This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

19913 

Vol. 76, No. 69 

Monday, April 11, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0010] 

Compliance Testing Procedures: 

Correction Factor for Room Air 

Conditioners 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision on petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2010, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) received a 

petition for rulemaking from the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM). The petition 

requests the initiation of a rulemaking 

regarding compliance testing procedures 

for room air conditioners. The petition 

seeks temporary enforcement 

forbearance, or in the alternative, a 

temporary, industry-wide waiver or 

guidance, to allow the use of a data 

correction factor in compliance testing 

procedures for room air conditioners. In 

this document, DOE denies the petition 

as moot because the amended test 

procedure for room air conditioners and 

clothes dryers incorporates use of the 

correction factor requested in the 

AHAM petition. 

DATES: The petition is denied as of April 

11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

all materials related to this petition and 

the test procedure rulemaking for room 

air conditioners and clothes dryers at 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 

600, Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121, (202) 

586–6590, e-mail: 

ashley.armstong@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other 

things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an 

interested person the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). Pursuant to 

this provision of the APA, AHAM 

petitioned the Department of Energy for 

the issuance of a new rule to allow 

manufacturers of room air conditioners 

to use a correction factor that was not 

included in the regulations governing 

DOE’s compliance testing procedures at 

that time. The petition also sought 

temporary enforcement forbearance, or a 

temporary industry-wide waiver or 

guidance, to allow use of this 

methodology. DOE published the 

petition for public comment until 

December 27, 2010, seeking views on 

whether it should grant the petition and 

undertake a rulemaking to consider the 

proposal contained in the petition. (75 

FR 72739, Nov. 26, 2010). 

In addition to a comment from AHAM 

reiterating support for their petition, 

DOE received a jointly filed comment 

from the Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project (ASAP) and Earth 

Justice regarding AHAM’s petition. 

ASAP and Earth Justice were concerned 

that the correction factor is not 

appropriate and may not have a sound 

technical basis. ASAP and Earth Justice 

stated that the cooling capacity of a 

room air conditioner may actually be 

higher rather than lower when 

barometric pressure is lower than 

standard pressure (due to greater 

moisture content in the air, which 

generally increases latent heat removal). 

As a result, the correction factor, which 

adjusts the measured capacity upwards 

when barometric pressure for the test is 

lower than standard pressure, may 

actually correct the capacity in the 

wrong direction. ASAP and Earth 

Justice also commented that the 

correction factor referenced in AHAM’s 

petition applies to test room conditions 

only where the barometric pressure is 

lower than standard pressure, but that it 

would seem appropriate that the 

correction factor should account for any 

deviation from standard barometric 

pressure regardless of the direction (i.e., 

both higher and lower). (ASAP and 

Earth Justice, No. 42 at pp. 1–2) 

ASAP and Earth Justice indicated 

their understanding that in the latest 

revision of ASHRAE Standard 37 

(which applies to central air 

conditioners), the correction factor was 

removed when the committee could not 

find any reference as to where the 

correction factor originated or data 

demonstrating the problem of 

barometric pressure variation and how 

this problem could be addressed. ASAP 

and Earth Justice stated their 

understanding that the correction factor 

will be removed in the next revision of 

ASHRAE Standard 16. ASAP and Earth 

Justice also stated that DOE should fully 

investigate the issue in the test 

procedure rulemaking, which was 

ongoing at the time the comment was 

submitted, to ensure that the correction 

factor appropriately reflects the 

relationship between barometric 

pressure and measured total capacity. 

(ASAP and Earth Justice, No. 42 at pp. 

1–2) 

ASAP and Earth Justice commented 

that any use of a correction factor is 

contrary to DOE’s regulations for room 

air conditioners to meet specific Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER) levels as 

prescribed under 10 CFR 430.23(f)(2) 

and 430.32(b), and determined in 

accordance with ASHRAE Standard 16– 

69. ASHRAE Standard 16–69 does not 

contain a correction factor to adjust the 

tested unit’s capacity to a standard 

barometric pressure. Further, ASAP and 

Earth Justice stated that any deviation 

from DOE’s test procedure regulations 

negates the effect of any demonstration 

of compliance with the applicable room 

air conditioner standards. (ASAP and 

Earth Justice, No. 42 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the removal of the 

correction factor in ASHRAE Standard 

37 (which applies to central air 

conditioners) does not indicate that its 

use is inappropriate in ASHRAE 

Standard 16, which is used for rating of 

room air conditioners. Room air 

conditioners operate with a ‘‘wet’’ 

condenser in rating test conditions, 

because room air conditioners use the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
19914 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

condensate from the evaporator side of 

the product to enhance performance of 

the condenser. Central air conditioners, 

which are covered under ASHRAE 

Standard 37, generally do not have this 

feature and operate primarily with dry 

condensers. DOE notes that changes in 

the barometric pressure have an impact 

on the moist air conditions, and this 

may affect room air conditioner 

performance differently than it would 

affect central air conditioners because of 

the difference in condenser operation. 

This factor could lead to different 

efficiency measurement impacts of 

barometric pressure for these two types 

of products. DOE has not received any 

information from ASHRAE indicating 

that ASHRAE is considering revisions to 

Standard 16 at this time. 

DOE also received additional 

information from AHAM supporting the 

inclusion of the barometric pressure 

correction factor in the calculation of 

cooling capacity from ASHRAE 

Standard 16. AHAM indicated that as 

atmospheric pressure drops, so does the 

air density and, therefore, the mass of 

air in a room. As atmospheric pressure 

drops, the efficiency of a unit would 

also drop because there would be less 

medium for heat transfer. ‘‘The 

performance of the cooling coil is 

considerably influenced, and the 

cooling capacity of the air supplied to 

the conditioned room is reduced, by 

altitude effects because air density 

reduces * * *. Air mass flow rate is 

probably the most important effect of 

barometric pressure changes upon 

system performance. It is the air mass 

flow rate that transfers heat between 

cooler coils or condensers and 

airstreams and removes the sensible and 

latent heat gains from the conditioned 

space. Therefore, it is of vital 

importance that the correct air density 

or specific volume be used in 

calculations.’’ (William Peter Jones, Air 

Conditioning Applications and Design, 

32 (2d Ed. 1997)). AHAM indicated that 

because barometric pressure is 

connected to the measured efficiency of 

the unit, multiple tests of the same unit, 

under slightly different barometric 

pressure conditions, will likely produce 

different results. 

AHAM also provided data from a 

room air conditioner performance 

simulation using IMST–ART version 

3.30 modeling software of five 

simulations, in each case progressively 

reducing the barometric pressure inputs 

by 1 in. Hg starting from standard 

barometric pressure (29.92 in. Hg). The 

results from this simulation, presented 

below in Table 1, show that the cooling 

capacity decreases as atmospheric 

pressure decreases. 

TABLE 1—AHAM ROOM AIR CONDITIONER PERFORMANCE SIMULATION DATA

1. Units 2. Case 1 3. Case 2 4. Case 3 5. Case 4 6. Case 5 

Evaporator Inlet Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure 

Inputs).

psia ....................... 14.695 14.204 13.713 13.222 12.731 

Condenser Inlet Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure 

Inputs).

psia ....................... 14.695 14.204 13.713 13.222 12.731 

Condensation Temp. ............................................ °F .......................... 122.21 122.65 123.12 123.62 124.15 

Evaporation Temp. ............................................... °F .......................... 47.867 47.689 47.511 47.33 47.144 

Condensation Press. ............................................ psia ....................... 446.62 449.1 451.8 454.7 457.8 

Evaporation Press. ............................................... psia ....................... 151.96 151.53 151.09 150.64 150.18 

EER Fan/Pump Included ...................................... ............................... 11 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.4 

Cooling Capacity .................................................. Btu/h ..................... 11,740 11,670 11,590 11,500 11,420 

Refrigerant ............................................................ ............................... R410A R410A R410A R410A R410A 

DOE recently published a final rule to 

amend the test procedure for room air 

conditioners and clothes dryers. (75 FR 

972, Jan. 6, 2011). In the final rule, DOE 

noted that section 6.1.3 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 2009) 

introduces a correction factor based on 

the test room condition’s deviation from 

the standard barometric pressure of 

29.92 inches (in.) of mercury (Hg) (101 

kilopascal (kPa)). Section 6.1.3 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 2009) 

states that the cooling capacity may be 

increased 0.8 percent for each in. of Hg 

below 29.92 in. of Hg (0.24 percent for 

each kPa below 101 kPa). For the 

reasons stated in the final rule, DOE 

amended the DOE test procedure to 

reference the relevant section of the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard and include 

use of the barometric pressure 

correction factor. 

The amended test procedure was 

effective February 7, 2011 and applies 

prospectively. DOE notes that the 

Administrative Procedure Act defines a 

rule as being prospective in nature. 5 

U.S.C. 551(4) (‘‘ ‘rule’ means the whole 

or a part of an agency statement of 

general or particular applicability and 

future effect * * *’’) In addition, the 

Supreme Court has stated that absent 

express statutory authority, agencies 

cannot promulgate retroactive rules. See 

Bowen v. Georgetown University 

Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988). The 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 

1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq., does not authorize DOE to specify 

retroactive application of any portion of 

the test procedure in a test procedure 

rulemaking. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

denies AHAM’s petition as moot. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4, 

2010. 

Sean A. Lev, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8588 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1224 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0019] 

Safety Standard for Portable Bed Rails: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 104(b) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) requires the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or ‘‘we’’) to 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is 

proposing a more stringent safety 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS