 of the waiver test procedure (i.e., the non-weighted CEER value
resulting from testing according to Appendix F, adjusted by the
performance adjustment factor determined according to the waiver test
procedure) would be used to compare efficiencies among different basic
models of room air conditioners. The performance adjustment factor is
defined as the percent difference between the weighted single-speed
CEER metric adjusted for cycling losses and the weighted variable-speed
CEER metric. This represents the relative difference between single-
speed and variable-speed room air conditioner performance and
efficiency. By comparison, the weighted CEER value is an interim value
used to calculate the performance adjustment factor; it is not a
reported performance metric. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to
compare the variable-speed CEER metric resulting from the alternate
test procedure to the interim weighted CEER value, as suggested by
Friedrich. DOE concludes that the performance adjustment factor as
implemented in this Decision and Order maintains a single metric for
all room air conditioners (CEER), while capturing the efficiency
improvements associated with variable-speed models.
The California IOUs recommended that DOE deny LG's waiver request
and rescind the interim waiver because the CEER weighting scheme in the
alternate test procedure represents too significant a change to the
CEER performance metric and its calculation methodology. The California
IOUs noted that under 10 CFR 430.27, a waiver shall not be granted if
it will ``change the energy use or efficiency metric that the
manufacturer must use to certify compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standard.'' They believe that the alternate testing
procedure represents a change in the efficiency metric calculation
because it incorporates a weighting approach. Instead of a waiver, the
California IOUs suggested that DOE conduct a test procedure rulemaking
to allow opportunities for proper consideration, evaluation, and review
before a manufacturer conducts testing and certification using an
alternate test procedure. The California IOUs noted that the proposed
testing conditions could then be evaluated to determine whether they
accurately capture the energy consumption of the listed and comparable
models. They asserted that because LG did not submit any data to
justify the chosen testing conditions or weighting factors, the
validity of these values cannot be verified. The California IOUs
further asserted that if the alternate test procedure in this waiver is
granted, the CEER metric for the identified LG models would no longer
be comparable to those of room air conditioners from other
manufacturers, resulting in an unfair marketplace and misleading
information for consumers. (California IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 1-2)
In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, LG stated that its
suggested alternate test procedure does not change the metric, but
rather maintains the CEER metric and would not alter the minimum
standard applicable to these products. LG further stated that it is
preferable to provide better information to consumers as soon as
possible, rather than waiting until a new test procedure rulemaking is
completed. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 3-4)
DOE notes that the LG interim waiver approach assesses the
performance improvements associated with variable-speed room air
conditioners as compared to single-speed room air conditioners, on the
basis of adjusted operation at varying, reduced-temperature operating
conditions and accounting for savings associated with eliminating
cycling losses. DOE recognizes that neither the intermediate individual
CEER values nor the weighted CEER value calculated for a variable-speed
room air conditioner unit and comparable single-speed room air
conditioner at the different operating conditions are comparable to the
CEER determined using Appendix F. However, the alternate test procedure
does not prescribe either of these values for determining compliance or
for comparison with the CEER determined using Appendix F. Under the
alternate test procedure, the intermediate CEER values are used to
determine a performance adjustment factor that reflects the relative
performance improvement associated with variable-speed operation. That
performance adjustment factor is then applied to the Appendix F CEER
metric. In that way, the efficiency metric for variable-speed room air
conditioners remains comparable to the current CEER metric, which would
continue to reflect performance of single-speed room air conditioners.
Thus, consumers are informed of the relative efficiency improvements
provided by variable-speed room air conditioners. As discussed above,
the weighting factors and test conditions suggested by LG are based on
the applicable values in Table 16 of AHRI 210/240-2017, which has been
verified and validated and is an industry accepted standard.
Additionally, the California IOUs objected to DOE's assertion in
the interim waiver that LG would suffer economic hardship and be at a
competitive disadvantage if it were required to rate the identified
models for which it requested a waiver according to the current room
air conditioner test procedure. The California IOUs stated that
following a review of product literature, they found that all three LG
models listed in the interim waiver (LW2217IVSM, LW1817IVSM, and
LW1517IVSM) currently exceed the minimum Federal standards for room air
conditioners in their respective product classes, and would therefore
not be precluded from entering the market. (California IOUs, No. 6 at
p. 2)
LG stated that even though LG's products would not be barred from
the market, it would suffer economic hardship and be at a competitive
disadvantage without the waiver, because the DOE test procedure does
not capture the relative efficiency improvements achieved by variable-
speed room air conditioners over a range of operating conditions
compared to single-speed room air conditioners. LG asserted that,
without an alternate test procedure, the CEER values of variable-speed
room air conditioners would be inaccurately low, despite the improved
performance under part-load conditions. (LG, No. 7 at pp. 4-5)
For the reasons explained here and in the June 2018 notice, without
a waiver, the basic models identified in the Order cannot be tested and
rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true
energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the recommended
procedure suggested by LG and concludes that it will allow for
generally accurate measurement of the energy use of the listed models,
while alleviating the problems associated with testing these models
following DOE's room air conditioner test procedure. LG must test and
rate the four listed room air conditioner basic models according to the
alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order. This
alternate test procedure is substantively consistent with the interim
waiver's alternate test procedure but makes some modifications.
[[Page 20117]]
Based on further review of the alternate test procedure required
under the interim waiver order and subsequent investigative testing
performed by DOE, the alternate test procedure required under today's
Decision and Order: (1) Does not permit use of a psychrometric chamber
instead of a calorimeter chamber, (2) provides definitions for each
fixed compressor speed, and (3) specifies that compressor speeds will
be set in accordance with instructions that LG will provide. DOE has
determined that these changes are necessary to ensure better
repeatability and reproducibility of the alternate test procedure, as
well as representativeness of the results.
DOE is removing the option provided in the interim waiver order to
test using the air-enthalpy method, which relies on use of a
psychrometric chamber, as opposed to a calorimeter chamber. Use of a
psychrometric chamber requires the installation of test ducts on the
evaporator and condenser exhausts to measure the air-enthalpy and
calculate cooling capacity, which may impact the air flow, particularly
on the evaporator side where room air conditioners typically locate the
inlet and outlet in close proximity. As such, the results from using a
psychrometric chamber may not be representative of typical
installations. Further, unlike the calorimeter method, the air-enthalpy
method does not address heat loss through the chassis to the room, and
may not capture possible heat transfer due to internal air leakage
through the chassis between the indoor and outdoor test chambers. DOE's
investigative testing of 9 room air conditioners suggested that the
air-enthalpy and calorimeter methods are not interchangeable: DOE's
results varied up to 11 percent in cooling capacity and efficiency
between the two methods.
To capture the efficiency gains associated with variable-speed
technology, the alternate test procedure requires testing variable-
speed room air conditioners at different fixed compressor speeds under
various reduced outdoor operating temperatures. To harmonize the
alternate test procedure with industry standards and ensure the
compressor speeds are representative of the expected load at each of
the outdoor test conditions, DOE is providing definitions for the three
compressor speeds outlined in the Interim Waiver Order and revising the
nomenclature for these speeds based on AHRI 210/240-2017. To ensure
that the low and intermediate compressor speeds result in adequate
cooling capacity under reduced loads, the low compressor speed
definition requires that the test unit's measured cooling capacity at
the low temperature (82 [deg]F) rating condition must be within 47
percent to 57 percent of the measured cooling capacity when operating
with the full compressor speed at the 95 [deg]F rating condition. DOE
developed this range based on the building load calculation, equation
11.6, in AHRI 210/240-2017, which relates the building load to the unit
full-load cooling capacity and the outdoor temperature. DOE normalized
this equation for room ACs so that full load operation occurs at a 95
[deg]F outdoor temperature, rather than 98 [deg]F under the existing
equation, and then used the normalized equation to estimate the cooling
load as a percentage of the full-load cooling capacity at the 82 [deg]F
outdoor temperature rating condition. Based on this analysis, DOE
expects that, if a variable-speed room AC's cooling capacity at low
compressor speed is higher than 57 percent of the unit's cooling
capacity at the 95 [deg]F rating condition, the cooling capacity would
exceed the cooling load when the outdoor temperature is 82 [deg]F.
Thus, such a unit in the field would cycle the compressor under a
cooling load corresponding to the rating condition because more cooling
than necessary would be provided to the room, thereby incurring cycling
losses and not providing the full performance benefits associated with
variable-speed operation. Conversely, if a variable-speed room AC's
cooling capacity at the low compressor speed is significantly lower
than 57 percent of the unit's cooling capacity at the 95 [deg]F rating
condition, the unit would not provide sufficient cooling (based on the
expected cooling load at the 82 [deg]F rating condition) and would
thereby impact consumer acceptance of the product. For this reason, and
because variable-speed room ACs may use compressors that vary speed in
discrete steps without the capability to directly operate at a speed
that meets the 57 percent requirement precisely, the low speed
definition allows for a minimum cooling capacity at the low compressor
speed of 47 percent of the cooling capacity at the 95 [deg]F rating
condition. This range ensures that the unit's cooling capacity at the
representative low cooling load, as determined using the building load
calculation in AHRI 210/240-2017, is achieved while maintaining the
performance benefits of variable-speed compressors.
Setting and maintaining a specific room air conditioner compressor
speed is not typically possible without specific control instructions
from the manufacturer. Because fixed compressor speeds are critical to
the repeatability of this alternate test procedure, DOE is requiring
that the manufacturer provide DOE all necessary instructions to
maintain the compressor speed required for each test condition.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, if the manufacturer submits
information that it believes to be confidential and exempt by law
from public disclosure, the manufacturer 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. DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also recognizes that corresponding changes are needed to the
calculation that provides the basis of the annual energy consumption
and operating cost information presented to consumers on the
EnergyGuide Label. These changes will allow for an appropriate
comparison of the annual energy consumption and operating costs between
single-speed room air conditioners and the four variable-speed room air
conditioner basic models listed in today's Order. As such, the
alternate test procedure specifies two values of electrical power
input. One is used in calculating the average annual energy consumption
in 10 CFR 430.23(f)(3), which in turn is used to calculate the combined
annual energy consumption and estimated annual operating cost in 10 CFR
430.23(f)(4) and (f)(1), respectively. This value is the weighted
average of the input power measured at each of the four test conditions
plus the annual energy consumption in inactive mode or off mode. The
second value is the value measured at the 95 [deg]F rating condition
and reported to DOE through certification reports, as required in 10
CFR 429.15(b)(2), and is used to calculate the unit's measured CEER
value in 10 CFR 430.23(f)(5) before applying the performance adjustment
factor. DOE concludes that, although a different value of electrical
power input is appropriate for calculating the FTC EnergyGuide values,
reporting of the electrical power input at the 95 [deg]F rating
condition ensures consistency with the cooling capacity measured under
the same condition.
DOE further requires in today's Decision and Order testing of the
specified basic models in accordance with the instructions submitted by
LG on April 2, 2019, regarding the compressor frequencies and control
[[Page 20118]]
settings used at each test condition for each basic model.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The instructions provided by LG were marked as confidential
and, as such, the instructions will be treated as confidential. The
document is located in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-WAV-0006-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Decision and Order applies only to the four basic models listed
in the Order and does not extend to any other basic models. LG may
request that DOE extend the scope of this waiver to include additional
basic models that employ the same technology as those listed in the
Order. 10 CFR 430.27(g). LG may also submit another petition for waiver
from the test procedure for additional basic models that employ a
different technology and meet the criteria for test procedure waivers.
10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).
DOE notes that it may rescind or modify the waiver at any time upon
a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for
waiver is incorrect, or that the results from the alternate test
procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy
consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, LG may
request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if the company discovers
an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition,
determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other
appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).
III. Consultations With Other Agencies
In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2), DOE consulted with the
Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') staff concerning the LG petition for
waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to DOE's granting a
waiver to LG for the four specified basic models.
IV. Order
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted
by LG and commenters in this matter, public facing materials, and the
testing conducted by DOE, it is ordered that:
(1) LG must, as of the date of publication of this Order in the
Federal Register, test the following room air conditioner basic models
with the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (2):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brand Basic model No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG..................................... LW2217IVSM
LG..................................... LW1817IVSM
LG..................................... LW1517IVSM
LG..................................... LW1019IVSM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The alternate test procedure for the LG basic models referenced
in paragraph (1) of this Order is the test procedure for room air
conditioners prescribed by DOE at appendix F to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430 (``Appendix F'') and 10 CFR 430.23(f), except: (i) Determine
the combined energy efficiency ratio (``CEER'') as detailed below, and
(ii) calculate the average annual energy consumption referenced in 10
CFR 430.23(f)(3) as detailed below. In addition, for each basic model
listed in paragraph (1), maintain compressor speeds at each test
condition and set control settings for the variable components,
according to the instructions submitted to DOE by LG. All other
requirements of Appendix F and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
In 10 CFR 430.23, in paragraph (f) revise paragraph (3)(i) to read
as follows: The electrical power input in kilowatts as calculated in
section 5.2.1 of appendix F to this subpart, and
In 10 CFR 430.23, in paragraph (f) revise paragraph (5) to read as
follows:
(5) Calculate the combined energy efficiency ratio for room air
conditioners, expressed in Btu's per watt-hour, as follows:
(i) Calculate the quotient of:
(A) The cooling capacity as determined at the 95 [deg]F outdoor
test condition, Capacity95, in Btus per hour, as determined
in accordance with section 5.1 of appendix F to this subpart multiplied
by the representative average-use cycle of 750 hours of compressor
operation per year, divided by
(B) The combined annual energy consumption, in watt hours, which is
the sum of the annual energy consumption for cooling mode, calculated
in section 5.4.2 of appendix F to this subpart for test condition 1 in
Table 1 of appendix F to this subpart, and the standby mode and off
mode energy consumption, as determined in accordance with section 5.3
of appendix F to this subpart. The sum of the annual energy consumption
in cooling mode and standby mode and off mode energy consumption is
then multiplied by a conversion factor of 1,000 to convert kilowatt-
hours to watt-hours.
(ii) Multiply the quotient calculated in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of
this section by (1 + Fp), where Fp is the variable-speed room air
conditioner performance adjustment factor as determined in section
5.4.8 of appendix F to this subpart.
(iii) Round the resulting value from paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this
section to the nearest 0.1 Btu per watt-hour.
In Appendix F:
Add in Section 1, Definitions:
1.8 ``Single-speed'' means a type of room air conditioner that
cannot automatically adjust the compressor speed based on detected
conditions.
1.9 ``Variable-speed'' means a type of room air conditioner that
can automatically adjust compressor speed based on detected conditions.
1.10 ``Full compressor speed (full)'' means the compressor speed
specified by the manufacturer at which the unit operates at full load
testing conditions.
1.11 ``Intermediate compressor speed (intermediate)'' means the
compressor speed higher than the low compressor speed by one third of
the difference between low compressor speed and full compressor speed
with a tolerance of plus 5 percent (designs with non-discrete
compressor speed stages) or the next highest inverter frequency step
(designs with discrete compressor speed steps).
1.12 ``Low compressor speed (low)'' means the compressor speed
specified by the manufacturer at which the unit operates at low load
test conditions, such that the measured cooling capacity at Temperature
Condition 4 in Table 1 of this appendix, Capacity4, is not
less than 47 percent and not greater than 57 percent of the measured
cooling capacity with the full compressor speed at Temperature
Condition 1 in Table 1 of this appendix, Capacity1.
Add to the end of Section 2.1 Cooling:
For the purposes of this waiver, all units must conduct the cooling
mode test a total of four times: One test at each of the test
conditions listed in Table 1, consistent with section 3.1 of this
appendix.
Revise Section 3.1, Cooling mode, to read as follows:
Cooling mode. Establish the test conditions described in sections 4
and 5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3)
and in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by reference; see
10 CFR 430.3), with the following exceptions: Conduct the set of four
cooling mode tests with the test conditions in Table 1. Set the
compressor speed required for each test condition in accordance with
instructions provided to DOE.
[[Page 20119]]
Table 1--Indoor and Outdoor Inlet Air Test Conditions--Variable-Speed Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporator inlet (indoor) air, Condenser inlet (outdoor) air,
[deg]F [deg]F
Test condition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Condition 1............ 80 67 95 75 Full.
Test Condition 2............ 80 67 92 72.5 Full.
Test Condition 3............ 80 67 87 69 Intermediate.
Test Condition 4............ 80 67 82 65 Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace Section 5.1 to read as follows:
Calculate the condition-specific cooling capacity (expressed in
Btu/hr), Capacitytc, for each of the four cooling mode
rating test conditions (tc), as required in section 6.1 of ANSI/AHAM
RAC-1 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3) and in accordance
with ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3).
Notwithstanding the requirements of 10 CFR 430.23(f), when reporting
cooling capacity pursuant to 10 CFR 429.15(b)(2) and calculating energy
consumption and costs pursuant to 10 CFR 430.23(f), use the cooling
capacity determined for test condition 1 in Table 1 of this appendix.
Replace Section 5.2 to read as follows:
Determine the condition-specific electrical power input (expressed
in watts), Ptc, for each of the four cooling mode rating
test conditions, as required by section 6.5 of ANSI/AHAM RAC-1
(incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3) and in accordance with
ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 430.3).
Notwithstanding the requirements of 10 CFR 430.23(f), when reporting
electrical power input pursuant to 10 CFR 429.15(b)(2) and calculating
energy consumption and costs pursuant to 10 CFR 430.23(f)(5), use the
electrical power input value measured for test condition 1 in Table 1
of this appendix. Notwithstanding the requirements of 10 CFR 430.23(f),
when calculating energy consumption and costs pursuant to 10 CFR
430.23(f)(3), use the weighted electrical power input, Pwt,
calculated in section 5.2.1 of this appendix, as the electrical power
input.
Insert a new Section 5.2.1:
5.2.1 Weighted electrical power input. Calculate the weighted
electrical power input in cooling mode, Pwt, expressed in
watts, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY19.000
Where:
Pwt = weighted electrical power input, in watts, in
cooling mode.
Ptc = electrical power input, in watts, in cooling mode
for each test condition in Table 1.
Wtc = weighting factors for each cooling mode test
condition: 0.05 for test condition 1, 0.16 for test condition 2,
0.31 for test condition 3, and 0.48 for test condition 4.
tc represents the cooling mode test condition: ``1'' for test
condition 1 (95 [deg]F condenser inlet dry-bulb temperature), ``2''
for test condition 2 (92 [deg]F), ``3'' for test condition 3 (87
[deg]F), and ``4'' for test condition 4 (82 [deg]F).
Add a new Section 5.4, following Section 5.3, Standby mode and off
mode annual energy consumption:
5.4 Variable-speed room air conditioner performance adjustment
factor. Calculate the performance adjustment factor (Fp) as follows:
5.4.1 Theoretical comparable single-speed room air conditioner.
Calculate the cooling capacity, expressed in British thermal units per
hour (Btu/h), and electrical power input, expressed in watts, for a
theoretical comparable single-speed room air conditioner at all cooling
mode test conditions. A theoretical comparable single-speed room air
conditioner has the same cooling capacity and electrical power input,
with no cycling losses, as the variable-speed room air conditioner
under test at test condition 1 in Table 1.
Capacityss_tc = Capacity1 x (1 + (Mc x
(95 - Ttc))) Pss_tc = P1 x (1--
(Mp x (95--Ttc)))
Where:
Capacityss_tc = comparable single-speed room air
conditioner cooling capacity, in Btu/h, calculated for each of the
cooling mode test conditions in Table 1.
Capacity1 = variable-speed room air conditioner cooling
capacity, in Btu/h, determined in section 5.1 of this appendix for
test condition 1 in Table 1.
Pss_tc = comparable single-speed room air conditioner
electrical power input, in watts, calculated for each of the cooling
mode test conditions in Table 1.
P1 = variable-speed room air conditioner electrical power
input, in watts, determined in section 5.2 of this appendix for test
condition 1 in Table 1.
Mc = adjustment factor to determine the increased
capacity at lower outdoor test conditions, 0.0099.
Mp = adjustment factor to determine the reduced
electrical power input at lower outdoor test conditions, 0.0076.
Ttc = condenser inlet dry-bulb temperature for each of
the test conditions in Table 1 (in [deg]F).
95 is the condenser inlet dry-bulb temperature for test condition 1
in Table 1, 95 [deg]F.
tc as defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix.
5.4.2 Variable-speed annual energy consumption for cooling mode at
each cooling mode test condition. Calculate the annual energy
consumption for cooling mode under each test condition,
AECtc, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year), as
follows:
AECtc = 0.75 x Ptc
Where:
AECtc = variable-speed room air conditioner annual energy
consumption, in kWh/year, in cooling mode for each test condition in
Table 1.
Ptc and tc are as defined in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
0.75 is 750 annual operating hours in cooling mode multiplied by a
0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor from watt-hours to kilowatt-hours
5.4.3 Theoretical comparable single-speed room air conditioner
annual energy consumption for cooling mode at each cooling mode test
condition. Calculate the annual energy consumption for a theoretical
comparable single-speed room air conditioner for cooling mode under
each test condition, AECss_tc, expressed in kWh/year.
AECss\tc = 0.75 x Pss\tc
Where:
AECss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed room air
conditioner annual energy consumption, in kWh/year, in cooling mode
for each test condition in Table 1.
Pss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed room air
conditioner electrical power input, in watts, in cooling mode for
each test condition in Table 1, determined in section 5.4.1 of this
appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this appendix.
5.4.4 Variable-speed room air conditioner combined energy
efficiency ratio at each cooling mode test condition. Calculate the
variable-speed
[[Page 20120]]
room air conditioner combined energy efficiency ratio,
CEERtc, for each test condition, expressed in Btu/Wh.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY19.001
Where:
CEERtc = variable-speed room air conditioner combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for each test condition in Table
1.
Capacitytc = variable-speed room air conditioner cooling
capacity, in Btu/h, for each test condition in Table 1, determined
in section 5.1 of this appendix.
AECtc = variable-speed room air conditioner annual energy
consumption, in kWh/yr, in cooling mode for each test condition in
Table 1, determined in section 5.4.2 of this appendix.
ETSO = standby mode and off mode annual energy
consumption for room air conditioners, in kWh/year, determined in
section 5.3 of this appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this appendix.
5.4.5 Theoretical comparable single-speed room air conditioner
combined energy efficiency ratio at each cooling mode test condition.
Calculate the combined energy efficiency ratio for a theoretical
comparable single-speed room air conditioner, CEERss_tc, for
each test condition, expressed in Btu/Wh.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY19.002
Where:
CEERss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed room air
conditioner combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for each
test condition in Table 1.
Capacityss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed room
air conditioner cooling capacity, in Btu/h, for each test condition
in Table 1, in Btu/h, determined in section 5.4.1 of this appendix.
AECss_tc = theoretical comparable single-speed room air
conditioner annual energy consumption for each test condition in
Table 1, in kWh/year, determined in section 5.4.3 of this appendix.
ETSO = standby mode and off mode annual energy
consumption for room air conditioners, in kWh/year, determined in
section 5.3 of this appendix.
tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this appendix.
0.75 as defined in section 5.4.2 of this appendix.
5.4.6 Comparable single-speed room air conditioner adjusted
combined energy efficiency ratio for each cooling mode test condition.
Calculate the adjusted combined energy efficiency ratio for a
comparable single-speed room air conditioner, CEERss_tc_adj,
with cycling losses considered, expressed in Btu/Wh.
CEERss_tc_adj = CEERss_tcx CLFtc
Where:
CEERss_tc_adj = comparable single-speed room air
conditioner adjusted combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh,
for each test condition in Table 1.
CEERss_tc = comparable single-speed room air conditioner
adjusted combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, for each test
condition in Table 1, determined in section 5.4.5 of this appendix.
CLFtc = cycling loss factor for each cooling mode test
condition: 1 for test condition 1, 0.971 for test condition 2, 0.923
for test condition 3, and 0.875 for test condition 4.
tc as defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix.
5.4.7 Weighted combined energy efficiency ratio. Calculate the
weighted combined energy efficiency ratio for the variable-speed room
air conditioner, CEERwt, and comparable single-speed room
air conditioner, CEERss_wt, expressed in Btu/Wh.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY19.003
Where:
CEERwt = variable-speed room air conditioner weighted
combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh.
CEERss_wt = comparable single-speed room air conditioner
weighted combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh.
CEERtc = variable-speed room air conditioner combined
energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, at each test condition in Table
1, determined in section 5.4.4 of this appendix.
CEERss_tc_adj = comparable single-speed room air
conditioner adjusted combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, at
each test condition in Table 1, determined in section 5.4.6 of this
appendix.
Wtc and tc as explained in section 5.2.1 of this
appendix.
5.4.8 Variable-speed room air conditioner performance adjustment
factor. Calculate the variable-speed room air conditioner performance
adjustment factor, Fp.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY19.004
Where:
Fp = variable-speed room air conditioner performance
adjustment factor.
CEERwt = variable-speed room air conditioner weighted
combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, determined in section
5.4.7 of this appendix.
CEERss_wt = comparable single-speed room air conditioner
weighted combined energy efficiency ratio, in Btu/Wh, determined in
section 5.4.7 of this appendix.
(3) Representations. LG may not make representations about the
efficiency of any basic model in paragraph (1) of this Order for
compliance, marketing, or other purposes unless the basic model has
been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such
representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in
accordance with 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
[[Page 20121]]
appendix F and 10 CFR 429.15, as specified in this Order.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions
of 10 CFR 430.27.
(5) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements,
representations, and documents provided by LG are valid. Any
modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model
subject to this waiver will render the waiver invalid with respect to
that basic model, and LG will either be required to use the current
Federal test procedure or submit a new application for a test procedure
waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it
determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is
incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are
unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption
characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, LG may request that DOE
rescind or modify the waiver if LG discovers an error in the
information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that
the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10
CFR 430.27(k)(2).
(6) LG remains obligated to fulfill the certification requirements
set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2019.
Steven Chalk,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[FR Doc. 2019-09438 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
