35286 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026] 

RIN 1904–AE60 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Dehumidifiers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedure for dehumidifiers. The 

proposed amendments would reference 

the current version of an applicable 

industry standard; allow the rating test 

period to be 2 or 6 hours; permit the use 

of a sampling tree in conjunction with 

an aspirating psychrometer for testing a 

dehumidifier with a single process air 

intake grille; and specify for 

dehumidifiers with network capabilities 

that all network functions must be 

disabled throughout testing. DOE is 

seeking comment from interested parties 

on the proposal. 

DATES:

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this proposal no later than 

August 8, 2022. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Tuesday, July 12, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments by email 

to Dehumidifier2019TP0026@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026 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 V 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 coronavirus 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) 287–1445 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, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), 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, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2019-BT-TP-0026. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

0371. Email 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to maintain previously 

approved incorporations by reference 

for ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 

41.1 and IEC 62301, and incorporate by 

reference the following industry 

standard into part 430: 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) Standard 

DH–1–2017, ‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ (‘‘AHAM 

DH–1–2017’’). 

Copies of AHAM DH–1–2017 can be 

obtained from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers at 

www.aham.org/ht/d/Store/. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Scope of Applicability and Definitions 

C. Test Procedure 

1. Updates to Industry Standards 

2. Variable-Speed Dehumidifiers 

3. Psychrometer Setup 

4. Whole-Home Dehumidifiers 

5. Network Functions 

6. Removal of Appendix X 

D. Reporting 

E. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

F. Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

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 and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, 

and Conflict With Other Rules and 

Regulations 

6. A Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. 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. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35287 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58 (Nov. 

15, 2021). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

3 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 

01). 

4 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related 

equipment—Methods of measurement for power 

consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7: 

2018). 

I. Authority and Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) These products include 

dehumidifiers, the subject of this notice. 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

and test procedures for dehumidifiers 

are currently prescribed at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) 

430.32(v); and 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

B appendix X1 (‘‘appendix X1’’), 

respectively. The following sections 

discuss DOE’s authority to establish test 

procedures for dehumidifiers and 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this product. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, which sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. These products 

include dehumidifiers, the subject of 

this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34); 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(13); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other 

representations about the efficiency of 

those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (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 of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including dehumidifiers, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) 

If the Secretary determines, on her 

own behalf or in response to a petition 

by any interested person, that a test 

procedure should be prescribed or 

amended, the Secretary shall promptly 

publish in the Federal Register 

proposed test procedures and afford 

interested persons an opportunity to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments with respect to such 

procedures. The comment period on a 

proposed rule to amend a test procedure 

shall be at least 60 days and may not 

exceed 270 days. In prescribing or 

amending a test procedure, the 

Secretary shall take into account such 

information as the Secretary determines 

relevant to such procedure, including 

technological developments relating to 

energy use or energy efficiency of the 

type (or class) of covered products 

involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii)) 

In addition, EPCA requires that DOE 

amend its test procedures for all covered 

products to integrate measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

Standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption must be incorporated into 

the overall energy efficiency, energy 

consumption, or other energy descriptor 

for each covered product unless the 

current test procedures already account 

for and incorporate standby and off 

mode energy consumption or such 

integration is technically infeasible. If 

an integrated test procedure is 

technically infeasible, DOE must 

prescribe a separate standby mode and 

off mode energy use test procedure for 

the covered product, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) 

Any such amendment must consider the 

most current versions of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 62301 3

and IEC Standard 62087 4 as applicable. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

DOE is publishing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) 

B. Background 

DOE last amended the test procedure 

for dehumidifiers on July 31, 2015 

(‘‘July 2015 Final Rule’’), to provide 

technical clarifications and improve 

repeatability of the test procedure. 80 

FR 45801. The July 2015 Final Rule also 

established a new test procedure for 

dehumidifiers at appendix X1 that, 

among other things, established separate 

provisions for testing whole-home 

dehumidifiers. Id. Manufacturers were 

not required to use appendix X1 until 

the compliance date of a subsequent 

amendment to the energy conservation 

standards for dehumidifiers. On June 

13, 2016, DOE published a final rule 

establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers, for which compliance 

was required beginning June 13, 2019. 

81 FR 38337. 

On June 30, 2021, DOE published in 

the Federal Register an early assessment 

review request for information (‘‘RFI’’) 

(‘‘June 2021 TP RFI’’) in which it sought 

data and information regarding issues 

pertinent to whether an amended test 

procedure would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirement that 

the test procedure produces results that 

measure energy use during a 

representative average use cycle for the 

product without being unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 86 FR 34640. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35288 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5 DOE also received a request from Aprilaire to 

extend the comment period of the June 2021 TP 

RFI. (Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026–0002) 

DOE declined to extend the comment period 

because the June 2021 TP RFI was a preliminary 

assessment and if DOE determined to initiate a 

rulemaking, DOE would provide additional 

opportunity for comment. 

6The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

dehumidifiers. (Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP– 

0026, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). 

The references are arranged as follows: (commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). The regulations.gov site appends the 

docket ID number at the end of a field labeled ID. 

For example, EERE–2019–BT–TP–0026–0002 has a 

docket ID of 2. 

DOE also requested comments on 

specific topics relevant to the 

dehumidifier test procedure, including 

updates to industry test standards, 

variable-speed dehumidifiers, 

psychrometer setup, network functions, 

and ventilation air for whole-home 

dehumidifiers. Id. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2021 TP RFI from the 

interested parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 2021 TP RFI 

Commenter(s) Docket 

document No. Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ........................................... 3 AHAM ............................ Trade Association. 

Aprilaire, a division of Research Products Corporation (‘‘RPC’’) 5 ............... 4 Aprilaire ......................... Manufacturer. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council.5 Joint Commenters ......... Efficiency Organizations. 

Madison Indoor Air Quality ........................................................................... 6 MIAQ ............................. Manufacturer. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, 

Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company 

(collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities (‘‘IOUs’’)).

7 California IOUs ............. Utility. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.6

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for a test procedure rulemaking. 

Section 8(b) of appendix A states that if 

DOE determines that it is appropriate to 

continue the test procedure rulemaking 

after the early assessment process, it 

will provide further opportunities for 

early public input through Federal 

Register documents, including notices 

of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is 

opting to deviate from this provision by 

publishing a NOPR following the early 

assessment review RFI because, as 

discussed previously, DOE requested 

comment on a number of specific topics 

in the June 2021 TP RFI, and comments 

received in response to the June 2021 

TP RFI informed the proposals included 

in this NOPR. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

remove appendix X to subpart B of 10 

CFR part 430 ‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Dehumidifiers.’’ DOE proposes three 

changes to accomplish this: (1) amend 

10 CFR 429.36 ‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ by 

removing reporting requirements for 

dehumidifiers tested using appendix X; 

(2) amend 10 CFR 430.3 ‘‘Materials 

incorporated by reference,’’ by removing 

reference to the ENERGY STAR program 

requirements for dehumidifiers testing 

using appendix X; (3) amend 10 CFR 

430.23 ‘‘Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption,’’ by removing instructions 

for using appendix X in paragraph (z). 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

amend appendix X1 as follows: 

(1) Incorporate by reference the most 

recent version of the relevant industry 

test procedure, AHAM DH–1–2017, 

‘‘Dehumidifiers;’’ 

(2) Amend the definitions for 

‘‘portable dehumidifier’’ and ‘‘wholehome dehumidifier’’ to reference the 

manufacturer instructions available to a 

consumer as they relate to the ducting 

configuration and installation; 

(3) Allow the rating test period in 

sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 5.4 to be 2 or 

6 hours; 

(4) Add a provision in section 3.1.1.3 

allowing for the use of a sampling tree 

in conjunction with an aspirating 

psychrometer for a dehumidifier with a 

single process air intake grille; and 

(5) Add a requirement in section 

3.1.2.3 that dehumidifiers with network 

functions be tested with the network 

functions in the ‘‘off’’ position if it can 

be disabled by the end-user; otherwise 

test in the factory default setting. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 and Table II.2 

compared to the current test procedure, 

as well as the reason for the proposed 

change. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3, AND 10 CFR PART 430 SUBPART B 

RELATIVE TO CURRENT 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3, AND 10 CFR PART 430 SUBPART B 

Current 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3, and 10 CFR part 430 

subpart B 

Proposed 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3, and 10 CFR part 430 

subpart B Attribution 

10 CFR 429.36 requires manufacturers to provide the energy 

factor as public product-specific information for dehumidifiers 

tested in accordance with appendix X and the integrated energy factor for dehumidifiers tested according to appendix X1.

10 CFR 429.36 provides public product-specific information requirements for dehumidifiers tested in accordance with appendix X1 only.Improve clarity of certification 

requirements. 

10 CFR 430.3(m)(2) incorporates the ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements by reference for appendix X.

10 CFR 430.3(m) omits reference to appendix X ........................ Improve clarity of IBR section. 

10 CFR 430.23(z) provides instructions for determining capacity 

and efficiency using appendix X or appendix X1.

10 CFR 430.23(z) provides instructions for determining capacity 

and efficiency using appendix X1 only.

Improve clarity of test procedure. 

Subpart B contains appendix X and appendix X1 ........................ Subpart B contains appendix X1 only .......................................... Improve clarity of test procedure. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35289 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Incorporates by reference American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’)/AHAM DH–1–2008.

Incorporates by reference AHAM DH–1–2017 ............................. Updated industry test method. 

Defines ‘‘portable dehumidifier’’ and ‘‘whole-home dehumidifier’’ 

based on their designed purpose.

Defines ‘‘portable dehumidifier’’ and ‘‘whole-home dehumidifier’’ 

by reference to the manufacturer instruction as they relate to 

the ducting configuration and installation.

Improve clarity of definitions. 

Does not allow for the use of a sampling tree for a dehumidifier 

with a single process air intake grille.

Adds provision to allow for the use of a sampling tree in conjunction with an aspirating psychrometer for a dehumidifier 

with a single process air intake grille.

Improve test procedure repeatability and reproducibility. 

Requires a dehumidification mode rating test period of 6 hours .. Allows two options for the length of dehumidification mode rating test period: 2 or 6 hours.Reduce test burden while maintaining representativeness. 

Does not explicitly address dehumidifiers with network functions Adds a requirement to test dehumidifiers that offer network functions with the network functions in the ‘‘off’’ position if it can 

be disabled by the end-user; otherwise test in the factory default setting.

Ensure test procedure reproducibility. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments described in 

section III of this NOPR would not alter 

the measured efficiency of 

dehumidifiers, or require retesting or 

recertification solely as a result of DOE’s 

adoption of the proposed amendments 

to the test procedures, if made final. 

Additionally, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed 

amendments, if made final, would not 

increase the cost of testing. Discussion 

of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed 

in detail in section III of this NOPR. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

proposes certain amendments to its test 

procedures for dehumidifiers. For each 

proposed amendment, DOE provides 

relevant background information, 

explains why the amendment merits 

consideration, discusses relevant public 

comments, and proposes a potential 

approach. 

A. General Comments 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE received comments from AHAM 

and MIAQ regarding the timing of the 

rulemaking process, specifically the 

importance of completing the test 

procedure rulemaking before the 

standards rulemaking begins. (AHAM, 

No. 3 at p. 3; MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9) 

AHAM further stated that when DOE 

does not finish a test procedure 

rulemaking before the relevant 

standards rulemaking begins in earnest, 

DOE and stakeholders’ time and efforts 

are wasted, the rulemaking process is 

complicated, and the overall rulemaking 

process is slowed. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 

3) MIAQ stated that this order is 

essential, as it lends to a more thorough 

review of the minimum levels via full 

understanding of the test procedure. 

(MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9) 

On June 4, 2021, DOE published an 

early assessment RFI to determine 

whether to amend applicable energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers. 86 FR 29964. (‘‘June 

2021 Standards RFI’’) DOE requested 

data and information to help determine 

whether DOE should propose a ‘‘nonew-standard’’ determination. In 

particular, DOE asked for information 

showing a more stringent standard (a) 

would not result in a significant savings 

of energy, (b) is not technologically 

feasible, (c) is not economically 

justified, or any combination of the 

above. 86 FR 29964. DOE continues to 

evaluate the comments received and 

whether to propose amended energy 

conservation standards. As discussed 

later in this NOPR, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the changes proposed 

in this document would not impact the 

measured efficiency of a dehumidifier, 

were DOE to finalize the amendments as 

proposed. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

MIAQ also reiterated its comment to the 

June 2021 Standards RFI regarding its 

concern about any reduction in test 

requirements or energy conservation 

standards for smaller capacity 

dehumidifiers. MIAQ expressed its 

understanding that units they have 

identified as consumer product 

dehumidifiers are typically less 

expensive products purchased through 

retailers, and that homeowners may opt 

to purchase multiple portable 

dehumidifiers to meet their latent load 

requirements instead of a single wholehome or crawlspace dehumidifier. 

MIAQ stated that this may lead to 

significant increases in energy 

consumption. MIAQ further stated that 

a balanced requirement for efficiency 

and testing procedures could reduce 

this waste. (MIAQ, No. No 6 at p. 9) 

DOE notes that issues regarding 

minimum efficiency requirements 

would be addressed in an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

dehumidifiers, were DOE to publish 

such proposal. As for reduced test 

requirements, DOE notes that, as 

required in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), any 

new or amended test procedure shall be 

reasonably designed to measure energy 

use during a representative average use 

cycle and shall not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. DOE also notes 

that the July 2015 Final Rule discusses 

the representativeness and test burden 

considerations associated with the 

current test procedure for portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers. 80 FR 

45801, 45810–45812. 

B. Scope of Applicability and 

Definitions 

EPCA defines a dehumidifier as a selfcontained, electrically operated, and 

mechanically encased assembly 

consisting of (1) a refrigerated surface 

(evaporator) that condenses moisture 

from the atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating 

system, including an electric motor; (3) 

an air-circulating fan; and (4) a means 

for collecting or disposing of the 

condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) In the 

July 2015 Final Rule, DOE codified a 

regulatory definition of ‘‘dehumidifier’’ 

that clarified the definition by excluding 

products that may provide condensate 

removal or latent heat removal as a 

secondary function. 80 FR 45801, 

45805. DOE therefore adopted a 

definition that explicitly excludes 

portable air conditioners, room air 

conditioners, and packaged terminal air 

conditioners, because these are products 

that may provide condensate removal or 

latent heat removal as a secondary 

function. As codified at 10 CFR 430.2, 

DOE defines ‘‘dehumidifier’’ as: 

A product, other than a portable air 

conditioner, room air conditioner, or 

packaged terminal air conditioner, that 

is a self-contained, electrically operated, 

and mechanically encased assembly 

consisting of— 

(1) A refrigerated surface (evaporator) 

that condenses moisture from the 

atmosphere; 

(2) A refrigerating system, including 

an electric motor; 

(3) An air-circulating fan; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(4) A means for collecting or 

disposing of the condensate. 

Consumer products meeting this 

definition are subject to DOE’s 

regulations for testing, certifying, and 

complying with energy conservation 

standards. 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

established definitions for two groups of 

dehumidifiers: ‘‘portable 

dehumidifiers’’ and ‘‘whole-home 

dehumidifiers.’’ 80 FR 45801, 45805. A 

‘‘portable dehumidifier’’ is a 

dehumidifier designed to operate within 

the dehumidified space without ducting 

(although means may be provided for 

optional duct attachment). 10 CFR 

430.2. A ‘‘whole-home dehumidifier’’ is 

a dehumidifier designed to be installed 

with ducting to deliver return process 

air to its inlet and dehumidified process 

air to one or more locations in the 

dehumidified space. Id. The July 2015 

Final Rule also established a definition 

for ‘‘refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifier’’ 

to mean a whole-home dehumidifier 

that removes moisture from the process 

air by means of a desiccant material in 

addition to a refrigeration system. Id. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought 

comment on whether (1) the current 

definitions of ‘‘dehumidifier,’’ ‘‘portable 

dehumidifier,’’ and ‘‘whole-home 

dehumidifier’’ require amendment, and 

if so, how the terms should be defined; 

and (2) the existing product definitions 

in 10 CFR 430.2 for dehumidifiers 

require amendments to distinguish 

further between portable and wholehome units. If so, DOE also sought 

information on what identifying 

characteristics may be included in 

potential amended definitions to 

differentiate better between the two 

configurations. 86 FR 34640, 34641– 

34642. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

MIAQ stated that the current definitions 

of ‘‘dehumidifier,’’ ‘‘portable 

dehumidifier,’’ and ‘‘whole-home 

dehumidifier’’ should be amended to 

refine the classification of these units. 

MIAQ further stated that, without 

proper classification, it is difficult for 

the dehumidifier and heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(‘‘HVAC’’) industry and associated 

regulatory entities to determine which 

regulations apply to their products and 

that additional clarity in the definitions 

of different dehumidification products 

would allow test conditions and 

regulations to be refined for each 

product type. 

MIAQ recommended amending the 

definition of ‘‘dehumidifier’’ by 

specifying in the introductory paragraph 

that a dehumidifier is ‘‘designed 

primarily for the purpose of removing 

moisture from the air.’’ (MIAQ, No. 6 at 

p. 2) 

MIAQ asserted that a packaged 

(unitary) air conditioner is a unit that 

meets enumerated criteria in the 

definition, (1)–(4), but is built for the 

purpose of cooling the air, not primarily 

removing moisture. MIAQ also asked 

that DOE consider a definition that 

includes dehumidifiers with external 

heat rejection, which MIAQ described 

as units that provide cool, dry air like 

an air conditioner, except the focus is 

on obtaining the proper level of 

dehumidification first and cooling is a 

by-product of the process. (MIAQ, No. 6 

at p. 3) 

As stated in the July 2015 Final Rule, 

the primary function of an air 

conditioner is to provide cooling by 

removing both sensible and latent heat, 

whereas a dehumidifier is intended to 

remove only latent heat. 80 FR 45801, 

45804. Accordingly, DOE explicitly 

excluded from the definition portable 

air conditioners, room air conditioners, 

and packaged terminal air conditioners. 

These explicit exclusions include the 

unitary air conditioning products of 

concern to MIAQ. Any other nondehumidifier product on the market that 

would meet the definition of 

‘‘dehumidifier’’ is already explicitly 

excluded. Accordingly, DOE tentatively 

finds that the explicit exclusions in the 

regulatory definition of dehumidifier 

already address MIAQ’s concern. 

Therefore, DOE is not proposing to add 

exclusions to the dehumidifier 

definition. 

DOE requests comment on (1) its 

preliminary determination that the 

explicit exclusions from the definition 

of ‘‘dehumidifier’’ sufficiently 

distinguish dehumidifiers from 

consumer products that provide cooling 

by removing both sensible and latent 

heat, and (2) whether there are products 

on the market that are not explicitly 

excluded from the ‘‘dehumidifier’’ 

definition but should be. 

MIAQ also suggested that the 

definition of ‘‘refrigerant-desiccant 

dehumidifier’’ be expanded to include 

units that do not include a refrigeration 

system and specify that such units may 

include a combustion process or electric 

resistance heat to regenerate the 

desiccant. MIAQ recommended 

replacing the term ‘‘refrigerant-desiccant 

dehumidifier’’ with ‘‘desiccant 

dehumidifier’’. 

MIAQ stated that, with the increase of 

individuals with severe allergies, there 

is an increased demand for the use of 

desiccant dehumidifiers like those used 

in the industrial markets to reduce the 

relative humidity of dwellings to 40 

percent or less. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that desiccant 

dehumidifiers without refrigerant 

systems are outside of the scope of 

dehumidifiers as defined by EPCA. As 

described above, the statutory definition 

of dehumidifier is limited to units with 

a refrigerating system. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(34)) Therefore, DOE is not 

proposing to expand the definition of 

refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifier as 

suggested by MIAQ. Units that may 

include a combustion process or electric 

resistance heat to regenerate the 

desiccant are covered products if they 

meet the definition of ‘‘dehumidifier’’ or 

any other covered product or 

equipment. 

MIAQ further suggested replacing the 

existing term ‘‘portable dehumidifier’’ 

with ‘‘consumer product dehumidifier,’’ 

adding the term ‘‘crawl space 

dehumidifier,’’ and amending the 

definition of ‘‘whole-home 

dehumidifier.’’ MIAQ recommended 

defining ‘‘consumer product 

dehumidifier’’ as a dehumidifier that 

can be purchased by the end-user 

through retail channels for individual 

use, is used as a free-standing appliance 

without the option for ducting; and is 

not subject to code inspection prior to 

operation and is controlled by an onboard sensor. MIAQ recommended 

defining ‘‘crawlspace dehumidifier’’ as a 

dehumidifier designed to operate within 

the dehumidified space without the 

attachment of additional ducting, 

although means may be provided for 

optional duct attachment; is used in 

typically unoccupied areas such as a 

crawlspace or unfinished basement; and 

is controlled by an on-board sensor or 

sensor placed in the same space as the 

dehumidifier. MIAQ recommended 

amending the definition of ’’wholehome dehumidifier’’ to mean a 

dehumidifier designed to be installed 

with ducting set up to provide process 

air to the unit’s inlet that originates from 

the dwelling, from outside for 

ventilation purposes, or a combination 

of both; the unit is then ducted to 

supply dehumidified process air from 

its outlet to one or more locations in the 

dehumidified space; and the unit will 

have the capability of being controlled 

using a remote humidity sensor. (MIAQ, 

No. 6 at p. 3) 

MIAQ asserted that its recommended 

changes to terminology and definitions 

would avoid confusion with the use of 

‘‘dehumidifier’’ or ‘‘residential 

dehumidifier’’ by state and federal 

regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), California Air Resource Board, 

State of Washington) when referring to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35291 

either what MIAQ has recommended to 

define as ‘‘consumer product 

dehumidifiers,’’ or all dehumidifiers 

used for residential dwellings. MIAQ 

further asserted that its suggested terms 

and definitions would avoid confusion 

with commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural dehumidifiers, and would 

allow a better separation of test 

conditions applicable to each product’s 

intended use. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 3–4) 

The California IOUs encouraged DOE 

to clarify how the current dehumidifier 

definitions apply to non-residential 

dehumidifiers, such as horticultural 

dehumidifiers. (California IOUs, No. 7 at 

pp. 1–2) 

DOE does not agree with MIAQ’s 

suggested terminology changes. 

Renaming portable dehumidifiers as 

‘‘consumer product dehumidifiers’’ as 

suggested by MIAQ may give the 

incorrect impression that the other 

defined dehumidifiers are not consumer 

products. Further, the justification for 

delineating ‘‘crawlspace dehumidifiers’’ 

from the other categories of 

dehumidifiers is unclear. DOE is not 

aware of any units within the suggested 

definition of ‘‘crawlspace dehumidifier’’ 

that have physical features that would 

distinguish such units from ‘‘portable 

dehumidifiers.’’ Moreover, regarding 

MIAQ’s suggestion to base the ‘‘wholehome dehumidifier’’ definition on the 

intended installation location for 

installing the unit, intent suggests 

subjectivity. This approach would not 

only reduce regulatory transparency but 

also create challenges for enforcement. 

DOE has previously rejected such an 

approach in a test procedure final rule 

for commercial prerinse spray valves 

published by DOE in the Federal 

Register on March 11, 2022. 87 FR 

13901, 13904. Additionally, the test 

conditions suggested by MIAQ for 

‘‘crawlspace dehumidifiers’’ are the 

same as for portable dehumidifiers in 

appendix X1. 

With respect to horticultural 

dehumidifiers and other dehumidifiers 

marketed for non-residential 

applications, DOE notes that 

dehumidifiers are ‘‘consumer products.’’ 

(See generally 42 U.S.C. 6291(2); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) 

EPCA defines a ‘‘consumer product’’ as 

any article (other than an automobile, as 

defined in section 32901(a)(3) of title 

49) of a type (A) which in operation 

consumes, or is designed to consume, 

energy or, with respect to showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, and urinals, 

water; and (B) which, to any significant 

extent, is distributed in commerce for 

personal use or consumption by 

individuals; without regard to whether 

such article of such type is in fact 

distributed in commerce for personal 

use or consumption by an individual. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Accordingly, to the 

extent that a dehumidifier model is of 

a type distributed in commerce for 

personal use or use by an individual, it 

would be within the scope of the 

dehumidifier test procedure, regardless 

of how it is marketed and whether the 

model is distributed for personal or 

individual use. DOE has published 

guidance on making ‘‘of a type’’ 

determinations at www.energy.gov/gc/ 

enforcement-policies-and-statements, 

‘‘Guidance Concerning Consumer/ 

Commercial Distinction’’. 

A manufacturer may submit a petition 

to waive any appendix X1 requirements 

if it believes that its dehumidifier 

contains one or more design 

characteristics which either prevent 

testing of the basic model according to 

appendix X1 or that appendix X1 

evaluates the dehumidifier in a manner 

so unrepresentative of its true energy 

and/or water consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

430.27(a). The petition should suggest 

an alternative method for testing the 

basic models identified in the waiver. 

10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). 

The California IOUs encouraged DOE 

to clarify how dehumidifiers are 

categorized by product class and 

suggested using the distinction between 

ducted and ductless units to better 

differentiate the range of products that 

are available. The California IOUs also 

requested that DOE clarify the 

applicability of the appendix X1 test 

procedure to larger units, commenting 

that the test procedure in appendix X1 

does not limit scope by capacity, but 

that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH–1–2008, 

‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ (‘‘ANSI/AHAM DH– 

1–2008’’) has a capacity limit of 185 

pints/day. The California IOUs also 

recommended that DOE consider 

addressing steam cabinets, which they 

described as an emerging product that 

deodorizes, sanitizes, and dries clothes 

using heat pump technology and that 

operates like a portable dehumidifier. 

(California IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 1–3) 

DOE notes that the current definitions 

for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers already address whether 

a unit is designed to be installed or 

operated with or without ducting. As 

described, a whole-home dehumidifier 

is defined as a dehumidifier designed to 

be installed with ducting (emphasis 

added) to deliver return process air to 

its inlet and to supply dehumidified 

process air from its outlet to one or more 

locations in the dehumidified space. By 

contrast, a portable dehumidifier is 

defined as a dehumidifier designed to 

operate within the dehumidified space 

without the attachment of additional 

ducting (emphasis added), although a 

means may be provided for optional 

duct attachment. However, DOE 

understands that the ‘‘designed to’’ 

wording in these definitions may imply 

that DOE makes subjective 

determinations about how a 

dehumidifier is categorized and may 

lead to confusion. Therefore, in this 

NOPR, DOE proposes to change the 

portable dehumidifier and whole-home 

dehumidifier definitions to reference 

manufacturer instructions available to a 

consumer as they relate to the ducting 

configuration and installation. DOE 

proposes to define a portable 

dehumidifier as a dehumidifier that, in 

accordance with any manufacturer 

instructions available to a consumer, 

operates within the dehumidified space 

without the attachment of additional 

ducting, although means may be 

provided for optional duct attachment. 

DOE proposes to define a whole-home 

dehumidifier as a dehumidifier that, in 

accordance with any manufacturer 

instructions available to a consumer, 

operates with ducting to deliver return 

process air to its inlet and to supply 

dehumidified process air from its outlet 

to one or more locations in the 

dehumidified space. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definitions for 

portable dehumidifier and whole-home 

dehumidifier. 

The applicability of the Federal test 

procedure is not limited by capacity. 

DOE acknowledges that ANSI/AHAM 

DH–1–2008 specifies a capacity limit. 

While certain provisions of ANSI/ 

AHAM DH–1–2008 have been adopted 

as part of the Federal test procedure, 

section 1 of appendix X1 specifies the 

Federal test procedure must be used to 

measure the energy performance of 

dehumidifiers regardless of capacity. 

With regard to steam cabinets, these 

products may use heat pump technology 

to remove moisture from clothing in an 

enclosed cabinet, and in some cases, are 

advertised as capable of removing 

moisture from the room. To the extent 

that a steam cabinet, or any product, 

meets the definition of a dehumidifier, 

and, in particular, condenses moisture 

from the atmosphere, DOE would 

consider it to be a dehumidifier and 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. Furthermore, DOE tentatively 

concludes that steam cabinets that 

remove moisture from the room can be 

tested in accordance with the proposed 

dehumidifier test procedure. If a 

manufacturer believes that its 

dehumidifier’s performance is not 

accurately reflected by the test 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

7AHAM DH–1–2022 (Dehumidifiers)—DRAFT is 

available for free on AHAM’s website: 

www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProduct

Code=12022&Category=MADSTD. 

procedure, it is encouraged to provide 

comment in response to this document 

and to submit a waiver request 

containing an alternate test procedure 

for consideration. 

C. Test Procedure 

Dehumidifiers are tested in 

accordance with appendix X1, which 

adopts certain text provisions from 

ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008, with 

modification. In part, the DOE test 

procedure specifies a different dry-bulb 

temperature (65 degrees Fahrenheit 

(‘‘°F’’) for portable dehumidifiers and 

73 °F for whole-home dehumidifiers) 

than ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008, while 

still maintaining the relative humidity 

specified by ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008, 

and specifies provisions for inactive, 

off-cycle, and off mode testing. See 

Sections 4.1.1 and 3.2 of appendix X1. 

Appendix X1 also includes instructions 

regarding instrumentation, condensate 

collection, control settings, setup, and 

ducting for whole-home dehumidifiers. 

See Sections 3.1.2.2; 3.1.1.4; 3.1.1.5; 

3.1.1.1; and 3.1.3 of appendix X1. 

Under the current test procedure, a 

unit’s capacity is the volume of water, 

in pints, the unit removes from the 

ambient air per day, normalized to a 

standard ambient temperature and 

relative humidity. See Section 2.14 of 

appendix X1. The Integrated Energy 

Factor (‘‘IEF’’), representing the 

efficiency of the unit expressed in liters 

per kilowatt-hour, is the ratio between 

the capacity and the combined amount 

of energy consumed by the unit in 

dehumidification mode and standby 

and/or off mode(s), adjusted for the 

representative number of hours per year 

spent in each mode. See Section 5.4 of 

appendix X1. 

1. Updates to Industry Standards 

As discussed, the dehumidifier test 

procedure at appendix X1 references 

ANSI/AHAM DH–1–2008, an industry 

test procedure for dehumidifiers, with 

modification. In 2017, AHAM published 

a revision to AHAM DH–1, AHAM DH– 

1–2017, which established provisions 

for testing dehumidifier energy use in 

off-cycle, inactive, and off modes, and 

for including energy consumption in 

those modes in efficiency calculations. 

AHAM DH–1–2017 also added guidance 

for instrumentation setup, multiple airintakes, and control settings; lowered a 

temperature; and tightened tolerances. It 

lowered the standard dry-bulb 

temperature condition for dehumidifiers 

from 80 °F (as in ANSI/AHAM DH–1– 

2008) to 65 °F (with the required wetbulb temperature changing accordingly 

to maintain the same relative humidity) 

and tightened the maximum allowed 

variation for dry-bulb and wet-bulb 

temperature readings from 2.0 °F to 

1.0 °F and from 1.0 °F to 0.5 °F, 

respectively. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE 

requested comment and information on 

(1) whether the references to ANSI/ 

AHAM DH–1–2008 at appendix X1 

should be updated to the current 

version, AHAM DH–1–2017; (2) how 

updating the references in appendix X1 

to AHAM DH–1–2017 would impact the 

measured energy efficiency of 

dehumidifiers tested under the current 

DOE test procedure; (3) the reduction of 

the maximum-allowed temperature 

variation in AHAM DH–1–2017, the 

potential test burden increase from this 

change, and any effects on reliability or 

reproducibility of results; and (4) 

whether any modifications to AHAM 

DH–1–2017, other than modifications 

consistent with those made to ANSI/ 

AHAM DH–1–2008 in the current DOE 

test procedure, would be needed to 

ensure that DOE’s test procedure 

produces results that are representative 

of an average use cycle and is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 86 FR 

34640, 34642. 

AHAM stated that it convened a task 

force to review and evaluate possible 

revisions to its 2017 test procedure, 

AHAM DH–1–2017. AHAM further 

stated that, working with DOE and its 

contractors, it expects to conduct 

investigative testing on any changes to 

the test procedure to ensure that 

revisions to AHAM DH–1–2017 are 

supported by test data. AHAM stated 

that its goal was to have all investigative 

testing complete and a revised test 

procedure to share officially with DOE 

by December 22, 2021, which would be 

publicly available on AHAM’s website. 

AHAM further stated that it expects the 

task force will then conduct round robin 

testing and validation testing to examine 

repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy, 

and impact of changes on measured 

efficiency, which will be used as a basis 

for finalizing the test procedure in 2022. 

AHAM encouraged DOE to participate 

in the process and allow its completion 

before considering any independent 

activity on test procedure development, 

stating that the goal of the process is to 

create an updated version of AHAM 

DH–1 that DOE can adopt as the energy 

test for dehumidifiers. (AHAM, No. 3 at 

p. 2) 

Aprilaire and MIAQ commented in 

support of the incorporation by 

reference of AHAM DH–1–2017. 

(Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1; MIAQ, No. 6 

at p. 4) 

DOE appreciates the efforts underway 

by AHAM and the task force group 

members to further consider 

improvements to the DH–1 test 

procedure, and to then conduct roundrobin and validation testing. DOE notes 

that on March 30, 2022, the task force 

released a publicly available draft 

version of the updated standard, AHAM 

DH–1–2022,7 but has not yet finalized 

the standard. DOE has reviewed the 

changes to AHAM DH–1–2017 made in 

the draft and in this NOPR has either 

proposed to adopt the changes or raised 

them for comment. If the updated DH– 

1 is finalized during the course of this 

rulemaking, DOE would consider 

adopting that updated version to the 

extent it is consistent with the 

discussions presented in this document. 

DOE received no comments on the 

impacts to energy efficiency measured 

by appendix X1 resulting from the 

adoption of AHAM DH–1–2017. DOE 

notes that the modified dry-bulb 

temperature in AHAM DH–1–2017 

aligns the industry test procedure with 

the dry-bulb temperature already 

required by appendix X1. DOE 

tentatively concludes that referencing 

AHAM DH–1–2017 would not impact 

the energy efficiency measured by 

appendix X1. Where applicable, 

specifically in section 4.2 of appendix 

X1, DOE also proposes to reference 

section 9.3.2 of AHAM DH–1–2017 for 

off-cycle mode test requirements/ 

instructions as AHAM DH–1–2017 

reflects the language of appendix X1. 

See section 4.2 of appendix X1. 

MIAQ and Aprilaire stated that there 

would not be an appreciable change in 

test burden resulting from the tightening 

of the tolerances required for testing 

purposes, and Aprilaire further 

commented that it has not had difficulty 

achieving these conditions while 

testing. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 4–6, 

Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1) MIAQ also 

stated that it believes currently available 

instrumentation can easily provide the 

level of accuracy required in AHAM 

DH–1–2017 and that such a requirement 

provides performance data at an 

improved accuracy. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 

4–6) 

MIAQ suggested changing the wetbulb temperature measurements and 

requirements to dewpoint temperature 

to match the readout of modern 

instrumentation. MIAQ further stated 

that this change would capture the 

variable of greater interest to the 

dehumidification industry. (MIAQ, No. 

6 at p. 6) 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

test conditions in appendix X1 from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35293 

wet-bulb temperature to dewpoint 

temperature. DOE notes that the latest 

version of the industry test method, 

AHAM DH–1–2017, uses wet-bulb 

temperature. DOE understands the use 

of wet-bulb temperature in AHAM DH– 

1–2017 reflects the general consensus of 

the industry at this time. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate AHAM DH–1– 

2017 by reference. DOE requests 

comment on the proposal not to change 

specifying ambient conditions based on 

wet-bulb temperature, as currently 

specified, as opposed to (or in addition 

to) dewpoint temperature. 

2. Variable-Speed Dehumidifiers 

a. Variable-Speed Compressors 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE stated 

that it is aware that dehumidifiers are 

available on the U.S. market that 

incorporate variable-speed compressors; 

i.e., ‘‘variable-speed dehumidifiers.’’ 86 

FR 34640, 34642. The current test 

procedure does not specifically account 

for this technology. A variable-speed 

compressor can operate at a variety of 

speeds rather than just the single speed 

achievable by conventional 

compressors. A single-speed compressor 

cycles on and off during operation, 

which can introduce inefficiencies in 

performance often referred to as 

‘‘cycling losses.’’ Whereas, a variablespeed compressor is able to adjust its 

speed up or down during operation, 

thereby reducing or eliminating cycling 

losses. Variable-speed units may avoid 

condensate re-evaporation into the 

ambient room air, which can occur 

when a dehumidifier cycles off its 

compressor but not its fan during offcycle mode. The current test procedure 

in appendix X1 does not capture any 

‘‘cycling losses’’ for single-speed 

dehumidifiers (and avoidance of such 

losses for variable-speed dehumidifiers) 

because the test unit operates at full 

capacity throughout the test. 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

considered a load-based test for 

dehumidifiers, which would capture 

cycling behavior in dehumidifiers with 

single-speed compressors or speed 

modulation for variable-speed 

dehumidifiers. The load-based test 

would involve adding moisture to the 

test chamber at a fixed rate and allowing 

the control system of the dehumidifier 

to respond to changing moisture levels 

in the room. 80 FR 45801, 45809. DOE 

elected not to adopt a load-based test for 

the dehumidifier test procedure in the 

July 2015 Final Rule, due to concerns 

about the potential increase in test 

burden. Id. at 80 FR 45810. Section 

III.C.2.c of this document discusses 

load-based testing in greater detail. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought 

data on single-speed dehumidifiers as 

follows: (a) their energy use when 

cycling on and off due to varying 

relative humidity in the room, (b) the 

extent of re-evaporation when operating 

in off-cycle mode, and (c) the effect of 

re-evaporation on dehumidification 

mode efficiency. DOE also sought 

feedback and data related to load-based 

testing, in particular, any alternative test 

methods that may produce results that 

are more representative of variablespeed dehumidifier energy 

consumption, including, but not limited 

to, a load-based test approach and 

information about the nature and extent 

of the test burden associated with a 

load-based test for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 

34640, 34642. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

AHAM stated that variable-speed 

dehumidifiers do exist on the market, 

but that DOE should not assume that 

variable-speed compressors are a viable 

technology option for improving 

efficiency for dehumidifiers like they 

are for products such as room air 

conditioners. AHAM commented that, 

for dehumidifiers, a slowing compressor 

may prevent or inhibit the product 

reaching the dew point, thus making it 

difficult to determine how much energy 

would be saved through the use of a 

variable-speed compressor. AHAM 

suggested this may be why test 

procedure waivers have not been sought 

for dehumidifiers with variable-speed 

compressors—the existing test 

procedure correctly measures their 

efficiency. AHAM further stated that 

DOE should thoroughly investigate how 

this technology works in dehumidifiers 

before concluding that a variable-speed 

compressor is a design option to 

increase efficiency for portable 

dehumidifiers. AHAM stated that the 

task force will examine whether AHAM 

DH–1–2017 needs updating to take into 

account variable-speed compressors. 

(AHAM, No. 3 at pp. 2–3) 

Aprilaire stated it does not produce 

household whole-home dehumidifiers 

with a variable-speed compressor and is 

unaware of any manufacturer that does. 

(Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1) MIAQ similarly 

stated it does not offer variable-speed 

compressors in any of its dehumidifiers. 

(MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 6) 

MIAQ stated that variable-speed 

compressors are not used in the standalone dehumidifiers manufactured by 

its Therma-Stor brands for the 

commercial, industrial, agricultural, and 

restoration markets, and that variablespeed compressors are not used in the 

MIAQ product line except for its 

integrated HVAC products exceeding 20 

tons of compressor capacity that focus 

on dehumidification for the agriculture 

industry. MIAQ stated, based on its 

experience, research and development, 

and market research, that variable-speed 

compressors in dehumidifiers offer little 

improvement in terms of efficiency and 

operational benefits over single-speed 

compressors, especially for residential 

dehumidifier applications, and do not 

result in a reasonable payback to the 

consumer. MIAQ stated that although 

variable-speed compressors are 

beneficial for residential air 

conditioners, the same is not the case 

for mechanical dehumidifiers because 

their operation is much different due to 

their function of removing water from 

the air—to properly function, the 

evaporator temperature must always be 

significantly lower than the dewpoint of 

the air. MIAQ further stated that when 

there is a call for dehumidification, the 

unit operates at full capacity to pull the 

moisture from the air until the setpoint 

is reached, meaning there is little 

opportunity for savings from slowing 

the compressor or increasing the 

evaporator temperature. (MIAQ, No. 6 at 

pp. 6–7) 

Based on DOE’s evaluation, and 

consistent with the points raised by 

commenters, given that dehumidifiers 

must maintain evaporator temperatures 

below the dew point to efficiently 

remove water from the air, variablespeed dehumidifiers may not be able to 

achieve significant efficiency gains over 

single-speed units. However, there 

could be some efficiency gains if the 

variable-speed compressor is inherently 

more efficient. 

Variable-speed dehumidifiers may 

avoid significant condensate reevaporation into the ambient room air, 

which can occur when a dehumidifier 

cycles off its compressor but not its fan 

during off-cycle mode to defrost the heat 

exchanger. Although it is possible that 

variable-speed dehumidifiers could 

reduce the number of defrost cycles or 

avoid them altogether by reducing 

compressor speed to raise the 

evaporator temperature while still 

dehumidifying the room, DOE is not 

aware of any data showing this. DOE 

has not observed any defrost cycles in 

its current market-representative sample 

of units when testing in accordance 

with the appendix X1 test, conducted at 

a dry-bulb temperature of 65 °F, which 

is representative of typical dehumidifier 

operation (see section III.B.3 of this 

document). At operating temperatures at 

or below 55 °F, defrost cycles are 

possible, and for some units likely. 

However, those temperatures are far less 

likely to occur with a level of humidity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8 In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used soil 

temperature data as a proxy for basement air 

temperatures. This approach is also discussed 

further. 

9NCDC of NOAA hourly temperature and relative 

humidity data are available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

cdo-web (Last accessed January 31, 2022). 

10 2015 RECS survey data are available at 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ 

(Last accessed January 31, 2022). 

11As discussed in the May 2014 NOPR, 60- 

percent relative humidity represents an upper 

bound for an ambient humidity condition that 

consumers would find acceptable and is therefore 

high enough to lead to operating a 

dehumidifier than at the current 

operating test conditions in appendix 

X1 (i.e., 65 °F), as discussed in the 

following section. 

DOE requests information and data 

regarding any efficiency and 

performance benefits associated with 

variable-speed dehumidifiers, both 

generally and relative to those with 

single-speed dehumidifiers. 

b. Multiple Test Conditions 

The current test procedure specified 

in appendix X1 requires one test 

condition for each category of 

dehumidifier: a dry-bulb temperature of 

65 °F for portable dehumidifiers and 

73 °F for whole-home dehumidifiers. 

See Section 4.1.1 of appendix X1. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

DOE received comments from the Joint 

Commenters and MIAQ advocating for 

multiple test conditions rather than the 

current single test condition. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 5 at p. 2; MIAQ, No. 

6 at pp. 4–6) The Joint Commenters 

stated that dehumidifiers are likely to 

encounter frost conditions in the field, 

but that the current DOE test procedure 

at appendix X1 may not capture defrost 

performance because manufacturers 

would likely adjust a unit’s controls or 

refrigeration system operation to avoid 

triggering defrost at 65 °F. See Section 

4.1.1 of appendix X1. The Joint 

Commenters referred to their comments 

on the dehumidifiers test procedure 

NOPR published by DOE in the last 

rulemaking on May 21, 2014 (79 FR 

29271, ‘‘May 2014 NOPR’’), in which 

they encouraged DOE to consider 

requiring a test at a dry-bulb 

temperature of less than 65 °F (e.g., 

55 °F) to capture defrost performance in 

addition to testing at 65 °F. The Joint 

Commenters asserted that capturing 

defrost performance would encourage 

improved defrost methods and controls. 

They stated that in the July 2015 Final 

Rule, DOE recognized the value of 

testing at additional temperatures but 

determined that soil temperatures 8

below 55 °F would be limited during the 

dehumidification season (citing 80 FR 

45801, 45808). They encouraged DOE to 

reevaluate the use of soil temperatures 

as a proxy for basement and other subground level location temperatures, 

reexamine whether there are significant 

operating hours below 65 °F, and 

investigate at what temperature defrost 

is typically activated. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 5 at p. 2) 

MIAQ also recommended requiring an 

additional test condition to provide 

additional information to homeowners 

and HVAC professionals to aid in their 

selection of a dehumidifier for their 

application. MIAQ stated that such 

additional testing would not create an 

unnecessary burden. MIAQ specifically 

recommended separating products that 

they suggested defining as ‘‘consumer 

product dehumidifiers’’ into three 

product classes (25 pints/day or less, 

25.01 to 50 pints/day, and greater than 

50 pints/day) and two different test 

conditions (65 °F dry-bulb and 73 °F 

dry-bulb, both with 60-percent relative 

humidity and 0 inches of water column 

(‘‘in. w.c.’’) external static pressure 

(‘‘ESP’’)). MIAQ asserted that the 

products they suggested defining as 

‘‘consumer product dehumidifiers’’ are 

typically used, unducted, in the 

basement of a dwelling or in the living 

space. MIAQ also asserted that the 

suggested test conditions represent a 

unit placed in the basement (i.e., 65 °F 

dry-bulb) and a unit placed in the living 

space (i.e., 73 °F dry-bulb). Additionally, 

MIAQ suggested that DOE define certain 

products as ‘‘crawlspace 

dehumidifiers,’’ create three product 

classes (50 pints/day or less, 50.01 to 75 

pints/day, and greater than 75 pints/ 

day), and adopt one test condition (65 °F 

dry-bulb, 60-percent relative humidity, 

and 0 in. w.c. of ESP). MIAQ asserted 

that these products are typically used, 

unducted, in the crawlspace below a 

dwelling or in the primarily unoccupied 

basement and that the suggested test 

conditions represent a unit placed in the 

crawlspace or unoccupied basement. 

MIAQ stated that providing data at these 

expanded conditions would not be an 

undue burden on manufacturers and 

that HVAC professionals often request 

unit performance at these conditions 

and many others. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 

4–6) 

As noted, the current DOE test 

procedure at appendix X1 measures 

portable dehumidifier performance and 

efficiency during operation at 65 °F. As 

discussed in the May 2014 NOPR, 

before proposing the 65 °F test 

condition, DOE conducted research 

regarding the typical ambient air 

conditions and soil conditions under 

which residential portable and wholehome dehumidifiers operate. 79 FR 

29271, 29277–29278. DOE conducted its 

analysis based on regions with reported 

dehumidifier ownership per available 

data at the time of the analysis. DOE 

limited its analysis to times of expected 

dehumidifier use: the months industry 

identifies for dehumidifier usage (April– 

October) and hours of those months 

above 60-percent relative humidity, 

which is the typical setpoint for a 

dehumidifier. DOE found the weightedaverage air temperature was 64.1 °F and 

weighted-average soil temperature was 

65.2 °F. These closely match the current 

single test condition of 65 °F. Id. Based 

on these analyses described in the May 

2014 NOPR, DOE confirmed in the July 

2015 Final Rule that the 65 °F dry-bulb 

temperature is representative of the 

majority of conditions during periods of 

dehumidifier use. 80 FR 45801, 45808– 

45809. 

As discussed previously and in the 

July 2015 Final Rule, DOE understands 

that measuring portable dehumidifier 

performance at 55 °F may be desirable to 

capture defrost performance, and, for 

variable-speed dehumidifiers, potential 

defrost cycle avoidance or mitigation. 80 

FR 45801, 45808. In the July 2015 Final 

Rule, DOE stated that the usefulness of 

determining performance at extreme 

conditions did not warrant the 

additional test burden associated with 

testing at 80 °F or 55 °F, or any other test 

condition. 80 FR 45801, 45808–45809. 

For this NOPR, DOE reevaluated the 

relative benefits and burdens that would 

result from requiring testing at 

additional test conditions, including a 

55 °F condition. As part of this analysis, 

DOE reviewed 2015 hourly air 

temperature, soil temperature, and 

ambient relative humidity data from the 

National Climatic Data Center (‘‘NCDC’’) 

of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(‘‘NOAA’’),9 collected at weather 

stations in each state and region for 

which dehumidifier ownership data 

were available. DOE used the Energy 

Information Administration’s 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS’’) from 2015 (‘‘RECS 2015’’),10

the most recent version of the full 

dataset available at the time of this 

analysis, to weight the temperature data 

based on dehumidifier ownership. 

Figure 1 shows this weighted-average 

soil temperature and ambient air 

temperature data throughout the 

dehumidification season (i.e., between 

April and October, and corresponding 

with hours of ambient air relative 

humidity at or above 60 percent, at 

which dehumidifier operation is 

expected).11


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35295 

the threshold above which DOE expects 

dehumidifier operation. 79 FR 29271, 29276–29282. 

12Commenters suggested a highest temperature 

condition of 75 °F. DOE performed its evaluation 

using 80 °F instead because the DOE test procedure 

required for use prior to the compliance date of the 

current energy conservation standards (i.e., 

appendix X) specified a test condition of 80 °F. 

Both the soil and ambient air 

temperature data indicate that the 

temperature follows a roughly normal 

distribution centered around a mean of 

approximately 65 °F. As discussed, the 

current test procedure represents this 

distribution as a single test point at 

65 °F. To consider further potential 

modifications to the test procedure to 

represent variable-speed dehumidifier 

operation, DOE considered the 

possibility of a multiple-temperature 

test in which, instead of a single test 

condition at the approximate peak of the 

normal distribution, three test 

conditions would represent the 

distribution of air and soil temperatures. 

The three test conditions would span a 

range both below and above the ‘‘peak’’ 

of the normal distribution. DOE 

investigated a three-temperature test, 

with tests at 55 °F, 65 °F, and 80 °F,12 all 

with the same 60-percent relative 

humidity. These temperatures would 

capture as wide of a temperature range 

as possible while remaining 

representative of the peak of the 

temperature distribution curves. 

Performance at more extreme 

temperatures (i.e., below 55 °F and 

above 80 °F) are encountered much less 

frequently by comparison, as shown by 

the data in Figure 1. 

DOE conducted investigative testing 

of a variable-speed dehumidifier and a 

single-speed dehumidifier with similar 

capacity from the same manufacturer to 

understand two points. First, DOE 

sought to assess the potential for 

efficiency improvements from variablespeed dehumidifiers. Second, DOE 

examined the extent to which any such 

improvements would be captured by the 

current single test condition and by a 

multiple-condition test. Figure 2 shows 

the results from testing both 

dehumidifiers at the three different drybulb temperature conditions of 55 °F, 

65 °F (the test condition specified in 

appendix X1), and 80 °F (the test 

condition specified in appendix X). To 

better show the dehumidification mode 

performance that would be affected by 

the changing operating conditions, DOE 

is presenting the values on the graph in 

Figure 2 using efficiency factor (‘‘EF’’), 

which addresses only dehumidification 

mode energy use, rather than the IEF, 

which includes standby/inactive mode 

and off-cycle mode energy use. The 

operating temperature is unlikely to 

affect the energy use in standby/inactive 

mode and off-cycle mode. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.000</GPH>

250 

200 

150 

i 

:c 

100 

so 

0 

30 40 so 60 70 

Temperature (Fl 

-soHTemperature ---AirTemperature 

80 90 

Figure 1: Weighted-Average Air and Soil Temperature during Dehumidification 

Season (April - October) 
35296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13As discussed above, while testing was 

conducted at a rating test condition of 80 °F, DOE 

considered the weighting of a potential future rating 

test condition of 75 °F, as suggested by commenters 

and to more evenly represent operating conditions 

between 50 °F and 80 °F. 

The results from this testing show 

that, for the tested units, there are 

significant differences in the 

performance and efficiency of variablespeed and single-speed dehumidifiers 

when operating at different test 

conditions. As shown in Figure 2, at the 

current 65 °F rating condition, the 

single-speed unit performed at 2.12 EF, 

and 25 percent less at the 55 °F rating 

condition, with a 1.45 EF. At the current 

65 °F rating condition, the variablespeed unit performed at 2.66 EF, with 

a smaller decrease of 14 percent at the 

55 °F rating condition, with a 2.29 EF. 

Conversely, at the 80 °F rating 

condition, the single-speed unit 

performed at 2.75 EF, an increase of 24 

percent relative to the current 65 °F 

rating condition. At the 80 °F rating 

condition, the variable-speed unit 

performed at 3.01 EF, a smaller increase 

of 13 percent relative to the current 

65 °F rating condition. 

DOE excluded time spent at outlier 

temperatures below 50 °F or above 80 °F. 

For each unit, DOE combined the 

remaining results from all three test 

conditions using weighting factors 

based on the percentage of dehumidifier 

operating hours spent within 5 °F of 

each test condition. The resulting 

weighting factors were 26 percent for 

the 55 °F test condition, 54 percent for 

the 65 °F test condition, and 20 percent 

for the 75 °F test condition.13

Although single-speed and variablespeed units may perform differently at 

individual test conditions either lower 

or higher than the current test 

condition, combining the results from 

all three test conditions into a single 

weighted average shows no significant 

difference in measured efficiency 

compared to the current single 65 °F 

rating condition, for both single-speed 

and variable-speed units. Using this 

weighted-average approach, the singlespeed unit’s weighted-average 

performance was 2.1 EF, a difference of 

only 2 percent from the performance 

measured at the current 65 °F rating 

condition. Similarly, the variable-speed 

unit’s weighted-average performance 

was 2.6 EF, a difference of only 1 

percent from the performance measured 

at the current 65 °F rating condition. 

As discussed, DOE is proposing in 

this NOPR to allow the required test 

time to be 2 or 6 hours to give the option 

of reducing overall test burden when 

testing at the current single 65 °F rating 

condition. Including a half-hour 

stabilization period, this would result in 

a total test time of 2.5 hours for the 

current single test condition. 

DOE is also considering specifying 

three test conditions. In considering two 

additional test conditions for portable 

dehumidifiers, DOE must also consider 

the additional test burden such a change 

would present to manufacturers. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE estimates that 

the current test procedure requires 

approximately 6.5 hours to conduct, 

representing a half-hour stabilization 

period followed by a 6-hour rating test 

period. If DOE were to proceed using 

the current test requirements (i.e., a 6- 

hour rating test period), the time 

required for testing would increase from 

6.5 hours to 21.5 hours. Each additional 

test condition would require at least 1 

hour to change the conditions within 

the chamber, a half hour to allow the 

unit to stabilize within the chamber, 

and then 6 hours to conduct each 

additional test, totaling 15 additional 

test hours for the two additional test 

conditions described previously. 

If DOE were to adopt a 2-hour test 

period, as proposed for the single test 

condition below, for each of the two 

additional test condition scenarios, the 

total time required for testing would 

increase to about 9.5 hours, adding at 

least 7 test hours to the manufacturer 

test burden (i.e., 5 additional total hours 

for stabilization and testing, and 2 total 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.001</GPH>

3.5 

3 

--

A ------·---------------■---------------------

■ Variable-Speed 

.t. Single-Speed 

---•Weighted Avg VS 

- • Weighted Avg SS 

1.5 

1'----------------------

40 so 60 70 80 90 

Dry-Bulb Temp {60% RH) 

Figure 2: Single-Speed vs. Variable-Speed Dehumidifier Performance at Three Test 

Conditions 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35297 

14 In a load-based test, moisture would be added 

to the test chamber at a fixed rate (i.e., a fixed load) 

throughout the duration of the test, simulating a 

real-world usage scenario. 15 ‘‘Measured Performance of Residential 

Dehumidifiers Under Cyclic Operation’’ J. Winkler 

et al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

January 2014. 

hours to adjust the chamber conditions 

between tests). For comparison, the 

current test procedure requires 6.5 

hours of testing, and the proposed 

revised test procedure requires 2.5 

hours of testing, or 6.5 hours if the sixhour test is chosen. 

However, in considering a threecondition test, performance at the lower 

temperatures during a 2-hour period 

could be less consistent with 

performance during a 6-hour period 

because defrost occurs. Thus, it is not 

clear when testing at 55 °F whether a 2- 

hour test is equivalent to a 6-hour test. 

If DOE chose to adopt a three-condition 

test and 2-hour test period with the 

exception of a 6-hour test at the 55 °F 

test condition, the total test burden 

would be 13.5 hours. 

As indicated previously, DOE 

investigative testing suggests that a 

single temperature condition provides 

test results that are representative of an 

average period of use of a dehumidifier. 

As discussed, DOE is also considering 

testing of three possible temperature 

conditions although as discussed, 

investigative testing indicated no 

substantive improvement in 

representativeness over the current test 

procedure. Without an improvement in 

the representativeness of measuring 

dehumidifier performance at a range of 

temperatures, the increase in test 

burden associated with requiring 

multiple test conditions would not be 

justified. 

DOE requests data regarding whether 

a three-test condition test is more 

representative of an average period of 

use for a dehumidifier and the 

applicability of a 2-hour test, or other 

reduced test length between 2 and 6 

hours, to a three-condition test, 

specifically when testing at 55 °F. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining a single-test condition 

approach for portable dehumidifiers, 

and further requests comment on 

potential benefits and burden associated 

with a three-test condition approach for 

all portable dehumidifiers. 

c. Load-Based Test 

Under the current test procedure, 

temperature and humidity conditions 

are held constant throughout the test 

(i.e., a steady-state test). As such, the 

test unit operates at full capacity 

throughout the duration of the test. 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

considered a load-based test, in which 

the humidity level in the test chamber 

would be allowed to vary in response to 

the operation of the dehumidifier.14

This, in turn, would allow the control 

system of the dehumidifier to respond 

to changing moisture levels in the room, 

as it would during real-world usage. As 

a result, a load-based test would induce 

cycling behavior in single-speed 

dehumidifiers or speed modulation in 

variable-speed dehumidifiers. 80 FR 

45802, 45809. In the July 2015 Final 

Rule, DOE elected not to adopt a loadbased test for the dehumidifier test 

procedure due to concerns about the 

potential increase in test burden. Id. at 

80 FR 45810. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought 

(1) feedback and data regarding any 

alternative test methods that may 

produce results that are more 

representative of variable-speed 

dehumidifier energy consumption, 

including, but not limited to, a loadbased test approach; and (2) information 

about the nature and extent of the test 

burden associated with a load-based test 

for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34642. 

The Joint Commenters, MIAQ, and 

California IOUs supported the further 

investigation and development of a 

load-based test. (Joint Commenters, No. 

5 at p. 1; MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 7; California 

IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) The Joint 

Commenters stated that the current test 

procedure for dehumidifiers does not 

capture the impact of cycling losses, 

including moisture re-evaporation. They 

stated that, in dehumidifiers that 

continue to operate the fan after the 

compressor cycles off, some moisture 

that has been removed by the 

dehumidifier can be re-evaporated, 

which results in wasted energy. They 

cited a part-load performance test of two 

portable dehumidifiers conducted by 

the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory in 2014.15 They explained 

that in that study, the models operated 

the fan for 3 minutes after the 

compressor shut off; when compressor 

run times ranged from 3 to 6 minutes, 

17–42 percent of the removed moisture 

was returned to the space. They further 

stated that the current test procedure 

measures the fan power consumed in 

fan-only mode, but it does not capture 

this additional efficiency impact from 

moisture re-evaporation. The Joint 

Commenters asserted that, for variablespeed units, load-based testing would: 

(1) evaluate the effectiveness of the 

unit’s controls in adjusting compressor 

and fan speeds to optimize efficiency; 

and (2) enable variable-speed 

technology to compete on a fair basis, 

which the Joint Commenters asserted 

would likely increase the adoption of 

this feature. They further stated that, for 

single-speed units, load-based testing 

would capture the impact of cycling 

losses and wasted energy from reevaporation. They therefore encouraged 

DOE to consider a load-based test, 

which would ensure that the test 

procedure reflects the real-world 

operation of dehumidifiers. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 5 at p. 1) 

MIAQ supported a load-based test for 

both single-speed and variable-speed 

dehumidifier operation, as it asserted 

that such a test would provide the 

means to obtain true performance data 

of all dehumidifiers over a range of 

operating conditions, potentially 

resulting in a single number 

representing multiple test conditions, 

similar to the seasonal energy efficiency 

rating used in central air conditioners. 

(MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 7) 

The California IOUs commented that 

there are new variable-speed 

dehumidifiers coming into the market 

that may require a revised test to 

account for part-load performance. 

(California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) 

Aprilaire stated that it has considered 

the part-load test method previously 

described by DOE and asserted that this 

test would require a costly retrofit to 

facilities to implement and may be 

difficult to ensure consistent 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

results. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees that a load-based test may 

better capture energy use resulting from 

either of two different circumstances. 

First, the rate of dehumidification could 

exceed the rate of moisture introduced 

to the room, leading to the compressor 

cycling off. Second, moisture could 

build up in the room, such as when the 

dehumidifier cycles off and only 

operates its fan to defrost the 

evaporator. Load-based testing may also 

be able to measure energy lost due to reevaporation, as suggested by 

commenters. However, DOE continues 

to have the same concerns stated in the 

July 2015 Final Rule. First, a load-based 

test would significantly increase test 

burden. It is DOE’s understanding that 

load-based testing is not possible to 

conduct in a psychrometer chamber 

designed to be compliant with 

requirements of appendix X1, without 

substantive changes to the control 

systems and potential changes to the 

reconditioning setup within the 

chamber. Second, as discussed below, 

due to the complexities of operating a 

test chamber in a load-based 

configuration, repeatability and 

reproducibility could decrease. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DOE continues to recognize the 

challenges associated with 

implementing load-based testing in the 

dehumidifier test procedure. As 

discussed in the recent room air 

conditioner test procedure final rule 

published by DOE in the Federal 

Register on March 29, 2021, and in the 

June 2021 TP RFI, DOE expects that a 

load-based test would reduce 

repeatability and reproducibility due to 

current limitations in current test 

chamber capabilities—namely, 

equipment is not designed for a loadbased tests. 86 FR 16446, 16466 (March 

29, 2021); 86 FR 34640, 34642 (June 30, 

2021). Thus, although they may 

technically be capable of doing so, the 

controls and other systems are not 

capable of maintaining a specific load as 

needed, which would reduce the 

representativeness of the results and 

potentially be unduly burdensome. 

Additionally, the psychrometer 

chambers used to test dehumidifiers 

present additional challenges. The 

equipment and controls systems in 

these chambers are designed to maintain 

specified temperature and humidity 

conditions, not to add a steady amount 

of moisture in the same way that a 

calorimeter could. 

Despite the challenges with loadbased testing described previously, DOE 

conducted limited investigative testing 

of a load-based testing approach to 

assess differences in measured 

performance between a single-speed and 

variable-speed dehumidifier under such 

a test. At the time of testing, there was 

only one variable-speed dehumidifier 

model on the market. The variablespeed unit and the single-speed unit 

tested were from the same 

manufacturer, had similar designs, and 

had similar rated dehumidification 

capacities. Although the sample was 

limited, the data are informative, align 

with the theoretical limitations of 

variable-speed technology for 

dehumidifiers, and generally support 

the assertion from commenters that 

variable-speed is not a viable technology 

to improve efficiency. 

DOE tested two dehumidifiers with 

comparable capacities from the same 

manufacturer, one with a variable-speed 

compressor and one with a single-speed 

compressor. DOE conducted multiple 

rounds of testing using different 

moisture introduction rates for each test. 

The moisture introduction rates 

represented 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 

percent, and 100 percent of the full-load 

dehumidification capacity of each tested 

unit. The ‘‘100-percent’’ moisture 

introduction rate test is equivalent to 

the current appendix X1 test. 

Figure 3 shows how the two units 

performed in dehumidification mode 

under each tested moisture load. As 

discussed previously, measured EF is 

presented instead of IEF to focus on the 

dehumidification mode efficiency; i.e., 

the portion of IEF that would change 

due to a change to the test conditions. 

As shown in Figure 3, at each reduced 

moisture load test, the single-speed unit 

performed more efficiently than the 

variable-speed unit, relative to each 

unit’s measured efficiency at full load 

(i.e., 100-percent load). For example, at 

the 75-percent load, the efficiency of the 

single-speed unit was 99 percent of fullload efficiency, whereas the efficiency 

of the variable-speed unit was 89 

percent of full-load efficiency. At the 

25-percent load, the efficiency of the 

single-speed unit was 73 percent of fullload efficiency, compared to only 54 

percent for the variable-speed unit. 

The relatively less efficient 

performance of the variable-speed unit 

at reduced loads runs counter to the 

general trends observed for other HVAC 

products such as room air conditioners, 

in which variable-speed units generally 

perform relatively more efficiently than 

single-speed units at reduced loads. The 

following paragraphs describe some 

notable observations made by DOE 

during testing; however, as discussed, 

DOE is unable to draw conclusions at 

this time as to why the variable-speed 

unit tested performed relatively less 

efficiently than the single-speed unit at 

reduced loads. During each load-based 

test, the single-speed unit cycled on and 

off, as expected, in response to the 

humidity level in the room being 

reduced and reaching the setpoint on 

the dehumidifier controls. DOE 

observed that the variable-speed unit 

also cycled on and off at the 25-percent 

moisture load condition. In addition to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.002</GPH>

100% 

95% 

90% 

85% 

,;;-

"' 80'% .9 

:i 

I.I. 75% 

'o 

e 70% .... 

... 65% 

60% 

55% 

50% 

I 

-.--.,.,..- •s-.--~• 

--· :f -l 

• ---·--

_,,,,,.,,_ ___ ,.~~-~- ---.,----~ 

0 

0% 20% 

l 

! 

• l 

0 

-· 

. 

. 

l 

l e Single-Speed 

o Vanable-Speed 

' l 

I 

40% 60%-----8--0%---1-00% ____ 120%---· l Moisture Loa~{% of Full load) _J 

Figure 3: Measured EF vs. Moisture Load under Load-Based Testing Approach 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35299 

cycling at the 25-percent load condition, 

the variable-speed unit also fluctuated 

between two different compressor 

speeds at the 75-percent moisture load 

condition. The reason for the 

compressor behavior at the 75-percent 

moisture load condition is unclear but 

may be related to the control scheme 

programmed by the manufacturer when 

the unit senses certain ambient or 

operating conditions. 

DOE was unable to draw conclusions 

at this time as to why the tested 

variable-speed unit performed relatively 

less efficiently than the single-speed 

unit at reduced moisture loads. DOE 

would not expect either the cycling at 

the 25-percent condition or the 

fluctuation in compressor speeds at the 

75-percent condition to result in 

relatively lower efficiency performance 

for the variable-speed unit relative to 

the single-speed unit, since the singlespeed unit also exhibited cycling at each 

of the reduced moisture loads. DOE also 

has no information to suggest whether 

the observed trends in performance are 

unique to the variable-speed model 

tested, or whether the same trends in 

performance would be observed more 

generally for other variable-speed 

models. DOE notes, however, that the 

findings of this investigative testing 

would appear to support AHAM’s 

comment in response to the June 2021 

RFI that DOE should not assume that 

variable-speed compressors are a viable 

technology option for improving 

efficiency for dehumidifiers like they 

are for products such as room air 

conditioners, as discussed previously in 

section III.C.2.a of this document. 

DOE’s investigative testing does not 

support use of a load-based test to 

differentiate single-speed dehumidifiers 

from variable-speed dehumidifiers at 

this time. Therefore, DOE is not 

proposing a load-based test in this 

NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on load-based 

testing for dehumidifiers, including (1) 

whether DOE’s variable-speed 

dehumidifier test results are typical of 

the expected performance under a loadbased test, (2) whether there are other 

aspects of performance beyond cycling 

that may have contributed to the 

performance observed during these 

tests, (3) the feasibility of conducting 

load-based tests in a typical lab setup, 

(4) the relative benefits and burdens of 

a load-based test, and (5) the tentative 

determination not to prescribe a loadbased test in appendix X1. 

d. Test Duration 

Appendix X1 requires a test duration 

of 6 hours for the dehumidification 

mode test, after a 30-minute 

stabilization period. See Section 5.4 of 

appendix X1. DOE and AHAM’s DH–1 

working group have identified an 

opportunity to reduce this test duration, 

thereby reducing test burden. To 

identify a potential shorter test duration 

that could be considered, DOE 

conducted investigative testing on 13 

portable dehumidifiers of varying 

capacities, one of which was variablespeed, at the 65 °F dry-bulb temperature, 

in accordance with appendix X1. DOE 

used the gravity drain condensate 

collection approach in appendix X1 and 

recorded the weight of the condensate 

collected every 30 seconds. See Section 

3.1.1.4 of appendix X1. DOE was 

therefore able to calculate energy 

consumption and collected condensate 

at any of the 30-second intervals 

throughout the 6-hour test and did so at 

each hour of testing. Figure 4 and Figure 

5 show the percent change in capacity 

and efficiency (IEF), respectively, at 

each hour relative to the results of the 

6-hour test for the 13 tested units, as 

well as the average of all 13 units. (By 

definition, all data points would be 

plotted at 0-percent difference on the 

sixth hour). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.003</GPH>

2.0% 

1.5% 

~ 

·g 1.0% Cl. 

u "' 

E0.5% 

a, 

M 

C 

50.0% "' 

-1.0% 

-1.5% 

6 

Test Duration (hr) 

-11-UUT 1 -&UUT 2 --uur 3 ...,._UUT 4 ~UUT 5 -tr-UUT 6 -UUT 7 

-uur 8 --uur 9 -+-UUT 10 .... uur 11 --&Unit 12 -+-Unit 13 -.Average 

Figure 4: Percent Change in Capacity from 6-Hour Test Results 
35300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16 In an aspirating-type psychrometer, a wet-bulb 

and a dry-bulb thermometer are mounted inside a 

case that also contains a fan. The fan draws air 

across both thermometers, and the resulting wetbulb and dry-bulb temperatures are used to 

determine the percent relative humidity. 

As demonstrated in Figure 4 and 

Figure 5, capacity and efficiency vary 

only slightly from the 6-hour test results 

with a test duration reduced to 1 hour. 

Specifically, at 1 hour, capacity and 

efficiency differ from the 6-hour test 

results on average by 0.4 percent, and 

both data sets in combination show a 

minimum change of ¥1.2 percent and 

maximum change of 1.6 percent at the 

1-hour point. At 2 hours, the percent 

change in capacity and efficiency for all 

13 units is within a range of 1.4 percent. 

This investigative testing suggests that a 

6-hour dehumidification mode test 

duration for portable dehumidifiers may 

be unnecessary, as the data show there 

is minimal difference in measured 

efficiency between the 2-hour and 6- 

hour test durations. 

DOE also conducted investigative 

testing on three whole-home 

dehumidifier units at the 73 °F dry-bulb 

temperature, using the 6-hour 

dehumidification mode test duration as 

specified by appendix X1. See Section 

5.4 of appendix X1. Each of the tested 

whole-home units operated the 

compressor continuously at steady state 

for the entirety of the 6-hour test 

duration, without any cycling due to 

frost accumulation. DOE also did not 

observe any cycling due to frost 

accumulation in the previously 

mentioned investigative testing of 

portable dehumidifiers at the 65 °F drybulb temperature. Thus, DOE does not 

expect cycling due to frost accumulation 

to occur for whole-home dehumidifiers 

or portable dehumidifiers at or above 

65 °F dry-bulb temperature. Because 

both whole-home and portable units 

operate steadily at the rating conditions, 

one would expect that, like portable 

units, for whole-home units the 2-hour 

and 6-hour results also are equivalent 

within a very small percentage. A 2- 

hour test duration would therefore 

provide substantively equivalent 

measures of capacity and efficiency to a 

6-hour test duration for whole-home 

units, but with a significantly shorter 

test. Based on this evaluation, DOE has 

tentatively determined that a 2-hour test 

duration is appropriate for both wholehome dehumidifiers and portable 

dehumidifiers and would provide 

representative results with minimized 

test burden. DOE also recognizes, 

however, that removing the requirement 

for a 6-hour test duration would require 

recertification for units previously 

certified under a test duration of 6 

hours. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing that the dehumidification 

mode test duration of either 2 or 6 hours 

for both portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 

As discussed previously, investigative 

testing indicates that a test length 

between 2 and 6 hours would likely be 

suitable to maintain test procedure 

repeatability and reproducibility. As 

such DOE is proposing an alternative 

test duration of 2 hours to provide 

consistent test procedure times, avoid 

unnecessary test burden, and avoid 

forcing manufacturers to retest. 

However, DOE continues to consider 

additional test durations of periods 

between 2 and 6 hours. DOE is aware 

that industry stakeholders are 

considering alternate test procedure 

lengths, including a 4-hour test with an 

extension to 6 hours should the unit 

enter defrost. 

DOE requests comment on (1) the 

proposal to allow the dehumidification 

mode test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for 

both portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, (2) whether the proposed 

approach sufficiently represents 

capacity and efficiency for 

dehumidifiers, and (3) the efficacy of 

alternate test durations, including those 

being considered by industry 

stakeholders. 

3. Psychrometer Setup 

Appendix X1, through reference to 

Section 4 ‘‘Instrumentation’’ of ANSI/ 

AHAM DH–1–2008, requires 

dehumidifiers with a single air intake to 

be monitored with an aspirating-type 

psychrometer 16 perpendicular to, and 1 

foot in front of, the unit; and, in the case 

of multiple air intakes, to be monitored 

with a separate sampling tree. See 

Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3 of 

appendix X1. 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

considered whether certain 

psychrometer configuration issues, such 

as variable levels of residual heat from 

the psychrometer fan and variable air 

velocity influencing the accuracy of 

temperature sensors, were detrimental 

to test repeatability. 80 FR 45802, 

45812–45813. As discussed in the July 

2015 Final Rule, DOE was unable to 

determine whether any repeatability 

improvements are associated with 

adjusting the fan location in relation to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.004</GPH>

2.0% 

1.5% 

~ 1.0% 

t 

-1.0% 

-1.5% 

Test Duration (hr) 

-11-UUT 1 -8--UUT 2 --uur 3 ....trUUT 4 ~UUT 5 -1⁄2UUT 6 -UUT 7 

-UUT 8 -i-UUT 9 -+-UUT 10 _..UUT 11 -6-Unit 12 -+Unit 13 -.Average 

Figure 5: Percent Change in IEF from 6-Hour Test Results 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35301 

the dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature 

sensors, or with tightening the air 

velocity requirements through the 

psychrometer. DOE also did not have 

sufficient data to quantify the burdens 

associated with such requirements. Id. 

at 80 FR 45813. 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE also 

considered a proposal to require 

sampling trees for testing all 

dehumidifiers, regardless of the number 

of air intakes, for consistency and 

repeatability. However, based on thenavailable data, DOE was unable to 

conclude that the use of a sampling tree 

would be more reliable than the 

psychrometer-only approach. 80 FR 

45802, 45812–45813. 

Since publication of the July 2015 

Final Rule, DOE has received feedback 

from a testing laboratory that use of a 

sampling tree ducted to an aspirating 

psychrometer is a common 

configuration for testing of other 

refrigerant-based products, and that 

placing the psychrometer itself in front 

of the test unit may impede the 

instrument’s ability to effectively 

monitor the inlet air conditions. 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE 

requested (1) data on the effect of 

residual heat from the psychrometer fan 

and the effects of psychrometer air 

velocity on temperature measurement 

repeatability when using a 

psychrometer, rather than a humidity 

sensor, under the current (appendix X1) 

test procedure; (2) data and other 

information on measures that can be 

employed to minimize any such effects 

when using a psychrometer, as well as 

information regarding the repeatability 

of measurements from tests using such 

measures; (3) comment on any potential 

test burden increases associated with 

additional requirements regarding 

psychrometer fan placement and 

orientation relative to the temperature 

sensors, and any burden associated with 

reducing the acceptable psychrometer 

air velocity range; and (4) comment on 

whether it would be appropriate to 

require, or to allow, sampling trees to be 

used with aspirating psychrometers 

regardless of the number of air intakes 

for a given model, including any data 

confirming repeatability and especially 

repeatability relative to using an 

aspirating psychrometer without a 

sampling tree. 86 FR 34640, 34642– 

34643. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

MIAQ stated that it uses a thin-film 

capacitive humidity measurement 

sensor that is accurate to within ±1 

percent relative humidity, which 

eliminates the need for a psychrometer 

and its added heat. MIAQ asserted that 

psychrometers are inaccurate, difficult 

to maintain, and burdensome to set up. 

MIAQ also stated that sampling trees 

would not be required if inlet and outlet 

air flows are not allowed to affect the 

humidity sensor. According to MIAQ, 

the humidity sensor can be affected if 

the warm and dry dehumidifier exhaust 

is allowed to mix near the dehumidifier 

inlet where the humidity sensor is 

located, or if the mixing of the room air 

is not sufficient to disperse the warm 

and dry exhaust from the inlet. MIAQ 

recommended permitting devices other 

than an aspirating type psychrometer air 

sampler. They also recommended 

specifying that the humidity measuring 

device used must be able to achieve ±1 

percent relative humidity, noting that 

the allowable range in dry bulb (±0.5 °F) 

and wet bulb (±0.3 °F) provide the same 

±1 percent relative humidity range. 

(MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 7–8) 

AHAM commented that the current 

test procedure allows for two possible 

laboratory setups: a single-point 

measurement or a sampling tree. AHAM 

stated that allowing these different test 

setups may result in different test 

outcomes and thus lower 

reproducibility between test 

laboratories. AHAM did not have any 

specific recommendations on 

psychrometer setup. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 

3) 

DOE conducted investigative testing 

to determine whether and to what 

extent there are differences between the 

relative humidity measurements 

obtained when using a relative humidity 

sensor instead of a psychrometer. To 

compare the measured relative humidity 

throughout the test period, DOE tested 

six portable dehumidifiers in 

accordance with appendix X1, each 

instrumented with two relative 

humidity sensors and an aspirating 

psychrometer, with all instrumentation 

placed 1 foot in front of the inlet grille. 

Figure 6 shows the results of this 

testing, indicating the average 

percentage difference in relative 

humidity as measured by the two 

relative humidity sensors compared to 

the relative humidity measured with the 

aspirating psychrometer. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.005</GPH>

3,5% 

GI 3.0% 

~ 1!! 2.5% G1 ! 2.0% 

:r 

o:: 15% 

c 

~ 1.0% 

G1 

A- 05% 

0.0% 

Percent RH Difference, Temp/RH Sensor vs. Psychrometer 

Unit1 Unit 2 Unit3 Unit4 Units Unit6 

;:RH Sensor 1-Average :!RH Sensor 2 -Average DRH Sensor 1- Max Difference DRH Sensor 2- Max Difference 

Figure 6: Average and Maximum Difference in Relative Humidity Measured by 

Humidity Sensors Compared to Aspirating Psychrometer Measurements 
35302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

As shown in Figure 6, the average 

difference observed between relative 

humidity sensor and aspirating 

psychrometer measurements for a given 

test unit ranged from less than 0.1 

percent to 0.8 percent relative humidity. 

The largest difference that DOE 

observed in testing (i.e., from the 

smallest measured value for the 

aspirating psychrometer to the largest 

measured value for either of the relative 

humidity sensors) for any of the units 

was 3.0 percent relative humidity, and 

the average among all six test units of 

each unit’s maximum difference was 1.8 

percent relative humidity. DOE 

considers this level of variation to be 

comparable to the existing accuracy and 

tolerance requirements for relative 

humidity sensors in appendix X1 (see 

Sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.2.2.2 of 

appendix X1). DOE therefore tentatively 

concludes that the repeatability of the 

dehumidifier test procedure is similar 

regardless of whether a relative 

humidity sensor or aspirating 

psychrometer is used. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to maintain the options 

currently offered in appendix X1 

regarding the permitted relative 

humidity measurement apparatuses. 

The test procedure at appendix X1 

does not currently permit the use of a 

sampling tree in conjunction with an 

aspirating psychrometer to measure 

relative humidity for portable 

dehumidifiers with a single air inlet. In 

the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE was 

unable to conclude whether using a 

psychrometer-only or using a 

psychrometer in conjunction with a 

sampling tree would produce the most 

repeatable results. 80 FR 45802. DOE 

required using the psychrometer-only 

approach in the July 2015 Final Rule to 

minimize test burden. However, DOE is 

aware that using a sampling tree with an 

aspirating psychrometer is standard 

practice for many test laboratories when 

conducing psychrometric testing. 

Although DOE is not aware of any data 

comparing relative humidity 

measurements using an aspirating 

psychrometer with and without a 

sampling tree, the widespread industry 

acceptance of sampling trees used with 

aspirating psychrometers and DOE’s 

technical understanding of the validity 

of measurements obtained when using 

sampling trees suggest that allowing the 

use of sampling trees in appendix X1 

would not substantively impact the 

repeatability or reproducibility of the 

test procedure, or the representativeness 

of the measured results. Additionally, 

allowing sampling trees would likely 

reduce the test burden for certain test 

laboratories that would otherwise be 

required to change their aspirating 

psychrometer configuration to remove 

the sampling tree and reposition the 

psychrometer within the test chamber. 

Therefore, when measuring relative 

humidity using an aspirating 

psychrometer for all portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers with a single 

air inlet, DOE is proposing to permit the 

use of sampling trees in appendix X1. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow relative humidity 

measurements taken using an aspirating 

psychrometer with a sampling tree in 

appendix X1 for dehumidifiers with a 

single air inlet. 

In addition to the proposal to allow 

sampling trees in conjunction with 

aspirated psychrometer testing, DOE is 

aware that industry stakeholders are 

considering shielding and positioning 

requirements for aspirated psychrometer 

construction and setup to improve the 

accuracy of the results. DOE believes 

that these requirements would improve 

the repeatability and reproducibility of 

the test procedure. Based on input from 

industry, DOE expects that there would 

be minimal test burden increase 

associated with these requirements, as 

these practices are already generally 

accepted by industry. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to require that the sensing 

elements within the psychrometer box 

be shielded or positioned to minimize 

radiation effects from the fan motor, that 

there be line of sight separation between 

any fans and sensing elements within 

the test fixture, and at least 3 feet of 

separation, along the path of airflow, 

between any fans and sensing elements 

within the test fixture. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require that the 

psychrometer box contain shielding or 

be configured to minimize radiation 

effects on the sensing elements, that 

there be line of sight separation between 

any fans and sensing elements within 

the test fixture, and at least 3 feet of 

separation, along the path of airflow, 

between any fans and sensing elements 

within the test fixture. 

4. Whole-Home Dehumidifiers 

a. Air Velocity 

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE 

established a test procedure for wholehome dehumidifiers in appendix X1. 80 

FR 45802, 45810–45811. Whole-home 

dehumidifiers differ from portable 

dehumidifiers as they are installed in a 

ducted configuration in a home. The 

whole-home dehumidifier test 

procedure specifies a ducted test setup 

with instructions for measuring and 

maintaining the air flow through these 

ducts. See section 3.1.3 of appendix X1. 

Section 5.2 of AHAM DH–1–2017 

requires that ‘‘the air flow approaching 

the test unit shall be uniform in 

temperature, humidity and velocity. The 

air velocity shall not exceed 50 feet per 

minute (‘‘ft/min’’) (0.25 meters per 

second (‘‘m/s’’)) within 3 ft (0.91 m) of 

the dehumidifier with the unit not 

operating.’’ 

MIAQ expressed concern with the air 

velocity requirements in section 5.2 of 

AHAM DH–1–2017. MIAQ agreed there 

is a need to properly mix the air during 

testing but stated that for the larger 

whole-home dehumidifiers, a maximum 

air velocity of 50 ft/min requires a test 

chamber of an excessive size. MIAQ 

suggested working with DOE to identify 

a higher velocity that can be used with 

larger units. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 7–8) 

As reflected in AHAM DH–1–2017, 

the 50 ft/min maximum air velocity 

requirement ensures that the test 

chamber is sufficiently equipped and 

sized to maintain uniform temperature, 

humidity, and velocity for the 

dehumidifier inlet air. However, when 

testing high-capacity portable and 

whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE 

understands that this requirement, in 

conjunction with the requirement that 

test chambers must exchange air within 

the chamber at a rate no less than two 

times the airflow of the dehumidifier 

under test, may represent a challenge. 

Because larger dehumidifiers have a 

significantly higher airflow than smaller 

portable dehumidifiers, they may 

require the use of test chambers that are 

significantly larger than a typical 

laboratory’s. Commenters have 

suggested that this specification in 

AHAM DH–1–2017 may represent an 

undue burden on manufacturers of 

large-capacity portable dehumidifiers 

and whole-home dehumidifiers. 

DOE is considering alternate air 

velocity specifications. However, DOE is 

not aware of any data that quantify the 

impact on repeatability and 

reproducibility of raising the maximum 

air velocity requirement to a less 

stringent level. Based on anecdotal 

evidence and information received from 

laboratory technicians, an increased air 

velocity when testing larger-capacity 

dehumidifiers in standard chambers 

(i.e., above 50 ft/min) does not 

negatively impact the repeatability or 

reproducibility of the test procedure. 

Based on the previous information, DOE 

is considering raising the maximum air 

flow requirement by an amount 

appropriate to the increased air flow of 

the largest units on the market, e.g., to 

100 ft/min. 

DOE requests comment regarding the 

maximum air velocity requirement 

generally, the current 50 ft/min 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35303 

requirement as specified in AHAM DH– 

1–2017, and the consideration to raise 

the maximum air velocity within 3 ft of 

the dehumidifier with the unit not 

operating, when properly configuring 

the test chamber. Were DOE to obtain 

information or data indicating that a 

higher permitted air velocity would not 

negatively impact the measured results, 

DOE would consider adopting an 

increased air velocity requirement. 

Aprilaire commented that appendix 

X1 currently lists a pitot traverse 

method of determining velocity 

pressures and ultimately airflow 

through reference to Section 7.3.1 of 

ANSI/Air Movement and Control 

Association (‘‘AMCA’’) 210–07. 

Aprilaire stated that there is a very 

limited number of test facilities that still 

use this technology. Aprilaire suggested 

that DOE adopt the alternative method 

of using airflow nozzles to measure 

airflow detailed in Section 7.3.2 of 

ANSI/AMCA 210–07. Aprilaire stated 

that most laboratories are using the 

nozzle method in ANSI/AMCA 210–07 

for measuring airflow and that this 

method is listed by American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) 

Standard 37 as the method to use for 

HVAC Equipment. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at 

pp. 1–2) 

DOE inquired with a number of 

laboratories and is aware that there is a 

limited number of test laboratories that 

use pitot-tube traverses when 

conducting testing in accordance with 

ANSI/AMCA 210–07 (see Sections 4.2.2, 

4.3.1 and 7.3.1 of ANSI/AMCA 210–07), 

as referenced by appendix X1 for testing 

whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE is 

aware that test laboratories typically use 

the alternate calibrated nozzle approach 

detailed in Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2 and 

7.3.2 of ANSI/AMCA 210–07 when 

conducting testing in accordance with 

ANSI/AMCA 210–07 for products other 

than dehumidifiers, which is not 

currently permitted in appendix X1. 

Based on feedback from test laboratories 

and comments received in response to 

the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE understands 

that pitot-tube traverses are complex to 

fabricate and that measuring static 

pressure using them may require greater 

expertise, be more costly, and be more 

error-prone than the alternative 

calibrated nozzle approach. DOE has 

conducted limited investigative testing 

of two whole-home dehumidifiers to 

compare the IEF measured using pitottube traverses to the calibrated nozzle 

approach. The results show an average 

difference between the two approaches 

of 1 percent. Based on the industryaccepted standard, ANSI/AMCA 210– 

07, the understanding that the two 

approaches are substantively similar, 

and feedback from test laboratories that 

use of the calibrated nozzle approach 

can reduce the test burden as compared 

to use of the pitot-tube traverses, DOE 

is proposing to allow the calibrated 

nozzle approach in addition to the pitottube traverse approach in appendix X1 

when testing whole-home 

dehumidifiers, in accordance with the 

requirements of Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 

and 7.3.2 of ANSI/AMCA 210–07. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow calibrated nozzle 

testing according to the requirements of 

Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, and 7.3.2 of ANSI/ 

AMCA 210–07 for whole-home 

dehumidifiers in appendix X1. 

b. Ventilation Air 

Appendix X1 requires capping and 

sealing any fresh-air inlet on a wholehome dehumidifier during testing. 

Section 3.1.3 of appendix X1. In the July 

2015 Final Rule, DOE determined that, 

while sealing the fresh-air inlet on 

dehumidifiers designed to operate with 

the fresh-air intake open may negatively 

impact capacity and efficiency, those 

effects are not significant enough to 

warrant the added test burden of 

providing separate fresh-air inflow. 80 

FR 45802, 45811. In the June 2021 TP 

RFI, DOE noted the lack of data 

regarding representative consumer use 

of fresh-air inlet ducts for whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34643. 

DOE subsequently requested (1) data 

about the prevalence of fresh-air inlet 

use among whole-home dehumidifier 

consumers, and (2) feedback on the test 

burden increases associated with adding 

another air stream in the testing 

configuration to account for the fresh-air 

inlet on those whole-home 

dehumidifiers equipped with such a 

feature. Id. 

Aprilaire and MIAQ stated that 

capping the fresh-air intake should not 

appreciably impact the total airflow 

through the unit and subsequently 

should have little effect on the 

efficiency. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 2; 

MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9) Aprilaire further 

stated that alternatives such as requiring 

an alternate airflow would provide a 

serious and substantial burden and 

would require substantial retrofits to 

existing dehumidification test 

chambers. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 2) 

MIAQ stated that nearly all whole-home 

dehumidifiers it offers include the 

option of a fresh-air inlet, and that its 

units are tested with this inlet subject to 

the same ESP as the dehumidifier’s 

return air inlet. MIAQ asserted that 

developing a test procedure that 

requires the dehumidifier’s return air 

inlet to be subject to one value of ESP 

and the fresh-air inlet to a different ESP 

would be an excessive burden that 

would provide little value. MIAQ 

suggested consideration of alternatives, 

for example, a third test condition for 

whole-home dehumidifiers at a higher 

temperature and an ESP of 0.2 in. w.c. 

to simulate a blending of return air and 

outside air at two different temperatures 

and ESPs. MIAQ added that another 

possible approach is to develop a single 

metric representing multiple test 

conditions, as provided in their 

comments, that includes a test condition 

or two representing a fresh-air inlet 

combined with return air from the 

dwelling. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9) 

DOE is not aware of publicly available 

data, nor has DOE received information 

from commenters, regarding the 

prevalence of fresh-air inlet use among 

whole-home dehumidifier consumers. 

Comments received on this issue are 

consistent with DOE’s prior 

determination that the burden of adding 

an additional air stream in the testing 

configuration to account for fresh-air 

inlet on those whole-home 

dehumidifiers equipped with such a 

feature would outweigh the benefits. 

Doing so would substantively increase 

cost, require substantial retrofits to 

existing dehumidification test 

chambers, and provide little value. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to retain the 

requirement to cap and seal the fresh-air 

inlet during testing of a whole-home 

dehumidifier. 

DOE requests comment on the 

tentative determination to continue to 

require capping and sealing any freshair inlet on a whole-home dehumidifier 

during testing in appendix X1. 

c. External Static Pressure 

The DOE test procedure at appendix 

X1 requires that the ESP, the difference 

in process air outlet static pressure 

minus the process air inlet static 

pressure, be 0.2 in. w.c. for the duration 

of the test when conducting wholehome dehumidifier testing. See section 

3.1.2.2.3.1 of appendix X1. 

MIAQ stated that whole-home 

dehumidifiers are typically integrated 

into the dwelling’s HVAC system’s 

ductwork. MIAQ stated that the unit 

could (1) draw air from the furnace/air 

handler’s return and send dehumidified 

air back to the return (i.e., return-return 

installation), or (2) draw from the 

furnace/air handler’s supply and return 

dehumidified air to the same supply 

(i.e., supply-supply installation). MIAQ 

stated that in either setup, the ESP 

experienced by the dehumidifier would 

be nearly 0 in. w.c. MIAQ stated that 

whole-home dehumidifiers could also 

draw from the furnace/air handler’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17T. Burke, et al., Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: 

Field-Monitoring Study, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, Report No. LBNL–6777E 

(September 2014). Available at https://

www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1164163. 

return and send the dehumidified air to 

the furnace/air handler’s supply 

ductwork, in which case the ESP would 

be the same as that seen by the furnace/ 

air handler’s fan, which is typically 0.25 

in. w.c. to 0.5 in. w.c. MIAQ further 

stated the dehumidifier could also 

receive a portion of its intake air from 

outside for the purpose of meeting 

ventilation requirements. 

For whole-home dehumidifiers, 

MIAQ suggested that DOE adopt two 

product classes (75 pints/day or less and 

greater than 75 pints/day) and two test 

conditions (73 °F dry-bulb and 60 

percent relative humidity for both test 

conditions, one at 0 in. w.c. of ESP and 

the other at 0.4 in. w.c. of ESP). 

MIAQ stated that the first suggested 

test condition represents a unit ducted 

in a furnace return-return or supplysupply arrangement with 0 in. w.c. of 

ESP and the second suggested test 

condition represents a unit drawing air 

from the furnace’s return air duct and/ 

or outside air and supplying the air to 

the furnace’s supply air duct with 0.4 

in. w.c. of ESP. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 

4–6) 

Regarding distinguishing between 

whole-home dehumidifiers based on 

capacity, MIAQ did not provide, and 

DOE does not have, information or data 

to indicate that such a distinction is 

warranted for the test procedure. If DOE 

proposes amendments to the energy 

conservation standards, DOE will 

consider whether to create additional 

whole-home dehumidifier product 

classes consistent with the authority at 

42 U.S.C. 6295(q). 

In this NOPR, DOE is not proposing 

to amend the test conditions and test 

setups for whole-home dehumidifiers, 

as suggested by MIAQ. MIAQ did not 

provide support regarding the 

representativeness of this setup. In 

addition, DOE previously considered 

and rejected it in a previous rulemaking 

based on a field study and other 

information. While DOE understands 

that installation configurations and 

environmental factors vary for wholehome dehumidifiers, DOE tentatively 

concludes that testing whole-home 

dehumidifiers twice, once with 0 in. 

w.c. ESP and once with 0.4 in. w.c. ESP, 

would not be sufficiently more 

representative as to justify the increased 

test burden. The 0.2 in. w.c. ESP 

specification for the existing single 

whole-home dehumidifier test was 

based on real-world operating data from 

a field study conducted in 2014.17 This 

field study and manufacturer comments 

addressed in the supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’) during 

the last dehumidifier test procedure 

rulemaking (‘‘February 2015 SNOPR’’) 

supported that whole-home 

dehumidifiers are typically installed in 

configurations resulting in 0.2 in. w.c. 

ESP. 80 FR 5994 (Feb. 4, 2015). 

Manufacturer feedback discussed in the 

February 2015 SNOPR indicated that 

using an ESP of 0.5 in. w.c. would be 

an ‘‘extreme and unrealistic condition 

for whole-home dehumidifiers’’ and that 

whole-home dehumidifiers are typically 

installed at much lower ESP than 0.5 in. 

w.c. 80 FR 5994, 5997. 

Adding additional whole-home 

dehumidifier tests would increase test 

burden on manufacturers by a minimum 

of 2 or 6 hours for each test. In addition 

to the increased test chamber time, each 

test with a new ESP would require 

additional time to adjust or refabricate 

duct installation setups between tests. 

DOE is not proposing to add 

additional tests to the whole-home 

dehumidifier test procedure at appendix 

X1. DOE tentatively determined that the 

current test procedure sufficiently 

represents typical whole-home 

installation configurations and any 

marginal increase in representativeness 

from additional test conditions would 

not justify the substantial test burden 

increase associated with those 

additional tests. 

DOE requests comment on 

maintaining a single test approach for 

whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE also 

requests comment on potential 

improvements in representativeness and 

the additional test burden associated 

with the testing whole-home 

dehumidifiers twice, once each with an 

external static pressure of 0 in. w.c. ESP 

and 0.4 in. w.c. 

5. Network Functions 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE noted 

that many types of consumer products 

(e.g., refrigerators, clothes dryers, room 

air conditioners) are now equipped with 

‘‘network functions,’’ such as mobile 

alerts/messages, remote control, and 

energy information and demand 

response capabilities to support future 

smart grid interconnection. 86 FR 

34640, 34643. DOE noted that certain 

manufacturers have also incorporated 

some of these features, such as WiFi 

capability, into dehumidifiers. Id. In a 

previously published RFI, DOE sought 

comment to better understand market 

trends and issues in the emerging 

market for products and equipment that 

incorporate smart technology to ensure 

that DOE did not inadvertently impede 

such innovation when setting efficiency 

standards. 83 FR 46886. (Sept. 17, 2018) 

In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested 

(1) data on the prevalence of network 

functions in dehumidifiers currently on 

the market in the United States and (2) 

information on whether the current test 

procedures for dehumidifiers impede 

providing smart technology operations 

on dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34643. 

In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, 

the Joint Commenters, MIAQ, and the 

California IOUs supported further 

investigation of network functions in 

dehumidifiers. (Joint Commenters, No. 5 

at pp. 1–2; MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 8; 

California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) The Joint 

Commenters stated that, while units 

with network functions can provide 

benefits by facilitating integration with 

the smart grid, network functions may 

consume additional standby power in 

all operating modes. They further stated 

the test procedure should capture any 

power consumption associated with 

network functions to encourage 

manufacturers to provide network 

functions with low power consumption. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 5 at pp. 1–2) 

MIAQ stated it is not aware of any 

product with significant residential 

market impact that uses network 

functions. MIAQ further stated that it is 

aware of commercial dehumidifiers that 

offer this technology and of efforts to 

develop this for the residential market. 

MIAQ stated that if network functions 

were integrated into dehumidification 

products, the method of test would need 

to be re-evaluated; if the units included 

faster response or predictive operation, 

there may be more time spent in a 

‘‘standby’’ mode or more rapid cycling 

of the unit. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 8) 

The California IOUs asserted that 

dehumidifiers are strong candidates for 

load shifting due to their typical 

operation based on humidity, rather 

than on consumer preferences. They 

indicated that network functions and 

load shifting are priorities in California 

and that dehumidifiers with network 

functions are already on the market. The 

California IOUs also commented that 

EPA has indicated an intent to include 

network functions in future revisions of 

the ENERGY STAR Criteria. (California 

IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) 

AHAM stated that enabling network 

functions results in a negligible increase 

in current draw when compared to the 

current draw of a dehumidifier’s main 

function. AHAM additionally stated that 

the percentage of dehumidifiers with 

network functions (as per the ENERGY 

STAR definition) is 0.4 percent of total 

shipments. AHAM stated that further 

discussion on these aspects of the test 

procedure will take place on the AHAM 

DH–1 task force. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35305 

Based on testing and information from 

industry regarding network functions in 

consumer products, DOE expects that 

the power consumption attributable to 

network functions is expected to be on 

the order of 1 watt (‘‘W’’) or less. The 

impact on IEF of power consumption of 

network functions is expected to be no 

more than 1 percent, based on DOE’s 

testing that indicated an average impact 

on IEF of less than 0.75 percent for the 

units in DOE’s test sample. DOE is 

aware there are dehumidifiers on the 

market with varying implementations of 

network functions. However, DOE is not 

aware of any data available, nor did 

interested parties provide any data, 

regarding the consumer use of network 

functions. Without these data, DOE is 

unable to establish a representative test 

configuration to assess the energy 

consumption of network functions for 

dehumidifiers. Therefore, DOE proposes 

to specify that, if a dehumidifier has 

network functions, all network 

functions must be disabled throughout 

testing using means available to the end 

user pursuant to instructions provided 

in the product’s user manual. DOE 

further proposes to specify that, if 

network functions cannot be disabled by 

the consumer or the manufacturer’s user 

manual does not provide instruction for 

disabling the function, the energy 

consumption of the enabled network 

function must be included, as it is more 

representative than excluding the 

energy consumption associated with the 

network function. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to specify in appendix X1 that, 

for units with network functions, (1) the 

network functions must be disabled 

throughout testing if such settings can 

be disabled by the end-user and the 

product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so; and (2) if 

network functions cannot be disabled by 

the end-user, or the product’s user 

manual does not provide instruction for 

disabling network functions, then the 

unit must be tested with the network 

functions in the factory default 

configuration for the test period. 

6. Removal of Appendix X 

Appendix X to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430 is unnecessary for 

dehumidifiers manufactured on or after 

January 27, 2016. Use of appendix X1 to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is 

currently required for any 

representations of energy use or 

efficiency of portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, including demonstrating 

compliance with the currently 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. As discussed in this 

document, DOE is proposing to 

maintain the current appendix X1, with 

amendments. That updated version of 

appendix X1 would be used for the 

evaluation and issuance of any updated 

efficiency standards, and for 

determining compliance with those 

standards. Therefore, in this NOPR DOE 

proposes to remove appendix X to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, along with 

all references to appendix X in 10 CFR 

parts 429 and 430. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to remove appendix X to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with 

all references to appendix X in 10 CFR 

parts 429 and 430. 

D. Reporting 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use product-specific certification 

templates to certify compliance to DOE. 

For dehumidifiers, the certification 

template reflects the general 

certification requirements at 10 CFR 

429.12 and the product-specific 

requirements at 10 CFR 429.36. 

The California IOUs suggested that 

DOE incorporate reporting of refrigerant 

type and charge quantity for 

dehumidifiers into the test procedure. 

They stated that this would not increase 

testing burden as this information is 

already being collected to comply with 

other industry test procedures and 

would be useful for compliance with 

new refrigerant regulations. (California 

IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) 

The collection of refrigerant type and 

charge quantity for dehumidifiers is not 

necessary for compliance or to support 

the DOE program. For this reason, DOE 

is not proposing to amend the productspecific certification requirements for 

dehumidifiers to require reporting of 

refrigerant type or charge quantity. 

E. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for 

dehumidifiers by amending appendix 

X1 to incorporate the current version of 

the applicable industry standard, 

specify dehumidification mode rating 

test period options of 2 or 6 hours, 

permit the use of a sampling tree in 

conjunction with an aspirating 

psychrometer for a dehumidifier with a 

single process air intake grille, and 

specify requirements for testing 

dehumidifiers with network functions. 

If the network functions can be disabled 

by the end-user and instructions to 

disable are in the manual, test with 

those functions disabled; otherwise, test 

in the factory default setting. DOE has 

tentatively determined that these 

proposed amendments would not 

increase testing costs. As discussed in 

the following paragraphs, DOE has also 

tentatively determined that two 

proposals would likely reduce testing 

costs: shortening the test duration and 

permitting use of a sampling tree. 

a. Reduced Test Period 

DOE proposes to amend appendix X1 

to specify dehumidification mode rating 

test period options of 2 or 6 hours for 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. As discussed in section 

III.B.3 of this document, DOE expects 

this proposal would decrease test cost 

for dehumidifier manufacturers due to 

reduced test chamber time, assuming 

they choose the 2-hour option. Reducing 

the test period by 4 hours would yield 

an estimated cost savings per test of 

$750. 

DOE has initially determined that the 

proposed amendments would not affect 

the representations of dehumidifier 

energy efficiency/energy use, as 

discussed in section III.B.4 of this 

document. If DOE adopts the proposed 

amendments, DOE expects that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure. As such, retesting of 

dehumidifiers would not be required 

solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of 

the proposed amendments to the test 

procedure. Recertification would also 

not be required as a result of this 

amendment: the proposal includes 

retaining the 6-hour option, meaning 

existing test data would continue to 

support certification. 

DOE requests comment on the impact 

and associated costs of the proposal to 

specify dehumidification mode rating 

test period options of 2 or 6 hours for 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 

b. Sampling Tree 

DOE proposes in appendix X1 to 

allow relative humidity measurements 

using an aspirating psychrometer with a 

sampling tree for dehumidifiers with a 

single air inlet. As discussed in section 

III.B.4 of this document, DOE expects 

this proposal would not substantively 

impact repeatability or reproducibility 

of the test procedure or the 

representativeness of the measured 

energy efficiency. The proposal, if made 

final, would not result in a change of the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

currently certified dehumidifiers 

because the proposed use of a sampling 

tree would be an alternate test set-up to 

the current test set-up. The proposal, if 

made final, would also likely reduce the 

test burden for certain test laboratories 

that would otherwise be required to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

change their aspirating psychrometer 

configuration to remove the sampling 

tree and reposition the psychrometer 

within the test chamber. There is no 

cost attributable to this amendment. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments would not 

impact the measured energy use or 

representations of dehumidifier energy 

efficiency/energy use. DOE has 

tentatively determined that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure if DOE adopts the proposed 

amendments. As such, DOE does not 

expect retesting of any dehumidifier 

would be required solely as a result of 

DOE’s adoption of the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the impact 

and associated costs of the proposal to 

allow relative humidity measurements 

to be made using an aspirating 

psychrometer with a sampling tree in 

appendix X1 for dehumidifiers with a 

single air inlet. 

c. Other Amendments 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments to 

incorporate the updated version of the 

relevant industry testing standard and to 

provide additional direction regarding 

units with network functions would not 

change the measured energy efficiency 

as compared to the current test 

procedure and would not change the 

test costs. Based on review of AHAM 

DH–1–2017, DOE expects that the 

proposed test procedure for measuring 

IEF would not increase testing costs per 

unit compared to the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE also does not expect 

that the proposed direction to disable 

network functions during testing, if 

made final, would impact test cost or 

the measured energy efficiency, as 

network function does not represent a 

significant portion of the overall energy 

efficiency, as discussed previously. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix A, 

section 8(c). If the industry standard 

does not meet EPCA statutory criteria 

for test procedures, DOE will, through 

the rulemaking process, adopt 

modifications to these standards. 

The test procedures for dehumidifiers 

at part 430, subpart B, appendix X1 

incorporates by reference AHAM DH–1– 

2017, ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 

41.1, and IEC 62301. Appendix X1 

incorporates sections of (1) AHAM DH– 

1–2017 for definitions, instrumentation, 

and test procedure requirements, (2) 

ANSI/AMCA 210 to describe required 

instrumentation and measurements of 

ESP, pressure losses, and velocity 

pressures for refrigerant-desiccant 

whole-home dehumidifiers testing, (3) 

ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 to determine the 

number and locations of temperature 

sensors within the ducts for refrigerantdesiccant whole-home dehumidifiers, 

and (4) IEC 62301 for requirements for 

inactive and off mode testing. The 

industry standards DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference via 

amendments described in this proposed 

rule are discussed in further detail in 

section IV.M of this document. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments in this 

proposed rule are not unduly 

burdensome. DOE requests comments 

on the benefits and burdens of the 

proposed updates and additions to 

industry test standards referenced in the 

test procedure for dehumidifiers. 

F. Compliance Date 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 180 days after 

publication of that test procedure final 

rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2)) 

If DOE were to publish an amended 

test procedure and an individual 

manufacturer may experience undue 

hardship in meeting the deadline, EPCA 

provides an allowance for those 

manufacturers to petition DOE for an 

extension of the 180-day period. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an 

extension, petitions must be filed with 

DOE no later than 60 days before the 

end of the 180-day period and must 

detail how the manufacturer will 

experience undue hardship. (Id.) 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, 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, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 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 proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

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 Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35307 

18All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58 (Nov. 

15, 2021). 

19 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 

01). 

20 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related 

equipment—Methods of measurement for power 

consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7: 

2018). 

21 DOE’s CCD is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last 

accessed January 24, 2022). 

22California Energy Commission’s MAEDbS is 

available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ 

Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx (Last accessed 

January 24, 2022). 

23ENERGY STAR’s Product Finder dataset is 

available at www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ 

product/certified-dehumidifiers/results (Last 

accessed January 24, 2022). 

24The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/. 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

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. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’) 18 requires 

that, at least once every 7 years, DOE 

evaluate test procedures for each type of 

covered product, including 

dehumidifiers, to determine whether 

amended test procedures would more 

accurately or fully comply with the 

requirements for the test procedures to 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct 

and be reasonably designed to produce 

test results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE is publishing this 

NOPR in satisfaction of the 7-year 

review requirement specified in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

EPCA requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including dehumidifiers, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) 

In addition, EPCA requires that DOE 

amend its test procedures for all covered 

products to integrate measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

Standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption must be incorporated into 

the overall energy efficiency, energy 

consumption, or other energy descriptor 

for each covered product unless the 

current test procedures already account 

for and incorporate standby and off 

mode energy consumption or such 

integration is technically infeasible. If 

an integrated test procedure is 

technically infeasible, DOE must 

prescribe a separate standby mode and 

off mode energy use test procedure for 

the covered product, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) 

Any such amendment must consider the 

most current versions of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 62301 19

and IEC Standard 62087 20 as applicable. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

DOE is publishing this NOPR in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of dehumidifiers, 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) considers a business entity to 

be small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers specified 

in 13 CFR part 121. DOE used SBA’s 

small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. These size standards and codes 

are established by the North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of 

portable dehumidifiers is classified 

under NAICS 335210, ‘‘Small Electrical 

Appliance Manufacturing,’’ whereas the 

manufacturing of whole-home 

dehumidifiers is classified under NAICS 

333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm 

Air Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer 

and 1,250 employees or fewer for an 

entity to be considered as a small 

business in these industry categories, 

respectively. For manufacturers of both 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, DOE used the higher (or 

more conservative) threshold of 1,500 

employees or fewer. 

DOE used its Compliance 

Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’),21

California Energy Commission’s 

Modernized Appliance Efficiency 

Database System (‘‘MAEDbS’’),22 and 

ENERGY STAR’s Product Finder 

dataset 23 to create a list of companies 

that sell the products covered by this 

rulemaking in the United States. DOE 

consulted publicly available data, such 

as manufacturer websites, manufacturer 

specifications and product literature, 

import/export logs, and basic model 

numbers, to identify original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of the products 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE relied 

on public data and subscription-based 

market research tools (e.g., Dun & 

Bradstreet reports 24) to determine 

company location, headcount, and 

annual revenue. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer products 

covered by this proposed rulemaking, 

do not meet the SBA’s definition of a 

‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign-owned 

and operated. 

DOE initially identified 15 OEMs of 

dehumidifiers for the U.S. market. DOE 

estimates that 12 are OEMs of portable 

dehumidifiers, two are OEMs of wholehome dehumidifiers, and one is an OEM 

of both portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. Of the 15 total OEMs 

identified, one qualifies as a ‘‘small 

business’’ and is not foreign-owned or 

operated. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

appendix X1 to subpart B of part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Dehumidifiers, 

as follows: 

(1) Incorporate by reference parts of 

AHAM DH–1–2017; 

(2) Allow the rating test period in 

sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 5.4 to be 2 or 

6 hours; 

(3) Add a provision in section 3.1.1.3 

allowing for the use of a sampling tree 

in conjunction with an aspirating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

psychrometer for a dehumidifier with a 

single process air intake grille; and 

(4) Add a requirement in section 

3.1.2.3 that dehumidifiers with network 

functions shall be tested with the 

network functions in the ‘‘off’’ position 

if it can be disabled by the end-user; 

otherwise test in the factory default 

setting. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these proposed amendments would not 

increase testing costs, and would likely 

reduce the testing costs, as discussed in 

the following paragraphs. 

DOE proposes to amend appendix X1 

to allow the dehumidification mode test 

duration to be 2 or 6 hours for both 

portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. DOE expects that this 

proposal would decrease testing costs 

and test burden for dehumidifier 

manufacturers due to reduced test 

chamber time, assuming they choose the 

2-hour option. Considering a reduction 

of the test period by 4 hours, if the 

option is taken, and the subsequent time 

for test setup and stabilization, the 

estimated cost savings per test would be 

$750. Additionally, DOE has initially 

determined that the proposed 

amendments would not affect the 

representations of dehumidifier energy 

efficiency/energy use. If DOE adopts the 

proposed amendments, DOE expects 

that manufacturers would be able to rely 

on data generated under the current test 

procedure should the proposed 

amendments be finalized. Therefore, 

retesting would not be required solely as 

a result of DOE’s adoption of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure. 

DOE proposes to allow relative 

humidity measurements to be made 

using an aspirating psychrometer with a 

sampling tree in appendix X1 for 

dehumidifiers with a single air inlet. 

DOE expects this proposal would not 

substantively impact repeatability or 

reproducibility of the test procedure and 

would likely reduce the test burden for 

certain test labs that would otherwise be 

required to change their aspirating 

psychrometer configuration to remove 

the sampling tree and reposition the 

psychrometer within the test chamber. 

There is no cost attributable to this 

amendment. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed 

amendments would not impact the 

representations of dehumidifier energy 

efficiency/energy use, and that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure if DOE adopts the proposed 

amendments. As such, DOE does not 

expect retesting of any dehumidifier 

would be required solely due to DOE’s 

adoption of the proposed amendments 

to the test procedure. 

DOE does not anticipate the proposed 

test procedure amendments to result in 

increased testing costs for 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers. Thus, DOE tentatively 

concludes that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

conclusion that the NOPR would not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

5. Identification of 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. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE considered alternative test 

methods and modifications to the test 

procedure for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, and the Department has 

initially determined that there are no 

better alternatives than the 

modifications and test procedures 

proposed in this Notice, in terms of both 

meeting the agency’s objectives and 

reducing burden. As previously 

discussed, DOE expects that these 

proposed amendments would not 

increase testing costs and would likely 

reduce the testing costs for dehumidifier 

manufacturers. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to allow test duration to be 2 

or 6 hours for the dehumidification 

mode test, thereby reducing test burden, 

assuming they choose the 2-hour option. 

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 of 1995 

Manufacturers of dehumidifiers must 

certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. To certify 

compliance, manufacturers must first 

obtain test data for their products 

according to the DOE test procedures, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including dehumidifiers. (See generally 

10 CFR part 429.) The collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for dehumidifiers in this NOPR. 

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 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers. DOE has determined that 

this proposed rule falls into a class of 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, DOE has determined 

that adopting test procedures for 

measuring energy efficiency of 

consumer products and industrial 

equipment is consistent with activities 

identified in 10 CFR part 1021, 

appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35309 

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 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 products that are 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. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

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. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 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 sections 3(a) and 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, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 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, sec. 

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 small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under 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 agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

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

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this proposed rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 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 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 

promulgated 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. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the energy efficiency of dehumidifiers is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

L. 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 modifications to the 

test procedure for dehumidifiers in 

appendix X1 would incorporate testing 

methods contained in certain sections of 

the following commercial standards: 

AHAM DH–1–2017, ANSI/AMCA 210, 

ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and IEC 62301. 

DOE has previously evaluated three of 

these standards (ANSI/AMCA 210, 

ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and IEC 62301) 

and was unable to conclude whether 

they fully comply with the requirements 

of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., 

whether they were developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review. 

DOE consulted with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, and they 

did not object to the use of those 

standards. 80 FR 45801, 45823. 

DOE has evaluated AHAM DH–1– 

2017 and is unable to conclude whether 

it fully complies 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 AHAM DH–1– 

2017 on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference in appendix X1 

the test standard published by AHAM, 

titled ‘‘AHAM DH–1–2017.’’ AHAM 

DH–1–2017 is an industry-accepted test 

procedure that measures the capacity 

and energy input of portable 

dehumidifiers under specified test 

conditions. AHAM DH–1–2017 includes 

provisions for testing dehumidifier 

energy use in off-cycle, inactive, and off 

modes, and for including energy 

consumption in those modes in 

efficiency calculations. Appendix X1 

references sections of AHAM DH–1– 

2017 for definitions, instrumentation, 

and test procedure requirements. 

Copies of AHAM DH–1–2017 may be 

purchased from The Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers at 1111 

19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, 

DC 20036, or by going to 

www.aham.org/ht/d/Store/. 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

maintain the incorporation by reference 

to the ANSI and AMCA test standard 

ANSI/AMCA 210, titled ‘‘Laboratory 

Methods of Testing Fans for Certified 

Aerodynamic Performance Rating,’’ 

(ANSI Approved). ANSI/AMCA 210 is 

an industry-accepted test procedure that 

defines uniform methods for conducting 

laboratory tests on housed fans to 

determine airflow rate, pressure, power 

and efficiency, at a given speed of 

rotation. Appendix X1 references ANSI/ 

AMCA 210 to describe required 

instrumentation required and 

measurements of ESP, pressure losses, 

and velocity pressures for refrigerantdesiccant whole-home dehumidifiers 

testing. 

Copies of ANSI/AMCA 210 can be 

obtained from the Air Movement and 

Control Association International, Inc., 

at AMCA International, 30 West 

University Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 

60004, or by going to www.amca.org. 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

maintain the incorporation by reference 

to the ANSI and ASHRAE test standard 

ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, titled ‘‘Standard 

Method for Temperature Measurement,’’ 

(ANSI Approved). ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 

is an industry-accepted standard that 

describes temperature measurement 

methods intended for use in heating, 

refrigerating, and air conditioning 

equipment and components. Appendix 

X1 references ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 to 

determine the number and locations of 

temperature sensors within the ducts for 

refrigerant-desiccant whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 

Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 can be 

obtained from the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., at 1791 

Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, or 

by going to www.ashrae.org. 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

maintain the incorporation by reference 

to the IEC test standard IEC 62301, titled 

‘‘Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power, Edition 

2.0, 2011–01.’’ IEC 62301 specifies 

methods of measurement of electrical 

power consumption in standby mode(s) 

and other low power modes, such as off 

mode and network mode, as applicable. 

Appendix X1 references sections of IEC 

62301 for requirements for inactive and 

off mode testing. 

Copies of IEC Standard 62301 can be 

obtained from the International 

Electrotechnical Commission at 3 rue de 

Varembe ́, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211, 

Geneva 20, Switzerland, or by going to 

webstore.iec.ch/ and 

www.webstore.ansi.org. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved ANSI/ASHRAE 

41.1, ANSI/AMCA 210, and IEC 62301 

(Edition 2.0, 2011–01) for incorporation 

by reference in the locations in which 

they appear in this proposed rule’s 

regulatory text for 10 CFR part 430. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date the webinar 

meeting are 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: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=

24&action=viewcurrent. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed rulemaking 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35311 

25 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant 

to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.- 

Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103– 

182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 

10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation 

Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation 

of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 

FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, 

the Agreement between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, and the United 

Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 

Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into 

effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA 

through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 

4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 

and its 75-day comment period requirement for 

technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are 

EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. 

Consistent with EPCA’s public comment period 

requirements for consumer products, the USMCA 

only requires a minimum comment period of 60 

days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-day 

public comment period for test procedure NOPRs. 

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 

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 this proposed rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking, 

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 proposed 

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 

document. 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 no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this document.25 Interested parties may 

submit comments 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 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. 

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 on 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 faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and 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 to 

Dehumidifier2019TP0026@ee.doe.gov; 

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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. 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: 

(1) DOE requests comment on (1) its 

preliminary determination that the 

explicit exclusions from the definition 

of ‘‘dehumidifier’’ sufficiently 

distinguish dehumidifiers from 

consumer products that provide cooling 

by removing both sensible and latent 

heat, and (2) whether there are products 

on the market that are not explicitly 

excluded from the ‘‘dehumidifier’’ 

definition but should be. 

(2) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definitions for 

portable dehumidifier and whole-home 

dehumidifier. 

(3) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate AHAM DH–1– 

2017 by reference. DOE requests 

comment on the proposal not to change 

specifying ambient conditions based on 

wet-bulb temperature, as currently 

specified, as opposed to (or in addition 

to) dewpoint temperature. 

(4) DOE requests information and data 

regarding any efficiency and 

performance benefits associated with 

variable-speed dehumidifiers, both 

generally and relative to those with 

single-speed dehumidifiers. 

(5) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining a single-test condition 

approach for portable dehumidifiers, 

and further requests comment on 

potential benefits and burden associated 

with a three-test condition approach for 

all portable dehumidifiers. 

(6) DOE requests comment on loadbased testing for dehumidifiers, 

including (1) whether DOE’s variablespeed dehumidifier test results are 

typical of the expected performance 

under a load-based test, (2) whether 

there are other aspects of performance 

beyond cycling that may have 

contributed to the performance observed 

during these tests, (3) the feasibility of 

conducting load-based tests in a typical 

lab setup, (4) the relative benefits and 

burdens of a load-based test, and (5) the 

tentative determination not to prescribe 

a load-based test in appendix X1. 

(7) DOE requests comment on (1) the 

proposal to allow the dehumidification 

mode test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for 

both portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, (2) whether the proposed 

approach sufficiently represents 

capacity and efficiency for 

dehumidifiers, and (3) the efficacy of 

alternate test durations, including those 

being considered by industry 

stakeholders. 

(8) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow relative humidity 

measurements taken using an aspirating 

psychrometer with a sampling tree in 

appendix X1 for dehumidifiers with a 

single air inlet. 

(9) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require that the 

psychrometer box be shielded or 

positioned to minimize radiation effects 

on the sensing elements, that there be 

line of sight separation between any 

fans and sensing elements within the 

test fixture, and at least 3 feet of 

separation, along the path of airflow, 

between any fans and sensing elements 

within the test fixture. 

(10) DOE requests comment regarding 

the maximum air velocity requirement 

generally, the current 50 ft/min 

requirement as specified in AHAM DH– 

1–2017, and the consideration to raise 

the maximum air velocity within 3 ft of 

the dehumidifier with the unit not 

operating, when properly configuring 

the test chamber. Were DOE to obtain 

information or data indicating that a 

higher permitted air velocity would not 

negatively impact the measured results, 

DOE would consider adopting an 

increased air velocity requirement. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow calibrated nozzle 

testing according to the requirements of 

Section 7.3.2 of ANSI/AMCA 210–07 for 

whole-home dehumidifiers in appendix 

X1. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

tentative determination to continue to 

require capping and sealing any freshair inlet on a whole-home dehumidifier 

during testing in appendix X1. 

(13) DOE requests comment on 

maintaining a single test approach for 

whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE also 

requests comment on potential 

improvements in representativeness and 

the additional test burden associated 

with the testing whole-home 

dehumidifiers twice, once each with an 

external static pressure of 0 in. w.c. ESP 

and 0.4 in. w.c. 

(14) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to specify in appendix X1 that, 

for units with network functions, (1) the 

network functions must be disabled 

throughout testing if such settings can 

be disabled by the end-user and the 

product’s user manual provides 

instructions on how to do so; and (2) if 

network functions cannot be disabled by 

the end-user, or the product’s user 

manual does not provide instruction for 

disabling network functions, then the 

unit must be tested with the network 

functions in the factory default 

configuration for the test period. 

(15) DOE requests comment on the 

impact and associated costs of the 

proposal to specify dehumidification 

mode rating test period options of 2 or 

6 hours for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers. 

(16) DOE requests comment on the 

impact and associated costs of the 

proposal to allow relative humidity 

measurements to be made using an 

aspirating psychrometer with a 

sampling tree in appendix X1 for 

dehumidifiers with a single air inlet. 

(17) DOE has tentatively determined 

that the proposed amendments in this 

notice are not unduly burdensome. DOE 

requests comments on the benefits and 

burdens of the proposed updates and 

additions to industry test standards 

incorporated in the test procedure for 

dehumidifiers. 

(18) DOE requests comment on its 

initial conclusion that the NOPR would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 27, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35313 

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 May 31, 

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 430 of chapter II of title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 429.36 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.36 Dehumidifiers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), 

include in each certification report the 

following product-specific information: 

(i) The integrated energy factor in 

liters per kilowatt-hour (liters/kWh), 

capacity in pints per day; and 

(ii) For whole-home dehumidifiers, 

case volume in cubic feet. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 4. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definitions of ‘‘Portable 

dehumidifier’’ and ‘‘Whole-home 

dehumidifier’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Portable dehumidifier means a 

dehumidifier that, in accordance with 

any manufacturer instructions available 

to a consumer, operates within the 

dehumidified space without the 

attachment of additional ducting, 

although means may be provided for 

optional duct attachment. 

* * * * * 

Whole-home dehumidifier means a 

dehumidifier that, in accordance with 

any manufacturer instructions available 

to a consumer, operates with ducting to 

deliver return process air to its inlet and 

to supply dehumidified process air from 

its outlet to one or more locations in the 

dehumidified space. 

■ 5. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (i)(1); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (m)(2); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(3) 

and (4) as paragraphs (m)(2) and (3), 

respectively; and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (o)(6) by 

removing the wording ‘‘X, ’’ in the 

sentence. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) AHAM DH–1–2017 (‘‘AHAM DH– 

1’’), Dehumidifiers, IBR approved for 

appendix X1 to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraph (z) to read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(z) Dehumidifiers. (1) Determine the 

capacity, expressed in pints/day, 

according to section 5.2 of appendix X1 

to this subpart. 

(2) Determine the integrated energy 

factor, expressed in L/kWh, according to 

section 5.4 of appendix X1 to this 

subpart. 

(3) Determine the case volume, 

expressed in cubic feet, for whole-home 

dehumidifiers in accordance with 

section 5.7 of appendix X1 of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

Appendix X [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 7. Appendix X to subpart B of part 430 

is removed and reserved. 

■ 8. Appendix X1 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory Note; 

■ b. Adding section 0; 

■ c. Revising sections 3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 

3.1.1.3, 3.1.2, 3.1.2.2.3.1, 3.1.2.2.3.2, 

3.1.2.3, 3.2.2.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2 and 4.3; 

■ d. Removing sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.9, 

4.3.1 and 4.3.2; and 

■ e. Revising section 5.4. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix X1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Dehumidifiers 

Note: After [date 180 days following 

publication of final rule], any representations 

made with respect to the energy efficiency of 

a dehumidifier must be made in accordance 

with the results of testing pursuant to this 

appendix. Manufacturers conducting tests of 

a dehumidifier prior to [date 180 days 

following publication of final rule], must 

conduct such test in accordance with either 

this appendix or the previous version of this 

appendix as it appeared in the Code of 

Federal Regulations on January 1, 2021. Any 

representations made with respect to the 

energy efficiency of such dehumidifier must 

be in accordance with whichever version is 

selected. Given that after [date 180 days 

following publication of final rule] 

representations with respect to the energy 

efficiency of dehumidifiers must be made in 

accordance with tests conducted pursuant to 

this appendix, manufacturers may wish to 

begin using this test procedure as soon as 

possible. 

If there is a conflict between the language 

of the referenced industry standard and the 

language of this appendix, the language of 

this appendix takes precedence. Any 

subsequent amendment to a referenced 

document by the standard-setting 

organization will not affect the test procedure 

in this appendix, unless and until the test 

procedure is amended by DOE. Material is 

incorporated as it exists on the date of the 

approval, and a notice of any change in the 

incorporation will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3, 

the entire standard for AHAM DH–1–2017, 

ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and 

IEC 62301; however, only enumerated 

provisions of those documents are applicable 

to this appendix, as follows: 0.1 AHAM DH– 

1–2017: 

(a) Section 3 ‘‘Definitions,’’ as specified in 

section 3.1.1 of this appendix; and 

(b) Section 4 ‘‘Instrumentation,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.1 of this appendix; 

and 

(c) Section 4.1 ‘‘Temperature Measuring 

Instruments,’’ as specified in section 3.1.1.2 

of this appendix; and 

(d) Section 4.2 ‘‘Psychrometric 

Instruments’’ as specified in section 3.1.1.3 of 

this appendix; and 

(e) Section 4.3 ‘‘Relative Humidity 

Instruments’’ as specified in section 3.1.1.3 of 

this appendix; and 

(f) Section 5 ‘‘Test Procedure,’’ as specified 

in section 3.1.1 of this appendix; and 

(g) Section 8.3 ‘‘Standard Test Voltage,’’ as 

specified in section 3.2.2.1 of this appendix; 

and 

(h) Section 8 ‘‘Capacity Test,’’ as specified 

in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix; 

and 

(i) Section 8.7 ‘‘Calculation of Test 

Results,’’ as specified in section 4.1.2 of this 

appendix; and 

(j) Section 9 ‘‘Energy Consumption,’’ as 

specified in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

0.2 ANSI/AMCA 210: 

(a) Section 5.2.1.6 ‘‘Airflow straightener,’’ 

as specified in section 3.1.2.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(b) Figure 6A ‘‘Flow Straightener—Cell 

Type,’’ as specified in section 3.1.2.1 of this 

appendix; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
35314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Section 4.2.2 ‘‘Pitot-static tube,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(d) Section 4.2.3 ‘‘Static pressure tap,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(e) Section 4.3.1 ‘‘Pitot Traverse,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(f) Section 4.3.2 ‘‘Flow nozzle,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(g) Section 7.5.2 ‘‘Pressure Losses,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this 

appendix; and 

(h) Section 7.3.1 ‘‘Velocity Traverse,’’ as 

specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.2 of this 

appendix; and 

(i) Section 7.3.2 ‘‘Nozzle,’’ as specified in 

section 3.1.2.2.3.2 of this appendix; and 

(j) Section 7.3 ‘‘Fan airflow rate at test 

conditions,’’ as specified in section 5.6 of this 

appendix. 

0.3 ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1: 

(a) Section 5.3.5 ‘‘Centers of Segments— 

Grids,’’ in section 3.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

(b) [Reserved] 

0.4 IEC 62301: 

(a) Section 5.2 ‘‘Preparation of product,’’ in 

section 3.2.1 of this appendix; and 

(b) Section 4.3.2 ‘‘Supply voltage 

waveform,’’ in section 3.2.2.2 of this 

appendix; and 

(c) Section 4.4 ‘‘Power measuring 

instruments,’’ in section 3.2.3 of this 

appendix; and 

(d) Section 4.2 ‘‘Test room,’’ in section 

3.2.4 of this appendix; and 

(e) Section 5.3.2 ‘‘Sampling method,’’ Note 

1, in section 4.3 of this appendix; and 

(f) Section 5.3.2 ‘‘Sampling method,’’ in 

section 4.3 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

3.1 * * * 

3.1.1 Portable dehumidifiers and wholehome dehumidifiers other than refrigerantdesiccant dehumidifiers. The test apparatus 

and instructions for testing in 

dehumidification mode and off-cycle mode 

must conform to the requirements specified 

in Section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section 4, 

‘‘Instrumentation,’’ and Section 5, ‘‘Test SetUp,’’ of AHAM DH–1, with the following 

exceptions. If a product is able to operate as 

either a portable or whole-home 

dehumidifier by means of removal or 

installation of an optional ducting kit, in 

accordance with any manufacturer 

instructions available to a consumer, test and 

rate both configurations. 

* * * * * 

3.1.1.2 Relative humidity 

instrumentation. A relative humidity sensor 

with an accuracy within 1 percent relative 

humidity may be used instead of an 

aspirating psychrometer. When using a 

relative humidity sensor for testing, disregard 

the wet-bulb test tolerances in Table I of 

AHAM DH–1. Instead, the average relative 

humidity over the test period must be within 

2 percent of the relative humidity setpoint, 

and all individual relative humidity readings 

must be within 5 percent of the relative 

humidity setpoint. In addition, use a drybulb temperature sensor that meets the 

accuracy as required in Section 4.1 of AHAM 

DH–1. 

3.1.1.3 Instrumentation placement. Place 

the aspirating psychrometer, sampling tree 

that is connected to a psychrometer using the 

shortest length of insulated ducting 

necessary, or relative humidity and dry-bulb 

temperature sensors, perpendicular to, and 1 

ft. in front of, the center of the process air 

intake grille. When using an aspirating 

psychrometer, either shield the sensing 

elements or position them within the 

psychrometer box to minimize radiation 

effects from the fan motor. Ensure that there 

is line of sight separation between any fans 

and sensing elements within the test fixture 

and at least 3 feet of separation, along the 

path of airflow, between any fans and sensing 

elements within the test fixture. When using 

an aspirating psychrometer when testing a 

unit that has multiple process air intake 

grille(s), place a separate sampling tree 

perpendicular to, and 1 ft. in front of, the 

center of the single or each process air intake 

grille, with the samples combined and 

connected to a single psychrometer using the 

shortest length of insulated ducting 

necessary. During each test, use the 

psychrometer to monitor inlet conditions of 

only one unit under test. When using relative 

humidity and dry-bulb temperature sensors 

when testing a unit that has multiple process 

air intake grilles, place a relative humidity 

sensor and dry-bulb temperature sensor 

perpendicular to, and 1 ft. in front of, the 

center of each process air intake grille. 

* * * * * 

3.1.2 Refrigerant-desiccant 

dehumidifiers. The test apparatus and 

instructions for testing refrigerant-desiccant 

dehumidifiers in dehumidification mode 

must conform to the requirements specified 

in Section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section 4, 

‘‘Instrumentation,’’ and Section 5, ‘‘Test SetUp,’’ of AHAM DH–1, except as follows. 

* * * * * 

3.1.2.2.3.1 External static pressure. 

Measure static pressures in each duct using 

pitot-static tube traverses, a flow nozzle or a 

bank of flow nozzles. For pitot-static tube 

traverses, conform to the specifications in 

Section 4.3.1, ‘‘Pitot Traverse,’’ of ANSI/ 

AMCA 210 and Section 4.2.2, ‘‘Pitot-Static 

Tube,’’ of ANSI/AMCA 210, except use only 

two intersecting and perpendicular rows of 

pitot-static tube traverses . For a flow nozzle 

or bank of flow nozzles, conform to the 

specifications in Section 4.3.2, ‘‘Flow 

nozzle,’’ of ANSI/AMCA 210 and Section 

4.2.3, ‘‘Static pressure tap’’ of ANSI/AMCA 

210. Record the static pressure within the test 

duct as follows. When using pitot-static tube 

traverses, record the pressure as measured at 

the pressure tap in the manifold of the 

traverses that averages the individual static 

pressures at each pitot-static tube. When 

using a flow nozzle or bank of nozzles, record 

the pressure or in accordance with Section 

4.2.3.2, ‘‘Averaging,’’ of ANSI/AMCA 210 . 

Calculate duct pressure losses between the 

unit under test and the plane of each static 

pressure measurement in accordance with 

Section 7.5.2, ‘‘Pressure Losses,’’ of ANSI/ 

AMCA 210. The external static pressure is 

the difference between the measured inlet 

and outlet static pressure measurements, 

minus the sum of the inlet and outlet duct 

pressure losses. For any port with no duct 

attached, use a static pressure of 0.00 in. w.c. 

with no duct pressure loss in the calculation 

of external static pressure. During 

dehumidification mode testing, the external 

static pressure must equal 0.20 in. w.c. ± 0.02 

in. w.c. 

3.1.2.2.3.2 Velocity pressure. Measure 

velocity pressures using the same pitot 

traverses or nozzles as used for measuring 

external static pressure, which are specified 

in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix. When 

using pitot-static tube traverses, determine 

velocity pressures at each pitot-static tube in 

a traverse as the difference between the 

pressure at the impact pressure tap and the 

pressure at the static pressure tap and 

calculate volumetric flow rates in each duct 

in accordance with Section 7.3.1, ‘‘Velocity 

Traverse,’’ of ANSI/AMCA 210. When using 

a flow nozzle or a bank of flow nozzles, 

calculate the volumetric flow rates in each 

duct in accordance with Section 7.3.2, 

‘‘Nozzle,’’ of ANSI/AMCA 210. 

* * * * * 

3.1.2.3 Control settings. If the 

dehumidifier has a control setting for 

continuous operation in dehumidification 

mode, select that control setting. Otherwise, 

set the controls to the lowest available 

relative humidity level, and if the 

dehumidifier has a user-adjustable fan speed, 

select the maximum fan speed setting. Do not 

use any external controls for the 

dehumidifier settings. If the dehumidifier has 

network functions, the network functions can 

be disabled by the end-user, and the 

product’s user manual provides instructions 

on how to do so, disable the network 

functions throughout testing. If network 

functions cannot be disabled by the end-user, 

or the product’s user manual does not 

provide instruction for disabling network 

functions, test the unit with the network 

functions in the factory default configuration 

for the test period. 

* * * * * 

3.2.2 * * * 

3.2.2.1 Electrical supply. For the inactive 

mode and off mode testing, maintain the 

electrical supply voltage and frequency 

indicated in Section 8.3, ‘‘Standard Test 

Voltage,’’ of AHAM DH–1. The electrical 

supply frequency shall be maintained ±1 

percent. 

* * * * * 

4.1 * * * 

4.1.1 Portable dehumidifiers and wholehome dehumidifiers other than refrigerantdesiccant dehumidifiers. Measure the energy 

consumption in dehumidification mode, 

EDM, in kilowatt-hours (kWh), the average 

percent relative humidity, Ht, either as 

measured using a relative humidity sensor or 

using the tables provided below when using 

an aspirating psychrometer, and the product 

capacity, Ct, in pints per day (pints/day), in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in Section 8, ‘‘Capacity Test,’’ and 

Section 9, ‘‘Energy Consumption,’’ 

respectively, of AHAM DH–1, with two 

exceptions. First, the rating test period must 

be 2 or 6 hours. Second, maintain the 

standard test conditions as shown in Table 1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35315 

TABLE 1—STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS FOR DEHUMIDIFIER TESTING

Configuration 

Dry-bulb 

temperature 

(°F) 

Aspirating 

psychrometer 

wet-bulb 

temperature 

(°F) 

Relative humidity 

sensor relative 

humidity 

(%) 

Portable dehumidifiers ......................................................................................... 65 ± 2.0 56.6 ± 1.0 60 ± 2 

Whole-home dehumidifiers .................................................................................. 73 ± 2.0 63.6 ± 1.0 60 ± 2 

When using relative humidity and dry-bulb 

temperature sensors, for dehumidifiers with 

multiple process air intake grilles, average 

the measured relative humidities and average 

the measured dry-bulb temperatures to 

determine the overall intake air conditions. 

* * * * * 

4.1.2 Refrigerant-desiccant 

dehumidifiers. Establish the testing 

conditions set forth in section 3.1.2 of this 

appendix. Measure the energy consumption, 

EDM, in kWh, in accordance with the test 

requirements specified in Section 8, 

‘‘Capacity Test,’’ and Section 9, ‘‘Energy 

Consumption,’’ respectively, of AHAM DH– 

1, with the following exceptions: 

(1) Each measurement of the temperature 

and relative humidity of the air entering the 

process air inlet duct and the reactivation air 

inlet must be within 73 °F ± 2.0 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 60 percent ± 5 percent 

relative humidity, and the arithmetic average 

of the inlet test conditions over the test 

period shall be within 73 °F ± 0.5 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 60 percent ± 2 percent 

relative humidity; 

(2) Disregard the instructions for 

psychrometer placement; 

(3) Record dry-bulb temperatures, relative 

humidities, static pressures, velocity 

pressures in each duct, volumetric air flow 

rates, and the number of measurements in the 

test period; 

(4) Disregard the requirement to weigh the 

condensate collected during the test; and 

(5) The rating test period must be 2 or 6 

hours. To perform the calculations in Section 

9.4, ‘‘Calculation of Test Results,’’ of AHAM 

DH–1: 

(i) Replace ‘‘Condensate collected (lb)’’ and 

‘‘mlb’’, with the weight of condensate 

removed, W, as calculated in section 5.6 of 

this appendix; and 

(ii) Use the recorded relative humidities, 

not the tables in section 4.1.1 of this 

appendix, to determine average relative 

humidity. 

4.2 Off-cycle mode. Follow requirements 

for test measurement in off-cycle mode of 

operation in accordance with Section 9.3.2 of 

AHAM DH–1. 

4.3 Inactive and off mode. Follow 

requirements for test measurement in 

inactive and off modes of operation in 

accordance with Section 9.3.1 of AHAM DH– 

1. 

* * * * * 

5. * * * 

5.4 Integrated energy factor. Calculate the 

integrated energy factor, IEF, in L/kWh, 

rounded to two decimal places, according to 

the following: 

Where: 

Cr = corrected product capacity in pints per 

day, as determined in section 5.2 of this 

appendix; 

t = dehumidification mode test duration in 

hours, either 2 or 6 hours; 

EDM = energy consumption during the 2- or 

6-hour dehumidification mode test in 

kWh, as measured in section 4.1 of this 

appendix; 

ETLP = annual combined low-power mode 

energy consumption in kWh per year, as 

calculated in section 5.3 of this 

appendix; 

1,095 = dehumidification mode annual 

hours, used to convert ETLP to combined 

low-power mode energy consumption 

per hour of dehumidification mode; 

1.04 = the density of water in pounds per 

pint; 

0.454 = the liters of water per pound of 

water; and 

24 = the number of hours per day. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–11958 Filed 6–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP09JN22.006</GPH>

( t X 1.04) X 0.454 Cr X 24 

IEF = [ ((Enp) x t)] EvM + 1095