[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5560-5590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01375]



[[Page 5559]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 21

February 1, 2022

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems; Proposed 
Rule

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

[[Page 5560]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 direct-
expansion 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1b29e9c9cb0b2b9949085989f96b480849881b29085c3c1c0c6a2a5b5c1c1c0c6b19494df959e94df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ac9e5e7e7cbc9c2efebfee3e4edcffbffe3fac9ebfeb8babbbdd9decebababbbdcaefefa4eee5efa4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/EERE-2017-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f5fef5e2f7e9bee3e4f1fef4f1e2f4e3d0e5e3f4fffabef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60050e051207194e1314010e0401120413201513040f0a4e070f16">[email protected]</span></a> 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#723302021e1b131c11172106131c161300160123071701061b1d1c013217175c161d175c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e0f3e3e22272f202d2b1d3a2f202a2f3c2a3d1f3b2b3d3a2721203d0e2b2b602a212b60292138">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84c9e5f0f0ece1f3aad6edeae3c4ecf5aae0ebe1aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdf0dcc9c9d5d8ca93efd4d3dafdd5cc93d9d2d893dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93d2e3e3fffaf2fdf0f6c0e7f2fdf7f2e1f7e0c2e6f6e0e7fafcfde0d3f6f6bdf7fcf6bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f7e4f4f53565e515c5a6c4b5e515b5e4d5b4c6e4a5a4c4b5650514c7f5a5a115b505a11585049">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 Expansion-Dedicated 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 Air-conditioning, 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

[[Page 5561]]

    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 C \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
    \2\ All 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 air-
source heat pump and water-source heat pump DOAS classes. ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2016 specifies that both metrics are measured in 
accordance with Air-conditioning, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AHRI 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5562]]

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    (AC)--Air-cooled    ISMRE2 = 3.8.
 dedicated outdoor air systems.    without
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (AC w/VERS)--Air-   ISMRE2 = 5.0.
                                   cooled with
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (ASHP)--Air-source  ISMRE2 = 3.8,
                                   heat pumps          ISCOP2 = 2.05.
                                   without
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (ASHP w/VERS)--Air- ISMRE2 = 5.0,
                                   source heat pumps   ISCOP2 = 3.20.
                                   with ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (WC)--Water-cooled  ISMRE2 = 4.7.
                                   without
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (WC w/VERS)--Water- ISMRE2 = 5.1.
                                   cooled with
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (WSHP)--Water-      ISMRE2 = 3.8,
                                   source heat pumps   ISCOP2 = 2.13.
                                   without
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
                                  (WSHP w/VERS)--     ISMRE2 = 4.6,
                                   Water-source heat   ISCOP2 = 4.04.
                                   pumps with
                                   ventilation
                                   energy recovery
                                   systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 5563]]

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 air-conditioning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPCA 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.''
    \5\ See American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for 
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.''
    \6\ Other 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, water-source 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5564]]

the integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency (ISMRE) metric for 
all DX-DOAS classes and also the integrated seasonal coefficient of 
performance (ISCOP) metric for air-source 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 DX-Dedicated 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Energy efficiency
                 Equipment class                          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,      4.9 ISMRE.
 without energy recovery.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water,      5.3 ISMRE.
 with energy recovery.
Water-cooled: Chilled water, without energy       6.0 ISMRE.
 recovery.
Water-cooled: Chilled water, with energy          6.6 ISMRE.
 recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed    4.8 ISMRE, 2.0 ISCOP.
 loop, without energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed    5.2 ISMRE, 3.8 ISCOP.
 loop, with energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source,     5.0 ISMRE, 3.2 ISCOP.
 without energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source,     5.8 ISMRE, 4.0 ISCOP.
 with energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without    4.0 ISMRE, 3.5 ISCOP.
 energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with       4.8 ISMRE, 4.8 ISCOP.
 energy recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ TMY 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 air-

[[Page 5565]]

cooled DX-DOASes (based on the ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 metrics, ISMRE and 
ISCOP) and annual unit energy consumption estimates for these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI also requested comment and data 
regarding standards for computer room air conditioners, which are 
being addressed in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
          Commenter(s)                   NOPR           Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 AC Technologies...............  7AC...............  Manufacturer.
Air-conditioning, Heating, &      AHRI..............  Trade Association.
 Refrigeration Institute.
Ingersoll Rand Trane............  Trane.............  Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,     CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas and Electric Co.,
 Southern California Edison.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-fits-all 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI used the term ``DOAS''. See 
generally 84 FR 48006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 expansion-dedicated outdoor air 
system, or DX-DOAS, means a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air 
system that is capable of dehumidifying air to a 55 [deg]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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 5566]]

    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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Tables 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 air-conditioning 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 (air-cooled, air-source heat pump, 
water-cooled, 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 pre-
conditions 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 ground-water-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 water-cooled 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 
water-cooled 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 water-
source 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 water-cooled 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 
water-cooled cooling tower condenser water classes and the water-cooled 
chilled water classes and evaluated water-cooled 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

[[Page 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 water-source 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 water-cooled 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 water-source heat pump equipment into the three subcategories in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Because of the statutory exclusion of 
ground-water-source equipment and because ground-source 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 air-cooled 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Proposed equipment class in
Equipment class in ASHRAE Standard 90.1    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    (ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps
 recovery.                                without ventilation energy
                                          recovery systems.
Air-source heat pumps: With energy       (ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat
 recovery.                                pumps with ventilation energy
                                          recovery systems.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser    (WC)--Water-cooled without
 water, without energy recovery.          ventilation energy recovery
                                          systems.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser    (WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with
 water, with energy recovery.             ventilation energy recovery
                                          systems.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source,   (WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps
 without energy recovery.                 without ventilation energy
                                          recovery systems.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source,   (WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source
 with energy recovery.                    heat pumps with ventilation
                                          energy recovery systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5568]]

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 space-neutral 
conditions (70-75 [deg]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: ISMRE2<INF>70</INF> and 
COP<INF>DOAS,x</INF>. 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 [deg]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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ AHRI 920-2020 requires that DX-DOASes dehumidify outdoor 
ventilation air to a maximum dew point of 55 [deg]F as a 
representative set point for dehumidified building supply air. 
Therefore, if the outdoor air dew point temperature is below 55 
[deg]F, there would typically not be any dehumidification load on 
the DX-DOAS, and the remaining cooling load would be for sensible 
cooling only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 5569]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Although 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). 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..............  <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
                                          <bullet> National Impact
                                           Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Energy Use
                                           Determination.
Technological Feasibility...............  <bullet> Market and Technology
                                           Assessment.
                                          <bullet> Screening Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers   <bullet> Manufacturer Impact
     and Consumers.                        Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost
                                           Subgroup Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
    2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings    <bullet> Markups for Product
     Compared to Increased Cost for the    Price Determination.
     Product.
                                          <bullet> Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination.
                                          <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.
    3. Total Projected Energy Savings...  <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
                                          <bullet> National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance.  <bullet> Screening Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of         <bullet> Manufacturer Impact
     Competition.                          Analysis.
    6. Need for National Energy and       <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
     Water Conservation.
                                          <bullet> National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    7. Other Factors the Secretary        <bullet> Employment Impact
     Considers Relevant.                   Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Utility Impact
                                           Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Emissions Analysis.
                                          <bullet> Monetization of
                                           Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                          <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD is available as Document 
No. 2 at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5570]]

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 cost-effectiveness 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability 
discussing the experience curve methodology. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cost-efficiency 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 two-step 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 two-stage 
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

[[Page 5571]]

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-to-ISCOP2 
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 commercially-
distributed 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 
manufacturer-published 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Procedures, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 5572]]

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 
industry-wide 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 air-cooled 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 water-source 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

[[Page 5573]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
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))

                 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 no-standards 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 cost-
efficiency 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 more-efficient 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 5574]]

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 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.php?view=microdata (Last accessed on August 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 5576]]

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-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk based on testing 
conducted by DOE and Pacific Gas and Electric. DOE determined the 
ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The CASD is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk.

 Table IV.1--Test Procedure Updates Impacting ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Expected impact on
     ANSI/AHRI 920-2015           AHRI 920-2020       dehumidification
                                                      efficiency rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies inlet (outdoor      Revises inlet         Decrease in MRE at
 ventilation air and return    conditions at SRCs    SRC D for units
 air) dry bulb and wet bulb    C & D \a\.            with VERS due to
 conditions for four                                 less favorable
 Standard Rating Conditions                          conditions.\a\
 (SRCs) A, B, C, and D.
Specifies minimum required    Increases minimum     Decrease in ISMRE2
 external static pressures     required ESPs for     due to increased
 (ESPs) for supply air         supply air streams;   fan power at higher
 streams as a function of      \a\ establishes       static
 supply airflow rate.          minimum required      pressures.\b\
                               ESPs for return air
                               streams (for units
                               with VERS) \a\ \b\.
Specifies weighting           Revises weighting     Increase in ISMRE2
 coefficients to calculate     coefficients; \a\     due to greater
 ISMRE from the moisture       \b\ re-labels         weight on SRCs A
 removal efficiencies (MREs)   efficiency metric     and B.\b\
 at the four SRCs.             as ISMRE2 \a\ \b\.
Does not include              Provides an           Decrease in ISMRE2
 instructions for achieving    interpolation         for units with
 the target supply air         method and a          staged capacity
 conditions for units with     degradation           because excess
 staged capacity control.      coefficient           dehumidification is
                               calculation to        not credited.\a\
                               determine
                               efficiency for
                               units with staged
                               capacity control
                               \a\.
Penalizes delivery of supply  Eliminates the        Increase in ISMRE2
 air below 70 [deg]F (the      supplementary heat    due to removal of
 ``supplementary heat          penalty for ISMRE2    penalty; \b\
 penalty'').                   \a\ \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            Requires that SRCs B- Decrease in ISMRE2
 consistent supply air dew     D target the supply   for units with
 point temperature across      air dew point         staged capacity
 all SRCs.                     temperature           because excess
                               achieved at SRC A     dehumidification is
                               within a 0.3 [deg]F   not credited.\a\
                               condition tolerance
                               \a\.
Does not specify how to       Includes              Decrease in ISMRE2
 calculate MRE for units       instructions for      for units with
 with VERS.                    calculating the       staged capacity
                               total moisture        because excess
                               removal capacity      dehumidification is
                               for units with        not credited.\a\
                               VERS; \a\ provides
                               specific equations
                               to apply the
                               interpolation
                               method and
                               degradation
                               coefficient method
                               to units with VERS
                               \a\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9).
\b\ (CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6-7).


[[Page 5577]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

                                                        Table IV.2--Investigative Testing Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              ASHRAE
              Sample No.                    Equipment class            MRC at SRC A        Standard 90.1   Tested ISMRE    Tested ISMRE2  Percent change
                                                                                           minimum ISMRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          AHRI 920-2020 & July 2021 test
           ANSI/AHRI 920-2015                     procedure NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation     Revises inlet conditions at
 air and return air) dry bulb and wet     SRCs E & F.
 bulb conditions for two SRCs E and F.
Specifies minimum required external      Increases minimum required ESPs
 static pressures (ESPs) for supply air   for supply air streams; \a\
 streams as a function of supply          establishes minimum required
 airflow rate.                            ESPs for return air streams
                                          (for units with VERS).\a\
Specifies weighting coefficients to      Revises weighting coefficients;
 calculate ISCOP from the coefficients    \a\ re-labels efficiency
 of performance (COPs) at the two SRCs.   metric as ISMRE2.\a\
Implies testing at both SRCs in order    Makes SRC F optional to test
 to calculate an ISCOP rating.            (with the resulting COPF =
                                          1.0) in order to calculate an
                                          ISCOP2 rating.
Instructs that the target supply air     Provides an interpolation
 dry bulb temperature must be as close    method to determine efficiency
 to 75 [deg]F as possible. Credits        for units with staged capacity
 delivery of supply air above 75 [deg]F   control; specifies that the
 in determination of total heating        supply air temperature for the
 capacity.                                determination of total heating
                                          capacity must be 70-75
                                          [deg]F.\a\

[[Page 5578]]

 
Specifies multiple inlet water           Revises inlet water conditions;
 conditions for water-source heat pump    assigns `water-source heat
 DX-DOASes at each SRC.                   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 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F. As a result, heating in 
excess of 75 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 COP<INF>F</INF> 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 
[deg]F. Air-source heat pump DX-DOASes with VERS may use VERS-only 
operation as the lowest-capacity stage to interpolate to a supply air 
temperature between 70 [deg]F and 75 [deg]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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ASHRAE Standard       Equivalent
                                    90.1-2019 level    stringency level
           Subcategory              using ANSI/AHRI   using proposed DOE
                                       920-2015               TP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AC)--Air-cooled without          ISMRE = 4.0.......  ISMRE2 = 3.8.
 ventilation energy recovery
 systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with      ISMRE = 5.2.......  ISMRE2 = 5.0.
 ventilation energy recovery
 systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps     ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP  ISMRE2 = 3.8,
 without ventilation energy        = 2.7.              ISCOP2 = 2.05.
 recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat    ISMRE = 5.2, ISCOP  ISMRE2 = 5.0,
 pumps with ventilation energy     = 3.3.              ISCOP2 = 3.20.
 recovery systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without        ISMRE = 4.9.......  ISMRE2 = 4.7.
 ventilation energy recovery
 systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with    ISMRE = 5.3.......  ISMRE2 = 5.1.
 ventilation energy recovery
 systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps   ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP  ISMRE2 = 3.8,
 without ventilation energy        = 3.5.              ISCOP2 = 2.13.
 recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source heat  ISMRE = 4.8, ISCOP  ISMRE2 = 4.6,
 pumps with ventilation energy     = 4.8.              ISCOP2 = 4.04.
 recovery systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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       (AC)--Air-cooled without     ISMRE2 = 3.8.
 dedicated outdoor air systems.       ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
                                     (AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled      ISMRE2 = 5.0.
                                      with ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
                                     (ASHP)--Air-source heat      ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05.
                                      pumps without ventilation
                                      energy recovery systems.
                                     (ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source    ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20.
                                      heat pumps with
                                      ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
                                     (WC)--Water-cooled without   ISMRE2 = 4.7.
                                      ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
                                     (WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled    ISMRE2 = 5.1.
                                      with ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
                                     (WSHP)--Water-source heat    ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13.
                                      pumps without ventilation
                                      energy recovery systems.
                                     (WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source  ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04.
                                      heat pumps with
                                      ventilation energy
                                      recovery systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 5580]]

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 air-conditioning 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 air-conditioning 
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

[[Page 5581]]

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 
equipment-specific requirements. Certification reports for commercial 
package air-conditioning 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-to-order 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ AHRI's certification database for AHRI 1060 ratings 
certifies product performance calculation software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
AHRI-certified 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

[[Page 5582]]

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,

[[Page 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, ``Air-
Conditioning 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 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 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 Air-Conditioning 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

[[Page 5584]]

System (NAICS) code 333415,\24\ ``Air-Conditioning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The business size standards are listed by NAICS code and 
industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (Last Accessed July 29th, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (cross-walked 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 5586]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: 
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed August 6, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 industry-
accepted 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 industry-accepted 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/public-meetings-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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a0b3a3a26232b24292f193e2b242e2b382e391b3f2f393e232524390a2f2f642e252f642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="317041415d58505f52546245505f55504355426044544245585e5f427154541f555e541f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>. 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

[[Page 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).

[[Page 5588]]

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%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and the introductory text to paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as (4); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and (3).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  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-standards-program, 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c1d589cec9d4d7c2c4d3cec8c9e7c9c6d5c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177165397e7964677274637e7879577976657639707861">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 Sec.  429.134.
    (3) AHRI Standard 1060-2018, (``AHRI 1060-2018''), ``2018 Standard

[[Page 5589]]

for Performance Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers for Energy Recovery 
Ventilation Equipment,'' approved 2018, (AHRI 1060-2018), IBR approved 
for Sec.  429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  429.43 by reserving paragraph (a)(3) and adding 
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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]
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  429.134 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

0
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.

0
6. Amend Sec.  431.97 by adding paragraph (g) and Table 14 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.97  Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (g) Each dehumidifying direct-expansion 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 Sec.   431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air
                                                     Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Compliance date:
          Equipment type                    Subcategory            Efficiency level      Equipment manufactured
                                                                                           starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifying direct-expansion      (AC)--Air-cooled without    ISMRE2 = 3.8.........  [date 18 months after the
 dedicated outdoor air systems.      ventilation energy                                 publication of a
                                     recovery systems.                                  standards final rule].
                                    (AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled     ISMRE2 = 5.0.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     with ventilation energy                            publication of a
                                     recovery systems.                                  standards final rule].
                                    (ASHP)--Air-source heat     ISMRE2 = 3.8.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     pumps without ventilation  ISCOP2 = 2.05........   publication of a
                                     energy recovery systems.                           standards final rule].
                                    (ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source   ISMRE2 = 5.0.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     heat pumps with            ISCOP2 = 3.20........   publication of a
                                     ventilation energy                                 standards final rule].
                                     recovery systems.
                                    (WC)--Water-cooled without  ISMRE2 = 4.7.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     ventilation energy                                 publication of a
                                     recovery systems.                                  standards final rule].
                                    (WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled   ISMRE2 = 5.1.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     with ventilation energy                            publication of a
                                     recovery systems.                                  standards final rule].
                                    (WSHP)--Water-source heat   ISMRE2 = 3.8.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     pumps without ventilation  ISCOP2 = 2.13........   publication of a
                                     energy recovery systems.                           standards final rule].

[[Page 5590]]

 
                                    (WSHP w/VERS)--Water-       ISMRE2 = 4.6.........  [date 18 months after the
                                     source heat pumps with     ISCOP2 = 4.04........   publication of a
                                     ventilation energy                                 standards final rule].
                                     recovery systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-01375 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>