Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Compressors

Federal RegisterJan 10, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040]

RIN 1904-AC83

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air Compressors

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment. EPCA also authorizes DOE to establish standards for certain other types of industrial equipment, including air compressors. Such standards must be technologically feasible and economically justified, and must save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for air compressors. It has determined that the adopted energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is March 10, 2020. Compliance with the new standards established for compressors in this final rule is required on and after January 10, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov.

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at:

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040.

The docket web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Mary Greene, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1817. Email:

Mary.Greene@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Regulatory History for Compressors

C. Process Rule

III. General Discussion

A. Definitions

1. Definition of Covered Equipment

2. Air- and Liquid-Cooled Compressors

B. Scope of Energy Conservation Standards

1. Equipment System Boundary

2. Compression Principle: Rotary and Reciprocating Compressors

3. Driver Style

4. Compressor Capacity

5. Full-Load Operating Pressure

6. Lubricant Presence

7. Water-injected Compressors

8. Specialty Purpose Compressors

C. Test Procedure and Metric

D. Impacts of Sampling Plan on Energy Conservation Standards Analysis

E. Compliance Date

F. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

G. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

H. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

2. Rebuttable Presumption

I. Other Issues

1. Comments on the Proposed Standards

2. Other Comments

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Summary of Data Sources

2. Impacts of Test Procedure on Source Data

3. Representative Equipment

4. Design Options and Available Energy Efficiency Improvements

5. Efficiency Levels

6. Manufacturer Selling Price

7. Manufacturer Production Cost

8. Other Analytical Outputs

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Applications

2. Annual Hours of Operation

3. Load Profiles

4. Capacity Control Strategies

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Equipment Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Equipment Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

3. Discussion of Comments

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

2. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

3. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

3. National Impact Analysis

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of National Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Compressors Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Certification Requirements

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Need for, Objectives of, and Legal Basis, for Rule

2. Significant Issues Raised in Response to the IRFA

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

5. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”), sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6291,

et seq.

) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” EPCA provides that DOE may include a type of industrial equipment as covered equipment if it determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1. (42 U.S.C. 6312(b)). EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards for those types of industrial equipment which the Secretary classifies as covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) On November 15, 2016, DOE published a final rule, which determined coverage for compressors is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1 of Title III of EPCA (herein referred to as “notice of final determination”). 81 FR 79991

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for compressors. The adopted standards, which are expressed in package isentropic efficiency (

i.e.,

the ratio of the theoretical isentropic power required for a compression process to the actual power required for the same process), are shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all compressors listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 10, 2025.

In Table I.1, the term V

denotes the full-load actual volume flow rate of the compressor, in cubic feet per minute (“cfm”).

Standard

levels are expressed as a function of full-load actual volume flow rate for each equipment class, and may be calculated by inserting values from the rightmost two columns into the second leftmost column. Doing so yields an efficiency-denominated function of full-load actual volume flow rate.

Table I.1—Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Air Compressors

Equipment class

Standard level

(package isentropic efficiency)

Regr

(package isentropic efficiency reference curve)

(percentage loss reduction)

Rotary, lubricated, air-cooled, fixed-speed

Regr

+ (1 − η

Regr

) * (d/100)

−0.00928 * ln

(.4719 * V

) + 0.13911 * ln(.4719 * V

) + 0.27110

−15

Rotary, lubricated, air-cooled, variable-speed

Regr

+ (1 − η

Regr

) * (d/100)

−0.01549 * ln

(.4719 * V

) + 0.21573 * ln(.4719 * V

) + 0.00905

−10

Rotary, lubricated, liquid-cooled, fixed-speed

.02349 + η

Regr

+ (1 − η

Regr

) * (d/100)

−0.00928 * ln

(.4719 * V

) + 0.13911 * ln(.4719 * V

) + 0.27110

−15

Rotary, lubricated, liquid-cooled, variable-speed

.02349 + η

Regr

+ (1 − η

Regr

) * (d/100)

−0.01549 * ln

(.4719 * V

) + 0.21573 * ln(.4719 * V

) + 0.00905

−15

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of air compressors, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes for which standards are being adopted, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of air compressors; that lifetime is estimated to be approximately 13 years for the covered equipment classes.

The average LCC savings are measured relative to the no-new standards case efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of standards (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.C.1.a).

Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Air Compressors

Equipment class

Average

LCC

savings

(2015$)

Simple

payback

period

(years)

Rotary positive, fixed speed, lubricated, air cooled (RP_FS_L_AC )

8,002

2.4

Rotary positive, fixed speed, lubricated, liquid cooled (RP_FS_L_WC)

10,559

2.7

Rotary positive, variable speed, lubricated, air cooled (RP_VS_L_AC)

2,618

4.9

Rotary positive, variable speed, lubricated, liquid cooled (RP_VS_L_WC)

5,145

4.9

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2016-2051). Using a real discount rate of 8.7

percent, DOE estimates that the (INPV) for manufacturers of air compressors in the case without new standards is $409.7 million in 2015$. Under the adopted standards, DOE expects the change in INPV to range from −13.5 percent to −10.2 percent, which is approximately −$55.1 million to −$42.0 million. In order to bring products into compliance with adopted standards, DOE expects the industry to incur total conversion costs ranging from a high of $121.3 million to $98.1 million.

DOE estimated preliminary financial metrics, including the industry discount rate, based on publicly available financial information, including Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings and S&P bond ratings. DOE presented the preliminary financial metrics to manufacturers in manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) interviews. DOE adjusted those values based on feedback from manufacturers. The complete set of financial metrics and more detail about the methodology can be found in chapter 12 of the final rule technical support document (“TSD”).

For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case conversion cost scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on manufacturers following the implementation of energy conservation standards. More details about the methodology can be found in section IV.J.2 of this document and in chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J and section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2015 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2016 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for air compressors would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards (no new standards case), the lifetime energy savings for air compressors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the adopted standards (2022-2051)

amount to 0.16 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 0.6 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the no new standards case A.

The analysis uses January 1st, 2022, to represent the expected compliance date in late 2021. Therefore, the 30-year analysis period is referred to as 2022-2051 in this document.

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer costs and savings of the standards for air compressors ranges from $0.2 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.4 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for air compressors purchased in 2022-2051.

In addition, the adopted standards for compressors are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 8.2 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (CO

), 6.5 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

), 11.0 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

), 40.8 thousand tons of methane (CH

), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N

O), and 0.02 ton of mercury (Hg).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.9 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 95 thousand homes.

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2016

(

AEO 2016

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the end of February 2016. DOE is using the projection consistent with the cases described on page E-8 of

AEO 2016.

The value of the CO

reduction is calculated using a range of values per metric ton (“t”) of CO

(otherwise known as the “social cost of CO

,” or “SC-CO

”) developed by a Federal interagency working group.

The derivation of the SC-CO

values is discussed in section IV.L.1 of this document. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SC-CO

values, DOE estimates that the present value of the CO

emissions reduction is between $0.05 billion and $0.76 billion, with a value of $0.25 billion using the central SC-CO

case represented by $47.4/metric ton (t) in 2020.

United States Government—Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon.

Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

May 2013. Revised July 2015.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf.

DOE also calculated the value of the reduction in emissions of the non-CO

greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, using values for the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”) and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”) recently developed by the interagency working group.

See section IV.L.2 for description of the methodology and the values used for DOE's analysis. The estimated present value of the methane emissions reduction is between $0.01 billion and $0.11 billion, with a value of $0.04 billion using the central SC-CH

case represented by $1,353/t in 2020; and the estimated present value of the N

O emissions reduction is between $0.000 billion and $0.003 billion, with a value of $0.001 billion using the central SC-N

O case, represented by $16,916/t.

United States Government-Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016.

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf.

DOE also estimates the present value of the NO

emissions reduction to be $6.1 million using a 7-percent discount

rate, and $16.8 million using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is still investigating appropriate valuation of the reduction in other emissions, and therefore did not include any such values in the analysis for this final rule.

DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.

See section IV.L.3 for further discussion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the rule implementing the Clean Power Plan until the current litigation against it concludes. Chamber of Commerce, et al.

EPA, et al.,

Order in Pending Case, West Virginia v. EPA, 136 S. Ct. 1000, 194 L. Ed. 2d 17 (2016). However, the benefit-per-ton estimates established in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan are based on scientific studies that remain valid irrespective of the legal status of the Clean Power Plan. To be conservative, DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

emitted from the Electricity Generating Unit sector based on the low-end estimates of premature mortality used by EPA. If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the high-end estimates, the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger. If the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the adopted standards for air compressors.

Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Air Compressors *

Category

Present value

(billion 2015$)

Discount rate

(percent)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.2

0.6

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) **

0.1

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) **

0.3

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) **

0.5

2.5

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) **

0.9

Reduction †

0.006

0.02

Total Benefits

‡

0.5

0.9

Costs

Consumer Incremental Installed Costs ‡

0.1

0.2

Total Net Benefits

Including GHG and NO

Reduction Monetized Value ††

0.5

0.8

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with compressors shipped in 2022-2051. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2022 from the products shipped in 2022-2051.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

SC-CH

, and SC-N

O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur domestically. See section IV.L for more details.

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.)

See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. To be conservative, DOE is primarily using a national benefit-per-ton estimate for NO

et al.,

2011), the values would be nearly two-and-a-half times larger.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate.

†† The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.

The benefits and costs of the adopted standards for air compressors sold in 2022-2051 can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are the sum of (1) the national economic value of the benefits in reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increases in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of CO

and NO

emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2016, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2016. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO

reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, which yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of compressors shipped in 2022-2051. The benefits associated with reduced CO

emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of compressors shipped in 2022-2051. Because CO

emissions have a very long residence time in the atmosphere, the SC-CO

values for CO

emissions in future years

reflect impacts that continue through 2300. The CO

reduction is a benefit that accrues globally. DOE maintains that consideration of global benefits is appropriate because of the global nature of the climate change problem.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the adopted standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than GHG reduction (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate),

the estimated cost of the standards in this rule is $9.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $28.1 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $17.2 million in GHG reductions, and $0.7 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $36 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $10.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $36.8 million in reduced operating costs, $17.2 million in GHG reductions, and $1.0 million in reduced NO

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $45 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Compressors *

Discount rate

(percent)

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

(million 2015$/year)

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

28.1

24.8

35.1.

36.8

32.2

46.6.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate) **

5.4

4.7

6.6.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate) **

17.2

14.8

21.2.

GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate) **

2.5

24.8

21.4

30.6.

GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount rate) **

51.5

44.4

63.4.

Reduction †

0.7

0.6

1.9.

1.0

0.9

2.8.

Total Benefits ‡

7 plus CO

range

34 to 80

30 to 70

44 to 100.

58.

3 plus CO

range

43 to 89

38 to 77

56 to 113.

71.

Costs

Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ††

9.9

8.8

11.4.

10.4

9.3

12.0.

Net Benefits

Total ‡

7 plus CO

range

24 to 70

21 to 61

32 to 89.

47.

3 plus CO

range

33 to 79

28 to 68

44 to 101.

59.

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with the considered compressors shipped in 2022-2051. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2051 from the compressors purchased from 2022-2051. The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the adopted standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO 2016

Economic Growth cases. In addition, incremental product costs reflect constant prices in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO

SC-CH

, and SC-N

O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. See section IV.L for more details.

† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule,

published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at

www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.)

See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NO

emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality used by EPA. For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele

et al.

2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the American Cancer Society (“ACS”) study.

‡ Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus GHG range” and “3% plus GHG range,” the operating cost and NO

benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of social cost values.

†† The incremental installed costs include incremental equipment cost as well as installation costs. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE

finds the benefits of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) to the Nation outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of these products). DOE concludes that the standards in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy.

DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate because these values are considered as the “central” estimates by the interagency group.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for air compressors.

A. Authority

et seq.

) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.” EPCA provides that DOE may include a type of industrial equipment, including compressors, as covered equipment if it determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6312(b)). The purpose of Part A-1 is to improve the efficiency of electric motors and pumps and certain other industrial equipment in order to conserve the energy resources of the Nation. (42 U.S.C. 6312(a)). On November 15, 2016 DOE published a Notice of Final Determination of Coverage determining that compressors meet the statutory criteria for classifying industrial equipment as covered, because compressors are a type of industrial equipment (1) which in operation consume, or are designed to consume, energy; (2) are to a significant extent distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use; and (3) are not covered under 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2). 81 FR 79991.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For commercial and industrial products, DOE is primarily responsible for labeling requirements. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s), 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE test procedures for compressors appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart T, appendix A.

DOE follows specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including compressors. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

EPCA, as codified, also contains an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) specify requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (1) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other products within such type (or class) do not have, and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)).

B. Regulatory History for Compressors

Currently, there are no Federal energy conservation standards for air

compressors. On December 31, 2012, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Coverage (“2012 proposed determination of coverage”) that proposed to establish compressors as covered equipment on the basis that (1) DOE may only prescribe energy conservation standards for covered equipment; and (2) energy conservation standards for compressors would improve the efficiency of such equipment more than would be likely to occur in the absence of standards, so including compressors as covered equipment is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1. 77 FR 76972 (Dec. 31, 2012). The 2012 proposed determination of coverage tentatively determined that the standards would likely satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6312(B). On February 7, 2013, DOE published a notice reopening the comment period on the 2012 proposed determination of coverage. 78 FR 8998.

As noted above, on November 15 2016, DOE published a notice of final determination, which determined that coverage for compressors is necessary to carry out the purposes of Part A-1 of Title III of EPCA. 81 FR 79991.

On February 5, 2014, DOE published in the

Federal Register

a notice of public meeting, and provided a Framework document that addressed potential standards and test procedures for these products. 79 FR 6839. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the framework document on April 1, 2014. At this meeting, DOE discussed and received comments on the Framework document, which covered the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE uses to evaluate potential standards; and all other issues raised relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for the different categories of compressors. On March 18, 2014, DOE extended the comment period. 79 FR 15061.

On May 5, 2016, DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) to propose test procedures for certain compressors. 87 FR 27220. On June 20, 2016, DOE held a public meeting to discuss the test procedure NOPR and receive comments from interested parties. On December 1, 2016, DOE issued a test procedure final rule that amends subpart T of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 431 (10 CFR part 431), and which contains definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and test procedures for determining the energy efficiency of certain varieties of compressors. The test procedure final rule also amended 10 CFR part 429 to establish sampling plans, representations requirements, and enforcement provisions for certain compressors.

On May 19, 2016, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to energy conservation standards for compressors (“May 2016 NOPR”).

81 FR 31680. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the May 2016 NOPR on June 20, 2016.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0038.

In this final rule, DOE responds to comments received from interested parties in response to the proposals presented in the May 2016 NOPR, either during the June 2016 NOPR public meeting or in subsequent written comments.

In response to the May 2016 NOPR, DOE received 24 written comments in addition to the verbal comments made by interested parties during the June 2016 NOPR public meeting. The commenters included: The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE); the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE); the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP); Atlas Copco AB (Atlas Copco); Castair; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing the American Chemistry Council, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Brick Industry Association, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Mining Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, and the Portland Cement Association collectively referred to as the “U.S. Chamber of Commerce” (U.S. Chamber of Commerce); the Compressed Air & Gas Institute (CAGI); Compressed Air Systems; Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA); Institute for Policy Integrity representing the Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, collectively referred to as the “Joint Advocates” (Joint Advocates); Ingersoll Rand; Jenny Products, Kaeser Compressors; the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP); the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA); Michaels and Knappenberger, of the Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (Cato Institute); the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), collectively referred to as the California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs); the People's Republic of China (P. R. China); Scales Industrial Technologies (Scales); Sullair; Saylor-Beall Manufacturing Company and Sullivan-Palatek, collectively referred to as “Sullivan-Palatek.” In this document, DOE identifies comments received in response to the May 2016 standard NOPR by the commenter, the number of document as listed in the docket maintained at

www.regulations.gov

(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040), and the page number of that document where the comment appears (for example: CAGI, No. 10 at p. 4). If a comment was made verbally during the NOPR public meeting, DOE specifically identifies those as being located in the NOPR public meeting transcript (for example: CAGI, public meeting transcript, No. 16 at p. 100). This final rule also contains certain relevant comments submitted in response to the compressors test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054) and the December 2012 proposed determination of coverage (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-DET-0033); such comments will be identified with the appropriate docket number.

DOE notes that certain comments pertaining to the definition of “compressors” were addressed in the 2016 notice of final determination.

C. Process Rule

DOE notes that Appendix A established procedures, interpretations, and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance efficiency standards under EPCA. (See section 1 of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix A) These procedures are a general guide to the steps DOE typically follows in promulgating energy conservation standards. The guidance recognizes that DOE can and will, on occasion, deviate from the typical process. (See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 14(a)) The guidance provides, among other things that DOE issues, final, modified test procedures for a given product prior to publication of the NOPR proposing energy conservation standards. In this particular instance, DOE deviated from its typical process and issued the energy conservation standards notice of proposed rulemaking prior to finalizing the test procedure. DOE believed this action was appropriate in this specific instance because DOE was proposing a commonly used industry test procedure methodology with few modifications. DOE developed the proposed energy

conservation standards using representations for isentropic efficiency from manufacturers' CAGI datasheets that were developed consistent with the proposed test procedure methodology and are readily available on the market today. Thus, DOE believes that industry has a common understanding of the resulting efficiencies of different compressors designs being contemplated in the energy conservation standards rulemaking and could provide meaningful comments to DOE about the impacts of such standards. Based on the test procedure adopted in the December 2016 final rule, DOE remains confident that the timing deviation did not adversely impact the manufacturers ability to understand and provide reasonable comments on the proposed energy conservation standards rulemaking due to the widespread availability of data consistent with DOE's test procedure and DOE's ability to take those comments into consideration in developing the final standard levels as included in this final rule.

III. General Discussion

A. Definitions

1. Definition of Covered Equipment

In the November 2016 notice of final determination, DOE adopted the following definition for compressor:

Compressor

means a machine or apparatus that converts different types of energy into the potential energy of gas pressure for displacement and compression of gaseous media to any higher pressure values above atmospheric pressure and has a pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure greater than 1.3.

To support the definition of compressors, DOE adopts the following definition for pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure in the test procedure final rule:

Pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure

means the ratio of discharge pressure to inlet pressure, determined at full-load operating pressure in accordance with the test procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 431.344.

DOE received comments on the definition of “compressor” in both the energy conservation standard and test procedure dockets. DOE addresses all comments related to the definition of compressor in the November 2016 notice of final determination.

2. Air- and Liquid-Cooled Compressors

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed the following definition for water-cooled compressors: A compressor that utilizes chilled water provided by an external system to cool both the compressed air and, if present, any auxiliary substance used to facilitate compression. DOE also proposed the following definition for air-cooled compressors: A compressor that utilizes air to cool both the compressed air and, if present, any auxiliary substance used to facilitate compression. 81 FR 31680, 31699 (May 19, 2016)

In response to the definition of water-cooled compressors in the energy conservation standards NOPR, Kaeser Compressors suggested replacing the term “chilled water” with “water” as the water is not always chilled. (Kaeser Compressors, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 22-23) Edison Electric Institute stated that the definition of water-cooled compressors does not account for compressors that use a combination of different fluids. (Edison Electric Institute, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 23) Sullair commented that glycol cooling, which has a percentage of water, is an example in which the definition for water-cooled compressors fails to define all non-air cooling methods. (Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 13)

In response to commenters' concerns, DOE recognizes that the term “chilled water” may be unduly limiting. For this final rule, DOE is revising the term “water-cooled compressor” and its associated definition to refer to “liquid” instead of “chilled water.” DOE believes that the term “liquid” is sufficiently broad to encompass the concerns raised by commenters. Omission of the term “chilled” similarly aids that objective, as it is not DOE's intent to limit the definition to compressors that use only chilled liquids.

Sullair also commented that compressors could have both liquid and air cooling (such as a closed-loop water system with a radiator and fan), and thus would represent a potential loophole to classify the compressor within an equipment class with a less-stringent standard. (Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 13-14; Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 23) DOE believes Sullair is referring to a scenario where a compressor with both liquid and air-cooling could be classified as an air-cooled compressor, rather than a liquid-cooled compressor, as the standards proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR are less stringent for air-cooled equipment.

In response to Sullair's comment, DOE recognizes potential ambiguity between the definition of “air-cooled compressor” and “liquid-cooled compressor.” Specifically, the definitions proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR are not mutually exclusive, as a compressor could feasibly employ both liquid and air cooling in the same model. As a result, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the definition of “air-cooled compressor” to expressly exclude compressors that meet the definition of “liquid-cooled compressor.” Doing so establishes mutual exclusivity among the equipment varieties, ensuring that no compressors can meet the definition of both air-cooled and liquid-cooled compressors.

With respect to Sullair's specific example (a closed-loop water system with a radiator and fan), DOE clarifies that such a compressor would not meet the definition of “liquid-cooled compressor,” because the coolant system is part of the compressor package and is not an external system. Specifically, the use of the term “provided by an external system” in the definition of liquid-cooled compressors means that the system that provides the liquid coolant is not integral to the compressor package, and the liquid coolant system energy consumption and power draw are not accounted for when the compressor is tested according to the DOE test procedure.

Further, in the test procedure final rule, DOE adopts a list of ancillary equipment that must be attached to the compressor during performance testing. DOE includes two lists; the first describes ancillary equipment that must be included on a unit when testing, regardless of whether it is distributed in commerce with the basic model under test; the second list contains ancillary equipment that is only required if it is distributed in commerce with the basic model under test. “Cooling fan(s) and motors” appear on the second list. However, there is no requirement that cooling equipment beyond “cooling fan(s) and motors,” including equipment related to closed-loop liquid coolant circulation, be connected for testing purposes. As such, Sullair's specific example (a closed-loop water system with a radiator and fan within the package) is an air-cooled compressor and is tested with cooling fans engaged, but any water pumping equipment is not be required to be running.

Based on the discussion in this section, DOE is adopting the following, revised, definitions for liquid-cooled and air-cooled compressors.

“Liquid-cooled compressor” means a compressor that utilizes liquid coolant provided by an external system to cool both the compressed air and, if present, any auxiliary substance used to facilitate compression.

“Air-cooled compressor” means “a compressor that utilizes air to cool both the compressed air and, if present, any auxiliary substance used to facilitate compression, and that is not a liquid-cooled compressor.”

B. Scope of Energy Conservation Standards

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to limit the scope of applicability of standards to compressors that meet the following criteria:

• Are air compressors,

• are rotary compressors,

• are driven by a brushless electric motor,

• are distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 500 horsepower (“hp”), and

• operate at a full-load operating pressure of greater than or equal to 31 and less than or equal to 225 pounds per square inch gauge (“psig”). 81 FR 31680, 31689-31693 (May 19, 2016).

In the test procedure final rule, DOE limits the scope of test procedure applicability to compressors that meet the following criteria:

• Are air compressors;

• are rotary compressors;

• are not liquid ring compressors;

• are driven by a brushless electric motor;

• are lubricated compressors;

• have a full-load operating pressure of 75-200 psig;

• are not designed and tested to the requirements of The American Petroleum Institute standard 619, “Rotary-Type Positive-Displacement Compressors for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas Industries;” and

• have a capacity that is either:

○ 10-200 compressor motor nominal horsepower (hp), or

○ 35-1,250 full-load actual volume flow rate (cfm).

After considering comments received in response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE is aligning the scope of energy conservation standards in this final rule to be similar, but less broad than the aforementioned scope of the test procedure final rule. The following sections, III.B.1 through III.B.8, discuss, in detail, each scope limitation, interested party comments, and DOE's conclusions.

1. Equipment System Boundary

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to limit the scope of the standards to “air compressors” that compress atmospheric air and consist of a bare compressor, driver(s), mechanical equipment to transfer energy from the driver to the bare compressor, and any ancillary equipment shipped in commerce with the compressor. DOE also proposed definitions for the terms “air compressor,” “bare compressor,” “driver,” “mechanical equipment,” and “ancillary equipment.” 81 FR 31680, 31688-31690 (May 19, 2016). DOE received comments on its proposal to limit the scope of the energy conservation standards to air compressors. These comments are discussed in detail below.

a. Air Compressor

Generally, DOE considered and responded to comments relating to the definition of the term “air compressor” in the test procedure final rule. Beyond those comments considered in the test procedure final rule, Scales Industrial Technologies commented that there are opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of a compressed air system on the demand side that should also be considered. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Scales Industrial Technologies, No. 0013 at p. 9)

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE discussed the possibility of establishing standards at the “compressed air system” (“CAS”) level, but ultimately proposed standards at the packaged compressor level for the following reasons:

• Each CAS is often unique to a specific installation;

• each CAS may include equipment from several different manufacturers; and

• a single CAS can include several different compressors, of different types, which may all have different full-load operating pressures. 81 FR 31680, 31689-31690 (May 19, 2016).

As discussed in the energy conservation standards NOPR, implementing a broader, CAS-based approach to compressor efficiency would require DOE to (1) establish a methodology for measuring losses in a given air-distribution network; and (2) assess what certification, compliance, or enforcement practices would be required for a large variety of system designs, and potential waiver criteria. For these reasons, in the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE concluded that the CAS is not a viable equipment classification level for coverage. DOE recognizes the argument set forth by Scales Industrial Technologies and does not dispute the potential for savings beyond the compressor package. Nonetheless, the decision not to pursue standards at the CAS level was made, not due to absence of potential energy savings, but due to impracticality of creating a single standard and test procedure that would apply meaningfully to the great variety of air distribution systems. DOE continues to conclude that the CAS is not appropriate for this final rule.

Castair commented that the scope of the energy conservation standards should be limited only to air ends, stating that the assemblers of air compressors can do little to improve efficiency. (Castair, No. 0045 at p. 1)

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE also discussed the possibility of establishing standards at the bare compressor level. Ultimately, DOE opted not to limit standards to the bare compressor, concluding that greater savings were available at the packaged compressor level. 81 FR 31680, 31689-31690 (May 19, 2016). In response to Castair's comment, DOE notes that energy savings can be achieved through proper component selection (including the bare compressor and driver) and system design. For this reason, DOE maintains the approach proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR and is applying standards at the compressor package level.

b. Ancillary Equipment

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed using the term “ancillary equipment” to mean “any equipment distributed in commerce with an air compressor that is not a bare compressor, driver, or mechanical equipment.” 81 FR 31680, 31690 (May 19, 2016). In other words, it served as a catch-all for package components that did not fall into another category but were part of the package purchased by an end user.

In the test procedure final rule, DOE adopts a requirement different from what DOE proposed in the test procedure NOPR. DOE defines two lists of equipment; the first list includes items that must be attached during testing, and the second list includes items that must be attached during testing if the package is distributed in commerce configured as such. However, manufacturers may opt to test with additional equipment than is on the two lists, at their preference.

CAGI commented that the definition of ancillary equipment should be more specific and provided a list of ancillary equipment that is common and required for safe operation of a compressor. Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek supported the CAGI position and list. (CAGI, No. 0052 at pp. 6-8; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at pp. 1, 4; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p.1;

Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 1, 6; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p.1) CAGI further commented that the list is almost identical to the European Union's Lot 31 Draft Ecodesign Regulation (hereafter “Lot 31 draft regulation,” which is discussed in section IV.C.1.b) list of ancillary equipment, and clarified that manufacturers should provide missing ancillary equipment that is not installed on their compressor for compliance and enforcement testing. (CAGI, No. 0052 at pp. 6-8)

Atlas Copco commented that the definition of ancillary equipment as proposed in both the test procedure NOPR and the energy conservation standards NOPR is not consistent, as the DOE hoped, with the draft EU standards. Atlas Copco further stated that the definition as proposed penalizes manufacturers who efficiently include dryers within the design of the compressor package. Finally, Atlas Copco emphasizes the need for an equitable standard for defining ancillary equipment that allows for comparison across units, similar to the draft EU standards. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at p. 13)

DOE has considered and responded to the preceding comments in the test procedure final rule by adopting two lists to describe the minimum equipment configuration for compressor testing. The first list contains equipment that must be included on a unit when testing, regardless of whether it is distributed in commerce with the basic model under test. This table aligns with many of the items that CAGI specified to be part of a standard package. The second list contains equipment that is only required if it is distributed in commerce with the basic model under test. DOE believes that it is impossible to require that items from this second list of ancillary equipment be connected for testing, as many basic models do not require some of this ancillary equipment to achieve their basic functionality and as adding such components would be impossible or impractical.

ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE commented that DOE should independently investigate the energy consumption of ancillary equipment that manufacturers wish to exclude, such as dryers, as this equipment has a significant impact on air compressor energy efficiency. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE, No. 0060 at p. 4)

Dryers and other unrequired ancillary equipment may consume significant energy in certain applications. However, because they are not universally included as part of a compressor package, DOE did not include them in the list of equipment required for testing. DOE may investigate the appropriateness of test procedures for air dryers and other unrequired ancillary equipment—either as part of a compressor, or separately—as part of future rulemakings.

2. Compression Principle: Rotary and Reciprocating Compressors

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE analyzed rotary and reciprocating compressors as separate equipment classes, and concluded that each provides a distinct utility that materially affects energy consumption. 81 FR 31680, 31697-31698 (May 19, 2016). Ultimately, DOE did not propose energy conservation standards for reciprocating compressors because the energy conservation standards NOPR analyses showed that such proposed standards were not economically justified. 81 FR 31680.

As discussed in the energy conservation standards NOPR and during the accompanying public meeting, DOE performed the reciprocating compressor analyses based on a limited data set. Specifically, DOE had limited data characterizing reciprocating compressor performance, manufacturer selling price,

and shipments in the U.S. market. 81 FR 31680, 31707, 31717, 31724 (May 19, 2016). In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE put forth analysis based on the limited data that was available and requested both comment and better data from interested parties in order to strengthen its analysis.

DOE notes that it had retail price data from online retailers, but limited direct manufacturer selling price data. DOE did estimate manufacturer selling price from the retail price data using estimated markups.

In response, DOE received no quantitative reciprocating compressor data from commenters. Additionally, in the time since the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE was unable to obtain, from other sources, any additional reciprocating compressor data. As discussed in the energy conservation standards NOPR, the availability of reciprocating compressor performance data is extremely limited. 81 FR 31680, 31707 (May 19, 2016). This continues to remain true. Specifically, manufacturers of reciprocating compressors do not typically performance test their equipment or publish performance information. Consequently, to collect the performance data required to establish energy conservation standards, DOE will need to work with manufacturers, independent labs, and/or other interested parties to test and gather such data. DOE may pursue such avenues in the future, however at this time DOE's performance data remains limited.

Sullivan-Palatek commented that because DOE does not have performance data on reciprocating compressors, it should delay any decision to combine or separate an equipment class until reciprocating data can be collected and analyzed. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 6)

In the absence of new quantitative data, DOE agrees with Sullivan-Palatek and is not confident that the reciprocating compressor data underlying the energy conservation standards NOPR analyses is sufficient to definitively conclude, in this final rule, that energy conservation standards for reciprocating compressors are not economically justifiable. Therefore, DOE is deferring consideration of energy conservation standards until it can obtain performance data to assess the possibility for economically justified energy savings for different categories of reciprocating compressors. DOE makes no determination regarding such savings in this final rule, and reiterates that reciprocating compressors remain as covered equipment.

Regarding reciprocating compressors, interested parties also provided comments related to equipment classes, potential energy savings, substitution risk, harmonization with the European Union, and potential energy conservation standard levels. These topics are discussed in the following sections.

a. Equipment Classes

CAGI, Castair, and Compressed Air Systems agreed with DOE's conclusion that rotary and reciprocating compressors warranted separate equipment classes. (CAGI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 19; Compressed Air Systems, No. 0061 at p. 2) Specifically, Castair stated that the different designs of rotary and reciprocating equipment make the technologies better suited to continuous and intermittent demand cycles, respectively. (Castair, No. 0062 at p. 1)

DOE agrees with commenters that reciprocating and rotary compressors should be analyzed in separate equipment classes for the reasons presented in the energy conservations standards NOPR, and that they carry differential utility and ability to reach greater efficiencies. 81 FR 31680, 31697-31698 (May 19, 2016). However, because DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards reciprocating compressors in this final rule, DOE will

not be establishing formal equipment classes for reciprocating compressors in this final rule. DOE may consider CAGI's and Castair's remarks in any future rulemaking.

b. Energy Savings

ASAP and NEEA commented that the shipment data for reciprocating compressors led them to believe that a large amount of energy consumption is attributed to reciprocating compressors. ASAP asserted that by not setting standards for the equipment class, DOE misses a significant opportunity to reduce the energy consumption of compressors. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 9-10; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 115) Additionally, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE commented that DOE should reduce the scope of compressor capacity to include only the large reciprocating compressors used in commercial and industrial applications, which do not have the low-duty cycles of the residential hobby compressors and, therefore, should produce a greater consumer benefit at the proposed standard levels. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, No. 0060 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also cited the missed opportunity for “significant energy savings” as the reason to establish a standard for reciprocating compressors. (CA IOUs, No. 0059 at pp. 2-3)

DOE reiterates that it is not analyzing reciprocating compressors in this final rule due to a lack of data, but DOE may consider comments received in any future rulemaking.

c. Substitution Risk

ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, the CA IOUs, NEEA, and NWPCC suggested that DOE establish standards for a subset of reciprocating compressors, with ASAP suggesting inclusion of large commercial and industrial reciprocating compressors, and NEEA and NWPCC suggesting inclusion of reciprocating compressors from 20 to 100 compressor motor nominal horsepower. NEEA and NWPCC further commented that the absence of energy conservation standards for reciprocating compressors between 20 and 100 compressor motor nominal horsepower would pose a substitution risk due to the increased cost of rotary compressors subject to an energy conservation standard. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 0057 at p. 2)

Atlas Copco commented that using a “technology approach” in establishing the scope of an energy conservation standards rule grants unfair advantage to unregulated technologies at the low and high ends of capacity ranges covered. Specifically, Atlas Copco asserted that turbo and piston compressors (if not included in the DOE test procedure and energy conservation standards) would realize the increased cost due to regulation, and therefore may gain popularity over the regulated rotary compressors. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at pp. 2, 11-12)

In response to Atlas Copco's concerns regarding unfair competition, DOE notes that it adopts a smaller compressor motor nominal horsepower range in the test procedure final rule, and is also doing so in this energy conservation standards final rule. The new scope alleviates Atlas Copco's concerns, as DOE's research indicates that few reciprocating compressors are offered with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 10 hp; section III.B.4 provides further discussion of this topic. In that section, DOE directly addresses Atlas Copco's concerns and considers competition from unregulated compressor technologies in determining whether to reduce scope.

In response to NEEA and NWPCC, DOE reviewed marketing literature of major reciprocating compressor manufacturers, and found that the largest marketed reciprocating compressor available (between 75 and 200 psig) has 30 compressor motor nominal horsepower, with 20 compressor motor nominal horsepower being a more typical upper limit.

Additionally, based on confidential discussions with manufacturers, DOE believes that shipments of the available compressors with greater than or equal to 20 hp are extremely limited. For these reasons, DOE believes a substitution incentive is unlikely.

See:

www.quincycompressor.com/products/reciprocating-piston/, www.saylor-beall.com/base-mounted/, www.atlascopco.us/en-us/compressors/products/Air-compressor/Oil-injected-rotary-screw-air-compressor/LE-LT-industrial-oil-lubricated-piston-compressors, www.ingersollrandproducts.com/am-en/products/air/small-reciprocating-air-compressors/electric-driven-two-stage, http://usa.boge.com/artikel/Screw_Compressors/CL.jsp?msf=200%2C100%2C100, www.gardnerdenver.com/gdproducts/compressors/reciprocating/r-series-low-pressure-reciprocating-compressors/#13223.

d. Harmonization With the European Union

Atlas Copco recommended that DOE base its regulation on standard air as defined by Lot 31, and noted that the Lot 31 regulation is “technology independent.” Atlas Copco clarified that Lot 31 defines categories for standard air compressors that group compressors based on three flow profiles: (1) Fixed flow, (2) variable flow, and (3) intermittent use. Reciprocating compressors are typically in the intermittent use category. Atlas Copco notes that the intermittent use category may not be included in the Lot 31 draft regulation due to the small potential energy savings. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at p. 12)

In response to this comment, DOE first notes that the Lot 31 draft regulation on “standard air compressors” does not classify compressors by “fixed flow, variable flow and intermittent use.” Rather, the Lot 31 draft regulation establishes and defines two equipment groupings, “rotary standard” and “piston standard” air compressors, in a similar manner to the equipment classes proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR.

Further, DOE evaluated all publicly available reports and information on the Lot 31 website,

and found no mention of any regulatory approach that would define three sub-categories of fixed flow, variable flow and intermittent use. DOE recognizes that work to amend the Lot 31 draft regulation may be occurring in private. However, without any published or publicly available regulatory information, DOE does not believe it is appropriate to speculate on hypothetical decisions that the EU regulators may make.

For copies of the EU draft regulation:

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

As viewed here:

www.eco-compressors.eu/documents.htm

As a result, DOE's proposal in the energy conservation standards NOPR to separate equipment classes for reciprocating and rotary compressors aligns with the current published version of the Lot 31 draft regulation,

as the Lot 31 draft regulation proposes different minimum energy efficiency requirements for rotary and reciprocating compressors. Atlas Copco's claim that the whole category of intermittent use could possibly be exempted because it has too little savings potential also supports DOE's conclusion in the energy conservation standards NOPR that reciprocating and rotary compressors each offer distinct utility that materially affects energy consumption, and that these differences necessitate separate equipment classes. 81 FR 31680, 31697-31698 (May 19, 2016).

For copies of the EU draft regulation:

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0031&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

e. Potential Standards for Reciprocating Compressors

ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, NEEA and NWPCC argued that establishing baseline standards for reciprocating compressors would both promote efficiency in the marketplace and generate test data for future rulemakings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 152; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 0057 at p. 2; ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, No. 0060 at pp. 2-3)

DOE agrees that a baseline standard for reciprocating compressors would generate performance data. However, DOE reiterates that it lacks sufficient data to conclude whether any energy conservation standard, including a baseline standard, would be economically justified. Therefore, DOE is not analyzing reciprocating compressor in this final rule, but may do so in a future rulemaking.

3. Driver Style

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to establish the scope of energy conservation standards using driver style as a differentiator. Specifically, DOE defined the scope of driver styles covered under the proposed standard by only including single-phase and three-phase brushless electric motors. 81 FR 31680, 31691-31692 (May 19, 2016).

The following sections discuss the comments that DOE received regarding the scope of drivers proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR.

a. Exclusion of Non-Electric Drivers

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to align the scope of the energy conservation standards with the scope of applicability of the test procedure NOPR and not include engine-driven equipment in the scope. 81 FR 31680, 31691 (May 19, 2016).

The Edison Electric Institute expressed disappointment that the NOPR was only focused on electric motors and was not more fuel-neutral with respect to compressor drivers, pointing out the savings potential for compressors driven by natural gas would be high, given their usage in 2015 was 0.86 quad. (Edison Electric Institute, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 5)

In response to EEI's comment, engine-driven compressors were considered in the February 5, 2014 Framework document for compressors and discussed extensively in the May 5, 2016 test procedure NOPR. 79 FR 6839 and 81 FR 27220. Specifically, in the test procedure NOPR, DOE concluded that the inclusion of engine-driven compressors was not appropriate for various reasons, including their differing utility compared to electric compressors, their existing coverage under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Tier 4 emissions regulations, and the limited test data available under Annex D of ISO 1217:2009 to verify suitability as a DOE test procedure. For these reasons, DOE noted that engine-driven compressors would more appropriately be considered as part of a future rulemaking. 81 FR 27220, 27229 (May 5, 2016).

DOE continues to conclude that engine-driven compressors are unique equipment with different performance, applications, and test requirements from compressors driven by electric motors. As a result, DOE continues to conclude engine-driven compressors would be more appropriate to address as part of a separate rulemaking specifically considering such equipment. DOE is limiting the scope of this final rule to only compressors driven by electric motors.

b. Exclusion of Brushed Motors

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to align with the scope of applicability of the test procedure NOPR and only include those compressors that are driven by brushless motors in the scope. 81 FR 31680, 31692 (May 19, 2016).

The CA IOUs commented that DOE should cover brushed motors in addition to brushless motors, citing the potential loophole of a market shift toward unregulated brushed motors and the higher potential for energy savings as reasons for their inclusion. (CA IOUs, No. 0059 at p. 3)

DOE reiterates that brushed motors are uncommon in compressors with significant potential energy savings (

i.e.,

high operating hours) due to higher maintenance costs, short operating lives, significant acoustic noise, and electrical arcing. For these reasons, DOE concludes that brushed motors are not a viable substitution risk for compressors within the scope of the compressor test procedures. DOE is continuing to exclude compressors driven by brushed motors from the scope of this final rule.

c. Exclusion of Single-Phase Motors

In the energy conservation standards NOPR DOE proposed a standard that was applicable to both single- and three-phase rotary compressors, while acknowledging that compressors with single-phase motors may be less efficient. 81 FR 31680, 31691-31692 (May 19, 2016).

Castair commented that single-phase motors should be excluded from the scope of the standard because of their small sales volume. Castair argued that single-phase compressors comprise a small portion of the market, three-phase compressor offerings are expanding, and customers that do not have three-phase power typically cannot afford to install three-phase power. (Castair, No. 0062 at p. 1) Sullair also recommended that DOE limit the scope of the energy conservation standards to compressors with compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 10 hp, but only cited the simplicity of reducing the number of equipment classes and solving the issue of single-phase rotary compressors. (Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 7-8)

Sullivan-Palatek suggested that DOE limit the scope of the energy conservation standard to compressors with compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 10 hp.

According to Sullivan-Palatek, limiting the scope of the energy conservation standard to compressors with compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 10 hp would eliminate single-phase compressors from the scope of the standards and eliminate the risk of product substitution of unregulated reciprocating and scroll compressors. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 6; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 7)

Sullivan-Palatek's comment included recommendations for a scope of both greater than or equal to 10 nominal hp, and greater than 10 nominal hp.

Sullair commented that, although single-phase and three-phase compressor packages are mostly identical, the motor and electrical equipment (

e.g.,

the starter) differ. Sullair also stated that the customer decision in choosing a single-phase or three-phase compressor is driven by the electrical supply at the installation location; customers are not incentivized to purchase a single-phase motor as the installation cost is typically higher than an equivalent three-phase motor when three-phase power facility is available at the installation point. (Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 7-8)

Ingersoll Rand requested that DOE exclude single-phase compressors if DOE intends to include compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower of less than 10 hp. Ingersoll Rand stated that single-phase compressors are purchased out of utility need and do not have the same energy efficiency potential as three-phase

compressors in that compressor motor nominal horsepower range. Ingersoll Rand comments that regulating single-phase compressors under 10 nominal hp would penalize small businesses by requiring the purchase of a more expensive compressor, or requiring the conversion of its existing power supply to three-phase power. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 5)

As discussed in section III.B.4 of this document, DOE is limiting the scope of this final rule to compressors with compressor motor nominal horsepower of 10 hp or greater. For compressor packages that are within this compressor motor nominal horsepower range and available in single- and three-phase variations through online retailers, DOE found single-phase compressors offered at a similar price, or more expensive than comparable three-phase models. Additionally, DOE acknowledges Sullair's comment that, when three-phase power is available, installation costs for a single-phase compressors may be higher. Based on the similar prices DOE found through retailers, and the potential higher installation costs for single-phase compressors, DOE agrees with Sullair's comment that there is not an incentive to choose single-phase equipment instead of three-phase equipment. Therefore, DOE is limiting the scope of this final rule to compressors with three-phase motors. With the reduction of scope to include only three-phase compressors of 10 nominal hp or greater, Ingersoll Rand's concern regarding single-phase compressors of 10 nominal hp or less is no longer applicable.

DOE also received the following comments regarding the separation of equipment classes. Because single-phase compressors are not included within the scope of the standards established by this final rule, these comments are no longer relevant.

Castair, Compressed Air Systems, and Sullair both supported the creation of equipment classes based on motor phase count. Compressed Air Systems argued that single-phase compressors should be separated from three-phase compressors because there is little data available for single-phase compressors to make an informed decision. Furthermore, Compressed Air Systems argued that a single-phase compressor would not be able to meet a three-phase standard. (Compressed Air Systems, No. 0061 at p. 2)

Sullair made several arguments to support establishing equipment classes based on motor phase count. First, Sullair argued that the availability of premium efficiency single-phase motors is limited, resulting in difficulty in sourcing motors that would meet an energy efficiency standard. Sullair also stated that the customer decision in choosing a single-phase or three-phase compressor is driven by the electrical supply at the installation location; and as noted previously, customers are not incentivized to purchase a single-phase motor as the installation cost is typically higher than an equivalent three-phase motor, when three-phase power is in the facility. Finally, Sullair stated there is a risk of product substitution to unregulated single-phase products, such as reciprocating or scroll compressors, if DOE adopts one standard for single- and three-phase rotary compressors. Sullair argued that manufacturers will likely stop producing single-phase rotary compressors due to the unfair competitive disadvantage relative to competing technologies. (Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 7-8; Sullair, Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 60; Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 27)

Sullivan-Palatek supported separating single-phase and three-phase compressors into two separate equipment classes, but also commented that limiting the scope would eliminate the need to create equipment classes for reciprocating and rotary compressors. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at pp. 6-7)

With respect to consumer utility, a prime consideration in the establishment of equipment classes, Sullivan-Palatek stated that any application that can support three-phase power can also support single-phase power, but that the reverse is not true. (Sullivan-Palatek, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 27)

As noted in this section, the matter of equipment classes by phase count is no longer applicable due to DOE's decision in limiting scope to compressors with three-phase motors. DOE may consider standards for single-phase equipment in a future rule.

4. Compressor Capacity

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to limit the scope of compressors energy conservation standards to compressors with compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 1, and less than or equal to 500 hp. In that NOPR, DOE also reasoned that the compressor industry typically used “nominal” motor horsepower as a descriptor of compressor capacity. 81 FR 31680, 31692-31693 (May 19, 2016).

DOE received a number of comments in response to the proposed compressor capacity limitations. Commenters raised concerns regarding two facets of the compressor capacity scope: (1) The compressor motor nominal horsepower range included in the scope and (2) the coupling of compressor motor nominal horsepower and actual volume flow rate in the scope definition. These comments are discussed in sections III.B.4.a and III.B.4.b of this document.

a. Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower Range

Interested parties commented broadly on compressor motor nominal horsepower scope. ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE and the CA IOUs supported the proposed horsepower scope limitations. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, No. 0060 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 0059 at p. 3)

CAGI suggested a compressor motor nominal horsepower range of 10 to 200 hp. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9) Ingersoll Rand,

Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 1, 9-10; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

DOE notes that in response to the 2012 proposed determination of coverage, Ingersoll Rand commented that a number of small compressors (retail, consumer or commercial-based) are sold in the US market, but may not have a significant impact of energy savings if included in this rulemaking; further, the costs associated with coverage would have to be passed to the consumer as the profit margins are low for this type of compressor. (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-DET-0033, Ingersoll Rand, No. 0004 at pp. 2-3) DOE views Ingersoll Rand's more recent 2016 test procedure NOPR comments as superseding the views presented in response to the 2012 proposed determination of coverage.

Scales Industrial Technologies suggested a compressor motor nominal horsepower scope of 15 hp to 200 or 250 hp. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Scales Industrial Technologies, No. 0013 at p. 3) Atlas Copco stated that it had no objection to inclusion of compressors of greater than 500 nominal hp, with no upper limit specified. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at p. 13)

Interested parties also provided a variety of specific rationales to support their recommendations. DOE grouped the specifics of interested party comments into six categories: Data scarcity, substitution incentive, certification, consistency with the European Union, and energy savings. The following sections discuss these comments.

Data Scarcity

CAGI noted the scarcity of compressor data above a compressor motor nominal

horsepower of 200 hp, citing that 200 hp is the upper limit of the CAGI Performance Verification Program. Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, Sullivan-Palatek supported CAGI's position. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9; CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at pp. 1, 6) The commenters argued that DOE's regression curves, which were used to establish efficiency levels and trial standard levels, were created with data that is not readily available for larger (above 200 nominal hp) or smaller (below 10 nominal hp) compressors, and that the regression curves are not appropriate above 200 nominal hp. In response to the 2012 proposed determination of coverage, NEEA commented that performance testing at horsepower levels below 15 was rare and that corresponding data is unreliable. (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-DET-0033, NEEA, No. 0010 at p. 1).

Although compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 200 hp may publish performance data using CAGI data sheets, Sullair noted that these compressors do not formally participate in the Performance Verification Program and are not subject to independent testing, and the data associated with those compressors is posted voluntarily and not subject to verification. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 52) As a result, DOE does not view such data as suitable to establish an energy conservation standard without further investigation. For this reason, and others outlined in the upcoming sections, DOE is not including compressors outside the range of 10-200 compressor motor nominal horsepower in the scope this energy conservation standards final rule. DOE may explore standards for compressors outside the range of 10-200 compressor motor nominal horsepower, in a future rulemaking.

Substitution Incentive

CAGI, Sullair, Kaeser Compressors, and Sullivan-Palatek suggested a compressor motor nominal horsepower range of 10 to 200 hp. They reasoned that the proposed scope in the energy conservation standards NOPR would create an unfair competitive advantage for certain unregulated equipment below 10 nominal hp and over 200 nominal hp. They believe that this competitive advantage could translate to a risk of product substitution from unregulated equipment. The commenters specified scroll and reciprocating equipment as possible competition below 10 nominal hp and centrifugal equipment above 200 nominal hp. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 8-12; Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 129-130) Ingersoll Rand and Mattei Compressors commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2)

DOE agrees that inclusion of small (less than 10 nominal hp) and larger (greater than 200 nominal hp) rotary compressors could create a competitive disadvantage for manufacturers of rotary compressors. Currently, without any energy conservation standards in place, rotary, centrifugal, reciprocating, and scroll compressors compete with each other over certain overlapping compressor motor nominal horsepower ranges. Adopting standards for rotary compressors alone, in these overlapping nominal horsepower ranges, may disturb the competitive equilibrium. The costs associated with regulation may give the manufacturers of unregulated equipment (

e.g.,

centrifugal, scroll, reciprocating) a competitive advantage, and allow them to incentivize end users to switch from a regulated (rotary) to an unregulated compressor, diminishing the impact of the proposed standard.

For this reason, and others outlined in the preceding and upcoming sections, DOE is not including compressors outside the range of 10 to 200 compressor motor nominal horsepower in the scope of this energy conservation standard final rule.

Certification, Sampling, and Enforcement

Commenters argued against standards for compressors with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than 200 hp because of substantial difficulty with sampling and enforcement. Basic models in this range are highly customized and carry low (and sometimes zero, over a period) production volumes. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 8-10) Sullair commented that testing costs for units of greater than 200 nominal hp are large relative to those of smaller compressors. (Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 129-130) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

In arguing against standards for compressors of less than 10 nominal hp, Sullair cited the relatively high cost of certification and testing. Sullair argued the cost certification and testing for this type of compressor may be more than 60 percent of the manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) of the compressor unit. (Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 11-12)

In general, DOE agrees with the concerns that the representations, sampling, and enforcement provisions proposed in the test procedure NOPR may cause significant burden for compressors greater than 200 nominal hp, as many of the larger compressor motor nominal horsepower models are infrequently built and often unavailable for testing. However, regarding compressors of less than 10 nominal hp, DOE asserts that testing cost as a percentage of MSP is not an appropriate metric to evaluate the economic justification of test procedures or energy conservation standard. According to the test procedure final rule, each basic model must test a minimum of two unique models (or use an alternative efficiency determination method, “AEDM”) to determine compliance. DOE does not require performance or certification testing for all units distributed in commerce. The upfront costs associated with certifying a basic model amortize over all shipments of that basic model, and the ratio of initial testing cost to MSP have no bearing on the overall impact to manufacturers. DOE assesses the specific impacts of certification testing costs (and other upfront conversion costs) in detail in section IV.J.2.c of this document.

For this reason, and others outlined in the preceding and upcoming sections, DOE is not including compressors with greater than 200 compressor motor nominal horsepower in the scope this energy conservation standards final rule.

Consistency With European Union

Atlas Copco expressed support for expanding the scope of covered compressor motor nominal horsepower to include all compressors above 500 hp, noting that this would be consistent with the draft EU standards for compressors, which proposed no upper limit of scope for coverage. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at p. 13)

Although the draft EU standards for compressors do not limit applicability based on motor power per se, DOE notes that the motor horsepower is constrained implicitly by the explicit limitations on pressure and flow. Interaction between flow and

compressor motor nominal horsepower is discussed further in section III.B.4.b of this document.

Generally, DOE recognizes the value of aligning requirements with other major regulatory bodies, but DOE will always evaluate alignment on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, DOE does not view the harmonization benefit associated with coverage of compressor motor nominal horsepower levels greater that 200 as outweighing the burdens. The burdens, as discussed in the previous subsections, include risks of forming a standard based on insufficient data, creating market incentive to substitute to unregulated technologies less than 10 nominal hp or greater than 200 nominal hp, and imposing undue sampling and certification burden on low-volume compressor models. As a result, DOE does not find alignment with the European Union scope limitation to be appropriate in this case.

Energy Savings

In response to the test procedure NOPR, Sullair stated that the number of units and associated potential energy savings above 200 nominal hp are too small to warrant inclusion of those compressors within the test procedure applicability. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullair, No. 0006 at p. 2) In response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, CAGI and Sullair cited the relatively low number of shipments above 200 nominal hp as a reason to reduce the scope of the energy conservations standards. (CAGI No. 0052 at p. 9; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 9-10) Similarly, the People's Republic of China questioned the justification for including compressors with low compressor motor nominal horsepower and, consequently, a low potential for energy savings, into the scope of the standard. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, P. R. China, No. 0019 at p. 3)

Other commenters argued that DOE should maintain the scope as proposed. ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA,

NRDC, NEEP, and ASE supported the proposed compressor motor nominal horsepower scope limitations. ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP and ASE stated that 5-percent and 7-percent of the fixed-speed and variable-speed compressor markets, respectively, would not be covered if the scope was limited to a maximum of 200 nominal hp. ASAP ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP and ASE further commented that the higher nominal horsepower units represent even greater energy savings potential on a per-unit basis given their energy consumption. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, No. 0060 at p. 4)

DOE notes that in response to the 2012 proposed determination of coverage, NEEA urged DOE to cover compressors <15 hp, stating that this range represented commodity-type compressors purchased without consideration of operating cost and, therefore, offering the opportunity for substantial energy savings. (NEEA, No. 0010 at p. 1) Further, NEEA stated that performance testing in this horsepower range was rare or unreliable. (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-DET-0033, NEEA, No. 0010 at p. 1) DOE views NEEA's more recent 2016 test procedure NOPR comments as superseding the views presented in response to the 2012 proposed determination of coverage.

The CA IOUs supported the proposed range of 1-500 nominal hp, which aligns with the motors rulemaking, but encouraged DOE to expand the scope of coverage beyond 500 nominal hp to maximize the potential energy savings of the proposed rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 0059 at p. 3)

DOE evaluated the impact of reducing compressor motor nominal horsepower scope to the level recommended by CAGI, Kaeser Compressors, Ingersoll Rand, and Sullivan-Palatek (

i.e.,

10-200 hp), and estimates that adopting this scope would retain 96.6 percent of the energy savings of the proposed 1-500 hp range. For compressors removed from scope at lower capacities, the low impacts are the result of smaller compressor capacities. For those removed from scope at the higher capacities, the low impacts are the result of extremely low shipments.

Conclusion

As noted previously in this section, DOE received multiple comments regarding the scope of compressor motor nominal horsepower that should be included in this final rule. CAGI, Kaeser Compressors, Ingersoll Rand, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek recommended 10 to 200 nominal hp and Scales Industrial Technologies recommended 15 to 200 or 250 nominal hp. Alternatively, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE supported the proposed horsepower scope limitations, while Atlas Copco and the CA IOUs stated that they had no objection to inclusion of compressors of greater than 500 nominal hp, with no upper limit specified.

In this section, DOE reviewed the recommendations and the justifications provided by commenter, and responded to each. In summary, the aforementioned data scarcity, substitution incentives, certification costs, and limited available shipments and energy savings for compressor outside the 10 to 200 compressor motor nominal horsepower range all contribute to DOE's decision to limit the scope of the energy conservation standards, in this final rule, to compressors of 10 to 200 nominal hp. In conjunction with the limit of compressor motor nominal horsepower range, DOE also establishes a limit on compressor full-load actual volume flow rate as discussed in section III.B.4.b of this document.

b. Coupling of Compressor Motor Nominal Horsepower and Actual Volume Flow Rate in the Scope Definition

In addition to comments regarding potential horsepower limitations, CAGI and Sullair suggested establishing scope by limiting both compressor motor nominal horsepower and flow. In other words, a compressor would be subject to standards if it falls within either a given horsepower range or within a given flow range (or both). Specifically, CAGI supported an airflow limitation of 35 to 1,250 cfm, inclusive, while Sullair supported an airflow limitation of 30 to 1,250 cfm, inclusive. CAGI reasoned that an airflow range will prevent manufacturers possibly altering horsepower ratings at the margins in order to move compressors out of the scope of energy conservation standards. Sullair expanded upon this reasoning, and commented that a manufacturer may be encouraged to add a nominally larger horsepower motor to circumvent the standards. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 9; Sullair, No. 0056 at pp. 9-10, 11-12, 13) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

DOE agrees with CAGI and Sullair that, by not limiting flow rate, manufacturers could conceivably circumvent compressor regulations by using a motor of horsepower slightly greater than 200 hp. For example, two similar compressors, one with a 200 hp motor and one with a 225 hp motor, would supply nearly identical flow rates and pressure (

i.e.,

utility) to the end user; however the one with the 225 hp motor would not be subject to proposed standards or proposed test procedures. In contrast, any alterations in flow rate would directly impact consumer utility.

A review of all available CAGI performance data sheets indicates that the flow rate ranges recommended by CAGI and Sullair are reasonable. The full-load actual volume flow rate range of 35 to 1,250 cfm, inclusive, is slightly broader than the compressor motor nominal horsepower range of 10 to 200 hp;

i.e.,

the flow range encompasses slightly more compressors models. This

aligns with the intent of the recommendations put forth by CAGI and Sullair. Specifically, the full-load actual volume flow rate range of 35 to 1,250 cfm includes 9.2-percent more fixed-speed compressors and 2.9-percent more variable-speed compressors in the scope of the rulemaking.

For the reasons outlined in this section (

i.e.,

reduction of circumvention risk and the reasonable nature of the ranges proposed), in this final rule, DOE adopts a coupled airflow and compressor motor nominal horsepower limit, as recommended by Sullair and CAGI. DOE notes that the recommendations from Sullair and CAGI are not completely aligned, with Sullair recommending a lower limit of 30 cfm and CAGI recommending a lower limit of 35 cfm. Given general support by Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, and Sullivan-Palatek for CAGI's recommendations, DOE is adopting the higher limit of 35 cfm. Specifically, energy conservation standards apply to compressors with either a compressor motor nominal horsepower of 10 to 200 hp, or a full-load actual volume flow rate of 35 to 1,250 cfm.

5. Full-Load Operating Pressure

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to limit the scope of the standard to compressors with full-load operating pressures between 31 psig and 225 psig. DOE chose the proposed full-load operating pressure scope to align with the test procedure NOPR, noting that equipment outside of that pressure range generally represents a low sales volume, specialized equipment type for applications that do not often overlap with what is generally considered in the market to be industrial air. 81 FR 31680, 31693 (May 19, 2016). In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE also concluded that isentropic efficiency is approximately invariant with pressure over the pressure range under consideration and, as a result, DOE used data from equipment with full-load operating pressures between 31 and 225 psig to establish efficiency levels for each equipment class. 81 FR 31680, 31705 (May 19, 2016). In the test procedure final rule, DOE restricts the scope of applicability of the test procedure to compressors with full-load operating pressures between 75 and 200 psig. DOE may not establish energy conservation standards for equipment that does not have an established test procedure. For this reason, DOE may only consider energy conservation standards for equipment with full-load operating pressures between 75 and 200 psig in this final rule.

In response to DOE's energy conservation standards proposal, CAGI and Jenny Products commented that a pressure range between 75 and 200 psig is appropriate for the scope of the standard. Jenny Products stated that most air compressors are used in the 80-125 psig range, and that some are used in the 125-175 psig range; therefore a range of 75-200 psig would include almost all commercially available compressors built today. (EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Jenny Products, No. 0020 at p. 3) CAGI reasoned that package isentropic efficiency is relatively independent of pressure between 75 and 200 psig, and this range represents the largest segment of the industry. (CAGI, No. 0052 at pp. 9-10) CAGI's statement aligns with its comment on the breakdown of output pressures in the rotary compressors market, which was discussed in the NOPR as:

• Approximately 4.4 to 30 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (pressure ratio greater than 1.3 and less than or equal to 3.0): The compressors industry generally refers to these products as blowers—a term DOE is considering defining as part of its fans and blowers rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006). The majority of these units are typically distributed in commerce as bare compressors and do not include a driver, mechanical equipment, or controls.

• 31 to 79 psig (pressure ratio greater than 3.1 and less than or equal to 6.4): There are relatively few compressed air applications in this pressure range, contributing to both low product shipment volume and low annual energy consumption.

• 80 to 139 psig (pressure ratio greater than 6.4 and less than or equal to 10.5): This range represents the majority of general compressed air applications, shipments, and annual energy use.

• 140 to 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 10.5 and less than or equal to 15.6): This range represents certain specialized applications, relatively lower sales volumes and annual energy consumption when compared to the 80 to 139 psig rotary compressor segment.

• Greater than 215 psig (pressure ratio greater than 15.6): This range represents even more specialized applications, which require highly engineered rotary compressors that vary based on each application. 81 FR 31680, 31693 (May 19, 2016).

Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

Sullair commented that isentropic efficiency is independent of pressure across the range of 80-200 psig, which is nearly the same as the 75-200 range suggested by Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Sullivan-Palatek, and by Sullair, itself, indirectly in support of CAGI's comments. (Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 15).

Alternatively, Atlas Copco suggested that 80 to 170 psig (7 to 15 bar) [sic] as range where the dependence of isentropic efficiency on outlet pressure is limited, which is in alignment with the limited pressure range covered by the EU Lot 31 draft regulation. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at pp. 19-20) However, DOE believes that Atlas Copco's unit conversions were inaccurate and thus, the suggested range does not align with the scope proposed in the EU Lot 31 draft regulation. Based these ambiguities, DOE cannot directly consider Atlas Copco's recommendation when considering the range where package isentropic efficiency can be considered independent of full-load operating pressure. For this reason, DOE defers to the recommendation of CAGI, Ingersoll Rand, Sullivan-Palatek, and Sullair, and concludes that package isentropic is relatively independent of full-load operating pressure at full-load operating pressures between 75 and 200 psig.

As a result, in this final rule, DOE is establishing the broadest scope of applicability of standards that is possible, under the current test procedure,

i.e.

a full-load operating pressure of 75 to 200 psig.

6. Lubricant Presence

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to include lubricant-free compressors in the scope of the standards. However, DOE recognized differences in design, efficiency, cost, and utility for lubricant-free compressors when establishing separate equipment classes for compressors based on lubricant presence. 81 FR 31680, 31698 (May 19, 2016). DOE proposed, in the energy conservation standards NOPR, a “new standards at baseline” standard for lubricant-free compressors. This baseline would not have resulted in national energy savings, as reflected in the national impact analysis (“NIA”), but would have prevented potential new, less efficient equipment from the entering the market and potentially

increasing future national energy consumption. 81 FR 31680, 31736.

In the test procedure final rule, DOE excludes lubricant-free compressors from the scope of test procedures based on three general reasons: (1) The lack of applicability of the test method and metric proposed in the test procedure NOPR; (2) the desire to retain the opportunity to harmonize with the European Union regulatory process for the benefit of manufacturers and consumers; and (3) to avoid creating an incentive to substitute unregulated technologies (such as dynamic) for regulated lubricant-free compressors.

Because there is no test procedure for lubricant-free compressors, DOE cannot consider energy conservation standards for this equipment, in this final rule. DOE is making no determination of the technological feasibility or economic justification of potential standards for lubricant-free compressors in this final rule. DOE may evaluate standards for lubricant-free compressors in the future, if an appropriate test procedure can be developed.

Although DOE is unable to consider energy conversation standards for lubricant-free compressors, at this time, the following subsections summarize relevant interested party comments. DOE may consider these comments if it chooses to pursue energy conservations for lubricant-free equipment in the future. In reviewing the comments, DOE observed that comments tended to fall into one of three groups. One group of comments focused on a lack of available performance data to inform the establishment of a standard. A second group focused on a possible unfair advantage conferred to substitute products outside of DOE's scope of standards. The final group of comments focused on the benefits of harmonizing standards with those proposed in the European Union.

Scarcity of Data

In response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE noted that lubricant-free compressors serve specialized applications and are less common, which makes establishing a standard difficult in the absence of data. However, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, and ASE suggested that DOE include lubricant-free compressors within the scope of the final rule, as the data gathered to certify these compressors will provide useful information for future rulemakings. To balance those two considerations, ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP and ASE suggested setting the energy conservation standards for lubricant-free compressors at efficiency level zero. (ASAP, ACEEE, NEEA, NRDC, NEEP, ASE, No. 0060 at p. 4)

Kaeser Compressors and Sullair also commented that there were a limited number of data points available for lubricant-free compressors, with Sullair commenting that there are few manufacturers of this type of equipment that participate in the CAGI Performance Verification Program. Kaeser Compressors further stated that the lack of data makes the regression curves for the efficiency levels look possibly inaccurate toward the lower end of the covered airflow range, and that it preferred to wait until the EU finishes its assessment of lubricant-free compressors. (Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 56-57; Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044 at pp. 31-32)

CAGI commented that DOE should exclude lubricant-free compressors in the scope of the final rule due to the limited compressor performance data available to inform a standard. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 12) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

Substitution Incentive

CAGI commented that DOE should exclude lubricant-free compressors in the scope of the final rule in order to reduce risk of product substitution to unregulated technologies, such as dynamic compressors above a compressor motor nominal horsepower of 150 hp. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 12) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek supported CAGI's comments. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

Harmonization With European Union

Ingersoll Rand commented that DOE should consider waiting to revise the efficiency levels for lubricant-free compressors until the draft EU standards for lubricant-free compressors are published. Ingersoll Rand also stated, however, that it did not oppose efficiency level zero, which DOE proposed in the energy conservation standards NOPR. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 4)

CAGI also commented that DOE should exclude lubricant-free compressors in the scope of the final rule in order to preserve opportunity to align with EU once the EU establishes standards for lubricant-free compressors. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 12) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek supported CAGI's comments. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

Conclusion

As noted earlier in this section, DOE is not adopting standards for lubricant-free compressors because no test procedure exists. DOE is making no determination of the technological feasibility or economic justification of potential standards for lubricant-free compressors in this final rule. DOE may evaluate standards for lubricant-free compressors in a future rule.

7. Water-Injected Compressors

DOE is aware that some compressors inject water into the compression chamber, in place of oil or other lubricants, in order to avoid risk of air contamination and to serve applications that require inherently clean air. In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed to define “lubricated compressor” as “a compressor that introduces an auxiliary substance into the compression chamber during compression” and “auxiliary substance” as “any substance deliberately introduced into a compression process to aid in compression of a gas by any of the following: Lubricating, sealing mechanical clearances, or absorbing heat.” In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE interpreted water to be an auxiliary substance. 81 FR 31680, 31698 (May 19, 2016).

Consequently, water-injected compressors would be classified as lubricated compressors.

This definition was adopted, unchanged, in the test procedure final rule.

In response to the energy conservation standards NOPR, Jenny Products commented that water screw compressors (also known as “water injected compressors”) are quite different from the compressors mentioned in the energy conservation standards NOPR proposal, and that DOE's proposed standard attempt to lump too many compressors into a one size fits all model. (Jenny Products, No. 0058 at p. 2). Sullivan-Palatek also cited water screw compressors as an example

of specialized technology that could be eliminated from the market if grouped with other lubricated compressors. Beyond these comments, DOE did not receive any specific evidence or data supporting the inclusion or exclusion of water-injected compressors.

DOE performed research to better understand water-injected compressor technology and determine whether water-injection both provides consumer utility and inhibits the ability to reach higher efficiency levels.

Water-injected compressors operate similarly to conventional (

i.e.,

oil or synthetic oil) lubricated compressors in that they introduce a liquid into the compression chamber to lubricate moving parts, seal mechanical clearances against the egress of air, and absorb heat. DOE understands the chief consumer utility of using water, in place of an oil- or synthetic oil-based auxiliary substance, is freedom from risk of output air contamination. Failure of a filter or other downstream oil removal apparatus does not permit oil to become present in the delivered air as no oil is present in the system. However, water and vapor are present and require removal. Because of the similar utility of an inherently oil-free process, water-injected compressors more often compete with lubricant-free compressors rather than lubricated compressors.

A limitation of replacing oil with water is that water tends to be more corrosive to many types of metals commonly used to constructed compressors. This is particularly true if the water contains trace quantities of minerals, as does any water drawn from the environment or public water supply. To reduce corrosion, water-injected compressors employ advanced filtration (commonly, reverse osmosis) to create highly purified water for introduction into the compression process. The advanced filtration systems used by water-injected compressors may add nontrivial energy consumption to a compressor package and ultimately reduce efficiency. Reverse osmosis systems typically require creation of large pressure gradients and several stages of filtration. The filtration systems may also contain elements to eliminate biological agents, of particular concern in medical applications.

Even with advanced filtration systems, water-injected compressors may require the use of more corrosion-resistant materials for any componentry downstream of the water injection site. These materials may be less resistant to mechanical deformation and exhibit diminished lifespan relative to conventional construction materials. As a result, designers tend to open mechanical clearances, as compared with conventionally lubricated compressors, in anticipation of mechanical deformation associated with less durable materials used to resist corrosion. Wider clearances allow more air leakage during operation, and ultimately reduce efficiency.

These modifications that alter efficiency—filtration, corrosion-resistant material, altered geometry—are also likely to add cost to a water-injected compressor, relative to a conventionally lubricated compressor of similar specification.

With respect to market share, DOE knows of only three manufacturers currently offering water-injected compressors in the United States market,

and DOE believes that shipments of water-injected compressors are very low, as compared to oil- or synthetic oil-injected compressors. As a result, DOE expects energy savings associated with water-injected compressors to be minimal.

Sullivan-Palatek, Atlas Copco, and CompAir (a brand of Gardner Denver).

In conclusion, DOE's research indicates that water-injected compressors may provide additional end user utility, but with reduced ability to meet higher efficiency levels. As a result, water-injected compressors may warrant a separate equipment class from lubricated compressors. However, because no performance data is available to characterize water-injected compressors, DOE has no basis to establish a standard. As a result, DOE excludes water-injected compressors from the scope of this final rule. To clearly establish what is meant by the term, DOE is adopting a definition in this final rule. “Water-injected compressor” means “a lubricated compressor that uses injected water as an auxiliary substance.”

8. Specialty Purpose Compressors

In the energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE did not explicitly exclude any categories of specialty compressors. DOE made no specific scope exclusion for what the compressor industry refers to as “customized” or “specialty-purpose” compressors. 81 FR 31680, 31690, 31693, 31696 (May 19, 2016). Although specialty compressors were not explicitly excluded, DOE expects that many would be effectively excluded by other scope limitations, including full-load operating pressure, compression principle, variety of gas compressed, capacity, driver variety, and lubricant presence.

DOE received comments with respect to customized and specialty-purpose compressors; generally, many commenters recommended that DOE expressly exclude customized and specialty-purpose compressors from the scope of the test procedure and energy conservation standards. Commenters provided information on what they viewed as customized and specialty-purpose compressors, as well as rationale for their suggestions. In section III.B.8.a, DOE discusses comments related to compliance burden. In sections III.B.8.b through III.B.8.d, DOE summarizes the remaining comments by topic. In section III.B.8.e, DOE provides a response to the comments discussed in sections III.B.8.b through III.B.8.d.

a. Compliance Burden

Atlas Copco and Sullair objected to the inclusion of customized compressors due to the burden of compliance for these low-volume units and noted that the customer modifications affect efficiency. Atlas Copco suggested use of a

de minimis

exception for low-volume compressors that would exclude them from the test procedure and energy conservation standard. (Atlas Copco, No. 0054 at pp. 14-15; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 7)

The DOE test procedure allows manufacturers to use a testing-based sampling plan or AEDMs to determine the performance of a compressor. Manufacturers can use AEDMs to model the performance of compressors with lower sales volumes based on compressors with higher sales volumes, thereby reducing the burden of testing. DOE discusses and estimates all costs related to compliance with this final rule in section IV.J.

b. Limited Data

Jenny Products commented that specialty equipment was not addressed in the energy conservation standards NOPR and that limited data is available for this equipment. (Jenny Products, No. 0058 at p. 2) Sullivan-Palatek argued that specialty compressors rarely publish data sheets, and as a result, that DOE's proposed energy conservation standards do not reflect the existence of specialized compressors. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at pp. 4-5; EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullivan-Palatek, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 115; EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0007 at p. 2)

Similarly, Sullair commented that the data used to form the efficiency levels proposed by DOE does not contain data from custom units and will drop the overall efficiency of the compressor population. (Sullair, Public Meeting

Transcript, No. 0044 at p. 49) Sullair stated that the options for customized compressors (which are more frequently larger air compressors over 200 hp) are modifications that impact the compressor package efficiency but are required by the customer for use in a specific application. (Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 6)

c. Inability To Reach Higher Efficiency Levels

Sullivan-Palatek objected to the inclusion of special, custom, or low-volume models in the scope of energy conservation standards. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 5) Sullivan-Palatek argued that the number of product classes is too limited to reflect the variety of compressed air products, leading to an oversimplified standard that could make specialty products illegal and thus limit the number of configurations that can be offered to customers for hazardous duty or special weather applications. (Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 4) Castair commented that the proposed regulations will limit the customization of compressors for unique applications, which primarily affects small businesses. (Castair, No. 0045 at p. 1; EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Castair, No. 0018 at p. 1)

d. Examples of Specialties

CAGI provided examples of specific specializations, such as hazardous locations, breathing air, marine environments, ambient conditions above 45 degrees C or below 0 degrees C, and weather protection. (CAGI, No. 0052 at p. 8; Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, CAGI, No. 0010, p. 4) Ingersoll Rand, Kaeser Compressors, Mattei Compressors, Sullair, and Sullivan-Palatek commented in support of CAGI's recommendations. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0055 at p. 1; Kaeser Compressors, No. 0053 at p. 1; Mattei Compressors, No. 0063 at p. 2; Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 1; Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0051 at p. 1)

Sullair agreed with CAGI's recommendation and provided additional examples of custom requirements, such as hazardous locations or corrosive environments (such as standards set by Atmosphères Explosibles [“ATEX”],

the American Petroleum Institute [“API”], the Mine Safety and Health Administration [“MSHA”], etc.), marine environments (

e.g.,

American Bureau of Shipping [“ABS”]), alternate cooling methods (remote coolers, water-cooled, closed-loop cooling, etc.), ambient conditions exceeding 45 °C, ambient conditions below 5 °C, energy or heat recovery options, environmental protections (such as standards set by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [“NEMA”], the International Electrotechnical Commission [“IEC”], etc.), and dimensional changes or enclosure modifications. (Sullair, No. 0056 at p. 7; Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullair, No. 0006 at p. 8) Sullair noted that sump heating, extra fans, and special marine applications where motors have to be built for ABS applications may increase energy consumption of the package. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullair, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0016 at p. 113) DOE considered the suggested industry standards in evaluating whether a particular specialty application warranted exclusion from energy conservation standards, and discusses the details in section III.B.8.e.

ATEX is the common industry phrasing for European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/34/EU of 26 February 2014, which governs equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The term “ATEX” is a portmanteau of “atmosphères explosibles”, French for “explosive atmospheres.”

Jenny Products provided examples of specialty applications, such as explosion-proof applications, weather-proof applications, dental applications, and climate-control applications. (Jenny Products, No. 0058 at p. 2)

Sullivan-Palatek commented that compressor products usually start with the basic package, but often substitute nonstandard electric motors, controls or coolers along with adding numerous other options and features specified by the customer or required by the location where the compressor is installed. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Sullivan-Palatek, No. 0007 at p. 2)

Atlas Copco provided examples of custom equipment, including customized liquid cooling systems, drive systems, safety systems, filtration systems, dryers, heaters, and air receiver/surge tanks. Atlas Copco also noted that each type of customization can have a significant impact on the energy efficiency of the total compressor system. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0054, Atlas Copco, No. 0009 at pp. 4-5)

e. Response to Comments

As discussed in the test procedure final rule, DOE incorporates CAGI's recommended list of equipment (with certain modifications) to define the minimum testing configuration for a compressor basic model. Consequently, customized or specialty-purpose equipment that is created by adding additional equipment to what the industry refers to as a standard or basic package compressor, would be tested without the additional equipment, and achieve the same rating as the basic package compressor it was derived from. For this reason, DOE finds no reason to expressly exclude from scope, any compressors that are created by adding additional equipment to the basic testing configuration specified in the test procedure.

Based on DOE's interpretation of interested party comments, two additional concerns remain: (1) Specialty-purpose equipment that is created by

modifying

replacing

equipment on a standard package compressor, and (2) specialty-purpose equipment that is not derivative of other standard equipment. However, DOE notes that interested parties did not provide specific examples of specialty-purpose compressors models (

i.e.,

basic models) that have been distributed into commerce, nor did they provide any direct or quantitative evidence that such compressors consume more energy and are more burdensome to certify than their “general-purpose” counterparts (beyond noting that more models may need to be certified). Regardless, given the interested party concerns, DOE performed research (using interested party comments as a starting point) to determine if any additional scope exclusions are warranted. Specifically, DOE was able to identify 11 applications and feature categories that could possibly be used to characterize specialty-purpose compressors in the compressor industry:

(1) Corrosive Environments

(2) Hazardous Environments

(3) Extreme Temperatures

(4) Marine Environments

(5) Weather-protected

(6) Mining Environments

(7) Military Applications

(8) Food Service Applications

(9) Medical Air Applications (including dental)

(10) Climate-control Applications

(11) Petroleum, Gas, and Chemical Applications

Given the concerns raised by commenters, DOE established three criteria to help determine if exclusions are warranted for each of the aforementioned applications and feature categories. A compressor category must meet all three criteria to be considered for exclusion. The criteria are distinguishability, consumer utility, and material disadvantage.

The first criterion, distinguishability, is that compressors under consideration must be able to be distinguished from general-purpose compressors. In this case, to be distinguishable extends beyond being able to identify any

difference whatsoever. Specifically, distinguishability is determined in the context of the test procedure. DOE's test procedure final rule contains instructions regarding compressor configuration during testing. During a test, only specific, enumerated ancillary equipment is required to be connected to the compressor; manufacturers may remove non-required ancillary equipment if they chose to do so. If the specialized nature of a compressor arises from a non-required component of ancillary equipment, manufacturers have the option to remove its influence on compressor performance. In that scenario, the specialty compressor, from the perspective of the test procedure, has “collapsed” to a general-purpose unit with no remaining distinction. In considering whether a compressor meets the distinguishability criterion, DOE will assess whether the specialized nature of the compressor arises from ancillary equipment or configurations that would vanish under the specific provisions of DOE's test.

As stated previously, DOE is incorporating CAGI's recommended list of equipment (with certain modifications), so the only specialty-purpose compressors that could warrant exclusion are (1) those that are created by modifying or replacing equipment on a standard package compressor, and (2) specialty-purpose equipment that is not derivative of other standard equipment.

The second criterion, consumer utility, is that the specialty compressor must offer clear and unique utility to the end-user. If the specialty compressor can be easily substituted for a general-purpose compressor without significant consequence, unique consumer utility is not supplied. The criterion is also important for ensuring that exclusion would not create a substitution incentive for consumers to switch to non-regulated specialty equipment, as a means to reduce first-cost.

The final criterion, material disadvantage, is that a manufacturer must face greater difficulty, in some regard, in increasing the efficiency of the specialty compressors in question relative to general-purpose compressors. For example, due to extra componentry required to serve a specialty application, a specialty compressor manufacturer may face greater obstacles to improving efficiency than would a general-purpose compressor manufacturer. Alternatively, a compressor may be able to achieve greater efficiency without trouble but create some disproportionate burden to manufacturers, for example in testing or demonstrating compliance.

DOE performed research, using publicly available data, on each of the categories to determine if exclusions are warranted. In the following paragraphs, DOE discusses findings for each of the aforementioned 11 specialty applications.

Corrosive Environments

Corrosive environments can be damaging to both the external components of a compressor and the internal components, if corrosive agents are ingested with the air. DOE's research indicated that corrosive agents are found in wide range of varieties and severities. Certain corrosive agents may harm some materials but not others.

Compressors may be adapted to corrosive environments by using special materials, having special coatings, using additional intake air filtration, or using special or remote enclosures to isolate the compressor from the corrosive environment. However, most requirements for corrosive environments are customer-specific, making it difficult to create a generalized scope exclusion. Some end users also use general-purpose compressors in a corrosive environment, opting to replace the compressor at an earlier interval instead of purchasing a more expensive compressor that can last longer in the corrosive environment.

Based on this information, DOE does not believe that all corrosive environment compressors meet the first criterion of distinguishability; however, certain corrosive environment compressors utilizing special materials and/or coatings may be distinguishable.

DOE did find that certain corrosive environment compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility. Although some consumers opt to simply replace compressors more frequently, this may be impractical in locations for which frequent replacement is impractical (

e.g.,

a remote location) or for which downtime is intolerable. Further, some corrosive agents may significantly accelerate wear. As a result, measures employed to avert corrosive agents or resist their effect can be said to grant utility.

DOE does not find that such compressors meet the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE was unable to find evidence that most compressors suited to corrosive environments would generally face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors. Specifically, DOE was unable to find evidence that identifiable components, such as special materials and coatings, affect efficiency. As a result, DOE does not find sufficient evidence that compressors suited to corrosive environments face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors. Furthermore, DOE found no evidence suggesting corrosive environment compressors would be subject to disproportionate burden in testing or demonstrating compliance.

Because corrosive environment compressors do not meet the criteria of distinguishability and material disadvantage, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Hazardous Environments

Hazardous environments include those in which there is the possibility of combustion or explosion. Compressors may be adapted to hazardous environments through modified electrical components and enclosures that protect against sparks and high temperatures. At least some of these components would need to be included as part of the basic package during testing. Several standards specify the type and level of precautions required for these environments, so certification with one or more of these could be a method for defining the scope of exclusion.

For these reasons, DOE finds that hazardous environment compressors to meet the first criterion of distinguishability. Hazardous environment compressors in the United States are designated as such by independent agencies such as UL, and given a rating that corresponds to the specific attributes of the hazardous environment for which the unit is being certified. Independent agencies, such as UL, certify that compressors are suitable for hazardous environments against the National Electrical Code (“NEC”), which is the common term for the National Fire Protection Association using a system of classes, zones, and groups of hazardous materials for which the equipment is being rated safe. DOE examined standards set by Atmosphères Explosibles [“ATEX”],

but found that this designation is predominantly used in the European market and largely overlaps, in terms of the information it conveys to the consumer, with the NFPA 70 rating system.

DOE also found that hazardous environment compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility. Using non-explosion-safe equipment, in

hazardous environments, can create profound risk to life and property.

However, DOE does not find that hazardous environment compressor meet the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE was unable to find evidence that compressors suited to hazardous environments would face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors. DOE believes that the modified electrical components and enclosures used in hazardous environments have little impact on energy use. Additionally, DOE found no evidence suggesting hazardous environment compressors would be subject to disproportionate burden in testing or demonstrating compliance.

Because hazardous environment compressors do not meet the criterion of material disadvantage, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Extreme Temperatures

CAGI and Sullair identified the need to exclude compressors used in extreme temperatures. (CAGI, No. 0010, p. 4; Sullair, No. 0006 at p. 8) For high extremes, both commenters identified temperatures above 45 °C. For low extremes, Sullair indicated temperatures below 5 °C, while CAGI indicated temperatures below 0 °C. DOE notes that CAGI and Sullair did not present any standardized tests or inspections that might be used to uniformly classify the acceptable temperature range for a compressor.

In the absence of that information, DOE performed research and found neither industry-accepted, standardized test methods to determine allowable operating temperature, nor any industry-accepted certification programs to classify compressors for extreme temperatures. DOE also researched what types of modification and components might be employed to adapt compressors for extremely high- and low-temperature environments. For lower temperatures, a variety of heating devices may be used to heat the compressor package in various ways—such equipment would not be required as a part of test procedure testing configuration and is, therefore, not a distinguishing feature.

In hotter environments, compressors may employ larger output air heat exchangers and associated fans. Unlike package heating and cooling, heat exchangers and fans would necessarily be part of the test configuration. However, manufacturers may employ larger heat exchangers and fans for a variety of reasons,

e.g.,

recovering waste heat for use in space heating. Furthermore, heat exchanger and fan size (as compared to compressor capacity) is not a standardized feature across the compressor industry, with different manufacturers choosing different-sized components to meet their specific design goals. Consequently, DOE is unable to establish a clear threshold to delineate larger heat exchangers and fans employed for high temperature applications. Furthermore, doing so would open a significant circumvention risk, as manufacturers could purposely substitute larger heat exchangers and fans in order to exclude compressors from regulation. For these reasons, DOE concludes that compressors designed for extreme temperature operation are not clearly distinguishable from general-purpose compressors.

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing compressors designed for extreme temperature operation from general-purpose compressors, DOE could not determine whether compressors designed for extreme temperature operation meet the second criterion of consumer utility, or the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE adds that if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor provides clear and unique utility to the end user that a general-purpose compressor would not provide. Similarly, if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor has a material disadvantage compared to a general-purpose compressor. Consequently, DOE is unable to exclude these compressors from the scope of this final rule.

Marine Environments

Marine air compressors are intended for use aboard ships, offshore platforms, and similar environments. In general, DOE found this to be a very broad category of compressors. There are a wide variety of standards for these applications, but many of the requirements are customer-specific, making it difficult to clearly identify the scope for exclusion. Marine compressors may be space constrained if installed on ships. However, this may not always be the case, and some marine environments may be able to utilize general-purpose compressors. Further, DOE found no way to distinguish clearly, from general-purpose compressors, those compressors specifically developed for constrained spaces. DOE's research found that other items, such as saltwater coolers, may be employed with marine air compressors, however, this equipment would not need to be included for testing. For these reasons, DOE does not find marine environment compressors to meet the first criterion of distinguishability.

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing marine environment compressors from general-purpose compressors, DOE could not determine whether marine environment compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility, or the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE adds that if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor provides clear and unique utility to the end user that a general-purpose compressor would not provide. Similarly, if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor has a material disadvantage compared to a general-purpose compressor. Because marine environment compressors do not meet the first criteria for consideration of exclusion, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Weather-Protected

Weather-protected compressors require features to prevent the ingress of water and debris, as well as accommodation for extreme temperatures in some cases. Design accommodations related to extreme temperatures are discussed in that eponymous subsection of III.B.8.e and, therefore, the scope of this section is confined to those design accommodations related to aspects of weather-protection for reasons other than extreme temperature. DOE found that third-party standards exist for ingress protection of the electrical components. However, DOE could find no indication of a standard or certification for other aspects of weather protection, making it difficult to clearly identify a general scope for exclusion for all weather-protected equipment. However, DOE believes that certain weather-protected compressors (

i.e.,

those with electrical components rated for ingress protection) meet the first criterion of distinguishability.

Similarly, DOE believes that certain weather-protected compressors (

i.e.,

those with electrical components rated for ingress protection) meet the second criterion of consumer utility, as such equipment is designed to operate in environments where non-rated equipment cannot.

However, DOE does not find that weather-protected compressors meet the third criterion of material disadvantage. Most weather-protected compressors would generally not face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors. Some components added for weather protection, such as special electrical components, have little impact on energy use. As a result, DOE does not find evidence to suggest that weather-protected compressors face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors. DOE found no evidence suggesting weather-protected compressors would be subject to disproportionate burden in demonstrating compliance.

Because weather-protected compressors do not meet the third criteria for exclusion, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Mining Environments

Mining environments can include both surface and subsurface mine compressor applications. There are some industry standards for these applications, for example those developed by the MSHA. However, DOE did not locate any which could be used to reliably designate compressors for mining environments. Furthermore, many of the design requirements for mining environment compressors are customer-specific, making it difficult to clearly identify the scope for exclusion. Some mining applications also use general-purpose compressors. For this reason, DOE does not find mining environment compressors to meet the first criterion of distinguishability. DOE was not able to determine that compressors for mining environments are always distinguishable from general-purpose compressors. There is no universally recognized designator.

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing mining environment compressors from general-purpose compressors, DOE could not determine whether mining environment compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility, or the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE adds that if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor provides clear and unique utility to the end user that a general-purpose compressor would not provide. Similarly, if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor has a material disadvantage compared to a general-purpose compressor.

Ultimately, because mining environment compressors do not meet the first criteria for consideration of exclusion, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Military Applications

Compressors used in military applications have a wide range of applications. Many military applications use common commercial or industrial compressors. Other military applications, however, must meet extensive customer-specific requirements. These requirements can vary greatly with the customer, and there are no commonly used standards for compressors in military applications. This makes it difficult to clearly identify the scope for exclusion. For this reason, DOE does not find military compressors to meet the first criterion of distinguishability.

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing military compressors from general-purpose compressors, DOE could not determine whether military compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility, or the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE adds that if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor provides clear and unique utility to the end user that a general-purpose compressor would not provide. Similarly, if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor has a material disadvantage compared to a general-purpose compressor.

Ultimately, because military compressors do not meet the first criteria for consideration of exclusion, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Food Service Applications

Food service applications can have requirements for air purity and for the use of food-grade lubricants. Food grade lubricants would need to be included for testing, so at least some compressors designed for food service applications would meet the first criterion of distinguishability.

DOE found that food service application compressors also met the second criterion of consumer utility. Without food grade lubricants, compressors would not be permitted to be used in food processing environments.

DOE does not find that food service application compressors meet the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE found no evidence that food-grade lubricants, would impact efficiency. As a result, DOE does not find evidence to suggest that food service compressors face disproportionate difficulty in reaching the same efficiency levels as general-purpose compressors.

Because food service applications compressors do not meet the third criterion of material disadvantage, DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Medical Air Applications

Medical air applications can have requirements for air purity, which is rated according to ISO 8573-1,

and also included in the National Fire Protection Association Standard for Health Care Facilities (NFPA 99).

DOE notes that most medical air compressors are lubricant-free; as such, any lubricant-free medical air compressors are already excluded from this final rule. In lubricated compressors, high air purity is attained using a combination of filters and dryers added to the system after the compressor. These items are outside the basic compressor package, so a medical air compressor would collapse to a standard basic package for testing. For this reason, DOE does not find medical air application compressors to meet the first criterion of distinguishability.

See:

www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46418.

See:

www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=99.

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing medical air compressors from general-purpose compressors, DOE could not determine whether medical air compressors meet the second criterion of consumer utility, or the third criterion of material disadvantage. DOE adds that if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor provides clear and unique utility to the end user that a general-purpose compressor would not provide. Similarly, if a specialty purpose compressor fails to meet the first criterion of distinguishability, then it is unlikely that the specialty purpose compressor has a material disadvantage compared to a general-purpose compressor.

Ultimately, because medical air compressors do not meet the first criteria for consideration of exclusion,

DOE does not exclude them from the scope of this final rule.

Climate-Control Applications

As noted in section III.B.8.d, Jenny Compressors argued that DOE should exclude climate control compressors. (Jenny Products, No. 0058 at p. 2) DOE reviewed available information for climate-control compressors and found that the most commonly advertised unique feature was an “oil carryover” of less than or equal to 2 parts per million (“ppm”).

DOE knows of one established standard for measurement of air purity, ISO 8573-1.

However, this standard expresses oil content using mg/m

, and would require conversion to ppm.

Gardner Denver:

www.gardnerdenver.com/gdproducts/compressors/reciprocating/climate-control-low-pressure-reciprocating-compressors/#9816.

Quincy:

www.aavsales.com/pdfs/ClimateControl-Quincy.pdf.

Champion:

www.championpneumatic.com/assets/0/176/184/468/488/6ffebc83-bd76-463c-9ebb-bce58e1489d7.pdf.

CPR:

www.cprindustries.com/climate-control-compressors.html.

See:

www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46418.

DOE reviewed compressors that are currently available for sale and marketed for climate-control applications. DOE found that all compressors currently listed as being for “climate-control” are reciprocating compressors. Because reciprocating compressors are not within the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE finds no reason to exclude climate-control compressors from this rulemaking.

Petroleum, Gas, and Chemical Applications

The American Petroleum Institute standard 619, “Rotary-Type Positive-Displacement Compressors for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas Industries,” (API 619)

specifies certain minimum requirements for compressors used in the petroleum, gas, and chemical industry. While API 619 contains many specific design requirements, it also indicates that customers must specify many design requirements themselves. As a result, compressors designed to meet API 619 requirements are not uniform; rather, they are, by definition, customized compressors. In addition to the design requirements, API 619 imposes rigorous testing, data reporting, and data retention requirements on manufacturers. For example, manufacturers are required to perform specific hydrostatic and operational mechanical vibration testing on each individual unit distributed in commerce. Furthermore, manufacturers must retain certain data for at least 20 years, such as certification of materials, test data and results, records of all heat treatment, results of quality control tests and inspections, and details of all repairs. Based on these testing, data reporting, and data retention requirements, DOE concludes that compressors designed and tested to the requirements of API 619 meet the first criterion of distinguishability. Specifically, DOE concludes that any manufacturer claiming a potential exclusion from energy conservation standards would be able to furnish test data proving that the compressor was designed and tested to API 619 (and associated customer-specific) requirements.

Available for purchase at:

www.techstreet.com/standards/api-std-619?product_id=1757746.

Based on DOE's assessment of API 619, DOE believes that the minimum design and testing requirements specified in API 619 are created to achieve, among other goals, safety and reliability in the petroleum, gas, and chemi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.