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 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Notices submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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