5560 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017] 

RIN 1904–AD92 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion 

Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to 

establish new energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifying directexpansion dedicated outdoor air 

systems (DX–DOASes) that are of 

equivalent stringency as the minimum 

levels specified in the amended 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 90.1 

‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’ 

(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1’’) when tested 

pursuant to the most recent applicable 

industry standard for this equipment. 

DOE has preliminarily determined that 

it lacks clear and convincing evidence 

to adopt standards more stringent than 

the levels specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. DOE also announces a 

public meeting via webinar to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

via webinar on Monday, February 28, 

2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See 

section VIII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions and information 

about the capabilities available to 

webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than April 

4, 2022. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before 

March 3, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to CommACHeating

EquipCat2017STD0017@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0017 in the subject line of the 

message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VIII of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing corona virus 2019 (COVID– 

19) pandemic. DOE is currently 

suspending receipt of public comments 

via postal mail and hand delivery/ 

courier. If a commenter finds that this 

change poses an undue hardship, please 

contact Appliance Standards Program 

staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the 

need for alternative arrangements. Once 

the COVID–19 pandemic health 

emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 

resuming all of its regular options for 

public comment submission, including 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, 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/EERE2017-BT-STD-0017. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

VIII for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy following the instructions at 

www.reginfo.gov. 

EPCA requires the Attorney General 

to provide DOE a written determination 

of whether the proposed standard is 

likely to lessen competition. The U.S. 

Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

invites input from market participants 

and other interested persons with views 

on the likely competitive impact of the 

proposed standard. Interested persons 

may contact the Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2555. Email: 

Matthew.Ring@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public webinar, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standards into part 

429: 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

920–2020 (I–P), ‘‘2020 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Direct ExpansionDedicated Outdoor Air System Units,’’ 

approved February 4, 2020. 

American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/AHRI Standard 1060– 

2018, ‘‘2018 Standard for Performance 

Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers for 

Energy Recovery Ventilation 

Equipment,’’ approved 2018. 

Copies of AHRI Standard 920–2020 

(I–P), and ANSI/AHRI Standard 1060– 

2018 can be obtained from the Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, 

Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or 

online at: www.ahrinet.org. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section VII.L of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency 

Levels for DX–DOASes 

2. Update to the Industry Metric 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DX–DOASes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5561 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

3AHRI 920–2015 additionally references 

ASHRAE Standard 198–2013, ‘‘Method of Test for 

Rating DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for 

Moisture Removal Capacity and Moisture Removal 

Efficiency’’ (ASHRAE Standard 198–2013), as the 

method of test for DX–DOAS units. 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. Equipment Classes 

C. Test Procedure 

D. Considerations for Energy Conservation 

Standards 

1. Technological Feasibility 

a. General 

b. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

2. Significant Additional Conservation of 

Energy 

3. Economic Justification 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

IV. Crosswalk Analysis 

A. Overview 

B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk 

1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test 

Procedure Changes 

2. Technical Analysis 

C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk 

1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure 

Changes 

2. Technical Analysis 

D. Crosswalked Standard Levels 

V. Conclusions 

A. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

B. Consideration of More Stringent 

Efficiency Levels 

VI. Representations, Certification and 

Compliance Requirements 

A. Representations 

B. Certification and Enforcement 

Provisions 

1. Scope 

2. Equipment Selection and Sampling Plan 

3. Certification Requirements 

4. Enforcement Provisions 

C. Compliance Dates 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. 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 Executive Order 12630 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

J. Information Quality 

K. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

L. Description of Materials Incorporated by 

Reference 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended 

(EPCA),2 established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317) Such equipment includes 

dehumidifying direct-expansion 

dedicated outdoor air systems (DX– 

DOASes), the subject of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

EPCA requires DOE to amend the 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standard for certain types of listed 

commercial and industrial equipment 

(generally, commercial water heaters, 

commercial packaged boilers, 

commercial air-conditioning and 

heating equipment, and packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 is amended with respect to such 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For 

each type of equipment, EPCA directs 

that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended, DOE must adopt amended 

energy conservation standards at the 

updated efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a more 

stringent efficiency level as a national 

standard would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

If DOE adopts as a uniform national 

standard the efficiency levels specified 

in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

DOE must establish such standard not 

later than 18 months after publication of 

the amended industry standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE 

determines that a more-stringent 

standard is appropriate under the 

statutory criteria, DOE must establish 

such more-stringent standard not later 

than 30 months after publication of the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) 

ASHRAE officially released the 2016 

edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016) on 

October 26, 2016, which for the first 

time created separate equipment classes 

for DX–DOASes with corresponding 

standards, thereby triggering DOE’s 

above referenced obligations pursuant to 

EPCA to either: (1) Establish uniform 

national standards for DX–DOASes at 

the minimum levels specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1; or (2) 

adopt more stringent standards based on 

clear and convincing evidence that 

adoption of such standards would 

produce significant additional energy 

savings and be technologically feasible 

and economically justified. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 set minimum 

efficiency levels using the integrated 

seasonal moisture removal efficiency 

(ISMRE) metric for all DOAS classes and 

the integrated seasonal coefficient of 

performance (ISCOP) metric for airsource heat pump and water-source heat 

pump DOAS classes. ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 specifies that both metrics 

are measured in accordance with Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) Standard 920–2015, 

‘‘Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated 

Outdoor Air System Units’’ (AHRI 920– 

2015).3 Subsequently, AHRI took to 

revise AHRI 920. 

In October 2019, ASHRAE officially 

released the 2019 edition of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019). ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not 

update the energy efficiency levels for 

DX–DOASes established in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016. On February 4, 

2020 AHRI officially released the 2020 

edition of AHRI 920 (AHRI 920–2020), 

which addresses a number of issues 

with the prior test procedure and 

provides an updated ISMRE metric (i.e., 

ISMRE2) and an updated ISCOP metric 

(i.e., ISCOP2). 

In accordance with the EPCA 

provisions discussed, DOE proposes 

new energy conservation standards for 

DX–DOASes. The proposed standards, 

which are expressed in terms of ISMRE2 

for all DX–DOAS classes in 

dehumidification mode, and ISCOP2 for 

heat pump DX–DOAS classes in heating 

mode, are shown in Table I.1. DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed standards, which are 

expressed in terms of ISMRE2 and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5562 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

ISCOP2, are of equivalent stringency as 

the standards in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 (and ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019), which are expressed in 

terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. DOE 

proposes that the standards, if adopted, 

would apply to all DX–DOASes listed in 

Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported 

into, the United States starting on the 

date 18 months following the effective 

date of a final rule adopting such 

standards. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DX–DOASES

Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level 

Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air 

systems.

(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery 

systems.

ISMRE2 = 3.8. 

(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 5.0. 

(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation 

energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05. 

(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20. 

(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 4.7. 

(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 5.1. 

(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13. 

(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with 

ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04. 

DOE has tentatively determined that, 

based on the information presented and 

its analyses, there is not clear and 

convincing evidence that more stringent 

efficiency levels for this equipment 

would result in a significant additional 

amount of energy savings, is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Clear and 

convincing evidence would exist only 

where the specific facts and data made 

available to DOE regarding a particular 

ASHRAE amendment demonstrates that 

there is no substantial doubt that a 

standard more stringent than that 

contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

amendment is permitted because it 

would result in a significant additional 

amount of energy savings, is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE normally 

performs multiple in-depth analyses to 

determine whether there is clear and 

convincing evidence to support more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

(i.e., whether more stringent standards 

would produce significant additional 

conservation of energy and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified). However, as 

discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a., 

III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a., and III.D.3.b of this 

NOPR, due to the lack of available 

market and performance data, DOE is 

unable to conduct the analysis 

necessary to evaluate the potential 

energy savings or evaluate whether 

more stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As 

such, DOE is not proposing standards at 

levels more stringent than those 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016 (and ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019). 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for DX–DOASes. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

Small, large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. As discussed in the 

following section, this includes Unitary 

DOASes and, more specifically, 

dehumidifying Unitary DOASes, which 

are the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(B)–(D)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Additionally, DOE is to consider 

amending the energy efficiency 

standards for certain types of 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

document, whenever ASHRAE amends 

the standard levels or design 

requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1, and at a minimum, 

every six 6 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)) 

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. 6314) Manufacturers 

of covered equipment must use the 

Federal test procedures as the basis for: 

(1) Certifying to DOE that their 

equipment complies with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 

U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). 

Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5563 

4EPCA further classifies ‘‘commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ into 

categories based on cooling capacity (i.e., small, 

large, and very large categories). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small commercial 

package air conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per hour 

(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 

431.92) ‘‘Large commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means equipment rated: (i) 

At or above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 

240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu 

per hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu per hour 

(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 

431.92) DOE generally refers to these broad 

classifications as ‘‘equipment types.’’ 

5See American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings 

Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.’’ 

6Other types of dedicated outdoor air systems are 

available that do not utilize direct expansion (e.g., 

units that use chilled water, rather than refrigerant, 

as the heat transfer medium). 

7 In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 

refers to Unitary DOASes and DX–DOASes as DX– 

DOASes and DDX–DOASes, respectively. DOE has 

recently published a supplemental test procedure 

NOPR, in which DOE proposes to use the Unitary 

DOAS and DX–DOAS terminology. This NOPR uses 

the Unitary DOAS and DX–DOAS terminology, 

which is consistent with the supplemental test 

procedure NOPR. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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 EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(b)(2)(D)) 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry 

energy efficiency levels for small, large, 

and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment, 

packaged terminal air conditioners, 

packaged terminal heat pumps, warm 

air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage 

water heaters, instantaneous water 

heaters, and unfired hot water storage 

tanks (collectively ‘‘ASHRAE 

equipment’’). For each type of listed 

equipment, EPCA directs that if 

ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE 

must adopt amended standards at the 

new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless 

DOE determines, supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that adoption of a 

more stringent level would produce 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

In deciding whether a more-stringent 

standard is economically justified, 

under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), 

DOE must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the maximum extent 

practicable, the following seven 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 (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) 

In relevant part, subparagraph (B) 

specifies that: (1) In making a 

determination of economic justification, 

DOE must consider, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the benefits and 

burdens of an amended standard based 

on the seven criteria described in EPCA; 

(2) DOE may not prescribe any standard 

that increases the energy use or 

decreases the energy efficiency of a 

covered product; and (3) DOE may not 

prescribe any standard that interested 

persons have established by a 

preponderance of evidence is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States of any 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. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)–(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))) 

Unitary DOASes (and DX–DOASes) 

had not previously been addressed in 

DOE rulemakings and are not currently 

subject to Federal test procedures or 

energy conservation standards. 

B. Background 

EPCA defines ‘‘commercial package 

air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ as air-cooled, water-cooled, 

evaporatively-cooled, or water source 

(not including ground water source) 

electrically operated, unitary central air 

conditioners and central air 

conditioning heat pumps for 

commercial application.4 (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) Industry 

standards generally describe unitary 

central air conditioning equipment as 

one or more factory-made assemblies 

that normally include an evaporator or 

cooling coil and a compressor and 

condenser combination. Units equipped 

to also perform a heating function are 

included as well.5 Unitary DOASes 

provide conditioning of outdoor 

ventilation air using a refrigeration cycle 

(which normally consists of a 

compressor, condenser, expansion 

valve, and evaporator),6 and therefore, 

DOE has initially concluded that 

Unitary DOASes are a category of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment subject to EPCA. 

From a functional perspective, 

Unitary DOASes operate similarly to 

other categories of commercial package 

air conditioning and heat pump 

equipment, in that they provide 

conditioning using a refrigeration cycle. 

Unitary DOASes provide ventilation 

and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor 

air to the conditioned space, whereas for 

typical commercial package air 

conditioners that are central air 

conditioners, outdoor air makes up only 

a small portion of the total airflow 

(usually less than 50 percent). Unitary 

DOASes are typically installed in 

addition to a local, primary cooling or 

heating system (e.g., commercial unitary 

air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow 

system, chilled water system, watersource heat pumps)—the Unitary DOAS 

conditions the outdoor ventilation air, 

while the primary system provides 

cooling or heating to balance building 

shell and interior loads and solar heat 

gain. 

An industry consensus test standard 

has been established for a subset of 

Unitary DOASes, dehumidifying 

Unitary DOASes (DX–DOASes). On July 

7, 2021, DOE published a NOPR 

proposing definitions, a new Federal 

test procedure, energy efficiency 

metrics, and representation 

requirements for DX–DOASes 7 (the 

‘‘July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR’’). 86 

FR 36018. 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency 

Levels for DX–DOASes 

As first established in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 specifies 14 separate 

equipment classes for DX–DOASes and 

sets minimum efficiency levels using 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5564 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8TMY stands for ‘‘typical meteorological year’’ 

and is a widely used type of data available through 

the National Solar Radiation Database. TMYs 

contain one year of hourly data that best represents 

median weather conditions over a multiyear period. 

The datasets have been updated occasionally, thus 

TMY, TMY2, and TMY3 data are available. See 

nsrdb.nrel.gov/about/tmy.html (last accessed April 

28, 2021). 

9The September 2019 NODA/RFI also requested 

comment and data regarding standards for 

computer room air conditioners, which are being 

addressed in a separate rulemaking. 

the integrated seasonal moisture 

removal efficiency (ISMRE) metric for 

all DX–DOAS classes and also the 

integrated seasonal coefficient of 

performance (ISCOP) metric for airsource heat pump and water-source heat 

pump DX–DOAS classes. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 specifies that both 

metrics are to be measured in 

accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard 

920–2015, ‘‘Performance Rating of DXDedicated Outdoor Air System Units’’ 

(ANSI/AHRI 920–2015). ANSI/AHRI 

920–2015 specifies the method for 

testing DX–DOASes, in part, through a 

reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

198–2013, ‘‘Method of Test for Rating 

DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for 

Moisture Removal Capacity and 

Moisture Removal Efficiency’’ (ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 198–2013). The energy 

efficiency standards specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are based on 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 198–2013, and these standards 

are shown in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1 EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR DX–DOASES

Equipment class Energy efficiency levels 

Air-cooled: Without energy recovery ............................................................................................................ 4.0 ISMRE. 

Air-cooled: With energy recovery ................................................................................................................. 5.2 ISMRE. 

Air-source heat pumps: Without energy recovery ........................................................................................ 4.0 ISMRE, 2.7 ISCOP. 

Air-source heat pumps: With energy recovery ............................................................................................. 5.2 ISMRE, 3.3 ISCOP. 

Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, without energy recovery .................................................... 4.9 ISMRE. 

Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, with energy recovery ......................................................... 5.3 ISMRE. 

Water-cooled: Chilled water, without energy recovery ................................................................................. 6.0 ISMRE. 

Water-cooled: Chilled water, with energy recovery ...................................................................................... 6.6 ISMRE. 

Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed loop, without energy recovery ..................................... 4.8 ISMRE, 2.0 ISCOP. 

Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed loop, with energy recovery .......................................... 5.2 ISMRE, 3.8 ISCOP. 

Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, without energy recovery ............................................... 5.0 ISMRE, 3.2 ISCOP. 

Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, with energy recovery .................................................... 5.8 ISMRE, 4.0 ISCOP. 

Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without energy recovery ............................................................ 4.0 ISMRE, 3.5 ISCOP. 

Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with energy recovery ................................................................. 4.8 ISMRE, 4.8 ISCOP. 

2. Update to the Industry Metric 

As discussed in the July 2021 Test 

Procedure NOPR, AHRI revised AHRI 

920 and published an updated version 

on February 4, 2020, AHRI Standard 

920–2020 (I–P), ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Direct Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air 

System Units’’ (AHRI 920–2020). 86 FR 

36018, 36026. The updates to AHRI 920 

include certain revised test conditions 

and weighting factors for ISMRE and 

ISCOP, which were redesignated as 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, respectively. 

These revisions result in the ISMRE2 

and ISCOP2 metrics that more 

accurately reflect the actual energy use 

for DX–DOASes, improve the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test methods, and also reduce testing 

burden compared to ISMRE and ISCOP. 

For example, the revised weighting 

factors reflect the number of hours per 

year for each test condition, and the 

revised test conditions are based on 

weather data from Typical 

Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2) 8

provided by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. 86 FR 36018, 36029. 

A detailed discussion of the summary of 

the AHRI 920 updates is provide in the 

July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR 

36018, 36026–36027. 

The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

proposes to add a new appendix B to 

subpart F of part 431, titled ‘‘Uniform 

test method for measuring the energy 

consumption of dehumidifying direct 

expansion-dedicated outdoor air 

systems,’’ that would include the new 

test procedure requirements for DX– 

DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The 

proposed appendix B test procedure for 

DX–DOASes incorporates by reference 

AHRI Standard 920–2020, the most 

recent version of the test procedure 

recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

for DX–DOASes, and the relevant 

industry standards referenced therein. 

Id. 

The amendments adopted in AHRI 

920–2020 result in changes to the 

measured efficiency metrics as 

compared to the results under ANSI/ 

AHRI 920–2015, which as noted above, 

is the test procedure used to measure 

DX–DOAS efficiency levels in Standard 

90.1–2016 and 90.1–2019. In the July 

2021 Test Procedure NOPR DOE noted 

that it will address any potential 

differences in the measured energy 

efficiency under the most recent 

industry test procedure as compared to 

the industry test procedure on which 

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels are 

based at such time as DOE evaluates the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for DX– 

DOASes (i.e., by developing an 

appropriate ‘‘crosswalk’’, as necessary). 

86 FR 36018, 36027. 

Accordingly, because the measured 

energy efficiency metrics in the July 

2021 Test Procedure NOPR are different 

from those used by the ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019, DOE has developed a crosswalk 

analysis for these proposed standards, 

which translates the existing ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 ISMRE and ISCOP 

standards to the new metrics proposed 

in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 

The crosswalk analysis is discussed in 

detail in section IV of this document. 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

DX–DOASes 

On September 11, 2019—prior to the 

publication of AHRI 920–2020 and the 

July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the updated AHRI 920–2020—DOE 

published an analysis of new industry 

standards for DX–DOASes in a notice of 

data availability and request for 

information (the September 2019 

NODA/RFI).9 84 FR 48006. The 

September 2019 NODA/RFI solicited 

information from the public to help 

DOE determine whether new standards 

for DX–DOASes at levels more stringent 

than specified in ASHRAE Standards 

90.1 would result in significant energy 

savings and whether such standards 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. The September 

2019 NODA/RFI also presented 

incremental efficiency levels for airVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Jan 31, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM 01FEP2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5565 

10The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for DX–DOASes. (Docket No. EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0017, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

11The September 2019 NODA/RFI used the term 

‘‘DOAS’’. See generally 84 FR 48006. 

cooled DX–DOASes (based on the 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 metrics, ISMRE 

and ISCOP) and annual unit energy 

consumption estimates for these levels. 

DOE received five comments relevant 

to DX–DOASes in response to the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI from the 

interested parties listed in Table II.2. 

TABLE II.2—SEPTEMBER 2019 NODA/RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Reference in this 

NOPR Commenter type 

7 AC Technologies ....................................................................................................................... 7AC ............................. Manufacturer. 

Air-conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute ...................................................................... AHRI ........................... Trade Association. 

Ingersoll Rand Trane .................................................................................................................... Trane ........................... Manufacturer. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Diego Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison ..... CA IOUs ...................... Utilities. 

Pano Koutrouvelis ........................................................................................................................ DU ............................... Individual. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.10

C. Timing of ASHRAE Test Procedures 

and Appendix A 

Section 8(d) of 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’) 

establishes a general principal that new 

test procedures and amended test 

procedures that impact measured energy 

use or efficiency should be finalized 

prior to the close of the comment period 

for a NOPR proposing new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also noted, however, that a one-size-fitsall requirement to finalize new or 

amended test procedures a set number 

of days before issuing a proposed 

standard does not allow DOE to account 

for the particular circumstances of a 

rulemaking and may result in 

unnecessary delays. 86 FR 70920. In this 

instance, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 (i.e., the 

standard which triggered DOE to 

establish uniform national standards for 

DX–DOASes) was published over six 

years ago, however EPCA requires DOE 

to establish such standards no later than 

18 months following the publication of 

ASHRAE 90.1–2016. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) DOE is proposing 

energy conservation standards for DX– 

DOASes before the current test 

procedure rule is finalized to accelerate 

DOE’s efforts to meet its EPCA 

obligation to establish energy 

conservation standards. In addition, 

DOE notes that DOE has proposed in the 

July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 920– 

2020, which was published roughly two 

years ago. Given DOE’s obligation to 

adopt the relevant industry test 

procedure unless DOE determines, 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that it does not produce 

results which reflect energy use during 

a representative average use cycle or is 

unduly burdensome to conduct (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2–4)), stakeholders 

would have had a reasonable level of 

confidence of the test procedure DOE 

would use as the basis of the proposed 

efficiency levels, and finalization of the 

test procedure rulemaking is unlikely to 

affect that understanding. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposal after 

considering oral and written comments, 

data, and information from interested 

parties that represent a variety of 

interests. The following discussion 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. Scope of Coverage 

As discussed in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI, the inclusion of energy 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 for DX–DOASes 11 triggered 

DOE to consider energy conservation 

standards for this type of equipment. 84 

FR 48006, 48010. 

As discussed in the July 2021 Test 

Procedure NOPR, Unitary DOASes meet 

the EPCA definition for ‘‘commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment,’’ and, thus, are to be 

considered as a category of that covered 

equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)), and 

the upper capacity limit of commercial 

package air conditioning subject to the 

DOE test procedures is 760,000 Btu per 

hour, based on the definition of ‘‘very 

large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) 86 FR 36018, 

36023–36024. In response to the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI 

commented that it supported a 

maximum capacity for regulated 

products that is equivalent to 760,000 

Btu per hour at Standard Rating 

Condition A in AHRI 920. (AHRI, No. 7, 

p. 9) In the July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR DOE noted that for DX–DOASes, 

AHRI 920–2020 does not provide a 

method for determining capacity in 

terms of Btu per hour, but instead, it 

specifies a determination of capacity in 

terms of moisture removal capacity 

(MRC). 86 FR 36018, 36024. DOE is 

proposing to translate the upper 

capacity for coverage of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

units established in EPCA (i.e., 760,000 

Btu per hour) from Btu per hour to MRC 

for DX–DOASes. Id. The equivalent 

upper capacity limit proposed for DX– 

DOASes is 324 lbs moisture/hr at 

Standard Rating Condition A in AHRI 

920. Id. 

In this NOPR DOE proposes that the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

would apply to DX–DOASes with an 

MRC less than or equal to 324 lbs 

moisture/hr. This scope of coverage 

would be consistent with the definitions 

of ‘‘Unitary DOAS’’ and ‘‘DX–DOAS’’ 

proposed in the July 2021 Test 

Procedure NOPR: 

(1) ‘‘Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor 

air system, or Unitary DOAS, means a 

category of small, large, or very large 

commercial package air-conditioning and 

heating equipment which is capable of 

providing ventilation and conditioning of 

100-percent outdoor air or marketed in 

materials (including but not limited to, 

specification sheets, insert sheets, and online 

materials) as having such capability’’ and 

(2) ‘‘Dehumidifying direct expansiondedicated outdoor air system, or DX–DOAS, 

means a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor 

air system that is capable of dehumidifying 

air to a 55 °F dew point—when operating 

under Standard Rating Condition A as 

specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of AHRI 920– 

2020 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.95) 

with a barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg— 

for any part of the range of airflow rates 

advertised in manufacturer materials, and 

has a moisture removal capacity of less than 

324 lb/h.’’ 

86 FR 36018, 36057. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5566 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12Tables 6.8.1–13 and 6.8.1–14 of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 indicates that it provides 

minimum efficiency levels for ‘‘Electrically 

Operated DX–DOAS Units, Single-Package and 

Remote Condenser.’’ 

The CA IOUs requested that DOE 

clarify whether split-system DX– 

DOASes (with remote condenser units) 

are included within the scope of 

coverage, stating that AHRI 920 applies 

to both ‘‘single package’’ and ‘‘remote 

condenser’’ DX–DOASes. (CA IOUs, No. 

6, p. 4) DOE is proposing to include 

split-system DX–DOASes within the 

scope of coverage, consistent with the 

scope of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

minimum efficiency levels 12 for DX– 

DOASes and AHRI 920–2020. Just as 

split systems are included in the scope 

of other categories of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (e.g., computer room air 

conditioners, variable-refrigerant flow 

multi-split systems) DOE is proposing to 

include them in the scope for DX– 

DOASes. (See, for example, the 

definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air 

Conditioner’’ and ‘‘Variable Refrigerant 

Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner’’ at 10 

CFR 431.92.) 

B. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 created 

14 separate equipment classes for DX– 

DOASes. EPCA generally requires DOE 

to establish energy conservation 

standards for commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment at 

the minimum efficiencies set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) DOE is proposing to 

establish eight DX–DOAS equipment 

classes that correspond to eight of the 14 

classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1—this 

proposal, including the omission of the 

remaining six classes, is discussed in 

the following paragraphs. 

14 separate equipment classes 

(indicated as ‘‘equipment types’’ and 

‘‘subcategories’’) were created by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and 

maintained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 (see Table II.1). These are 

differentiated by condensing type (aircooled, air-source heat pump, watercooled, and water-source heat pump). 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does not 

delineate classes for DX–DOASes based 

on capacity. AHSRAE Standard 90.1 

does separate classes into those with 

ventilation energy recovery systems 

(VERS)—often referred to as simply 

‘‘energy recovery’’—and those without 

VERS. The July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR proposed to include a definition 

for VERS at 10 CFR 431.92 that reads, 

‘‘Ventilation energy recovery system, or 

VERS, means a system that preconditions outdoor ventilation air 

entering the equipment through direct 

or indirect thermal and/or moisture 

exchange with the exhaust air, which is 

defined as the building air being 

exhausted to the outside from the 

equipment.’’ 86 FR 36018, 36057. 

The ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

requirements for water-cooled 

condensing units are divided into two 

application conditions: Cooling tower 

condenser water and chilled water. The 

requirements for water-source heat 

pump units are divided into three 

application conditions: Ground-source 

closed loop, ground-water-source, and 

water-source. However, these 

application rating conditions are labeled 

as ‘‘subcategories’’ in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019. Moreover, as discussed more 

below, AHRI 920–2020, the update to 

the industry test procedure upon which 

the DX–DOAS efficiency ratings in 

Standard 90.1 are based, but which has 

not yet been incorporated into Standard 

90.1, identifies some of these 

application rating conditions as optional 

for purposes of the test procedure. 

The EPCA definition for ‘‘commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ does not include groundwater-source equipment (see 42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(A)), therefore DOE is not 

considering the ground-water-source 

application condition for its regulated 

equipment classes. In response to the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI, the CA 

IOUs commented in support of the 

exclusion of ground-water-source 

equipment from the regulated 

equipment classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 

4) 

In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE requested comment on the 

approach of evaluating water-cooled 

DX–DOASes as a single category (with 

classes still disaggregated by those 

models with and without VERS) using 

the specified cooling tower condenser 

water entering temperature conditions, 

and evaluating water-source heat pump 

DX–DOASes as a single category (with 

classes still disaggregated by those 

models with and without VERS) using 

only the specified water-source inlet 

fluid temperature conditions. 84 FR 

48006, 48021–48022. As part of its 

analysis for the September 2019 NODA/ 

RFI, DOE considered whether to 

evaluate separately the two watercooled DOAS classes or whether the 

water-cooled cooling tower condenser 

water classes and the water-cooled 

chilled water classes should be grouped 

together and represented as watercooled DOASes (with classes still 

disaggregated by those models with 

energy recovery and those models 

without energy recovery). DOE also 

considered whether to evaluate 

separately the two remaining watersource heat pump classes or whether the 

water-source heat pump ground-source 

closed loop classes and the water-source 

heat pump water-source classes should 

be grouped together and represented as 

water-source heat pump DOASes (with 

classes still disaggregated by those 

models with energy recovery and those 

models without energy recovery). 84 FR 

48021. 

Based on DOE’s review of equipment 

specifications of water-cooled and 

water-source heat pump DOASes and 

comments on the concurrent test 

procedure evaluation, DOE determined 

that most water-cooled DOASes use the 

same equipment for different 

applications and that water-source heat 

pump DOASes use the same equipment 

design for different applications. DOE 

stated that it is not aware of watercooled DOAS units that are exclusively 

designed for use with cooling tower or 

chilled water. Likewise, DOE stated that 

it is not aware of water-source heat 

pump DOAS units that are exclusively 

designed for use with water-source or 

ground-source closed-loop applications. 

It is also DOE’s understanding that 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels 

are different across comparable classes 

within the water-cooled condensing 

type (e.g., comparing energy recovery 

classes to energy recovery classes) and 

across comparable classes within the 

water-source condensing type because 

of the different test/application 

conditions, as opposed to equipment 

design differences. For example, when 

testing a DOAS to obtain a water-cooled 

chilled water DOAS rating, a colder 

condenser water entering temperature is 

used than when testing it to obtain a 

water-cooled cooling tower DOAS 

rating, reflecting the typically cooler 

temperature of chilled water loops in 

commercial buildings, as compared 

with cooling tower water loops. Id. 

As a result, in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI, DOE combined the watercooled cooling tower condenser water 

classes and the water-cooled chilled 

water classes and evaluated watercooled DOASes as a single set of classes 

(with classes disaggregated by those 

models with energy recovery and those 

models without energy recovery) that is 

subject to a single set of operating 

conditions. DOE also combined the 

water-source heat pump ground-source 

closed loop classes and the water-source 

heat pump water-source classes and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5567 

evaluated the water-source heat pump 

DOASes as a single set of classes (with 

classes still disaggregated by those 

models with energy recovery and those 

models without energy recovery) that is 

subject to a single set of operating 

conditions. AHRI, the CA IOUs, and 

Trane commented in support of this 

proposed approach. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9; 

CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 4; Trane, No. 5, p. 

3) 

In the July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 920–2020 

still provides separate inlet fluid rating 

conditions for the different water-cooled 

and water-source heat pump DX–DOAS 

applications but identifies the chilled 

water conditions and ground-source 

closed loop conditions as optional 

application rating conditions. 86 FR 

36018, 36033. On this topic, AHRI 

commented that in almost all cases, a 

single design is used for water-cooled 

equipment used with cooling tower 

water and chilled water, and, similarly, 

a single design is used for all of the 

water-source applications, adding that 

for each of these cases, a single set of 

water conditions can be used for testing. 

Id. Section 2.2.1(c)(i) of the proposed 

appendix B test procedure specifies the 

use of the ‘‘Condenser Water Entering 

Temperature, Cooling Tower Water’’ 

conditions for rating water-cooled DX– 

DOASes and the ‘‘Water-Source Heat 

Pumps’’ conditions for rating watersource heat pump DX–DOASes. 86 FR 

36018, 36060. DOE stated in the July 

2021 Test Procedure NOPR that it 

would consider establishing standards 

and the corresponding certification 

requirements in the context of these 

inlet fluid temperature conditions. 86 

FR 36018, 36033. 

Based on its review and feedback 

from stakeholders, DOE has determined 

that separate equipment classes for each 

one of these subcategories in the 

proposed standards is not necessary, 

and that the 8 proposed equipment 

classes are most representative of DX– 

DOAS equipment and rating 

applications in the field. DOE 

understands that the water-cooled 

equipment ‘‘subcategories’’ in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 are meant to 

represent different application 

requirements for the same equipment, 

and thus DOE’s proposed equipment 

class structure does not split watercooled equipment into cooling tower 

water and chilled water subcategories. 

As proposed, all water-cooled 

equipment would be rated to the cooling 

tower water conditions, and standards 

would be established for water-cooled 

DX–DOASes with and without VERS. 

Similarly, the equipment class structure 

DOE is proposing does not split watersource heat pump equipment into the 

three subcategories in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019. Because of the 

statutory exclusion of ground-watersource equipment and because groundsource closed loop conditions are 

optional to test to in AHRI 920–2020, all 

water-source heat pump equipment 

would be rated to the water-source heat 

pump water conditions, and standards 

would be established for water-source 

heat pump DX–DOASes with and 

without VERS. This approach is 

consistent with other commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. For example, water-source 

heat pumps include application test 

conditions for water-loop, ground-water, 

and ground-loop heat pumps, but DOE 

only requires that equipment be rated 

using the water-loop conditions (see 

Table 3 to 10 CFR 431.97). This 

approach avoids testing under multiple 

application conditions for a single 

equipment design. In addition, even if 

tested at different application 

conditions because the DOAS 

equipment uses a single design, it is 

expected that the relative ranking of 

equipment efficiency would be the 

same. 

7AC commented that DX–DOASes 

with liquid desiccant heat exchangers 

(LDHXs) and variable-speed 

compressors may achieve high ISMRE 

efficiencies and recommended the 

addition of a new category with a 

minimum ISMRE of 7 that covers 

packaged units with and without 

exhaust air. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) DOE 

understands that liquid-to-air transfer 

membranes can improve 

dehumidification efficiency when 

coupled with standard air conditioners. 

This technology uses porous membranes 

with liquid desiccants to absorb water 

vapor from the supply air stream. In its 

review of LDHX DX–DOASes, DOE has 

initially determined that this equipment 

would be covered under the definition 

of ‘‘relief-air-cooled DX–DOAS’’ in 

Section 3.6.2 of AHRI 920–2020 (which 

is incorporated into section 2.2.1(a) of 

the proposed appendix B test 

procedure) due to the way in which 

building return air is typically used to 

regenerate the liquid desiccant and cool 

the condenser in the refrigeration cycle. 

This definition specifically classifies 

relief-air-cooled units under the aircooled equipment category. 

Furthermore, DX–DOASes with exhaust 

air streams are generally also included 

within the air-cooled equipment 

category demarcated in AHRI 920–2020, 

thus DOE is not proposing to create a 

separate equipment class for LDHX DX– 

DOASes or DX–DOASes with exhaust 

air. 

DOE is proposing energy conservation 

standards for eight DX–DOASes 

equipment classes, consistent with the 

classes provided in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 as discussed above and shown in 

Table III.1. 

TABLE III.1—PROPOSED EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR DX–DOASES

Equipment class in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed equipment class in Federal Energy Conservation Standards 

Air-cooled: Without energy recovery ........................................................ (AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Air-cooled: With energy recovery ............................................................. (AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Air-source heat pumps: Without energy recovery .................................... (ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery 

systems. 

Air-source heat pumps: With energy recovery ......................................... (ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, without energy recovery (WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, with energy recovery .... (WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without energy recovery ....... (WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems. 

Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with energy recovery ............ (WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with ventilation energy 

recovery systems. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5568 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13AHRI 920–2020 requires that DX–DOASes 

dehumidify outdoor ventilation air to a maximum 

dew point of 55 °F as a representative set point for 

dehumidified building supply air. Therefore, if the 

outdoor air dew point temperature is below 55 °F, 

there would typically not be any dehumidification 

load on the DX–DOAS, and the remaining cooling 

load would be for sensible cooling only. 

14Although EPCA does not explicitly define the 

term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of what type of 

revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger 

DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding interpretation 

has been that the statutory trigger is an amendment 

to the standard applicable to that equipment under 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy 

efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 

10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007). 

Issue–1: DOE requests comment on the 

proposed eight equipment classes for 

energy conservation standards of DX– 

DOASes. 

C. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

DOE does not currently have test 

procedures or energy conservation 

standards established for DX–DOASes. 

In response to the September 2019 

NODA/RFI, AHRI indicated that it 

strongly agreed with DOE’s tentative 

conclusion that DOE’s existing test 

procedures are not appropriate for DX– 

DOAS units. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 7) 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 

references ANSI/AHRI 920–2015, which 

relies on the metrics of ISMRE and 

ISCOP, and the standards for DX– 

DOASes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 are in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 was superseded 

with the publication of AHRI 920–2020, 

which relies on the updated metric 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. 

The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

proposes a new Federal test procedure 

for DX–DOASes that would incorporate 

AHRI 920–2020, which is the most 

recent version of the test procedure 

recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

for DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. 

The proposed test procedure 

incorporates AHRI 920–2020 in its 

entirety, with certain minor 

clarifications DOE has preliminarily 

determined would be consistent with 

the industry test procedure. 86 FR 

36018, 36047. AHRI 920–2020 specifies 

Standard Rating Conditions (i.e., 

controlled operating conditions) with 

instructions for instrumentation, test 

set-up, tolerances, method of test, and 

calculations of capacity and efficiency. 

The proposed DOE test procedure 

would establish ISMRE2 as the 

dehumidification efficiency metric for 

all DX–DOASes and ISCOP2 as the 

heating efficiency metric for heat pump 

DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36027– 

36029. DOE is proposing to define 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 consistent with 

AHRI 920–2020. Id. 

AHRI commented that, among other 

things, the current version of AHRI 920 

transitions the efficiency metrics for 

DX–DOASes from ISMRE and ISCOP to 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. AHRI stated that 

two major differences between ISMRE 

and ISMRE2 are: With the new metric, 

DX–DOASes will no longer be required 

to reheat conditioned air to spaceneutral conditions (70–75 °F supply air), 

and excess dehumidification beyond the 

design supply air dew point is no longer 

credited at part-load conditions. AHRI 

commented that the heating metric 

changes are similar: The heating 

coefficient of performance is now 

determined at the staging that most 

closely provides a supply air 

temperature within the allowable range. 

AHRI also noted that two new 

application rating metrics were added in 

AHRI 920–2020: ISMRE270 and 

COPDOAS,x. Additionally, AHRI 

commented that new provisions have 

been included in AHRI 920–2020 for the 

testing and performance calculations of 

DX–DOASes with VERS. (AHRI, No. 7, 

p. 8–9) 

The CA IOUs raised the concern that 

a dehumidification efficiency metric 

may not be appropriate for DX–DOASes 

based on an analysis showing that, on 

a national shipment-weighted basis, the 

outdoor air dew point is above 55 °F 13

only 36.7 percent of the time; therefore, 

the CA IOUs suggested that DOE 

consider adjustments to the DX–DOAS 

test procedure that contribute to a 

standard that reflects sensible cooling 

and/or fan-only ventilation conditions. 

The CA IOUs did not dispute that the 

primary use-case of a DX–DOAS system 

is to cool and dehumidify outdoor air, 

however they claim not all installation 

locations will have dehumidification 

requirements as aggressive as the tested 

conditions required for an ISMRE rating. 

(CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 6) 

DOE addressed this subject in the July 

2021 Test Procedure NOPR (see 86 FR 

36027). In particular, DOE received 

comments from AHRI stating that DX– 

DOASes are installed with separate 

complementary sensible-cooling-only 

systems that provide cooling to address 

the interior loads, and that adding 

sensible cooling to the metric for DX– 

DOAS would skew efficiency values 

toward the non-primary function of the 

DX–DOAS. This focus of DX–DOAS 

performance on dehumidification loads 

supports DOE’s proposal to adopt the 

ISMRE2 dehumidification efficiency 

metric in AHRI 920–2020. 86 FR 36018, 

36027. Nevertheless, the sensible 

cooling provided by a DX–DOAS unit 

may be valuable in many applications 

because it reduces the cooling that must 

be provided by interior cooling systems, 

especially at high outdoor temperatures. 

DOE may consider in a future 

rulemaking whether the efficiency 

metric should be revised to include 

sensible cooling; however, EPCA 

prescribes that the test procedures for 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment must be those 

generally accepted industry testing 

procedures or rating procedures 

developed or recognized by industry as 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

(i.e., AHRI 920 for DX–DOASes). (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) 

The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

discusses major updates to the AHRI 

920 test procedure, as well as the 

efficiency metrics, in depth. 86 FR 

36018, 36025–36045. DOE is addressing 

comments regarding specific aspects of 

the proposed test procedure in the 

concurrent test procedure rulemaking. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for DX–DOASes in terms of ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2. 

D. Considerations for Energy 

Conservation Standards 

In this proposed rulemaking to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for DX–DOASes, DOE is proposing to 

adopt ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum 

efficiency levels of equivalent 

stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP 

minimum efficiency levels currently 

published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

document, EPCA requires DOE to 

amend the existing Federal energy 

conservation standard for covered 

equipment each time ASHRAE 

amends 14 Standard 90.1 with respect to 

such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this 

manner, DOE must adopt the minimum 

level specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines 

that there is clear and convincing 

evidence to support a determination 

that a more stringent standard level 

would produce significant additional 

conservation of energy and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such a 

determination, it must publish a final 

rule to establish the more stringent 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5569 

15The September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD is 

available as Document No. 2 at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0017. 

states in Section 9(b) of Appendix A to 

subpart C of part 430 that clear and 

convincing evidence would exist only 

where the specific facts and data made 

available to DOE regarding a particular 

ASHRAE amendment demonstrate that 

there is no substantial doubt that a 

standard more stringent than that 

contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

amendment is permitted because it 

would result in a significant additional 

amount of energy savings, is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DOE normally performs multiple indepth analyses to determine whether 

there is clear and convincing evidence 

to support more stringent energy 

conservation standards (i.e., whether 

more stringent standards would produce 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and be technologically feasible 

and economically justified). Table III.2 

shows the statutory requirements and 

DOE’s corresponding analytical 

approach, including DOE’s approach to 

the seven-factor analysis for 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified. 

TABLE III.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Significant Energy Savings .............................................................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

• Energy Use Determination. 

Technological Feasibility .................................................................................................. • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers .......................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product • Markups for Product Price Determination. 

• Energy and Water Use Determination. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total Projected Energy Savings ........................................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance .......................................................................... • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition ............................................................. • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation ............................................ • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ................................................ • Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Emissions Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

DOE received comments from DU 

regarding the EPCA seven-factor test 

and the analytical framework for 

establishing energy conservation 

standards. DU commented that the sixth 

factor for economic justification, ‘‘need 

for national energy and water 

conservation,’’ is too broad and should 

specify a goal for savings by the year the 

amended standards go into effect. DU 

also requested clarification on whether 

the analytical methods used to 

determine national energy savings are 

limited to a cross-sectional analysis and 

if so, the rationale behind eliminating 

the time series. (DU, No. 3, p. 1) DOE 

notes that the seven factors in EPCA 

were specified by Congress. Regarding 

the national energy savings (NES), DOE 

notes that it is not a cross-sectional 

analysis. In the September 2019 NODA/ 

RFI, a 30-year time series of shipments 

was used to calculate the NES for DX– 

DOASes. 

As previously described, DOE 

normally conducts the analysis depicted 

in Table III.2 to determine whether clear 

and convincing evidence supports more 

stringent energy conservation standards. 

In this instance, however, DOE has 

tentatively determined that a lack of 

data precludes such an analysis and 

therefore precludes a finding of clear 

and convincing evidence. DOE provided 

a technical support document (TSD) 15

with the September 2019 NODA/RFI to 

present initial findings for certain of 

these analyses for DX–DOASes. Chapter 

4 of the September 2019 NODA/RFI 

TSD discusses DOE’s detailed 

methodology for estimating national 

energy savings. When DOE conducts a 

national energy savings analysis, it 

calculates the cumulative energy 

savings over the analysis period by 

summing the annual energy savings for 

each year in the analysis period, thereby 

considering the long-term impacts—as 

opposed to a limited cross-section of 

time. However, as described in the 

following subsections, DOE does not 

have sufficient data to revise and 

expand upon these analyses presented 

in the TSD at this time. 

1. Technological Feasibility 

a. General 

To evaluate whether more stringent 

standards than those in the updated 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would be 

technologically feasible, DOE generally 

first conducts a market and technology 

assessment to survey all current 

technology options in products on the 

market and prototype designs that could 

improve the efficiency of the subject 

equipment. DOE then conducts a 

screening analysis based on information 

gathered on all current technology 

options and prototype designs that 

could improve the efficiency of the 

products or equipment that are the 

subject of the rulemaking. As the first 

step in such an analysis, DOE develops 

a list of technology options for 

consideration in consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other interested parties. DOE then 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5570 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16 In 2011, DOE published a notice of data 

availability discussing the experience curve 

methodology. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially-available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. See generally 

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 

7(b)(1). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. See generally 

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) 

and 7(b)(2)–(5). 

DOE is not aware of an existing 

database or compilation containing a 

comprehensive list of DX–DOAS models 

and performance metrics. As noted, DX– 

DOASes are not currently subject to 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and so manufacturers of DOASes are not 

required to certify or report to DOE the 

energy efficiency of such equipment. 

The AHRI Directory does not currently 

list DX–DOAS equipment performance 

ratings. Similarly, DOE was not able to 

find ISMRE or ISCOP ratings in much of 

the manufacturer equipment 

specifications. It is unclear to what 

extent the market has responded to the 

industry standards initially specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. 

Also as discussed, in the edition of 

AHRI 920 immediately following the 

edition in which an industry testing 

standard was established for DOAS, 

AHRI adopted updated metrics for DX– 

DOASes (i.e., ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). 

Similarly, DOE was not able to find 

ISMRE2 or ISCOP2 ratings in much of 

the manufacturer equipment 

specifications. Because this test 

procedure was fairly recently published, 

it is not clear to what extent the test data 

has been developed based on the 

updated industry testing standard (i.e., 

AHRI 920–2020), although DOE expects 

that this test procedure represents the 

industry consensus for testing DX– 

DOASes. 

In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE analyzed two incremental 

efficiency levels (ELs) above the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 minimum 

ISMRE efficiency levels for air-cooled 

DX–DOASes (with and without VERS) 

based on technology options that are 

expected to be available for DX– 

DOASes. 84 FR 48006, 48026. The ELs 

were also based, in part, on an initial 

assessment of EER data for commercial 

unitary air conditioners due to the lack 

of market data using the AHRI 920 

performance metrics. 84 FR 48006, 

48026. DOE tentatively determined 

based on manufacturer feedback that the 

baseline design would likely include 

staged compressors, and that the design 

change from the baseline efficiency 

level (the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

minimum) to EL 1 would involve 

changing from staged compressor 

operation to variable-capacity digital 

scroll compressors. The design changes 

from EL 1 to EL 2 include increasing the 

condenser heat exchanger size and fin 

density, increasing the total condenser 

fans horsepower, and reducing the 

capacity of the compressors needed. 

Due to the similarity in designs, DOE 

considered that the same technology 

options and resulting increase in 

efficiency from the analysis for DX– 

DOASes without VERS would be 

applied for DX–DOASes with VERS. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

analysis should take into account all 

equipment classes of DX–DOAS 

because, while air-cooled DX–DOASes 

may comprise the vast majority of DX– 

DOAS shipments, there are other 

equipment classes with the potential for 

energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 6) 

The CA IOUs also disagreed with the 

efficiency level distribution and asked 

DOE to develop a more sophisticated 

efficiency analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 

7) AHRI also disagreed with DOE’s 

incremental efficiency levels because 

they were derived from a single 

manufacturer’s equipment at a single 

capacity size. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 8) The 

CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct a costeffectiveness analysis for new DX– 

DOAS standards and apply the 

experience curve methodology DOE 

recommended in 2011 16, including both 

price decline to-date and a forecast of 

continued price decline, in order to 

avoid overestimating the true costs of 

efficiency improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 

6, pp. 7–8) AHRI provided confidential 

business data containing limited 

estimations of the ISMRE ranges for DX– 

DOASes by cooling capacity (in Btu/hr) 

and disaggregated by VERS (without 

distinguishing between the 8 DX–DOAS 

equipment classes), as noted in AHRI’s 

public comment. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) 

DOE acknowledges that the efficiency 

levels for air-cooled DX–DOASes 

presented in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI may not be representative of 

the DX–DOAS market because they 

were derived from a very limited 

amount of publicly available data, and 

additionally, these efficiency levels are 

no longer in terms of the metrics DOE 

is proposing to regulate. In this NOPR, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

this type of engineering analysis cannot 

be completed due to the lack of 

available market and performance data. 

A lack of performance data using the 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics impedes 

DOE’s ability to correlate efficiency 

levels to DX–DOAS design options, and 

AHRI’s data did not provide further 

details for this aspect of the analysis. As 

a result, the development of costefficiency curves is not possible at this 

time. 

AHRI commented that the efficiency 

benefits of employing variable-capacity 

digital scroll compressors were 

overestimated in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI analysis, and that this 

technology option is implemented 

primarily for control purposes. AHRI 

stated that while a digital scroll 

compressor provides capacity control, it 

does not provide an efficiency increase 

over three- or four-step compressor 

control, and, furthermore, a digital 

scroll compressor would provide a 

modest improvement over a single- or 

two-step DX–DOASes based on the 

equipment cycling. AHRI also asserted 

that DX–DOASes with single- or twostep staging do not provide the 

necessary control consumers require, 

and so they are rarely purchased. (AHRI, 

No. 7, p. 10) Trane also commented that 

the benefits of digital scroll compressors 

are more closely correlated to staging 

control than efficiency. (Trane, No. 5, p. 

3) 

Both AHRI and Trane commented that 

there is considerable variation in the 

technology options that may be utilized 

at the baseline efficiency level. (AHRI, 

No. 7, p. 10; Trane, No. 5, p. 3) 

However, AHRI generalized that small 

equipment (below 10 tons) utilize twostage or digital compressors, without 

inverter control, with small heat 

exchangers; and above 10 tons, 

equipment typically utilizes four-stage 

or digital compressors, without inverter 

control, with larger heat exchangers. 

(AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) AHRI stated that for 

the purposes of the technology analysis, 

industry would support the first step to 

improving energy efficiency being the 

addition of inverter control, and the 

second step being including a larger 

condenser with more surface area. (Id). 

Additionally, the CA IOUs provided 

that DX–DOAS heat exchangers tend to 

be larger than those in typical 

commercial unitary air conditioners. 

(CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7) 

DOE appreciates these comments on 

technology options and has 

incorporated this feedback into aspects 

of the crosswalk analysis. DOE included 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5571 

17Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

DX–DOASes with two stages of capacity 

and digital scroll compressors in its 

ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk analysis. 

Additionally, the technology options 

referenced by AHRI were used in DOE’s 

analytical modeling of baseline heat 

pump DX–DOASes to evaluate the 

impact of the test procedure changes for 

the heating efficiency metric. DOE has 

initially determined that the proposed 

ISCOP2 standards for heat pump DX– 

DOASes are technologically feasible 

because DOE performed the ISCOP-toISCOP2 crosswalk based on the baseline 

technology options recommended by 

stakeholders—i.e., staged scroll 

compressors, no inverter control, and 

representative baseline heat exchangers 

for DX–DOASes. This is discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of this NOPR. 

As discussed in section III.B of this 

NOPR, 7AC indicated that combining a 

variable-speed compressor with an 

economically-sized LDHX can result in 

an ISMRE of 7.5 without VERS and an 

ISMRE of 8.5 with VERS. (7AC, No. 4, 

p. 1) Because DOE could not identify 

any other manufacturers of DX–DOASes 

which employ LDHXs in commerciallydistributed equipment, and DOE expects 

that this technology option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a 

particular efficiency level. For this 

reason, DOE did not consider LDHX 

technology in its analysis of whether 

more stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible or as part of the 

crosswalk analysis. 

Issue–2: DOE continues to seek 

information that may inform a market 

and technology assessment for the 

DX–DOAS industry, including data 

on technology options which may 

increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 

efficiencies of DX–DOASes. 

b. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When evaluating more stringent 

standards, DOE typically must 

determine the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible for such 

product. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE typically 

determines the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency 

using the design parameters for the most 

efficient equipment available on the 

market or in working prototypes. 

Prior to the publication of AHRI 920– 

2020, the September 2019 NODA/RFI 

DOE estimated that the max-tech 

efficiency for air-cooled DX–DOASes 

without VERS was an ISMRE of 6.0, 

whereas for air-cooled DX–DOASes 

with VERS the max-tech efficiency was 

an ISMRE of 7.2. 84 FR 48006, 48026. 

In response, the CA IOUs provided data 

that showed the range of manufacturerpublished ISMRE ratings reached a 

maximum of 8.9 ISMRE for air-cooled 

DX–DOASes without VERS and 10.8 

ISMRE for air-cooled DX–DOASes with 

VERS. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7) 

As discussed, DOE has proposed to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 920– 

2020 in its test procedure, which relies 

on different metrics than what were 

presented in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI and what were provided by 

commenters. As discussed further in 

section IV.B.1 of this NOPR, the DX– 

DOAS designs that are likely to yield 

the highest ISMRE and ISCOP 

efficiencies under the ANSI/AHRI 920– 

2015 test procedure are not likely to 

yield the highest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 

efficiencies under AHRI 920–2020 (and 

the proposed DOE test procedure) due 

to significant differences in the test 

procedures, and therefore DOE cannot 

rely on ISMRE/ISCOP efficiency ratings 

alone (i.e., without knowledge of the 

specific design options utilized) to 

identify max-tech efficiencies using the 

proposed test procedure. 

Due to the lack of data in terms of 

AHRI 920–2020 efficiency metrics, DOE 

is currently unable to identify the most 

efficient equipment available on the 

market in terms of the proposed metrics. 

As such, DOE is unable to estimate the 

field-installed energy use and cost of the 

most efficient equipment (in terms of 

the proposed metrics) available on the 

market (factoring in parameters such as 

price markups, installation application, 

life-cycle cost and payback period, and 

overall shipments). Hence, DOE was 

unable to evaluate the technological 

feasibility of standards more stringent 

than the levels in the updated ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. 

2. Significant Additional Conservation 

of Energy 

The ‘‘significant additional 

conservation of energy’’ language in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) indicates that 

Congress intended for DOE to ensure 

that, in addition to the savings from the 

ASHRAE standards, DOE’s standards 

would yield additional energy savings 

that are significant. In DOE’s view, this 

statutory provision shares the 

requirement with the statutory 

provision applicable to covered 

products and non-ASHRAE equipment 

that ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ 

must be present (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B))—and supported with 

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’—to 

permit DOE to set a more stringent 

requirement than ASHRAE. See 85 FR 

8626, 8666–8667. 

In determining whether energy 

savings are significant, DOE considers 

the specific circumstances surrounding 

a given rulemaking.17 In making this 

determination, DOE looks at, among 

other things, the FFC effects of the 

proposed standards. These effects 

include the energy consumed in 

electricity production (depending on 

load shape), in distribution and 

transmission, and in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus present a more complete 

picture of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards, including 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

DOE has initially determined that 

there is insufficient data on the 

developing DX–DOAS market to 

conduct an analysis of potential energy 

savings resulting from more stringent 

standards. AHRI 920–2020 is a 

relatively recent industry test standard, 

published in February 2020, and thus 

AHRI has not yet established a 

certification database listing DX–DOAS 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings. In the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI DOE also 

noted that the AHRI Directory does not 

list DX–DOAS equipment performance 

ratings, and that DOE was not able to 

find ISMRE or ISCOP ratings in much of 

the manufacturer equipment 

specifications. 84 FR 48006, 48026. DOE 

requested data on the market efficiency 

distribution, field installation 

applications and performance, the 

determination of unit energy 

consumption (UEC), equipment 

lifetimes, and shipments (see 84 FR 

48006, 48036); however, DOE did not 

receive sufficient information with 

regards to these aspects of its analysis in 

order to determine the energy savings of 

more stringent efficiency levels for each 

of the 8 proposed DX–DOAS equipment 

classes. 

3. Economic Justification 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be considered in 

determining whether standard levels 

more stringent than the levels specified 

in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

are economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) The following 

sections provide an overview of each of 

those seven factors and consideration of 

the factors in this NOPR. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5572 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18 In situations where ASHRAE has not acted to 

amend the levels in Standard 90.1 for the 

equipment types enumerated in the statute, EPCA 

provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the 

potential for amending the uniform national 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically, 

pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under the 

American Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)), 

DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each 

class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential standard on manufacturers, 

DOE typically conducts a manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA). DOE first uses an 

annual cash-flow approach to determine 

the quantitative impacts. This step 

includes both a short-term assessment— 

based on the cost and capital 

requirements during the period between 

when a regulation is issued and when 

entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include (1) 

INPV, which values the industry on the 

basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 

cash flows by year, (3) changes in 

revenue and income, and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in life-cycle costs (LCC) and the payback 

period (PBP) associated with new or 

amended standards. For consumers in 

the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

consumer costs and benefits expected to 

result from particular standards. DOE 

also evaluates the impacts of potential 

standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a standard. 

As noted, DOE is unaware of any 

database or compilation containing a 

comprehensive list of DX–DOAS models 

and performance metrics. This presents 

significant challenges to performing an 

accurate assessment of the DX–DOAS 

industry structure. 

DOE normally uses projections of 

annual equipment shipments to 

calculate the national impacts of 

potential amended or new energy 

conservation standards on energy use, 

industry net present value (NPV), and 

future manufacturer cash flows. The 

shipments model typically takes an 

accounting approach, tracking market 

shares of each product class and the 

vintage of units in the stock. Stock 

accounting uses product shipments as 

inputs to estimate the age distribution of 

in-service product stocks for all years. 

The age distribution of in-service 

product stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the national energy 

savings and NPV because operating 

costs for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. 

For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE developed DX–DOAS shipments 

estimates based on manufacturer 

feedback that shipments in 2016 were 

around 36,000 units and that DX–DOAS 

growth is expected to be similar to that 

of variable refrigerant flow multi-split 

system equipment. 84 FR 48006, 48030. 

A report by the Cadeo Group estimated 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split 

system equipment shipments to have 

double-digit growth through 2022. 

Therefore, to project shipments past 

2016, DOE used a 10-percent growth 

rate through 2022 and then followed the 

same growth rate as other commercial 

unitary air-conditioning equipment, 

basing that growth rate on the reference 

case shipment projections in the 

National Impact Analysis spreadsheet 

from the January 15, 2016 direct final 

rule for commercial unitary air 

conditioners and heat pumps and 

commercial warm air furnaces (81 FR 

2420). Id. 

Manufacturers estimated that aircooled DX–DOASes represent 95 

percent of all DX–DOAS shipments, and 

DOE assumed that this percentage 

would remain constant for the duration 

of the 30-year shipments analysis. Id. 

For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE only analyzed the two air-cooled 

DX–DOAS equipment classes, and so 

reduced the annual shipments 

projections developed above by 5 

percent to capture only the air-cooled 

product classes. Id. DOE allocated 59- 

percent of shipments to air-cooled 

DOAS without energy recovery and 41- 

percent of shipments to air-cooled 

DOAS with energy recovery, based on 

manufacturer estimates of the 

breakdown by equipment class. Id. 

In response, the CA IOUs provided an 

analysis of an online database of 

construction projects called 

ConstructConnect Insight, which 

suggests that DX–DOAS shipments have 

been increasing at an 18% annual rate 

since 2012. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 5) 

Additionally, the CA IOUs agreed that 

variable refrigerant flow and watersource heat pump systems are a good 

starting point for estimating DX–DOAS 

shipments but encouraged DOE to take 

into account radiant cooling, PTAC, and 

fan-coil installation projects as well. 

(Id.) AHRI suggested that DX–DOASes 

can also be paired with chilled beams 

and room fan coils. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11) 

Trane suggested that DOE may have 

significantly overstated the DX–DOAS 

market in the September 2019 NODA/ 

RFI. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI provided 

a similar statement, specifically 

indicating that the 2016 shipments 

value for DX–DOAS was overestimated. 

(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 10–11) AHRI also 

noted that significant DX–DOAS 

shipment volume is relatively new to 

the market. (Id.) AHRI submitted 

confidential business data containing 

shipments estimates for DX–DOASes. 

DOE acknowledges that DX–DOASes 

are paired with many types of space 

conditioning systems and that while 

most DX–DOASes are installed with 

variable refrigerant flow and water 

source heat pumps, other systems such 

as chilled beams, package terminal 

systems, and fan coils are paired with 

DX–DOASes. The confidential data 

submission from AHRI provided a time 

series of DX–DOAS shipments from 

2010 to 2018. The time series provides 

the total number of DX–DOAS 

shipments along with estimates of the 

market share by equipment capacity and 

the availability of units with VERS, and 

this would allow DOE to improve its 

shipments projections. However, the 

shipments data does not break the 

shipments down by equipment class. 

DOE received no comments regarding 

the estimate that air-cooled DX–DOASes 

represent 95 percent of shipments or on 

the breakdown of DX–DOAS with and 

without VERS. However, DOE still lacks 

the breakdown of shipments for the 

other equipment classes. As stated 

earlier in this section, the shipments 

model is used to measure the national 

impacts of potential amended or new 

energy conservation standards. Without 

an engineering analysis (see section 

III.D.2.c of this document) and an 

energy use analysis (see section III.D.2.d 

of this document), DOE is unable to 

produce the other inputs necessary to 

project the national impact of standards 

more stringent than those in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019. Therefore DOE did 

not update the shipments model for this 

NOPR. 

Were DOE to establish standards as 

proposed, as well as accompanying 

certification requirements, this 

information would become more readily 

available should DOE consider 

amending standards for DX–DOASes in 

any future rulemaking.18 Chapter 2 of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5573 

90.1 ‘‘every 6 years’’ to determine whether the 

applicable energy conservation standards need to be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must 

publish either a NOPR to propose amended 

standards or a notice of determination that existing 

standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new standards under 

the 6-year review, DOE must undertake the same 

considerations as if it were adopting a standard that 

is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) 

19 Direct Final Rule Life-Cycle-Cost Analysis 

Spreadsheet is available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0106. (Last 

accessed on August 9, 2021) 

the September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD 

presents DOE’s market assessment to the 

extent that DOE was able to retrieve 

publicly accessible information for DX– 

DOASes. Since the September 2019 

NODA/RFI, DOE has, identified 

additional manufacturers of DX– 

DOASes, and these manufacturers are 

listed in Table III.3 (which supersedes 

Table 2.3 in the September 2019 NODA/ 

RFI TSD). 

TABLE III.3—MANUFACTURERS OF DX– 

DOASES

Manufacturers AHRI 

member 

AAON ............................................. Yes. 

AnnexAir ......................................... No. 

Daikin .............................................. Yes. 

Greenheck ...................................... Yes. 

Ingersoll Rand ................................ Yes. 

Johnson Controls ........................... Yes. 

Madison Industries ......................... Yes. 

Modine Manufacturing Company ... Yes. 

Multistack ........................................ Yes. 

Munters Group AB ......................... No. 

Nortek Global HVAC ...................... Yes. 

Soler and Palau Industries ............. Yes. 

DOE did not perform an MIA for this 

rulemaking because there is not enough 

information available on the DX–DOAS 

market to determine which entities are 

already compliant with the proposed 

energy conservation standards (i.e., 

producing DX–DOASes which currently 

meet or exceed the proposed ISMRE2 

and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels) 

and what portion of annual cash flow 

these DX–DOASes comprise. However, 

DOE did examine potential impacts on 

small manufacturers in its regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is presented 

in section VII.B of this NOPR. 

For individual consumers, DOE 

measures the economic impact by 

calculating the changes in LCC and PBP 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE would also calculate the national 

net present value of the consumer costs 

and benefits expected to result from 

particular standards, while taking into 

account the impacts of potential 

standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a standard. 

DOE continues to seek information 

that may inform a market and 

technology assessment for the DX– 

DOAS industry, including data on 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 market efficiency 

distributions, and shipments. 

DOE did not perform an LCC or an 

assessment of NPV for this rulemaking 

because there was not enough 

information available to develop the 

inputs required to measure the 

individual or aggregate consumer 

savings from higher standards. The LCC 

would require an engineering analysis, 

an energy use analysis, operating cost 

inputs, and a distribution of efficiencies 

that are available on the market. These 

inputs allow DOE to develop equipment 

prices, representative efficiency levels, 

annual operating costs, and a nostandards case distribution of 

equipment efficiencies to determine 

which consumers will be impacted by a 

higher standard. The NIA takes the 

weighted average national results from 

the LCC and combines them with 

shipments forecasts by equipment class 

and efficiency level in order to measure 

the national impact, in terms of 

consumer NPV and full-fuel-cycle 

energy savings. As stated previously, 

DOE was unable to develop costefficiency curves for DX–DOASes or to 

conduct an energy use analysis with 

enough degree of certainty that would 

allow it to propose a standard level 

more stringent than ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (see section III.D.2 of this 

document). Without these inputs, DOE 

is unable to produce the LCC and NIA 

for this NOPR. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE 

conducts this comparison in its LCC and 

PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first year of 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. The LCC savings for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

In the September 2019 NODA/RFI 

DOE developed an efficiency 

distribution that assumed that one-third 

of the products were at each of the three 

efficiency levels. 84 FR 48006, 48030. 

DOE requested comment on this 

approach and input on how to 

determine the no-standards case 

efficiency distribution given the lack of 

publicly available data on equipment 

efficiency. DOE also sought historical 

shipment weighted efficiency data by 

equipment class. 

In response, AHRI and Trane both 

generally supported the approach DOE 

took which assumed that one-third of 

the units were at each of the proposed 

efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11; 

Trane, No. 5, p. 3). AHRI and Trane both 

commented that they do not collect 

shipments data by efficiency level. 

(AHRI, No. 7, p. 11; Trane, No. 5, p. 3) 

DOE also lacked data on the 

equipment lifetime for DX–DOASes in 

the September 2019 NODA/RFI. 

However, DOE had developed lifetimes 

for other commercial package air 

conditioning equipment in previous 

rulemakings,19 therefore the DX–DOAS 

lifetime was set to be the same as that 

of a 15-ton commercial package air 

conditioner. 84 FR 48006, 48031. DOE 

also requested comment on DX–DOAS 

lifetimes. 

In response, AHRI, the CA IOUs, and 

Trane all agreed with the approach that 

a DX–DOAS lifetime would be similar 

to that of a 15-ton commercial package 

air conditioner. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5574 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

20See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ 

data/2012/index.php?view=microdata (Last 

accessed on August 9, 2021). 

Trane, No. 5, p. 3, CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 

7) 

A preliminary energy use analysis 

was presented in the September 2019 

NODA/RFI, and DOE requested 

feedback on its calculation approach as 

well as data from field studies and 

laboratory testing to further inform the 

estimation of real-world energy usage 

from performance ratings. 84 FR 48006, 

48026–48027. 

7AC commented that the actual 

energy consumption in buildings can be 

significantly higher than the tested 

ISMRE suggests, primarily at lower 

loads where the regular on/off cycling 

reduces actual energy load. (7AC, No. 4, 

p. 1) DOE understands that 7AC is 

referring to cycling start-up losses 

which occur when staged compressor 

systems turn on and off to meet a 

reduced cooling (or heating) demand. 

The impact of cycling losses is now 

captured in AHRI 920–2020, which DOE 

has proposed to incorporate into a new 

DOE test procedure for DX–DOASes. 

Specifically, the updated test procedure 

includes provisions for weighted 

averaging when the target conditions 

can be bracketed by two stages, as well 

as cyclic degradation calculations and a 

supplementary cooling penalty when 

the lowest stage provides excess 

conditioning capacity (which is when 

cycling losses would occur). 86 FR 

36018, 36032–36033. 

7AC also agreed that field data should 

be sought to complement the lab data 

and correlate ISMRE in the lab with 

performance in the field. (7AC, No. 4, p. 

1) Additionally, 7AC indicated that 

LDHX-based units are being installed 

with remote monitoring equipment that 

will enable the measurement of total 

cooling and total power use, the cost of 

which has come down dramatically and 

that DOE should seek similar 

arrangements with other equipment 

providers. (Id.) 7AC did not provide 

data correlating tested performance 

ratings to performance in field-installed 

conditions. AHRI stated that it was 

unable to provide data in response to 

DOE’s request. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) 

AHRI suggested that DOE consider 

addendum ‘‘bi’’ of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013, which limits heating supply 

air to a maximum of 60 °F when the 

majority of a building is expected to 

require cooling, in any energy use 

estimates. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11) 

The elimination of the supplemental 

heat penalty in the ISMRE2 metric (see 

section IV.B.1 of this document) makes 

it so that DX–DOASes are no longer 

required to deliver supply air of at least 

70 °F in the test procedure. In the July 

2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 

discussed that DX–DOASes typically 

cool air to, at most, a few degrees above 

the 55 °F dew point temperature that is 

specified in AHRI 920. 86 FR 36018, 

36031. Therefore, DOE expects that the 

establishment of ISMRE2 as a regulated 

metric for DX–DOASes would not 

preclude manufacturers from producing 

DX–DOASes which are compliant with 

the aforementioned provision in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. 

The energy use analysis presented in 

the September 2019 NODA/RFI relied 

on the energy use for ventilation and 

space cooling from the 2012 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey 20 (CBECS 2012) to 

develop the ASHRAE level unit energy 

consumption (UEC) estimates. The 

UECs for higher ELs were scaled based 

on the ISMRE levels presented in the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84 FR 

48006, 48026–48027. With an integrated 

metric, the power consumption at part 

loads is critical to understanding the 

energy consumption at various 

efficiency levels; however, no part-load 

data was available to DOE at the time of 

publication in September 2019. DOE 

included 30 percent of the space cooling 

energy use from CBECS 2012 along with 

the ventilation energy use to derive the 

UEC. 84 FR 48006, 48027. 

Trane agreed with associating 

building ventilation cooling with the 

DX–DOAS unit but disagreed with 

adding 30 percent of the building 

annual cooling load to this value 

because it may overstate the typical 

cooling duty cycle. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) 

Trane stated that many DX–DOAS 

systems are designed to provide no 

cooling for the building and requested 

that published case studies be cited to 

determine the estimated cooling load 

percentage handled by the DX–DOAS. 

(Id.) 

DOE would consider such data in its 

energy use analysis should it become 

available. However, DOE is not 

presenting an energy use analysis in this 

NOPR due to insufficient market data, 

performance data, and field use data. In 

response to Trane, while DX–DOASes 

may not be designed to provide space 

cooling, there is no variable in CBECS 

2012 for dehumidification. DX–DOASes 

provide dehumidification by cooling the 

ventilation air, therefore DOE included 

30 percent of the space cooling energy 

use from CBECS 2012 along with the 

ventilation energy use to derive the 

UEC. 

DOE requested field data or 

performance data of DX–DOASes in the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI and 

received no data. In order to develop 

UECs that are representative of DX– 

DOAS installations across the U.S., DOE 

would require data on the equipment 

performance at different load 

conditions. This data could consist of 

manufacturer performance data or field 

data for equipment rated using ISMRE2 

and ISCOP2, if applicable. As DX– 

DOASes would be newly regulated 

equipment and ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are 

new metrics even within the DX–DOAS 

market, there is no energy consumption 

data available. In addition, DOE was 

unable to develop appropriate efficiency 

levels to analyze (see section III.D.2.c of 

this document). Given the lack of 

available data regarding the 

performance of DX–DOASes, DOE is 

unable to estimate the UECs. 

DOE did not perform an LCC and PBP 

analysis for this NOPR. As discussed in 

the preceding paragraphs there is not 

enough information available to develop 

the inputs to the LCC and PBP models. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) 

In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE presented its initial national 

energy savings methodology and 

estimates for air-cooled DX–DOASes 

with and without VERS. 84 FR 48006, 

48030–48033. The NES requires inputs 

from the energy use analysis. As stated 

in section III.D.2.d, DOE was unable to 

conduct an energy use analysis. 

Therefore, DOE has not conducted or 

updated an NES analysis for this NOPR. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

standards proposed in this document 

would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment under 

consideration in this rulemaking 

because DOE is proposing to adopt 

standards of equivalent stringency to 

those already found in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5575 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) DOE invites 

comment from the public regarding the 

competitive impacts that are likely to 

result from this proposed rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) 

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The proposed standards 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. 

The utility impact analysis, emissions 

analysis, and emissions monetization all 

rely on the national energy savings 

estimates from the NIA. As discussed 

previously, DOE did not conduct an 

NIA and as a result could not conduct 

these downstream analyses. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To the extent DOE 

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

IV. Crosswalk Analysis 

A. Overview 

As discussed in section III.D of this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum 

efficiency levels of equivalent 

stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP 

minimum efficiency levels currently 

published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

The determination of these equivalent 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 efficiency levels is 

referred to as a ‘‘crosswalk analysis.’’ 

AHRI commented that the current 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels reflect 

the current DX–DOAS market, however, 

that use of ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 is not 

ideal and this test procedure was 

undergoing revisions at the time. AHRI 

stated that harmonizing the Federal 

energy conservation standards with 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 energy 

efficiency levels would help reduce 

compliance and test burdens on 

manufacturers; however, the metrics 

would change with the revision to AHRI 

920. AHRI commented that the changes 

may seem drastic between the first and 

second edition of a standard, but they 

were agreed to by relevant stakeholders. 

(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 7–9) Trane 

commented that the conditions and 

rating calculations were changed in the 

update to AHRI 920 so that independent 

test labs could easily generate reliable 

results for these products, and Trane 

prefers that AHRI 920–2020 be the basis 

for any new standard levels adopted by 

DOE for DX–DOASes. (Trane, No. 5 at 

p. 3) 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

NOPR, in the July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed a new Federal test 

procedure for DX–DOASes that would 

incorporate AHRI 920–2020, which is 

the most recent version of the test 

procedure (AHRI 920) recognized by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for DX– 

DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The 

proposed test procedure incorporates 

AHRI 920–2020 in its entirety, with 

certain minor clarifications DOE has 

preliminarily determined would be 

consistent with the industry test 

procedure. 86 FR 36018, 36047. The 

updates to AHRI 920 include certain 

revised test conditions and weighting 

factors for ISMRE and ISCOP, which 

were redesignated as ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2, respectively. These revisions 

result in the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 

metrics that more accurately reflect the 

actual energy use for DX–DOASes, 

improve the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the test methods, and 

also reduce testing burden compared to 

ISMRE and ISCOP. 

The minimum energy efficiency levels 

specified for DX–DOASes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 are not based on 

equipment efficiency as measured 

pursuant to AHRI 920–2020 (i.e., 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a result, 

should DOE adopt the test procedure as 

proposed in the July 2021 TP NOPR, the 

efficiency measurements from the 

version of the industry test procedure 

recognized in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 for DX–DOASes (i.e., ISMRE and 

ISCOP), would not be comparable to 

efficiency measurements under the DOE 

test procedure. DOE would generally be 

required to adopt the ISMRE and ISCOP 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 

as the basis for energy conservation 

standards; however, in the case of an 

amended test procedure that would alter 

the measured energy efficiency or 

measured energy use of a covered 

ASHRAE equipment, EPCA prescribes 

requirements to amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard so that 

products or equipment that complied 

under the prior test procedure remain 

compliant under the amended test 

procedure. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) While 

these provisions are not explicitly 

applicable to DX–DOASes in the present 

case because DOE currently has no test 

procedure or energy conservation 

standards for this equipment, DOE 

considers them as generally instructive 

for conducting the crosswalk analysis. 

EPCA provides that in the case of any 

amended test procedure, DOE must 

determine, in the rulemaking carried out 

with respect to prescribing such 

procedure, to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency, measured 

energy use, or measured water use of the 

subject ASHRAE equipment as 

determined under the existing test 

procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) If the Secretary 

determines that the amended test 

procedure will alter the measured 

efficiency or measured use, the 

Secretary shall amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard during the 

rulemaking carried out with respect to 

such test procedure. In such case, under 

the process prescribed in EPCA DOE is 

directed to measure, pursuant to the 

amended test procedure, the energy 

efficiency or energy use of a 

representative sample of covered 

products that minimally comply with 

the existing standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) The 

average of such energy efficiency or 

energy use determined under the 

amended test procedure constitutes the 

amended energy conservation standard 

for the applicable covered products. 

(Id.) 

As stated, EPCA requires DOE to 

adopt uniform national standards for 

DX–DOASes at the minimum level 

specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary 

determines, by rule published in the 

Federal Register, and supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, that 

adoption of a uniform national standard 

more stringent than the amended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5576 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

21The CASD is available at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) DOE has preliminarily 

determined that, in the present case 

given the limited data available, 

conducting a crosswalk analysis 

generally consistent with the process 

prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) 

would result in efficiency levels that are 

of the same stringency as those in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019. 

A crosswalk analysis requires data on 

the performance of a representative 

sample of DX–DOASes under both test 

procedures. In response to the 

September 2019 NODA/RFI, 7AC 

offered to provide DOE with a full 

performance map of a 10-ton LDHX DX– 

DOAS. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) However, as 

noted in section III.D.1.a of this NOPR, 

DOE understands LDHX technology to 

be a proprietary technology and thus 

could not consider it as representative 

for the crosswalk analysis. Trane 

suggested that it could provide 

information as confidential business 

information. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI 

committed to working with DOE to 

develop an acceptable crosswalk based 

on calculations and test data, if 

available. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9) DOE did 

not receive any submissions from 

stakeholders containing data that would 

help DOE conduct the crosswalk 

analysis. DOE determined the ISMRE-toISMRE2 crosswalk based on testing 

conducted by DOE and Pacific Gas and 

Electric. DOE determined the ISCOP-toISCOP2 crosswalk based on a technical 

analysis of heat pump performance. The 

methodology and results of the 

crosswalk analysis are presented in 

detail in the Crosswalk Analysis 

Support Document (CASD) 21 and are 

summarized in the following sections of 

this document. 

B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk 

1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test 

Procedure Changes 

In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE requested comment and data on 

developing a potential crosswalk from 

the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2016 based on ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 to 

efficiency levels based on the revisions 

to AHRI 920 (i.e., AHRI 920–2020). 84 

FR 48006, 48022. While DOE is 

proposing to adopt the test procedure in 

AHRI 920–2020 with minor revisions, 

these revisions are not expected to have 

an impact on DX–DOAS ratings. 86 FR 

36018, 36046. As such, the minor 

revisions to the procedure in AHRI 920– 

2020 proposed by DOE would not 

impact the crosswalk or the following 

discussion. 

DOE received comments from two 

stakeholders regarding the test 

procedure updates in AHRI 920–2020 

which affect the dehumidification 

efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9; 

CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7) The comments 

from stakeholders regarding the 

potential impacts of the update from 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 to AHRI 920– 

2020 on the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 

crosswalk are presented in Table IV.1. 

Although the comments do not provide 

quantitative indication of the expected 

change in the measurement, they 

suggest the direction and general 

magnitude of the change in the ISMREto-ISMRE2 crosswalk. 

TABLE IV.1—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISMRE-TO-ISMRE2 CROSSWALK

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 AHRI 920–2020 Expected impact on dehumidification 

efficiency rating 

Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation air and return 

air) dry bulb and wet bulb conditions for four 

Standard Rating Conditions (SRCs) A, B, C, 

and D.

Revises inlet conditions at SRCs C & D a ....... Decrease in MRE at SRC D for units with 

VERS due to less favorable conditions.a

Specifies minimum required external static 

pressures (ESPs) for supply air streams as a 

function of supply airflow rate.

Increases minimum required ESPs for supply 

air streams; a establishes minimum required 

ESPs for return air streams (for units with 

VERS) a b.

Decrease in ISMRE2 due to increased fan 

power at higher static pressures.b

Specifies weighting coefficients to calculate 

ISMRE from the moisture removal efficiencies (MREs) at the four SRCs.

Revises weighting coefficients; a b re-labels efficiency metric as ISMRE2 a b.Increase in ISMRE2 due to greater weight on 

SRCs A and B.b

Does not include instructions for achieving the 

target supply air conditions for units with 

staged capacity control.

Provides an interpolation method and a degradation coefficient calculation to determine 

efficiency for units with staged capacity 

control a.

Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is 

not credited.a

Penalizes delivery of supply air below 70 °F 

(the ‘‘supplementary heat penalty’’).

Eliminates the supplementary heat penalty for 

ISMRE2 a b.

Increase in ISMRE2 due to removal of penalty; b increase in ISMRE2 due to decrease 

in discharge head pressure (higher head 

pressures are required to increase reheat 

capacity, but also increase compressor 

power draw).b

Does not require a consistent supply air dew 

point temperature across all SRCs.

Requires that SRCs B–D target the supply air 

dew point temperature achieved at SRC A 

within a 0.3 °F condition tolerance a.

Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is 

not credited.a

Does not specify how to calculate MRE for 

units with VERS.

Includes instructions for calculating the total 

moisture removal capacity for units with 

VERS; a provides specific equations to 

apply the interpolation method and degradation coefficient method to units with 

VERSa.

Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is 

not credited.a

a (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9). b (CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5577 

22 Data from Sample No. 3 was collected as part 

of a collaboration between Pacific Gas & Electric 

and DOE. Sample point no. 3 is the result of testing 

one DX–DOAS with multiple control 

configurations, as discussed in section 2.2 of the 

CASD. These configurations investigated a range of 

staging, reheat, and airflow control options 

available to manufacturers for testing DX–DOASes 

within the allowances of ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 and 

AHRI 920–2020. The data shown in Table IV.4 for 

Sample point no. 3 are the average results of the 

control configurations tested. Data for each 

individual configuration is provided in the CASD. 

Comments from AHRI and the CA 

IOUs indicated that the various test 

procedure updates may generally lend 

to decreases in the dehumidification 

efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9; 

CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7) 

2. Technical Analysis 

DOE conducted investigative testing 

on four DX–DOASes and collaborated 

with Pacific Gas and Electric on testing 

of a fifth DX–DOAS to measure the 

average impact of the test procedure 

updates on the dehumidification 

efficiency metric.22 A crosswalk 

consistent with the process prescribed 

at 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would typically 

involve testing minimally compliant 

units, or in this case, testing units that 

had efficiencies at the minimum level 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019. As noted previously, ISMRE 

ratings for DX–DOASes are generally 

not available to determine which 

models may perform at the minimum 

ISMRE levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019. In its testing DOE 

determined that these DX–DOAS units 

had efficiencies above the ISMRE 

minima specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019. In order to account for this, 

DOE assessed the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 

crosswalk on the basis of an overall 

percent-change in the dehumidification 

efficiency metric, which can then be 

used to estimate the net impact of the 

updates to AHRI 920. The test results 

are summarized in Table IV.2. 

TABLE IV.2—INVESTIGATIVE TESTING RESULTS

Sample No. Equipment class MRC at SRC A 

ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 

minimum 

ISMRE 

Tested 

ISMRE 

Tested 

ISMRE2 

Percent 

change 

1 ............................... AC w/o VERS ....................... 111 lb/h ................... 4.0 5.1 5.7 +12% 

2 ............................... AC w/o VERS ....................... 94 lb/h ..................... 4.0 7.6 6.4 ¥16% 

3 ............................... AC w/o VERS ....................... 72 lb/h ..................... 4.0 4.6 5.2 +14% 

4 ............................... AC w/ VERS ......................... 256 lb/h ................... 5.2 6.9 6.0 ¥13% 

5 ............................... WSHP w/ VERS ................... 136 lb/h ................... 4.8 8.6 6.8 ¥21% 

Average ............ ............................................... ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ¥5% 

On average, the updates to AHRI 920 

have a net impact of reducing the 

dehumidification efficiency ratings of 

DX–DOASes by five percent. These 

results are consistent with the 

comments provided by stakeholders 

indicating a general decrease in ratings. 

The tested units ranged from a 

reduction of 21% to an increase of 14%. 

The units which were negatively 

impacted by the test procedure changes 

were those which had the highest 

ISMRE ratings compared to the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minima 

(samples no. 2, 4, and 5). The units 

which had ISMRE ratings closer to the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minima 

(samples no. 1 and 3), by contrast, 

increased in rating; therefore, DOE 

tentatively does not expect DX–DOASes 

which are only minimally compliant 

with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 

ISMRE levels to reduce in rating by 

more than five percent based on the 

limited test data available indicating 

that an increase in rating is possible for 

these designs. DOE would consider 

additional crosswalk data from DX– 

DOAS models which are minimally 

compliant with the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 ISMRE levels should such 

data become publicly available. 

Based on the available data, DOE is 

proposing ISMRE2 standards that are 

five percent lower than the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 ISMRE levels. 

DOE’s methodology is described in 

further detail in sections 2.2–2.3 of the 

CASD, and the resulting ISMRE2 levels 

are proposed in Table IV.4 of this 

NOPR. 

C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk 

1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure 

Changes 

DOE received comments from AHRI 

regarding the test procedure updates in 

AHRI 920–2020 which affect the heating 

efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9) 

These comments are presented in Table 

IV.3. DOE did not receive comments 

indicating the actual impacts of each 

test procedure update on the heating 

efficiency metric. 

TABLE IV.3—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISCOP-TO-ISCOP2 CROSSWALK

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 AHRI 920–2020 & July 2021 test procedure NOPR 

Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation air and return air) dry bulb and wet 

bulb conditions for two SRCs E and F.

Revises inlet conditions at SRCs E & F. 

Specifies minimum required external static pressures (ESPs) for supply 

air streams as a function of supply airflow rate.

Increases minimum required ESPs for supply air streams; a establishes 

minimum required ESPs for return air streams (for units with 

VERS).a

Specifies weighting coefficients to calculate ISCOP from the coefficients of performance (COPs) at the two SRCs.Revises weighting coefficients; a re-labels efficiency metric as 

ISMRE2.a

Implies testing at both SRCs in order to calculate an ISCOP rating ....... Makes SRC F optional to test (with the resulting COPF = 1.0) in order 

to calculate an ISCOP2 rating. 

Instructs that the target supply air dry bulb temperature must be as 

close to 75 °F as possible. Credits delivery of supply air above 75 °F 

in determination of total heating capacity.

Provides an interpolation method to determine efficiency for units with 

staged capacity control; specifies that the supply air temperature for 

the determination of total heating capacity must be 70–75 °F.a


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5578 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.3—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISCOP-TO-ISCOP2 CROSSWALK—Continued 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 AHRI 920–2020 & July 2021 test procedure NOPR 

Specifies multiple inlet water conditions for water-source heat pump 

DX–DOASes at each SRC.

Revises inlet water conditions; assigns ‘water-source heat pump’ as 

the inlet condition for ISCOP2 ratings. 

a (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9). 

DOE considered the updates in AHRI 

920–2020 in its calculated performance 

of heat pump DX–DOASes. One notable 

factor affecting the ratings of heat pump 

DX–DOASes is that ANSI/AHRI 920– 

2015 did not specify a target supply air 

dry bulb temperature range for 

determining ratings, whereas AHRI 920– 

2020 specifies that ratings must be 

based on temperatures between 70 °F 

and 75 °F. As a result, heating in excess 

of 75 °F was credited in ANSI/AHRI 

920–2015 but is no longer considered in 

AHRI 920–2020 (the supplementary 

heat penalty for delivery of supply air 

below 70 °F is maintained in both test 

procedures). The impact of this would 

be a decrease in rating for units that 

have coarse staging of compressor 

capacity, which may result in 

overshooting the 75 °F limit due to the 

inability to unload capacity. 

2. Technical Analysis 

DOE did not receive data from 

commenters regarding ISCOP or ISCOP2 

performance ratings. DOE is aware of 

only one manufacturer publishing 

ISCOP ratings and one other 

manufacturer publishing ISCOP2 

ratings. Due to insufficient market data 

for the ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 crosswalk, 

DOE evaluated the performance of 

representative heat pump DX–DOAS 

designs under both test procedures 

using engineering-based analysis to 

determine the crosswalk. 

DOE calculated results for a two-stage 

heat pump system delivering 

approximately 15 tons of capacity based 

on a design description consistent with 

AHRI comments (see section III.D.3.c of 

this NOPR) and based on the calculated 

results identified that that the test 

procedure updates affect each heat 

pump equipment class in different 

ways. DOE also calculated results for 

smaller 3–4 ton heat pump systems with 

only one compressor stage. The 

assumptions and inputs of this 

calculation are provided in detail in 

section 3.3 of the CASD. DOE assumed 

that air-source heat pumps without 

VERS would deactivate heat pump 

operation at SRC F and assume a default 

COPF of 1.0 for both ISCOP and ISCOP2; 

air-source heat pumps with VERS 

would also deactivate heat pump 

operation at SRC F but would be 

capable of running the VERS to provide 

some sensible heating capacity for both 

ISCOP and ISCOP2. The outputs are 

provided in sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the 

CASD. In general, DOE observed that 

air-source heat pump DX–DOASes 

without VERS may reduce in rating 

because AHRI 920–2020 does not credit 

excess heating above 75 °F. Air-source 

heat pump DX–DOASes with VERS may 

use VERS-only operation as the lowestcapacity stage to interpolate to a supply 

air temperature between 70 °F and 75 °F, 

thus avoiding being penalized for excess 

heating. As a result, air-source heat 

pump DX–DOASes may slightly 

increase in rating. DOE observed (in 

testing of a water-source heat pump DX– 

DOAS, as well as in its calculations) 

that water-source heat pump DX– 

DOASes generally perform better at SRC 

F than at SRC E (under both test 

procedures), but the reduction in the 

averaging weight for SRC F for ISCOP2 

would cause the ISCOP2 value to 

decrease for water-source heat pump 

DX–DOASes as compared to ISCOP. 

Like the air-source heat pump DX– 

DOASes, DOE found that water-source 

heat pump DX–DOASes without VERS 

might be more sensitive to the target 

supply air temperature requirements 

than water-source heat pump DX– 

DOASes with VERS. DOE applied the 

average change in rating to the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 ISCOP levels, and the 

resulting ISCOP2 levels are provided in 

Table IV.4. 

D. Crosswalked Standard Levels 

DOE crosswalked the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 minimum ISMRE 

and ISCOP efficiency levels for DX– 

DOASes to determine standards of an 

equivalent stringency in terms of the 

updated metrics ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. 

The results of this analysis are shown in 

Table IV.4. 

TABLE IV.4—CROSSWALKED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR DX–DOASES

Subcategory ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level using 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 

Equivalent stringency level using proposed 

DOE TP 

(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE = 4.0 ..................................................... ISMRE2 = 3.8. 

(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE = 5.2 ..................................................... ISMRE2 = 5.0. 

(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP = 2.7 .............................. ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05. 

(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with 

ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE = 5.2, ISCOP = 3.3 .............................. ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20. 

(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy 

recovery systems.

ISMRE = 4.9 ..................................................... ISMRE2 = 4.7. 

(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation 

energy recovery systems.

ISMRE = 5.3 ..................................................... ISMRE2 = 5.1. 

(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without 

ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP = 3.5 .............................. ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13. 

(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps 

with ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE = 4.8, ISCOP = 4.8 .............................. ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5579 

Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the 

proposed minimum ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2 standards for DX–DOASes, as 

well as comment on any aspect of its 

crosswalk analysis, which is detailed 

in the CASD. DOE continues to seek 

information which compares ISMRE 

and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2 ratings for the DX–DOASes 

that are representative of the market 

baseline efficiency level. 

V. Conclusions 

A. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

EPCA requires DOE to establish an 

amended uniform national standard for 

small, large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, which includes DX– 

DOASes, at the minimum level 

specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register, and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that adoption of a 

uniform national standard more 

stringent than the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)). DOE is 

proposing to adopt energy conservation 

standards for DX–DOASes that are of 

equivalent stringency as the minimum 

levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019. As discussed in the 

following section, DOE has tentatively 

determined it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that adoption of 

more stringent standards would result 

in additional conservation of energy and 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DOE is proposing standards using the 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics, which are 

the metrics used in the most recent 

version of the industry test procedure 

for DX–DOAS recognized by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 (i.e., AHRI 920– 

2020) Based on the crosswalk analysis 

presented, DOE preliminarily 

determines that the proposed energy 

conservation standards in terms of 

ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are of equivalent 

stringency to the standards for DX– 

DOAS in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, 

which rely on the ISMRE and ISCOP 

metrics. 

The proposed standards for DX are 

shown in Table V.1 of this NOPR. The 

proposed standards, if adopted would 

apply to all DX–DOASes with an MRC 

of less than 324 lbs moisture/hr 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on the compliance 

date discussed in section VI.C of this 

document. 

TABLE V.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DX–DOASES

Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level 

Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems.(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 3.8. 

(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery 

systems.

ISMRE2 = 5.0. 

(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy 

recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05. 

(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation 

energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20. 

(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery 

systems.

ISMRE2 = 4.7. 

(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 5.1. 

(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13. 

(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with ventilation 

energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04. 

B. Consideration of More Stringent 

Efficiency Levels 

As stated, EPCA requires DOE to 

establish an amended uniform national 

standard for equipment classes at the 

minimum level specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless 

DOE determines, by rule published in 

the Federal Register, and supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, that 

adoption of a uniform national standard 

more stringent than the amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)). As noted above, 

clear and convincing evidence would 

exist only where the specific facts and 

data made available to DOE regarding a 

particular ASHRAE amendment 

demonstrate that there is no substantial 

doubt that a standard more stringent 

than that contained in the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted 

because it would result in a significant 

additional amount of energy savings, is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Process Rule 

section 9(b). 

As discussed, DOE has not 

established standards or test procedures 

for DX–DOASes, and ASHRAE did not 

specify standards for such equipment 

until 2016. The market for DX–DOASes 

is still developing. Efficiency in terms of 

ISMRE and ISCOP is generally not 

provided by manufacturers and only a 

limited number of units are rated in 

terms of ISMRE2. DOE is not aware of 

any market or performance database for 

DX–DOASes. DOE has requested data 

that is representative of the market, but 

to date has not received any such data. 

As discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a., 

III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a., and III.D.3.b of this 

NOPR, due to the lack of available 

market and performance data, DOE is 

unable to conduct the analysis 

necessary to evaluate the potential 

energy savings or evaluate whether 

more stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justifiable, with sufficient certainty. An 

estimation of energy savings potentials 

of more stringent energy efficiency 

levels would require developing 

efficiency data for the entire DX– 

DOASes market, which would be a 

much broader analysis than that 

conducted for the crosswalk. The 

crosswalk analysis presented in this 

NOPR requires only that DOE translate 

the efficiency levels between the metrics 

at the baseline levels, and not that DOE 

translate all efficiency levels currently 

represented in the market. As noted, 

there is a lack of market data regarding 

the performance of DX–DOASes. As 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5580 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

such, DOE has preliminarily determined 

that it lacks clear and convincing 

evidence that more stringent standards 

would result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

VI. Representations, Certification and 

Compliance Requirements 

A. Representations 

The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

proposed several provisions for the 

determination of represented values for 

DX–DOASes, including a definition for 

a basic model of DX–DOAS, sampling 

plan requirements, considerations for 

equipment compatible with multiple 

refrigerants, alternative energy 

determination methods (AEDMs), and 

rounding requirements. 86 FR 36018, 

36043–36045. 

DOE proposed that a basic model for 

a DX–DOAS means all units 

manufactured by one manufacturer 

within a single equipment class; with 

the same or comparably performing 

compressor(s), heat exchangers, 

ventilation energy recovery system(s) (if 

present), and air moving system(s), and 

with a common ‘‘nominal’’ moisture 

removal capacity. 86 FR 36018, 36044. 

This proposed definition of a basic 

model of a DX–DOAS would be 

included in the regulatory text in 10 

CFR 431.92. Id. 

Because DX–DOASes and Unitary 

DOASes are types of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment, DOE proposed to apply the 

existing sampling plan requirements for 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment under 10 CFR 

429.43, Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, to 

DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36044. 

As discussed in the July 2021 Test 

Procedure NOPR, DOE recognizes that 

some commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment 

may be sold with more than one 

refrigerant option (e.g., R–410A or R– 

407C). 86 FR 36018, 36044. Typically, 

manufacturers specify a single 

refrigerant in their literature for each 

unique model, but in its review, DOE 

has identified at least one manufacturer 

that provides two refrigerant options 

under the same model number. The 

refrigerant chosen by the customer in 

the field installation may impact the 

energy efficiency of a unit. For this 

reason, DOE proposed representation 

requirements specific for models 

approved for use with multiple 

refrigerants. Id. 

Use of a refrigerant that requires 

different hardware (such as R–407C as 

compared to R–410A) would represent a 

different basic model, and according to 

the current CFR, separate 

representations of energy efficiency are 

required for each basic model. 86 FR 

36018, 36044. However, some 

refrigerants (such as R–422D and R– 

427A) would not require different 

hardware, and a manufacturer may 

consider them to be the same basic 

model, which is not currently 

addressed. DOE proposed to add a new 

paragraph at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3) 

specifying that a manufacturer must 

determine the represented values for 

that basic model based on the 

refrigerant(s)—among all refrigerants 

listed on the unit’s nameplate—that 

result in the lowest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 

efficiencies, respectively. Id. These 

represented values would apply to the 

basic model for all refrigerants specified 

by the manufacturer as appropriate for 

use, regardless of which one may 

actually be used in the field, where only 

one set of values is reported. Id. 

DOE proposed to allow manufacturers 

to use AEDMs for determining ISMRE2 

and ISCOP2 ratings consistent with the 

existing provisions for commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. 86 FR 36018, 36044. DOE 

also proposed to create four validation 

classes of DX–DOASes within the 

Validation classes table at 10 CFR 

429.70(c)(2)(iv): Air-cooled/air-source 

and water-cooled/water-source, each 

with and without VERS. Id. This 

proposal requires testing of two basic 

models to validate the AEDMs for each 

validation class, with a tolerance of 10 

percent when comparing test results 

with certified ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 

ratings—identical to the requirements 

for other categories of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment. 86 FR 36018, 36045. 

Finally, DOE proposed to adopt the 

performance metric rounding 

requirements found in Sections 6.1.2.1 

through 6.1.2.8 of AHRI 920–2020 as 

part of the DOE test procedure, as 

enumerated in section 2.2.1(c)(iv) of the 

proposed appendix B. 86 FR 36018, 

36045. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing new 

provisions regarding DX–DOAS 

representations in addition to those 

proposed in the July 2021 Test 

Procedure NOPR. DOE is proposing to 

require that the represented value of 

MRC be either the mean of the MRCs 

measured for the units in the selected 

sample (see 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(ii)) 

rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple 

according to Table 3 of AHRI 920–2020 

or the MRC output simulated by an 

AEDM rounded to the nearest lb/hr 

multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI 

920–2020. This provision seeks to 

ensure that the reported MRC is 

accurate to test or AEDM results and 

that the reported MRC is consistent with 

the requirements in AHRI 920–2020. 

The proposed definition for ‘‘DX– 

DOAS’’ includes a maximum MRC 

limitation of 324 lb/hr, hence DOE seeks 

to provide clear instructions for the 

determination of the MRC in 

representations. 

Issue-4: DOE seeks feedback on the 

proposed representation requirement 

regarding MRC. 

B. Certification and Enforcement 

Provisions 

1. Scope 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing a definition of 

DX–DOAS which specifies the 

capability to dehumidify outdoor air to 

a low dew point and a maximum MRC 

limit of 324 lbs moisture per hour 

(which is consistent with the 760,000 

Btu per hour maximum capacity limit 

for other commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment). 

Effective upon the compliance date for 

standards promulgated for DX–DOASes, 

manufacturers would be required to 

certify to DOE equipment meeting the 

DX–DOAS definition. However, as 

noted in section VI.B.3, DOE will 

address specific certification 

requirements for DX–DOASes in a 

different rulemaking prior to the 

compliance date for standards 

promulgated for DX–DOASes. 

2. Equipment Selection and Sampling 

Plan 

In the July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR, DOE stated by proposing to 

define (at 10 CFR 431.92) DX–DOAS as 

a subset of Unitary DOAS, and to define 

Unitary DOAS as a category of small, 

large, or very large commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment, 

the proposal would apply the same 

sampling requirements to DX–DOASes 

as applicable to other commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment under 10 CFR 429.43, 

Commercial heating, ventilating, air 

conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 86 FR 

36018, 36044. DX–DOAS-specific 

requirements are discussed in section 

VI.A of this document. 

In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR 

DOE discussed one comment received 

on the sampling plan requirements. 

Lennox had recommended that DOE 

harmonize the certification criteria for 

commercial HVAC equipment in 10 CFR 

429.43 with those for central air 

conditioners, a consumer product, in 10 

CFR 429.16.; Lennox stated that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5581 

23AHRI’s certification database for AHRI 1060 

ratings certifies product performance calculation 

software. 

commercial equipment currently has a 

more stringent confidence limit of 95 

percent, but the commenter argued that 

current testing technology does not 

support this level of precision. 86 FR 

36018, 36044. DOE noted that other 

manufacturers did not raise concerns 

regarding the confidence limit required 

for sampling more typical commercial 

package air conditioning and heat pump 

equipment, and Lennox had not 

provided data regarding variability of 

units in production and testing; 

therefore, absent more specific 

information or data regarding the 

stringency of the confidence level, DOE 

did not propose a change. Id. 

As discussed in section VI.A of this 

NOPR, DOE is maintaining its previous 

proposals regarding equipment selection 

and sampling plan requirements. 

3. Certification Requirements 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use equipment-specific 

certification templates to certify 

compliance to DOE. There are currently 

no certification or reporting 

requirements for DX–DOASes. For 

covered equipment, the certification 

template reflects the general 

certification requirements specified at 

10 CFR 429.12 as well as the equipmentspecific requirements. Certification 

reports for commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment 

must include supplemental test 

information. 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4). In 

particular, the equipment-specific, 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., charging instructions) 

for the basic model; identification of all 

special features that were included in 

rating the basic model; and all other 

information (e.g., operational codes or 

component settings) necessary to 

operate the basic model under the 

required conditions specified by the 

relevant test procedure. (10 CFR 

429.43(b)(4)). 

DOE is not proposing to establish 

certification requirements for DX– 

DOASes in this NOPR. Instead, DOE 

may consider proposals to establish 

certification requirements for DX– 

DOASes under a separate rulemaking 

regarding appliance and equipment 

certification. To help interested parties 

better appreciate the proposed 

requirements, a draft certification 

template will be included in the docket 

of the certification rulemaking. 

4. Enforcement Provisions 

Enforcement provisions for 

commercial package air-conditioners 

and heat pumps are set forth at 10 CFR 

429.110(e)(2). The existing provisions 

specify reliance on an initial sample 

size of not more than four units. 10 CFR 

429.110(e)(2). For an ‘‘assessment test,’’ 

DOE may obtain one or more units for 

testing at any time. See 10 CFR 429.104. 

For an ‘‘enforcement test,’’ DOE issues 

a test notice requiring the manufacturer 

to provide units for testing. 10 CFR 

429.110(b). DOE uses the results of 

assessment testing as one tool when 

determining whether to pursue 

enforcement testing. See 10 CFR 

429.106. DOE may pursue enforcement 

testing if it has reason to believe that a 

basic model is not in compliance with 

applicable standards (10 CFR 

429.110(a))—a determination that is 

informed but not based solely on 

assessment test results. DOE has set 

forth different sampling plans for DOE 

enforcement testing of covered 

equipment and certain low-volume 

covered products. Appendix B to 

subpart C of part 429. These sampling 

plans utilize a test sample of no more 

than 4 units for low-volume, built-toorder basic models, which would 

include DX–DOASes. These sampling 

plans are set forth in appendix B to 

subpart C to part 429. DOE proposes 

that the enforcement provisions 

generally applicable to commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment would be applicable to DX– 

DOASes. 

In addition, when determining 

compliance of any DX–DOAS units 

tested for enforcement purposes, DOE 

proposes to adopt provisions at 10 CFR 

429.134 that specify how DOE would 

determine the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 for 

DX–DOASes with VERS. Specifically, if 

the unit is rated based on testing to 

either Option 1 or Option 2, 

manufacturers may choose to use VERS 

EATR ratings based on AHRI 1060–2018 

(or AHRI 1060 performance rating 

software) or default EATR values to 

calculate MRC and/or total heating 

capacity to rate the DX–DOAS. For 

Option 2, manufacturers may use VERS 

effectiveness and EATR ratings based on 

AHRI 1060–2018 or default values to set 

the simulated test conditions for rating 

the DOAS. 

If a manufacturer chooses to use 

default VERS performance values, DOE 

proposes that it could choose to use 

those values, or alternatively test the 

VERS according to AHRI 1060–2018 to 

obtain those values. If a manufacturer 

used AHRI 1060–2018 rated values,23

DOE proposes that it may conduct 

enforcement testing to AHRI 1060–2018 

(with a zero-degree purge angle). In this 

case, DOE would determine the ISMRE2 

and/or ISCOP2 using the certified VERS 

performance values from AHRI 1060– 

2018 if all certified values of sensible 

effectiveness are found to be no greater 

than 105 percent of the mean of the 

measured values (for Option 2), all 

values of latent effectiveness are found 

to be no greater than 107 percent of the 

mean of the measured values (for 

Option 2), and EATR is found to be no 

more than one percentage point less 

than the mean of the measured values 

(for Options 1 and 2). Otherwise, DOE 

would use the mean of the measured 

values to determine ISMRE2 and/or 

ISCOP2. 

DOE is proposing these tolerances on 

the certified values based on tolerances 

specified in AHRI 1060–2018. DOE 

believes these tolerances are also 

appropriate for DOE’s enforcement 

testing program as they represent typical 

variability for this equipment. 

In addition, DOE proposes that if a 

manufacturer is relying on AHRIcertified product performance 

calculation software for VERS as part of 

its representation of DX–DOAS 

efficiency, a manufacturer would be 

required to retain all data underlying 

those AHRI-certified results as part of its 

underlying test data for DOE 

certification testing as specified in 10 

CFR 429.71(a)–(c). 

Issue–5: DOE requests comment on its 

proposed DX–DOAS-specific 

enforcement provisions, and in 

particular, the appropriateness of the 

proposed tolerances on certified 

values. 

C. Compliance Dates 

When establishing energy 

conservation standards at the same level 

as in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA 

requires DOE to establish such 

standards no later than 18 months 

following the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

update. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If 

DOE prescribes energy conservation 

standards at the efficiency levels 

contained in an amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, EPCA states that 

compliance with any such standards 

shall be required on or after a date 

which is two or three years (depending 

on equipment size) after the compliance 

date of the applicable minimum energy 

efficiency requirement in the amended 

ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)) With respect to small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment, the initial 

compliance date must be a date on or 

after a date which is two years after the 

effective date of the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency requirement 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5582 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) With respect 

to large and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, the initial compliance date 

must be a date on or after a date which 

is three years after the effective date of 

the applicable minimum energy 

efficiency requirement in the amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)(ii)) 

If DOE were to prescribe standards 

more stringent than the efficiency levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019, EPCA dictates that any such 

standard will become effective for 

equipment manufactured on or after a 

date which is four years after the date 

of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)) 

Moreover, there currently is not a 

DOE test procedure for DX–DOASes, 

and DOE has proposed a test procedure 

that relies on the metrics ISCOP2 and 

ISMRE2 in the July 2021 Test Procedure 

NOPR. 86 FR 36018. Were DOE to adopt 

the proposed test procedure, beginning 

360 days following the final test 

procedure rule, manufacturers would be 

prohibited from making representations 

respecting the energy consumption of 

DX–DOASes, unless such equipment 

has been tested in accordance with such 

test procedure and such representation 

fairly discloses the results of such 

testing. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

adopt energy conservation standards for 

DX–DOASes that are equivalent to those 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016. Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016 established equipment classes for 

DX–DOASes that do not distinguish 

units based on the small, large, or very 

large categories, DOE has tentatively 

decided to assign a single compliance 

date regardless of equipment size and 

apply the three-year lead time. 

As previously noted, when 

establishing energy conservation 

standards at the same level as in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must 

establish such standards no later than 

18 months following the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 update, and 

manufacturers must comply with such 

standards 2 to 3 years after the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 update, depending on the 

size of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I) & (a)(6)(D)) In order 

to provide DX–DOAS manufacturers 

with a reasonable lead-time to comply 

with the proposed standards, DOE 

proposes that manufacturers would be 

required to comply with the new 

standards for DX–DOASes 18 months 

following the publication date of a final 

rule establishing these standards. The 

proposed compliance date is consistent 

with the lead-time following DOE’s 

establishment of standards at ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 levels 18 months after the 

ASHRAE update and manufacturers’ 

compliance with said standards 3 years 

after the ASHRAE update (i.e., 18 

months following publication of a final 

rule) that is provided for under EPCA. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

(‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning 

and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 

1993), requires each agency to identify 

the problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that the 

proposed standards set forth in this 

NOPR are intended to address are as 

follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases, the benefits of 

more-efficient equipment are not 

realized due to misaligned incentives 

between purchasers and users. An 

example of such a case is when the 

equipment purchase decision is made 

by a building contractor or building 

owner who does not pay the energy 

costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of appliances and equipment 

that are not captured by the users of 

such products. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

energy security that are not reflected in 

energy prices, such as reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases that impact human 

health and global warming. 

This regulatory action was 

determined not to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis for this proposed rule, 

and the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has not reviewed this 

proposed rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this proposed 

regulation pursuant to E.O. 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in E.O. 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by E.O. 13563 to (1) propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 

13563 requires agencies to use the best 

available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible. In its 

guidance, OIRA has emphasized that 

such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this NOPR is 

consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify 

costs and that net benefits are 

maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5583 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

products that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

For manufacturers of dehumidifying 

direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air 

systems (DX–DOASes), the SBA has set 

a size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. DOE used the SBA’s 

small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

available at www.sba.gov/document/ 

support--table-size-standards. The 

equipment covered by this proposed 

rule are classified under North 

American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

as a small business for this category. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by 

Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment. These products 

include DX–DOASes, the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking. EPCA requires 

DOE to consider amending the existing 

Federal energy conservation standard 

for certain types of listed commercial 

and industrial equipment (generally, 

commercial water heaters, commercial 

packaged boilers, commercial airconditioning and heating equipment, 

and packaged terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 is amended with respect 

to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of 

equipment, EPCA directs that if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, 

DOE must adopt amended energy 

conservation standards at the new 

efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, unless clear and convincing 

evidence supports a determination that 

adoption of a more stringent efficiency 

level as a national standard would 

produce significant additional energy 

savings and be technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) This is referred to as 

‘‘the ASHRAE trigger.’’ 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

In addition to the ASHRAE trigger for 

energy conservation standards, EPCA 

also requires that the test procedures for 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment—of which DX– 

DOASes are a type—be those generally 

accepted industry testing procedures or 

rating procedures developed or 

recognized by the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) or by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’ 

(ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test 

procedure is amended, the Secretary 

shall amend the test procedure for the 

product as necessary to be consistent 

with the amended industry test 

procedure or rating procedure unless 

the Secretary determines, by rule, 

published in the Federal Register and 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that to do so would not meet 

the statutory requirements for test 

procedures regarding representativeness 

and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

The industry test procedure 

referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 (the latest version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1) for DX–DOASes is ANSI/ 

AHRI Standard 920–2015, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air 

System Units’’ (ANSI/AHRI 920–2015). 

ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 underwent major 

updates which resulted in a new version 

of the test procedure released in 

February 2020: AHRI 920–2020. Due to 

these test procedure updates, the 

minimum energy efficiency levels 

specified for DX–DOASes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 (which uses the 

metrics ISMRE and ISCOP) are not 

based on equipment efficiency as 

measured pursuant to the latest version 

of the industry consensus test 

procedure, AHRI 920–2020 (which uses 

the metrics ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a 

result, should DOE adopt the test 

procedure as proposed in the July 2021 

TP NOPR, the efficiency measurements 

from the version of the industry test 

procedure recognized in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 for DX–DOASes 

(i.e., ISMRE and ISCOP), would not be 

comparable to efficiency measurements 

under the DOE test procedure. DOE 

would generally be required to adopt 

the ISMRE and ISCOP levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 as the 

basis for energy conservation standards; 

however, in the case of an amended test 

procedure that would alter the 

measured energy efficiency or measured 

energy use of a covered ASHRAE 

equipment, EPCA prescribes 

requirements to amend the applicable 

energy conservation standard so that 

products or equipment that complied 

under the prior test procedure remain 

compliant under the amended test 

procedure. (See generally 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) 

As such, in this proposed rule, DOE 

is proposing to adopt minimum 

efficiency levels using the new metrics 

established in AHRI 920–2020 at 

equivalent stringency to those levels 

currently published in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (which are in terms of the 

metrics established in ANSI/AHRI 920– 

2015). DOE has done so by determining 

a ‘‘crosswalk,’’ or, an equivalent 

translation, of the metrics. 

DOE conducted a crosswalk informed 

by the crosswalk procedure established 

in EPCA and required for amended test 

procedures that result in changes to the 

measured energy efficiency or energy 

use as compared to the existing DOE test 

procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(e); 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) This EPCA 

crosswalk provision is not applicable in 

the present case as there is not an 

existing DOE test procedure for DX– 

DOASes; however, DOE found it to be 

instructive for determining standards 

using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics 

that are of equivalent stringency as the 

levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019. The crosswalk approach 

relied on by DOE in this NOPR used an 

average difference in measured energy 

efficiency between ANSI/AHRI 920– 

2015 (which relies on ISMRE and 

ISCOP) and AHRI 920–2020 (which 

relies on ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of small, large, and 

very large air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (including DX–DOASes), 

commercial warm-air furnaces, and 

commercial water heaters, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’. 

DOE used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of this rule. See 13 CFR 

part 121. The equipment covered by this 

rule are classified under North 

American Industry Classification 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5584 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24The business size standards are listed by 

NAICS code and industry description and are 

available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards (Last Accessed July 29th, 2021). 

System (NAICS) code 333415,24 ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

as a small business for this category. 

In reviewing the DX–DOAS market, 

DOE used company websites, marketing 

research tools, product catalogues, and 

other public information to identify 

companies that manufacture DX– 

DOASes. DOE identified 12 original 

equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of 

DX–DOASes affected by this 

rulemaking. DOE screened out 

companies that do not meet the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ or are 

foreign-owned and operated. DOE used 

subscription-based business information 

tools to determine headcount, revenue, 

and geographic presence of the small 

businesses. Out of these 12 OEMs, DOE 

determined that there is one domestic 

small manufacturer. DOE understands 

the annual revenue of the small 

manufacturer to be approximately $66 

million. 

Issue–6: DOE requests comment and 

information on the number of small, 

domestic OEMs of the DX–DOASes. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

The proposed standards for DX– 

DOASes were determined by a 

crosswalk of the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 efficiency levels to new 

efficiency metrics defined in AHRI 920– 

2020. As noted in Section 2 of the 

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, the crosswalk was based on the 

average difference in efficiency under 

the amended test procedure. While DOE 

expects it to be unlikely, some models 

currently on the market that are 

minimally compliant with ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 may not meet the 

crosswalked levels, since some units 

will fall above the average and some 

units will fall below the average. At this 

time, identification of such models is 

not possible due lack of data, as 

manufacturers do not publish sufficient 

model performance information. 

The proposed adoption of the 

crosswalked ASHRAE level may require 

small manufacturers to redesign a 

portion of equipment offerings. 

However, adopting more stringent 

standards above the cross-walked 

ASHRAE levels would lead to higher 

costs to manufacturers. Therefore, DOE 

determined that the proposed efficiency 

level provides the least cost option for 

small manufacturers. 

Issue–7: DOE requests comment on the 

potential number of basic models that 

small, domestic OEMs would need to 

redesign and the costs associated with 

the redesign process. Further, DOE 

request comments on its conclusion 

that adopting levels other than 

ASHRAE would lead to higher costs 

for small manufacturers. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule being 

considered in this action. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt 

the ASHRAE levels or to propose higher 

standards, DOE is limited in options to 

mitigate impacts to small businesses. In 

this proposed rulemaking, DOE is 

adopting the ASHRAE levels (crosswalked to metrics adopted in the DX– 

DOAS test procedure), which is the least 

cost option to industry. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

OMB Control Number 1910–1400, 

Compliance Statement Energy/Water 

Conservation Standards for Appliances, 

is currently valid and assigned to the 

certification reporting requirements 

applicable to covered equipment, 

including DX–DOASes. 

DOE’s certification and compliance 

activities ensure accurate and 

comprehensive information about the 

energy and water use characteristics of 

covered products and covered 

equipment sold in the United States. 

Manufacturers of all covered products 

and covered equipment must submit a 

certification report before a basic model 

is distributed in commerce, annually 

thereafter, and if the basic model is 

redesigned in such a manner to increase 

the consumption or decrease the 

efficiency of the basic model such that 

the certified rating is no longer 

supported by the test data. Additionally, 

manufacturers must report when 

production of a basic model has ceased 

and is no longer offered for sale as part 

of the next annual certification report 

following such cessation. DOE requires 

the manufacturer of any covered 

product or covered equipment to 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of certification reports, of the 

underlying test data for all certification 

testing, and of any other testing 

conducted to satisfy the requirements of 

part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. 

Certification reports provide DOE and 

consumers with comprehensive, up-to 

date efficiency information and support 

effective enforcement. 

Certification data will be required for 

DX–DOASes; however, DOE is not 

proposing certification or reporting 

requirements for DX–DOASes in this 

NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider 

proposals to establish certification 

requirements and reporting for DX– 

DOASes under a separate rulemaking 

regarding appliance and equipment 

certification. DOE will address changes 

to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at 

that time, as necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5585 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, none of the 

exceptions identified in categorical 

exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that is the subject of this proposed rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (See 

42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 

6297) Therefore, no further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments, and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal intergovernmental mandate, 

nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by the private sector. In 

this document, DOE is proposing to 

adopt energy conservation standards at 

an equivalent stringency level as the 

existing industry standards in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019. The determination 

of the proposed energy conservation 

standards is based on a crosswalk of the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minimum 

efficiency levels to updated efficiency 

metrics, and thus DOE does not expect 

that units which are minimally 

compliant with ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 would require redesign. As a 

result, the analytical requirements of 

UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

new energy conservation standards for 

DX–DOASes, is not a significant energy 

action because this action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, the proposed 

standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5586 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

25The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed 

August 6, 2021). 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on this proposed rule. 

J. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 

2005). The Bulletin establishes that 

certain scientific information shall be 

peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.25

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. DOE has 

determined that the peer-reviewed 

analytical process continues to reflect 

current practice, and the Department 

followed that process for developing 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present rulemaking. 

K. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed energy conservation 

standards for DX–DOASes would 

incorporate the following commercial 

standards: AHRI 920–2020 and AHRI 

1060–2018. DOE has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with both the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

L. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the following 

industry standards: 

(1) The test standard published by 

AHRI, titled ‘‘2020 Standard for 

Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated 

Outdoor Air System Units,’’ AHRI 

Standard 920–2020 (I–P). AHRI 

Standard 920–2020 (I–P) is an industryaccepted test procedure for measuring 

the performance of dehumidifying 

direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air 

system units (DX–DOASes). AHRI 

Standard 920–2020 (I–P) is available on 

AHRI’s website at: www.ahrinet.org/ 

App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/ 

AHRI/AHRI_Standard_920_I-P_

2020.pdf. 

(2) The test standard published by 

AHRI, titled ‘‘2018 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Air-to-Air 

Exchangers for Energy Recovery 

Ventilation Equipment,’’ ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 1060–2018. ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 1060–2018 is an industryaccepted test procedure for measuring 

the performance of air-to-air exchangers 

for energy recovery ventilation 

equipment (VERS). ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 1060–2018 is available on 

AHRI’s website at: www.ahrinet.org/ 

App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/ 

AHRI/AHRI_Standard_1060_I-P_

2018.pdf. 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting is listed in the DATES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5587 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the webinar, allow time 

for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public webinar, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No 

telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Provide documents that are not secured, 

that are written in English, and that are 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5588 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

E. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

Issue–1: DOE requests comment on the 

proposed eight equipment classes for 

energy conservation standards of DX– 

DOASes. 

Issue–2: DOE continues to seek 

information that may inform a market 

and technology assessment for the 

DX–DOAS industry, including data 

on technology options which may 

increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 

efficiencies of DX–DOASes. 

Issue–3: DOE requests comment on the 

proposed minimum ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2 standards for DX–DOASes, as 

well as comment on any aspect of its 

crosswalk analysis, which is detailed 

in the CASD. DOE continues to seek 

information which compares ISMRE 

and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and 

ISCOP2 ratings for the DX–DOASes 

that are representative of the market 

baseline efficiency level. 

Issue–4: DOE seeks feedback on the 

proposed representation requirement 

regarding MRC. 

Issue–5: DOE requests comment on its 

proposed DX–DOAS-specific 

enforcement provisions, and in 

particular, the appropriateness of the 

proposed tolerances on certified 

values. 

Issue–6: DOE requests comment and 

information on the number of small, 

domestic OEMs of the DX–DOASes. 

Issue–7: DOE requests comment on the 

potential number of basic models that 

small, domestic OEMs would need to 

redesign and the costs associated with 

the redesign process. Further, DOE 

request comments on its conclusion 

that adopting levels other than 

ASHRAE would lead to higher costs 

for small manufacturers. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

IX. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comment. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on January 19, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 20, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.4 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) and the 

introductory text to paragraph (c); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as 

(4); and 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and 

(3). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

appliance-and-equipment-standardsprogram, and may be obtained from the 

other sources in this section. Also, this 

material is available for inspection at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

* * * * * 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, or go to: 

www.ahrinet.org. 

* * * * * 

(2) AHRI Standard 920–2020 (I–P), 

(‘‘AHRI 920–2020’’), ‘‘2020 Standard for 

Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated 

Outdoor Air System Units,’’ approved 

February 4, 2020, IBR approved for 

§ 429.134. 

(3) AHRI Standard 1060–2018, 

(‘‘AHRI 1060–2018’’), ‘‘2018 Standard 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 5589 

for Performance Rating of Air-to-Air 

Exchangers for Energy Recovery 

Ventilation Equipment,’’ approved 

2018, (AHRI 1060–2018), IBR approved 

for § 429.134. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.43 by reserving 

paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph 

(a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 

(a) * * * 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) Product-specific provisions for 

determination of represented values for 

dehumidifying direct-expansion 

dedicated outdoor air systems. (i) When 

certifying, the following provisions 

apply. 

(A) For ratings based on tested 

samples, the represented value of 

moisture removal capacity shall be the 

mean of the moisture removal capacities 

measured for the units in the sample 

selected, as described in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, rounded to the 

nearest lb/hr multiple according to 

Table 3 of AHRI 920–2020 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 429.4). 

(B) For ratings based on an AEDM, the 

represented value of moisture removal 

capacity shall be the moisture removal 

capacity output simulated by the 

AEDM, as described in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section, rounded to the nearest 

lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of 

AHRI 920–2020. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(s) Dehumidifying direct-expansion 

dedicated outdoor air systems (DX– 

DOASes) with ventilation energy 

recovery systems (VERS). (1) If the 

manufacturer certified testing in 

accordance with Option 1 using default 

VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR) 

values or Option 2 using default VERS 

effectiveness and EATR values, DOE 

may determine the integrated seasonal 

moisture removal efficiency 2 (ISMRE2) 

and/or the integrated seasonal 

coefficient of performance 2 (ISCOP2) 

using the default values or by 

conducting testing to determine VERS 

performance according to AHRI 1060– 

2018 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 429.4) (with the minimum purge angle 

and zero pressure differential between 

supply and return air). 

(2) If the manufacturer certified 

testing in accordance with Option 1 

using VERS exhaust air transfer ratio 

(EATR) values or Option 2 using VERS 

effectiveness and EATR values 

determined using an analysis tool 

certified in accordance with AHRI 

1060–2018, DOE may conduct its own 

testing to determine VERS performance 

in accordance with AHRI 1060–2018. 

(i) DOE would use the values of VERS 

performance certified to DOE (i.e. 

EATR, sensible effectiveness, and latent 

effectiveness) as the basis for 

determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 

of the basic model only if, for Option 1, 

the certified EATR is found to be no 

more than one percentage point less 

than the mean of the measured values 

(i.e. the difference between the 

measured EATR and the certified EATR 

is no more than 0.01), or for Option 2, 

all certified values of sensible 

effectiveness are found to be no greater 

than 105 percent of the mean of the 

measured values (i.e. the certified 

effectiveness divided by the measured 

effectiveness is no greater than 1.05), all 

certified values of latent effectiveness 

are found to be no greater than 107 

percent of the mean of the measured 

values, and the certified EATR is found 

to be no more than one percentage point 

less than the mean of the measured 

values. 

(ii) If any of the conditions in 

paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this section do not 

hold true, then the mean of the 

measured values will be used as the 

basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/ 

or ISCOP2 of the basic model. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 6. Amend § 431.97 by adding 

paragraph (g) and Table 14 to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(g) Each dehumidifying directexpansion dedicated outdoor air system 

manufactured on or after the 

compliance date listed in this table must 

meet the applicable minimum energy 

efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 

this section. 

TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFYING DIRECT-EXPANSION DEDICATED

OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS

Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . . 

Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems.(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation 

energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 3.8 ....... [date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 5.0 ....... [date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 3.8 .......

ISCOP2 = 2.05 .....

[date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat 

pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 5.0 .......

ISCOP2 = 3.20 .....

[date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.ISMRE2 = 4.7 ....... [date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with 

ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 5.1 ....... [date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps 

without ventilation energy recovery 

systems.

ISMRE2 = 3.8 .......

ISCOP2 = 2.13 .....

[date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5590 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFYING DIRECT-EXPANSION DEDICATED

OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS—Continued 

Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . . 

(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat 

pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.

ISMRE2 = 4.6 .......

ISCOP2 = 4.04 .....

[date 18 months after the publication 

of a standards final rule]. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01375 Filed 1–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2