Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems, 5560-5590 [2022-01375]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5560
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017]
RIN 1904–AD92
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comment.
AGENCY:
In this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to
establish new energy conservation
standards for dehumidifying directexpansion dedicated outdoor air
systems (DX–DOASes) that are of
equivalent stringency as the minimum
levels specified in the amended
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 90.1
‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’
(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1’’) when tested
pursuant to the most recent applicable
industry standard for this equipment.
DOE has preliminarily determined that
it lacks clear and convincing evidence
to adopt standards more stringent than
the levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. DOE also announces a
public meeting via webinar to receive
comment on these proposed standards
and associated analyses and results.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting
via webinar on Monday, February 28,
2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See
section VIII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for
webinar registration information,
participant instructions and information
about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR no later than April
4, 2022.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before
March 3, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0017, by
any of the following methods:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to CommACHeating
EquipCat2017STD0017@ee.doe.gov.
Include docket number EERE–2017–BT–
STD–0017 in the subject line of the
message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
VIII of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus 2019 (COVID–
19) pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments
via postal mail and hand delivery/
courier. If a commenter finds that this
change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program
staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the
need for alternative arrangements. Once
the COVID–19 pandemic health
emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for
public comment submission, including
postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0017. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section
VIII for information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy following the instructions at
www.reginfo.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2555. Email:
Matthew.Ring@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public webinar, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into part
429:
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard
920–2020 (I–P), ‘‘2020 Standard for
Performance Rating of Direct ExpansionDedicated Outdoor Air System Units,’’
approved February 4, 2020.
American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/AHRI Standard 1060–
2018, ‘‘2018 Standard for Performance
Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers for
Energy Recovery Ventilation
Equipment,’’ approved 2018.
Copies of AHRI Standard 920–2020
(I–P), and ANSI/AHRI Standard 1060–
2018 can be obtained from the Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or
online at: www.ahrinet.org.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section VII.L of this
document.
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency
Levels for DX–DOASes
2. Update to the Industry Metric
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for
DX–DOASes
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure
D. Considerations for Energy Conservation
Standards
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
2. Significant Additional Conservation of
Energy
3. Economic Justification
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
A. Overview
B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test
Procedure Changes
2. Technical Analysis
C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk
1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure
Changes
2. Technical Analysis
D. Crosswalked Standard Levels
V. Conclusions
A. Proposed Energy Conservation
Standards
B. Consideration of More Stringent
Efficiency Levels
VI. Representations, Certification and
Compliance Requirements
A. Representations
B. Certification and Enforcement
Provisions
1. Scope
2. Equipment Selection and Sampling Plan
3. Certification Requirements
4. Enforcement Provisions
C. Compliance Dates
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements Including Differences in
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of
Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
J. Information Quality
K. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
L. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended
(EPCA),2 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317) Such equipment includes
dehumidifying direct-expansion
dedicated outdoor air systems (DX–
DOASes), the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
EPCA requires DOE to amend the
existing Federal energy conservation
standard for certain types of listed
commercial and industrial equipment
(generally, commercial water heaters,
commercial packaged boilers,
commercial air-conditioning and
heating equipment, and packaged
terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard
90.1 is amended with respect to such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For
each type of equipment, EPCA directs
that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is
amended, DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the
updated efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a more
stringent efficiency level as a national
standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
If DOE adopts as a uniform national
standard the efficiency levels specified
in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
DOE must establish such standard not
later than 18 months after publication of
the amended industry standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE
determines that a more-stringent
standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish
such more-stringent standard not later
1 For
editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5561
than 30 months after publication of the
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
ASHRAE officially released the 2016
edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016) on
October 26, 2016, which for the first
time created separate equipment classes
for DX–DOASes with corresponding
standards, thereby triggering DOE’s
above referenced obligations pursuant to
EPCA to either: (1) Establish uniform
national standards for DX–DOASes at
the minimum levels specified in the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1; or (2)
adopt more stringent standards based on
clear and convincing evidence that
adoption of such standards would
produce significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 set minimum
efficiency levels using the integrated
seasonal moisture removal efficiency
(ISMRE) metric for all DOAS classes and
the integrated seasonal coefficient of
performance (ISCOP) metric for airsource heat pump and water-source heat
pump DOAS classes. ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 specifies that both metrics
are measured in accordance with Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) Standard 920–2015,
‘‘Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated
Outdoor Air System Units’’ (AHRI 920–
2015).3 Subsequently, AHRI took to
revise AHRI 920.
In October 2019, ASHRAE officially
released the 2019 edition of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019). ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not
update the energy efficiency levels for
DX–DOASes established in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016. On February 4,
2020 AHRI officially released the 2020
edition of AHRI 920 (AHRI 920–2020),
which addresses a number of issues
with the prior test procedure and
provides an updated ISMRE metric (i.e.,
ISMRE2) and an updated ISCOP metric
(i.e., ISCOP2).
In accordance with the EPCA
provisions discussed, DOE proposes
new energy conservation standards for
DX–DOASes. The proposed standards,
which are expressed in terms of ISMRE2
for all DX–DOAS classes in
dehumidification mode, and ISCOP2 for
heat pump DX–DOAS classes in heating
mode, are shown in Table I.1. DOE has
tentatively determined that the
proposed standards, which are
expressed in terms of ISMRE2 and
3 AHRI 920–2015 additionally references
ASHRAE Standard 198–2013, ‘‘Method of Test for
Rating DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for
Moisture Removal Capacity and Moisture Removal
Efficiency’’ (ASHRAE Standard 198–2013), as the
method of test for DX–DOAS units.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5562
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
ISCOP2, are of equivalent stringency as
the standards in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 (and ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019), which are expressed in
terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. DOE
proposes that the standards, if adopted,
would apply to all DX–DOASes listed in
Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the
date 18 months following the effective
date of a final rule adopting such
standards.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DX–DOASES
Equipment type
Subcategory
Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air
systems.
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with
ventilation energy recovery systems.
DOE has tentatively determined that,
based on the information presented and
its analyses, there is not clear and
convincing evidence that more stringent
efficiency levels for this equipment
would result in a significant additional
amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Clear and
convincing evidence would exist only
where the specific facts and data made
available to DOE regarding a particular
ASHRAE amendment demonstrates that
there is no substantial doubt that a
standard more stringent than that
contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
amendment is permitted because it
would result in a significant additional
amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE normally
performs multiple in-depth analyses to
determine whether there is clear and
convincing evidence to support more
stringent energy conservation standards
(i.e., whether more stringent standards
would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified). However, as
discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a.,
III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a., and III.D.3.b of this
NOPR, due to the lack of available
market and performance data, DOE is
unable to conduct the analysis
necessary to evaluate the potential
energy savings or evaluate whether
more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible or economically
justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As
such, DOE is not proposing standards at
levels more stringent than those
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
2016 (and ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for DX–DOASes.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of
EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619,
Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
Small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment are included in the list of
‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. As discussed in the
following section, this includes Unitary
DOASes and, more specifically,
dehumidifying Unitary DOASes, which
are the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(B)–(D))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Efficiency level
ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05.
ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20.
ISMRE2 = 4.7.
ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13.
ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04.
(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316).
Additionally, DOE is to consider
amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this
document, whenever ASHRAE amends
the standard levels or design
requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1, and at a minimum,
every six 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)–(C))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the
Federal test procedures as the basis for:
(1) Certifying to DOE that their
equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42
U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).
Similarly, DOE uses these test
procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry
energy efficiency levels for small, large,
and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment,
packaged terminal air conditioners,
packaged terminal heat pumps, warm
air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage
water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively ‘‘ASHRAE
equipment’’). For each type of listed
equipment, EPCA directs that if
ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE
must adopt amended standards at the
new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless
DOE determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
more stringent level would produce
significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
In deciding whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified,
under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C),
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the maximum extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that
are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII))
In relevant part, subparagraph (B)
specifies that: (1) In making a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
determination of economic justification,
DOE must consider, to the maximum
extent practicable, the benefits and
burdens of an amended standard based
on the seven criteria described in EPCA;
(2) DOE may not prescribe any standard
that increases the energy use or
decreases the energy efficiency of a
covered product; and (3) DOE may not
prescribe any standard that interested
persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence is likely to
result in the unavailability in the United
States of any product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability, features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes) that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)–(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)))
Unitary DOASes (and DX–DOASes)
had not previously been addressed in
DOE rulemakings and are not currently
subject to Federal test procedures or
energy conservation standards.
B. Background
EPCA defines ‘‘commercial package
air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ as air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled, or water source
(not including ground water source)
electrically operated, unitary central air
conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps for
commercial application.4 (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) Industry
standards generally describe unitary
central air conditioning equipment as
one or more factory-made assemblies
that normally include an evaporator or
cooling coil and a compressor and
condenser combination. Units equipped
to also perform a heating function are
4 EPCA further classifies ‘‘commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment’’ into
categories based on cooling capacity (i.e., small,
large, and very large categories). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per hour
(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR
431.92) ‘‘Large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means equipment rated: (i)
At or above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment’’
means equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu
per hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu per hour
(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR
431.92) DOE generally refers to these broad
classifications as ‘‘equipment types.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5563
included as well.5 Unitary DOASes
provide conditioning of outdoor
ventilation air using a refrigeration cycle
(which normally consists of a
compressor, condenser, expansion
valve, and evaporator),6 and therefore,
DOE has initially concluded that
Unitary DOASes are a category of
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment subject to EPCA.
From a functional perspective,
Unitary DOASes operate similarly to
other categories of commercial package
air conditioning and heat pump
equipment, in that they provide
conditioning using a refrigeration cycle.
Unitary DOASes provide ventilation
and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor
air to the conditioned space, whereas for
typical commercial package air
conditioners that are central air
conditioners, outdoor air makes up only
a small portion of the total airflow
(usually less than 50 percent). Unitary
DOASes are typically installed in
addition to a local, primary cooling or
heating system (e.g., commercial unitary
air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow
system, chilled water system, watersource heat pumps)—the Unitary DOAS
conditions the outdoor ventilation air,
while the primary system provides
cooling or heating to balance building
shell and interior loads and solar heat
gain.
An industry consensus test standard
has been established for a subset of
Unitary DOASes, dehumidifying
Unitary DOASes (DX–DOASes). On July
7, 2021, DOE published a NOPR
proposing definitions, a new Federal
test procedure, energy efficiency
metrics, and representation
requirements for DX–DOASes 7 (the
‘‘July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR’’). 86
FR 36018.
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency
Levels for DX–DOASes
As first established in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 specifies 14 separate
equipment classes for DX–DOASes and
sets minimum efficiency levels using
5 See American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.’’
6 Other types of dedicated outdoor air systems are
available that do not utilize direct expansion (e.g.,
units that use chilled water, rather than refrigerant,
as the heat transfer medium).
7 In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE
refers to Unitary DOASes and DX–DOASes as DX–
DOASes and DDX–DOASes, respectively. DOE has
recently published a supplemental test procedure
NOPR, in which DOE proposes to use the Unitary
DOAS and DX–DOAS terminology. This NOPR uses
the Unitary DOAS and DX–DOAS terminology,
which is consistent with the supplemental test
procedure NOPR.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5564
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the integrated seasonal moisture
removal efficiency (ISMRE) metric for
all DX–DOAS classes and also the
integrated seasonal coefficient of
performance (ISCOP) metric for airsource heat pump and water-source heat
pump DX–DOAS classes. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 specifies that both
metrics are to be measured in
accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard
920–2015, ‘‘Performance Rating of DXDedicated Outdoor Air System Units’’
(ANSI/AHRI 920–2015). ANSI/AHRI
920–2015 specifies the method for
testing DX–DOASes, in part, through a
reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
198–2013, ‘‘Method of Test for Rating
DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for
Moisture Removal Capacity and
Moisture Removal Efficiency’’ (ANSI/
ASHRAE 198–2013). The energy
efficiency standards specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are based on
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 198–2013, and these standards
are shown in Table II.1.
TABLE II.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1 EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR DX–DOASES
Equipment class
Energy efficiency levels
Air-cooled: Without energy recovery ............................................................................................................
Air-cooled: With energy recovery .................................................................................................................
Air-source heat pumps: Without energy recovery ........................................................................................
Air-source heat pumps: With energy recovery .............................................................................................
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, without energy recovery ....................................................
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, with energy recovery .........................................................
Water-cooled: Chilled water, without energy recovery .................................................................................
Water-cooled: Chilled water, with energy recovery ......................................................................................
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed loop, without energy recovery .....................................
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed loop, with energy recovery ..........................................
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, without energy recovery ...............................................
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, with energy recovery ....................................................
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without energy recovery ............................................................
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with energy recovery .................................................................
2. Update to the Industry Metric
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
As discussed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR, AHRI revised AHRI
920 and published an updated version
on February 4, 2020, AHRI Standard
920–2020 (I–P), ‘‘Performance Rating of
Direct Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air
System Units’’ (AHRI 920–2020). 86 FR
36018, 36026. The updates to AHRI 920
include certain revised test conditions
and weighting factors for ISMRE and
ISCOP, which were redesignated as
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, respectively.
These revisions result in the ISMRE2
and ISCOP2 metrics that more
accurately reflect the actual energy use
for DX–DOASes, improve the
repeatability and reproducibility of the
test methods, and also reduce testing
burden compared to ISMRE and ISCOP.
For example, the revised weighting
factors reflect the number of hours per
year for each test condition, and the
revised test conditions are based on
weather data from Typical
Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2) 8
provided by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. 86 FR 36018, 36029.
A detailed discussion of the summary of
the AHRI 920 updates is provide in the
8 TMY stands for ‘‘typical meteorological year’’
and is a widely used type of data available through
the National Solar Radiation Database. TMYs
contain one year of hourly data that best represents
median weather conditions over a multiyear period.
The datasets have been updated occasionally, thus
TMY, TMY2, and TMY3 data are available. See
nsrdb.nrel.gov/about/tmy.html (last accessed April
28, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR
36018, 36026–36027.
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
proposes to add a new appendix B to
subpart F of part 431, titled ‘‘Uniform
test method for measuring the energy
consumption of dehumidifying direct
expansion-dedicated outdoor air
systems,’’ that would include the new
test procedure requirements for DX–
DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The
proposed appendix B test procedure for
DX–DOASes incorporates by reference
AHRI Standard 920–2020, the most
recent version of the test procedure
recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1
for DX–DOASes, and the relevant
industry standards referenced therein.
Id.
The amendments adopted in AHRI
920–2020 result in changes to the
measured efficiency metrics as
compared to the results under ANSI/
AHRI 920–2015, which as noted above,
is the test procedure used to measure
DX–DOAS efficiency levels in Standard
90.1–2016 and 90.1–2019. In the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR DOE noted
that it will address any potential
differences in the measured energy
efficiency under the most recent
industry test procedure as compared to
the industry test procedure on which
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels are
based at such time as DOE evaluates the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for DX–
DOASes (i.e., by developing an
appropriate ‘‘crosswalk’’, as necessary).
86 FR 36018, 36027.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4.0
5.2
4.0
5.2
4.9
5.3
6.0
6.6
4.8
5.2
5.0
5.8
4.0
4.8
ISMRE.
ISMRE.
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
ISMRE.
ISMRE.
ISMRE.
ISMRE.
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
ISMRE,
2.7 ISCOP.
3.3 ISCOP.
2.0
3.8
3.2
4.0
3.5
4.8
ISCOP.
ISCOP.
ISCOP.
ISCOP.
ISCOP.
ISCOP.
Accordingly, because the measured
energy efficiency metrics in the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR are different
from those used by the ASHRAE 90.1–
2019, DOE has developed a crosswalk
analysis for these proposed standards,
which translates the existing ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 ISMRE and ISCOP
standards to the new metrics proposed
in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR.
The crosswalk analysis is discussed in
detail in section IV of this document.
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for
DX–DOASes
On September 11, 2019—prior to the
publication of AHRI 920–2020 and the
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
proposing to incorporate by reference
the updated AHRI 920–2020—DOE
published an analysis of new industry
standards for DX–DOASes in a notice of
data availability and request for
information (the September 2019
NODA/RFI).9 84 FR 48006. The
September 2019 NODA/RFI solicited
information from the public to help
DOE determine whether new standards
for DX–DOASes at levels more stringent
than specified in ASHRAE Standards
90.1 would result in significant energy
savings and whether such standards
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. The September
2019 NODA/RFI also presented
incremental efficiency levels for air9 The September 2019 NODA/RFI also requested
comment and data regarding standards for
computer room air conditioners, which are being
addressed in a separate rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
cooled DX–DOASes (based on the
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 metrics, ISMRE
and ISCOP) and annual unit energy
consumption estimates for these levels.
DOE received five comments relevant
to DX–DOASes in response to the
5565
September 2019 NODA/RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table II.2.
TABLE II.2—SEPTEMBER 2019 NODA/RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS
Commenter(s)
Reference in this
NOPR
7 AC Technologies .......................................................................................................................
Air-conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute ......................................................................
Ingersoll Rand Trane ....................................................................................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Diego Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison .....
Pano Koutrouvelis ........................................................................................................................
7AC .............................
AHRI ...........................
Trane ...........................
CA IOUs ......................
DU ...............................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.10
C. Timing of ASHRAE Test Procedures
and Appendix A
Section 8(d) of 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’)
establishes a general principal that new
test procedures and amended test
procedures that impact measured energy
use or efficiency should be finalized
prior to the close of the comment period
for a NOPR proposing new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
also noted, however, that a one-size-fitsall requirement to finalize new or
amended test procedures a set number
of days before issuing a proposed
standard does not allow DOE to account
for the particular circumstances of a
rulemaking and may result in
unnecessary delays. 86 FR 70920. In this
instance, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 (i.e., the
standard which triggered DOE to
establish uniform national standards for
DX–DOASes) was published over six
years ago, however EPCA requires DOE
to establish such standards no later than
18 months following the publication of
ASHRAE 90.1–2016. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) DOE is proposing
energy conservation standards for DX–
DOASes before the current test
procedure rule is finalized to accelerate
DOE’s efforts to meet its EPCA
obligation to establish energy
conservation standards. In addition,
DOE notes that DOE has proposed in the
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR to
incorporate by reference AHRI 920–
2020, which was published roughly two
years ago. Given DOE’s obligation to
adopt the relevant industry test
10 The parenthetical reference provides a
reference for information located in the docket of
DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for DX–DOASes. (Docket No. EERE–
2017–BT–STD–0017, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
procedure unless DOE determines,
supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that it does not produce
results which reflect energy use during
a representative average use cycle or is
unduly burdensome to conduct (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2–4)), stakeholders
would have had a reasonable level of
confidence of the test procedure DOE
would use as the basis of the proposed
efficiency levels, and finalization of the
test procedure rulemaking is unlikely to
affect that understanding.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after
considering oral and written comments,
data, and information from interested
parties that represent a variety of
interests. The following discussion
addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage
As discussed in the September 2019
NODA/RFI, the inclusion of energy
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 for DX–DOASes 11 triggered
DOE to consider energy conservation
standards for this type of equipment. 84
FR 48006, 48010.
As discussed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR, Unitary DOASes meet
the EPCA definition for ‘‘commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment,’’ and, thus, are to be
considered as a category of that covered
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)), and
the upper capacity limit of commercial
package air conditioning subject to the
DOE test procedures is 760,000 Btu per
hour, based on the definition of ‘‘very
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment.’’
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) 86 FR 36018,
36023–36024. In response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI
commented that it supported a
maximum capacity for regulated
products that is equivalent to 760,000
11 The September 2019 NODA/RFI used the term
‘‘DOAS’’. See generally 84 FR 48006.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commenter type
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Utilities.
Individual.
Btu per hour at Standard Rating
Condition A in AHRI 920. (AHRI, No. 7,
p. 9) In the July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR DOE noted that for DX–DOASes,
AHRI 920–2020 does not provide a
method for determining capacity in
terms of Btu per hour, but instead, it
specifies a determination of capacity in
terms of moisture removal capacity
(MRC). 86 FR 36018, 36024. DOE is
proposing to translate the upper
capacity for coverage of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
units established in EPCA (i.e., 760,000
Btu per hour) from Btu per hour to MRC
for DX–DOASes. Id. The equivalent
upper capacity limit proposed for DX–
DOASes is 324 lbs moisture/hr at
Standard Rating Condition A in AHRI
920. Id.
In this NOPR DOE proposes that the
proposed energy conservation standards
would apply to DX–DOASes with an
MRC less than or equal to 324 lbs
moisture/hr. This scope of coverage
would be consistent with the definitions
of ‘‘Unitary DOAS’’ and ‘‘DX–DOAS’’
proposed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR:
(1) ‘‘Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor
air system, or Unitary DOAS, means a
category of small, large, or very large
commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment which is capable of
providing ventilation and conditioning of
100-percent outdoor air or marketed in
materials (including but not limited to,
specification sheets, insert sheets, and online
materials) as having such capability’’ and
(2) ‘‘Dehumidifying direct expansiondedicated outdoor air system, or DX–DOAS,
means a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor
air system that is capable of dehumidifying
air to a 55 °F dew point—when operating
under Standard Rating Condition A as
specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of AHRI 920–
2020 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.95)
with a barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg—
for any part of the range of airflow rates
advertised in manufacturer materials, and
has a moisture removal capacity of less than
324 lb/h.’’
86 FR 36018, 36057.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5566
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The CA IOUs requested that DOE
clarify whether split-system DX–
DOASes (with remote condenser units)
are included within the scope of
coverage, stating that AHRI 920 applies
to both ‘‘single package’’ and ‘‘remote
condenser’’ DX–DOASes. (CA IOUs, No.
6, p. 4) DOE is proposing to include
split-system DX–DOASes within the
scope of coverage, consistent with the
scope of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
minimum efficiency levels 12 for DX–
DOASes and AHRI 920–2020. Just as
split systems are included in the scope
of other categories of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment (e.g., computer room air
conditioners, variable-refrigerant flow
multi-split systems) DOE is proposing to
include them in the scope for DX–
DOASes. (See, for example, the
definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air
Conditioner’’ and ‘‘Variable Refrigerant
Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner’’ at 10
CFR 431.92.)
B. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product
classes by the type of energy used or by
capacity or other performance-related
features that justify differing standards.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 created
14 separate equipment classes for DX–
DOASes. EPCA generally requires DOE
to establish energy conservation
standards for commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment at
the minimum efficiencies set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) DOE is proposing to
establish eight DX–DOAS equipment
classes that correspond to eight of the 14
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1—this
proposal, including the omission of the
remaining six classes, is discussed in
the following paragraphs.
14 separate equipment classes
(indicated as ‘‘equipment types’’ and
‘‘subcategories’’) were created by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and
maintained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 (see Table II.1). These are
differentiated by condensing type (aircooled, air-source heat pump, watercooled, and water-source heat pump).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does not
delineate classes for DX–DOASes based
on capacity. AHSRAE Standard 90.1
does separate classes into those with
ventilation energy recovery systems
(VERS)—often referred to as simply
‘‘energy recovery’’—and those without
12 Tables 6.8.1–13 and 6.8.1–14 of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 indicates that it provides
minimum efficiency levels for ‘‘Electrically
Operated DX–DOAS Units, Single-Package and
Remote Condenser.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
VERS. The July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR proposed to include a definition
for VERS at 10 CFR 431.92 that reads,
‘‘Ventilation energy recovery system, or
VERS, means a system that preconditions outdoor ventilation air
entering the equipment through direct
or indirect thermal and/or moisture
exchange with the exhaust air, which is
defined as the building air being
exhausted to the outside from the
equipment.’’ 86 FR 36018, 36057.
The ASHRAE Standard 90.1
requirements for water-cooled
condensing units are divided into two
application conditions: Cooling tower
condenser water and chilled water. The
requirements for water-source heat
pump units are divided into three
application conditions: Ground-source
closed loop, ground-water-source, and
water-source. However, these
application rating conditions are labeled
as ‘‘subcategories’’ in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. Moreover, as discussed more
below, AHRI 920–2020, the update to
the industry test procedure upon which
the DX–DOAS efficiency ratings in
Standard 90.1 are based, but which has
not yet been incorporated into Standard
90.1, identifies some of these
application rating conditions as optional
for purposes of the test procedure.
The EPCA definition for ‘‘commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ does not include groundwater-source equipment (see 42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A)), therefore DOE is not
considering the ground-water-source
application condition for its regulated
equipment classes. In response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, the CA
IOUs commented in support of the
exclusion of ground-water-source
equipment from the regulated
equipment classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p.
4)
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE requested comment on the
approach of evaluating water-cooled
DX–DOASes as a single category (with
classes still disaggregated by those
models with and without VERS) using
the specified cooling tower condenser
water entering temperature conditions,
and evaluating water-source heat pump
DX–DOASes as a single category (with
classes still disaggregated by those
models with and without VERS) using
only the specified water-source inlet
fluid temperature conditions. 84 FR
48006, 48021–48022. As part of its
analysis for the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, DOE considered whether to
evaluate separately the two watercooled DOAS classes or whether the
water-cooled cooling tower condenser
water classes and the water-cooled
chilled water classes should be grouped
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
together and represented as watercooled DOASes (with classes still
disaggregated by those models with
energy recovery and those models
without energy recovery). DOE also
considered whether to evaluate
separately the two remaining watersource heat pump classes or whether the
water-source heat pump ground-source
closed loop classes and the water-source
heat pump water-source classes should
be grouped together and represented as
water-source heat pump DOASes (with
classes still disaggregated by those
models with energy recovery and those
models without energy recovery). 84 FR
48021.
Based on DOE’s review of equipment
specifications of water-cooled and
water-source heat pump DOASes and
comments on the concurrent test
procedure evaluation, DOE determined
that most water-cooled DOASes use the
same equipment for different
applications and that water-source heat
pump DOASes use the same equipment
design for different applications. DOE
stated that it is not aware of watercooled DOAS units that are exclusively
designed for use with cooling tower or
chilled water. Likewise, DOE stated that
it is not aware of water-source heat
pump DOAS units that are exclusively
designed for use with water-source or
ground-source closed-loop applications.
It is also DOE’s understanding that
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels
are different across comparable classes
within the water-cooled condensing
type (e.g., comparing energy recovery
classes to energy recovery classes) and
across comparable classes within the
water-source condensing type because
of the different test/application
conditions, as opposed to equipment
design differences. For example, when
testing a DOAS to obtain a water-cooled
chilled water DOAS rating, a colder
condenser water entering temperature is
used than when testing it to obtain a
water-cooled cooling tower DOAS
rating, reflecting the typically cooler
temperature of chilled water loops in
commercial buildings, as compared
with cooling tower water loops. Id.
As a result, in the September 2019
NODA/RFI, DOE combined the watercooled cooling tower condenser water
classes and the water-cooled chilled
water classes and evaluated watercooled DOASes as a single set of classes
(with classes disaggregated by those
models with energy recovery and those
models without energy recovery) that is
subject to a single set of operating
conditions. DOE also combined the
water-source heat pump ground-source
closed loop classes and the water-source
heat pump water-source classes and
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
evaluated the water-source heat pump
DOASes as a single set of classes (with
classes still disaggregated by those
models with energy recovery and those
models without energy recovery) that is
subject to a single set of operating
conditions. AHRI, the CA IOUs, and
Trane commented in support of this
proposed approach. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9;
CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 4; Trane, No. 5, p.
3)
In the July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 920–2020
still provides separate inlet fluid rating
conditions for the different water-cooled
and water-source heat pump DX–DOAS
applications but identifies the chilled
water conditions and ground-source
closed loop conditions as optional
application rating conditions. 86 FR
36018, 36033. On this topic, AHRI
commented that in almost all cases, a
single design is used for water-cooled
equipment used with cooling tower
water and chilled water, and, similarly,
a single design is used for all of the
water-source applications, adding that
for each of these cases, a single set of
water conditions can be used for testing.
Id. Section 2.2.1(c)(i) of the proposed
appendix B test procedure specifies the
use of the ‘‘Condenser Water Entering
Temperature, Cooling Tower Water’’
conditions for rating water-cooled DX–
DOASes and the ‘‘Water-Source Heat
Pumps’’ conditions for rating watersource heat pump DX–DOASes. 86 FR
36018, 36060. DOE stated in the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR that it
would consider establishing standards
and the corresponding certification
requirements in the context of these
inlet fluid temperature conditions. 86
FR 36018, 36033.
Based on its review and feedback
from stakeholders, DOE has determined
that separate equipment classes for each
one of these subcategories in the
proposed standards is not necessary,
and that the 8 proposed equipment
classes are most representative of DX–
DOAS equipment and rating
applications in the field. DOE
understands that the water-cooled
equipment ‘‘subcategories’’ in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 are meant to
represent different application
requirements for the same equipment,
and thus DOE’s proposed equipment
class structure does not split watercooled equipment into cooling tower
water and chilled water subcategories.
As proposed, all water-cooled
equipment would be rated to the cooling
tower water conditions, and standards
would be established for water-cooled
DX–DOASes with and without VERS.
Similarly, the equipment class structure
DOE is proposing does not split watersource heat pump equipment into the
three subcategories in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. Because of the
statutory exclusion of ground-watersource equipment and because groundsource closed loop conditions are
optional to test to in AHRI 920–2020, all
water-source heat pump equipment
would be rated to the water-source heat
pump water conditions, and standards
would be established for water-source
heat pump DX–DOASes with and
without VERS. This approach is
consistent with other commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. For example, water-source
heat pumps include application test
conditions for water-loop, ground-water,
and ground-loop heat pumps, but DOE
only requires that equipment be rated
using the water-loop conditions (see
Table 3 to 10 CFR 431.97). This
approach avoids testing under multiple
application conditions for a single
equipment design. In addition, even if
tested at different application
conditions because the DOAS
5567
equipment uses a single design, it is
expected that the relative ranking of
equipment efficiency would be the
same.
7AC commented that DX–DOASes
with liquid desiccant heat exchangers
(LDHXs) and variable-speed
compressors may achieve high ISMRE
efficiencies and recommended the
addition of a new category with a
minimum ISMRE of 7 that covers
packaged units with and without
exhaust air. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) DOE
understands that liquid-to-air transfer
membranes can improve
dehumidification efficiency when
coupled with standard air conditioners.
This technology uses porous membranes
with liquid desiccants to absorb water
vapor from the supply air stream. In its
review of LDHX DX–DOASes, DOE has
initially determined that this equipment
would be covered under the definition
of ‘‘relief-air-cooled DX–DOAS’’ in
Section 3.6.2 of AHRI 920–2020 (which
is incorporated into section 2.2.1(a) of
the proposed appendix B test
procedure) due to the way in which
building return air is typically used to
regenerate the liquid desiccant and cool
the condenser in the refrigeration cycle.
This definition specifically classifies
relief-air-cooled units under the aircooled equipment category.
Furthermore, DX–DOASes with exhaust
air streams are generally also included
within the air-cooled equipment
category demarcated in AHRI 920–2020,
thus DOE is not proposing to create a
separate equipment class for LDHX DX–
DOASes or DX–DOASes with exhaust
air.
DOE is proposing energy conservation
standards for eight DX–DOASes
equipment classes, consistent with the
classes provided in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 as discussed above and shown in
Table III.1.
TABLE III.1—PROPOSED EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR DX–DOASES
Equipment class in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
Proposed equipment class in Federal Energy Conservation Standards
Air-cooled: Without energy recovery ........................................................
Air-cooled: With energy recovery .............................................................
Air-source heat pumps: Without energy recovery ....................................
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Air-source heat pumps: With energy recovery .........................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, without energy recovery
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, with energy recovery ....
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without energy recovery .......
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with energy recovery ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5568
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Issue–1: DOE requests comment on the
proposed eight equipment classes for
energy conservation standards of DX–
DOASes.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must
use these test procedures to certify to
DOE that their product complies with
energy conservation standards and to
quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE does not currently have test
procedures or energy conservation
standards established for DX–DOASes.
In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, AHRI indicated that it
strongly agreed with DOE’s tentative
conclusion that DOE’s existing test
procedures are not appropriate for DX–
DOAS units. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 7)
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
references ANSI/AHRI 920–2015, which
relies on the metrics of ISMRE and
ISCOP, and the standards for DX–
DOASes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 are in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP.
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 was superseded
with the publication of AHRI 920–2020,
which relies on the updated metric
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2.
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
proposes a new Federal test procedure
for DX–DOASes that would incorporate
AHRI 920–2020, which is the most
recent version of the test procedure
recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1
for DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022.
The proposed test procedure
incorporates AHRI 920–2020 in its
entirety, with certain minor
clarifications DOE has preliminarily
determined would be consistent with
the industry test procedure. 86 FR
36018, 36047. AHRI 920–2020 specifies
Standard Rating Conditions (i.e.,
controlled operating conditions) with
instructions for instrumentation, test
set-up, tolerances, method of test, and
calculations of capacity and efficiency.
The proposed DOE test procedure
would establish ISMRE2 as the
dehumidification efficiency metric for
all DX–DOASes and ISCOP2 as the
heating efficiency metric for heat pump
DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36027–
36029. DOE is proposing to define
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 consistent with
AHRI 920–2020. Id.
AHRI commented that, among other
things, the current version of AHRI 920
transitions the efficiency metrics for
DX–DOASes from ISMRE and ISCOP to
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. AHRI stated that
two major differences between ISMRE
and ISMRE2 are: With the new metric,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
DX–DOASes will no longer be required
to reheat conditioned air to spaceneutral conditions (70–75 °F supply air),
and excess dehumidification beyond the
design supply air dew point is no longer
credited at part-load conditions. AHRI
commented that the heating metric
changes are similar: The heating
coefficient of performance is now
determined at the staging that most
closely provides a supply air
temperature within the allowable range.
AHRI also noted that two new
application rating metrics were added in
AHRI 920–2020: ISMRE270 and
COPDOAS,x. Additionally, AHRI
commented that new provisions have
been included in AHRI 920–2020 for the
testing and performance calculations of
DX–DOASes with VERS. (AHRI, No. 7,
p. 8–9)
The CA IOUs raised the concern that
a dehumidification efficiency metric
may not be appropriate for DX–DOASes
based on an analysis showing that, on
a national shipment-weighted basis, the
outdoor air dew point is above 55 °F 13
only 36.7 percent of the time; therefore,
the CA IOUs suggested that DOE
consider adjustments to the DX–DOAS
test procedure that contribute to a
standard that reflects sensible cooling
and/or fan-only ventilation conditions.
The CA IOUs did not dispute that the
primary use-case of a DX–DOAS system
is to cool and dehumidify outdoor air,
however they claim not all installation
locations will have dehumidification
requirements as aggressive as the tested
conditions required for an ISMRE rating.
(CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 6)
DOE addressed this subject in the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR (see 86 FR
36027). In particular, DOE received
comments from AHRI stating that DX–
DOASes are installed with separate
complementary sensible-cooling-only
systems that provide cooling to address
the interior loads, and that adding
sensible cooling to the metric for DX–
DOAS would skew efficiency values
toward the non-primary function of the
DX–DOAS. This focus of DX–DOAS
performance on dehumidification loads
supports DOE’s proposal to adopt the
ISMRE2 dehumidification efficiency
metric in AHRI 920–2020. 86 FR 36018,
36027. Nevertheless, the sensible
cooling provided by a DX–DOAS unit
may be valuable in many applications
because it reduces the cooling that must
13 AHRI
920–2020 requires that DX–DOASes
dehumidify outdoor ventilation air to a maximum
dew point of 55 °F as a representative set point for
dehumidified building supply air. Therefore, if the
outdoor air dew point temperature is below 55 °F,
there would typically not be any dehumidification
load on the DX–DOAS, and the remaining cooling
load would be for sensible cooling only.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be provided by interior cooling systems,
especially at high outdoor temperatures.
DOE may consider in a future
rulemaking whether the efficiency
metric should be revised to include
sensible cooling; however, EPCA
prescribes that the test procedures for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment must be those
generally accepted industry testing
procedures or rating procedures
developed or recognized by industry as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
(i.e., AHRI 920 for DX–DOASes). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A))
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
discusses major updates to the AHRI
920 test procedure, as well as the
efficiency metrics, in depth. 86 FR
36018, 36025–36045. DOE is addressing
comments regarding specific aspects of
the proposed test procedure in the
concurrent test procedure rulemaking.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
establish energy conservation standards
for DX–DOASes in terms of ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2.
D. Considerations for Energy
Conservation Standards
In this proposed rulemaking to
establish energy conservation standards
for DX–DOASes, DOE is proposing to
adopt ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum
efficiency levels of equivalent
stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP
minimum efficiency levels currently
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
As discussed in section II.A of this
document, EPCA requires DOE to
amend the existing Federal energy
conservation standard for covered
equipment each time ASHRAE
amends 14 Standard 90.1 with respect to
such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this
manner, DOE must adopt the minimum
level specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines
that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination
that a more stringent standard level
would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such a
determination, it must publish a final
rule to establish the more stringent
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) DOE
14 Although EPCA does not explicitly define the
term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of what type of
revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger
DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding interpretation
has been that the statutory trigger is an amendment
to the standard applicable to that equipment under
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR
10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
states in Section 9(b) of Appendix A to
subpart C of part 430 that clear and
convincing evidence would exist only
where the specific facts and data made
available to DOE regarding a particular
ASHRAE amendment demonstrate that
there is no substantial doubt that a
standard more stringent than that
contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
amendment is permitted because it
would result in a significant additional
amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and
economically justified.
DOE normally performs multiple indepth analyses to determine whether
there is clear and convincing evidence
to support more stringent energy
conservation standards (i.e., whether
more stringent standards would produce
5569
significant additional conservation of
energy and be technologically feasible
and economically justified). Table III.2
shows the statutory requirements and
DOE’s corresponding analytical
approach, including DOE’s approach to
the seven-factor analysis for
determining whether a standard is
economically justified.
TABLE III.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings ..............................................................................................
Technological Feasibility ..................................................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ..........................................
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product
3. Total Projected Energy Savings ...........................................................................
4. Impact on Utility or Performance ..........................................................................
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition .............................................................
6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation ............................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ................................................
DOE received comments from DU
regarding the EPCA seven-factor test
and the analytical framework for
establishing energy conservation
standards. DU commented that the sixth
factor for economic justification, ‘‘need
for national energy and water
conservation,’’ is too broad and should
specify a goal for savings by the year the
amended standards go into effect. DU
also requested clarification on whether
the analytical methods used to
determine national energy savings are
limited to a cross-sectional analysis and
if so, the rationale behind eliminating
the time series. (DU, No. 3, p. 1) DOE
notes that the seven factors in EPCA
were specified by Congress. Regarding
the national energy savings (NES), DOE
notes that it is not a cross-sectional
analysis. In the September 2019 NODA/
RFI, a 30-year time series of shipments
was used to calculate the NES for DX–
DOASes.
As previously described, DOE
normally conducts the analysis depicted
in Table III.2 to determine whether clear
and convincing evidence supports more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
stringent energy conservation standards.
In this instance, however, DOE has
tentatively determined that a lack of
data precludes such an analysis and
therefore precludes a finding of clear
and convincing evidence. DOE provided
a technical support document (TSD) 15
with the September 2019 NODA/RFI to
present initial findings for certain of
these analyses for DX–DOASes. Chapter
4 of the September 2019 NODA/RFI
TSD discusses DOE’s detailed
methodology for estimating national
energy savings. When DOE conducts a
national energy savings analysis, it
calculates the cumulative energy
savings over the analysis period by
summing the annual energy savings for
each year in the analysis period, thereby
considering the long-term impacts—as
opposed to a limited cross-section of
time. However, as described in the
following subsections, DOE does not
have sufficient data to revise and
15 The September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD is
available as Document No. 2 at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD0017.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expand upon these analyses presented
in the TSD at this time.
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
To evaluate whether more stringent
standards than those in the updated
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would be
technologically feasible, DOE generally
first conducts a market and technology
assessment to survey all current
technology options in products on the
market and prototype designs that could
improve the efficiency of the subject
equipment. DOE then conducts a
screening analysis based on information
gathered on all current technology
options and prototype designs that
could improve the efficiency of the
products or equipment that are the
subject of the rulemaking. As the first
step in such an analysis, DOE develops
a list of technology options for
consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and
other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for
improving efficiency are technologically
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5570
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
feasible. DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially-available
products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See generally
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1).
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. See generally
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(ii)–(v)
and 7(b)(2)–(5).
DOE is not aware of an existing
database or compilation containing a
comprehensive list of DX–DOAS models
and performance metrics. As noted, DX–
DOASes are not currently subject to
Federal energy conservation standards,
and so manufacturers of DOASes are not
required to certify or report to DOE the
energy efficiency of such equipment.
The AHRI Directory does not currently
list DX–DOAS equipment performance
ratings. Similarly, DOE was not able to
find ISMRE or ISCOP ratings in much of
the manufacturer equipment
specifications. It is unclear to what
extent the market has responded to the
industry standards initially specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016.
Also as discussed, in the edition of
AHRI 920 immediately following the
edition in which an industry testing
standard was established for DOAS,
AHRI adopted updated metrics for DX–
DOASes (i.e., ISMRE2 and ISCOP2).
Similarly, DOE was not able to find
ISMRE2 or ISCOP2 ratings in much of
the manufacturer equipment
specifications. Because this test
procedure was fairly recently published,
it is not clear to what extent the test data
has been developed based on the
updated industry testing standard (i.e.,
AHRI 920–2020), although DOE expects
that this test procedure represents the
industry consensus for testing DX–
DOASes.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE analyzed two incremental
efficiency levels (ELs) above the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 minimum
ISMRE efficiency levels for air-cooled
DX–DOASes (with and without VERS)
based on technology options that are
expected to be available for DX–
DOASes. 84 FR 48006, 48026. The ELs
were also based, in part, on an initial
assessment of EER data for commercial
unitary air conditioners due to the lack
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
of market data using the AHRI 920
performance metrics. 84 FR 48006,
48026. DOE tentatively determined
based on manufacturer feedback that the
baseline design would likely include
staged compressors, and that the design
change from the baseline efficiency
level (the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
minimum) to EL 1 would involve
changing from staged compressor
operation to variable-capacity digital
scroll compressors. The design changes
from EL 1 to EL 2 include increasing the
condenser heat exchanger size and fin
density, increasing the total condenser
fans horsepower, and reducing the
capacity of the compressors needed.
Due to the similarity in designs, DOE
considered that the same technology
options and resulting increase in
efficiency from the analysis for DX–
DOASes without VERS would be
applied for DX–DOASes with VERS. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that the
analysis should take into account all
equipment classes of DX–DOAS
because, while air-cooled DX–DOASes
may comprise the vast majority of DX–
DOAS shipments, there are other
equipment classes with the potential for
energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 6)
The CA IOUs also disagreed with the
efficiency level distribution and asked
DOE to develop a more sophisticated
efficiency analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p.
7) AHRI also disagreed with DOE’s
incremental efficiency levels because
they were derived from a single
manufacturer’s equipment at a single
capacity size. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 8) The
CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct a costeffectiveness analysis for new DX–
DOAS standards and apply the
experience curve methodology DOE
recommended in 2011 16, including both
price decline to-date and a forecast of
continued price decline, in order to
avoid overestimating the true costs of
efficiency improvements. (CA IOUs, No.
6, pp. 7–8) AHRI provided confidential
business data containing limited
estimations of the ISMRE ranges for DX–
DOASes by cooling capacity (in Btu/hr)
and disaggregated by VERS (without
distinguishing between the 8 DX–DOAS
equipment classes), as noted in AHRI’s
public comment. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10)
DOE acknowledges that the efficiency
levels for air-cooled DX–DOASes
presented in the September 2019
NODA/RFI may not be representative of
the DX–DOAS market because they
were derived from a very limited
amount of publicly available data, and
additionally, these efficiency levels are
16 In 2011, DOE published a notice of data
availability discussing the experience curve
methodology. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
no longer in terms of the metrics DOE
is proposing to regulate. In this NOPR,
DOE has tentatively determined that
this type of engineering analysis cannot
be completed due to the lack of
available market and performance data.
A lack of performance data using the
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics impedes
DOE’s ability to correlate efficiency
levels to DX–DOAS design options, and
AHRI’s data did not provide further
details for this aspect of the analysis. As
a result, the development of costefficiency curves is not possible at this
time.
AHRI commented that the efficiency
benefits of employing variable-capacity
digital scroll compressors were
overestimated in the September 2019
NODA/RFI analysis, and that this
technology option is implemented
primarily for control purposes. AHRI
stated that while a digital scroll
compressor provides capacity control, it
does not provide an efficiency increase
over three- or four-step compressor
control, and, furthermore, a digital
scroll compressor would provide a
modest improvement over a single- or
two-step DX–DOASes based on the
equipment cycling. AHRI also asserted
that DX–DOASes with single- or twostep staging do not provide the
necessary control consumers require,
and so they are rarely purchased. (AHRI,
No. 7, p. 10) Trane also commented that
the benefits of digital scroll compressors
are more closely correlated to staging
control than efficiency. (Trane, No. 5, p.
3)
Both AHRI and Trane commented that
there is considerable variation in the
technology options that may be utilized
at the baseline efficiency level. (AHRI,
No. 7, p. 10; Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
However, AHRI generalized that small
equipment (below 10 tons) utilize twostage or digital compressors, without
inverter control, with small heat
exchangers; and above 10 tons,
equipment typically utilizes four-stage
or digital compressors, without inverter
control, with larger heat exchangers.
(AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) AHRI stated that for
the purposes of the technology analysis,
industry would support the first step to
improving energy efficiency being the
addition of inverter control, and the
second step being including a larger
condenser with more surface area. (Id).
Additionally, the CA IOUs provided
that DX–DOAS heat exchangers tend to
be larger than those in typical
commercial unitary air conditioners.
(CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7)
DOE appreciates these comments on
technology options and has
incorporated this feedback into aspects
of the crosswalk analysis. DOE included
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DX–DOASes with two stages of capacity
and digital scroll compressors in its
ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk analysis.
Additionally, the technology options
referenced by AHRI were used in DOE’s
analytical modeling of baseline heat
pump DX–DOASes to evaluate the
impact of the test procedure changes for
the heating efficiency metric. DOE has
initially determined that the proposed
ISCOP2 standards for heat pump DX–
DOASes are technologically feasible
because DOE performed the ISCOP-toISCOP2 crosswalk based on the baseline
technology options recommended by
stakeholders—i.e., staged scroll
compressors, no inverter control, and
representative baseline heat exchangers
for DX–DOASes. This is discussed in
section IV.C.2 of this NOPR.
As discussed in section III.B of this
NOPR, 7AC indicated that combining a
variable-speed compressor with an
economically-sized LDHX can result in
an ISMRE of 7.5 without VERS and an
ISMRE of 8.5 with VERS. (7AC, No. 4,
p. 1) Because DOE could not identify
any other manufacturers of DX–DOASes
which employ LDHXs in commerciallydistributed equipment, and DOE expects
that this technology option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a
particular efficiency level. For this
reason, DOE did not consider LDHX
technology in its analysis of whether
more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible or as part of the
crosswalk analysis.
Issue–2: DOE continues to seek
information that may inform a market
and technology assessment for the
DX–DOAS industry, including data
on technology options which may
increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
efficiencies of DX–DOASes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When evaluating more stringent
standards, DOE typically must
determine the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such
product. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE typically
determines the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
improvements in energy efficiency
using the design parameters for the most
efficient equipment available on the
market or in working prototypes.
Prior to the publication of AHRI 920–
2020, the September 2019 NODA/RFI
DOE estimated that the max-tech
efficiency for air-cooled DX–DOASes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
without VERS was an ISMRE of 6.0,
whereas for air-cooled DX–DOASes
with VERS the max-tech efficiency was
an ISMRE of 7.2. 84 FR 48006, 48026.
In response, the CA IOUs provided data
that showed the range of manufacturerpublished ISMRE ratings reached a
maximum of 8.9 ISMRE for air-cooled
DX–DOASes without VERS and 10.8
ISMRE for air-cooled DX–DOASes with
VERS. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7)
As discussed, DOE has proposed to
incorporate by reference AHRI 920–
2020 in its test procedure, which relies
on different metrics than what were
presented in the September 2019
NODA/RFI and what were provided by
commenters. As discussed further in
section IV.B.1 of this NOPR, the DX–
DOAS designs that are likely to yield
the highest ISMRE and ISCOP
efficiencies under the ANSI/AHRI 920–
2015 test procedure are not likely to
yield the highest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
efficiencies under AHRI 920–2020 (and
the proposed DOE test procedure) due
to significant differences in the test
procedures, and therefore DOE cannot
rely on ISMRE/ISCOP efficiency ratings
alone (i.e., without knowledge of the
specific design options utilized) to
identify max-tech efficiencies using the
proposed test procedure.
Due to the lack of data in terms of
AHRI 920–2020 efficiency metrics, DOE
is currently unable to identify the most
efficient equipment available on the
market in terms of the proposed metrics.
As such, DOE is unable to estimate the
field-installed energy use and cost of the
most efficient equipment (in terms of
the proposed metrics) available on the
market (factoring in parameters such as
price markups, installation application,
life-cycle cost and payback period, and
overall shipments). Hence, DOE was
unable to evaluate the technological
feasibility of standards more stringent
than the levels in the updated ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.
2. Significant Additional Conservation
of Energy
The ‘‘significant additional
conservation of energy’’ language in 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) indicates that
Congress intended for DOE to ensure
that, in addition to the savings from the
ASHRAE standards, DOE’s standards
would yield additional energy savings
that are significant. In DOE’s view, this
statutory provision shares the
requirement with the statutory
provision applicable to covered
products and non-ASHRAE equipment
that ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’
must be present (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))—and supported with
‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’—to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5571
permit DOE to set a more stringent
requirement than ASHRAE. See 85 FR
8626, 8666–8667.
In determining whether energy
savings are significant, DOE considers
the specific circumstances surrounding
a given rulemaking.17 In making this
determination, DOE looks at, among
other things, the FFC effects of the
proposed standards. These effects
include the energy consumed in
electricity production (depending on
load shape), in distribution and
transmission, and in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus present a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards, including
greenhouse gas emissions.
DOE has initially determined that
there is insufficient data on the
developing DX–DOAS market to
conduct an analysis of potential energy
savings resulting from more stringent
standards. AHRI 920–2020 is a
relatively recent industry test standard,
published in February 2020, and thus
AHRI has not yet established a
certification database listing DX–DOAS
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings. In the
September 2019 NODA/RFI DOE also
noted that the AHRI Directory does not
list DX–DOAS equipment performance
ratings, and that DOE was not able to
find ISMRE or ISCOP ratings in much of
the manufacturer equipment
specifications. 84 FR 48006, 48026. DOE
requested data on the market efficiency
distribution, field installation
applications and performance, the
determination of unit energy
consumption (UEC), equipment
lifetimes, and shipments (see 84 FR
48006, 48036); however, DOE did not
receive sufficient information with
regards to these aspects of its analysis in
order to determine the energy savings of
more stringent efficiency levels for each
of the 8 proposed DX–DOAS equipment
classes.
3. Economic Justification
As noted previously, EPCA provides
seven factors to be considered in
determining whether standard levels
more stringent than the levels specified
in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1
are economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) The following
sections provide an overview of each of
those seven factors and consideration of
the factors in this NOPR.
17 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5572
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a
potential standard on manufacturers,
DOE typically conducts a manufacturer
impact analysis (MIA). DOE first uses an
annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step
includes both a short-term assessment—
based on the cost and capital
requirements during the period between
when a regulation is issued and when
entities must comply with the
regulation—and a long-term assessment
over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include (1)
INPV, which values the industry on the
basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in
revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate.
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the
impacts on different types of
manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant
closures and loss of capital investment.
Finally, DOE takes into account
cumulative impacts of various DOE
regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in life-cycle costs (LCC) and the payback
period (PBP) associated with new or
amended standards. For consumers in
the aggregate, DOE also calculates the
national net present value of the
consumer costs and benefits expected to
result from particular standards. DOE
also evaluates the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of
consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
As noted, DOE is unaware of any
database or compilation containing a
comprehensive list of DX–DOAS models
and performance metrics. This presents
significant challenges to performing an
accurate assessment of the DX–DOAS
industry structure.
DOE normally uses projections of
annual equipment shipments to
calculate the national impacts of
potential amended or new energy
conservation standards on energy use,
industry net present value (NPV), and
future manufacturer cash flows. The
shipments model typically takes an
accounting approach, tracking market
shares of each product class and the
vintage of units in the stock. Stock
accounting uses product shipments as
inputs to estimate the age distribution of
in-service product stocks for all years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
The age distribution of in-service
product stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the national energy
savings and NPV because operating
costs for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
For the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE developed DX–DOAS shipments
estimates based on manufacturer
feedback that shipments in 2016 were
around 36,000 units and that DX–DOAS
growth is expected to be similar to that
of variable refrigerant flow multi-split
system equipment. 84 FR 48006, 48030.
A report by the Cadeo Group estimated
variable refrigerant flow multi-split
system equipment shipments to have
double-digit growth through 2022.
Therefore, to project shipments past
2016, DOE used a 10-percent growth
rate through 2022 and then followed the
same growth rate as other commercial
unitary air-conditioning equipment,
basing that growth rate on the reference
case shipment projections in the
National Impact Analysis spreadsheet
from the January 15, 2016 direct final
rule for commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps and
commercial warm air furnaces (81 FR
2420). Id.
Manufacturers estimated that aircooled DX–DOASes represent 95
percent of all DX–DOAS shipments, and
DOE assumed that this percentage
would remain constant for the duration
of the 30-year shipments analysis. Id.
For the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE only analyzed the two air-cooled
DX–DOAS equipment classes, and so
reduced the annual shipments
projections developed above by 5
percent to capture only the air-cooled
product classes. Id. DOE allocated 59percent of shipments to air-cooled
DOAS without energy recovery and 41percent of shipments to air-cooled
DOAS with energy recovery, based on
manufacturer estimates of the
breakdown by equipment class. Id.
In response, the CA IOUs provided an
analysis of an online database of
construction projects called
ConstructConnect Insight, which
suggests that DX–DOAS shipments have
been increasing at an 18% annual rate
since 2012. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 5)
Additionally, the CA IOUs agreed that
variable refrigerant flow and watersource heat pump systems are a good
starting point for estimating DX–DOAS
shipments but encouraged DOE to take
into account radiant cooling, PTAC, and
fan-coil installation projects as well.
(Id.) AHRI suggested that DX–DOASes
can also be paired with chilled beams
and room fan coils. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11)
Trane suggested that DOE may have
significantly overstated the DX–DOAS
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
market in the September 2019 NODA/
RFI. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI provided
a similar statement, specifically
indicating that the 2016 shipments
value for DX–DOAS was overestimated.
(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 10–11) AHRI also
noted that significant DX–DOAS
shipment volume is relatively new to
the market. (Id.) AHRI submitted
confidential business data containing
shipments estimates for DX–DOASes.
DOE acknowledges that DX–DOASes
are paired with many types of space
conditioning systems and that while
most DX–DOASes are installed with
variable refrigerant flow and water
source heat pumps, other systems such
as chilled beams, package terminal
systems, and fan coils are paired with
DX–DOASes. The confidential data
submission from AHRI provided a time
series of DX–DOAS shipments from
2010 to 2018. The time series provides
the total number of DX–DOAS
shipments along with estimates of the
market share by equipment capacity and
the availability of units with VERS, and
this would allow DOE to improve its
shipments projections. However, the
shipments data does not break the
shipments down by equipment class.
DOE received no comments regarding
the estimate that air-cooled DX–DOASes
represent 95 percent of shipments or on
the breakdown of DX–DOAS with and
without VERS. However, DOE still lacks
the breakdown of shipments for the
other equipment classes. As stated
earlier in this section, the shipments
model is used to measure the national
impacts of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. Without
an engineering analysis (see section
III.D.2.c of this document) and an
energy use analysis (see section III.D.2.d
of this document), DOE is unable to
produce the other inputs necessary to
project the national impact of standards
more stringent than those in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. Therefore DOE did
not update the shipments model for this
NOPR.
Were DOE to establish standards as
proposed, as well as accompanying
certification requirements, this
information would become more readily
available should DOE consider
amending standards for DX–DOASes in
any future rulemaking.18 Chapter 2 of
18 In situations where ASHRAE has not acted to
amend the levels in Standard 90.1 for the
equipment types enumerated in the statute, EPCA
provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the
potential for amending the uniform national
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically,
pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under the
American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)),
DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD
presents DOE’s market assessment to the
extent that DOE was able to retrieve
publicly accessible information for DX–
DOASes. Since the September 2019
NODA/RFI, DOE has, identified
additional manufacturers of DX–
DOASes, and these manufacturers are
listed in Table III.3 (which supersedes
Table 2.3 in the September 2019 NODA/
RFI TSD).
TABLE III.3—MANUFACTURERS OF DX–
DOASES
AHRI
member
Manufacturers
AAON .............................................
AnnexAir .........................................
Daikin ..............................................
Greenheck ......................................
Ingersoll Rand ................................
Johnson Controls ...........................
Madison Industries .........................
Modine Manufacturing Company ...
Multistack ........................................
Munters Group AB .........................
Nortek Global HVAC ......................
Soler and Palau Industries .............
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE did not perform an MIA for this
rulemaking because there is not enough
information available on the DX–DOAS
market to determine which entities are
already compliant with the proposed
energy conservation standards (i.e.,
producing DX–DOASes which currently
meet or exceed the proposed ISMRE2
and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels)
and what portion of annual cash flow
these DX–DOASes comprise. However,
DOE did examine potential impacts on
small manufacturers in its regulatory
flexibility analysis, which is presented
in section VII.B of this NOPR.
For individual consumers, DOE
measures the economic impact by
calculating the changes in LCC and PBP
associated with new or amended
standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE would also calculate the national
net present value of the consumer costs
and benefits expected to result from
particular standards, while taking into
account the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of
90.1 ‘‘every 6 years’’ to determine whether the
applicable energy conservation standards need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must
publish either a NOPR to propose amended
standards or a notice of determination that existing
standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new standards under
the 6-year review, DOE must undertake the same
considerations as if it were adopting a standard that
is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
DOE continues to seek information
that may inform a market and
technology assessment for the DX–
DOAS industry, including data on
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 market efficiency
distributions, and shipments.
DOE did not perform an LCC or an
assessment of NPV for this rulemaking
because there was not enough
information available to develop the
inputs required to measure the
individual or aggregate consumer
savings from higher standards. The LCC
would require an engineering analysis,
an energy use analysis, operating cost
inputs, and a distribution of efficiencies
that are available on the market. These
inputs allow DOE to develop equipment
prices, representative efficiency levels,
annual operating costs, and a nostandards case distribution of
equipment efficiencies to determine
which consumers will be impacted by a
higher standard. The NIA takes the
weighted average national results from
the LCC and combines them with
shipments forecasts by equipment class
and efficiency level in order to measure
the national impact, in terms of
consumer NPV and full-fuel-cycle
energy savings. As stated previously,
DOE was unable to develop costefficiency curves for DX–DOASes or to
conduct an energy use analysis with
enough degree of certainty that would
allow it to propose a standard level
more stringent than ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (see section III.D.2 of this
document). Without these inputs, DOE
is unable to produce the LCC and NIA
for this NOPR.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE
conducts this comparison in its LCC and
PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a product (including its
installation) and the operating expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as product prices, product energy
consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates appropriate
for consumers. To account for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5573
uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and
discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of
values, with probabilities attached to
each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the
change in annual operating cost for the
year that standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered products in the first year of
compliance with new or amended
standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the
absence of new or amended standards.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI
DOE developed an efficiency
distribution that assumed that one-third
of the products were at each of the three
efficiency levels. 84 FR 48006, 48030.
DOE requested comment on this
approach and input on how to
determine the no-standards case
efficiency distribution given the lack of
publicly available data on equipment
efficiency. DOE also sought historical
shipment weighted efficiency data by
equipment class.
In response, AHRI and Trane both
generally supported the approach DOE
took which assumed that one-third of
the units were at each of the proposed
efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11;
Trane, No. 5, p. 3). AHRI and Trane both
commented that they do not collect
shipments data by efficiency level.
(AHRI, No. 7, p. 11; Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
DOE also lacked data on the
equipment lifetime for DX–DOASes in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
However, DOE had developed lifetimes
for other commercial package air
conditioning equipment in previous
rulemakings,19 therefore the DX–DOAS
lifetime was set to be the same as that
of a 15-ton commercial package air
conditioner. 84 FR 48006, 48031. DOE
also requested comment on DX–DOAS
lifetimes.
In response, AHRI, the CA IOUs, and
Trane all agreed with the approach that
a DX–DOAS lifetime would be similar
to that of a 15-ton commercial package
air conditioner. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11,
19 Direct Final Rule Life-Cycle-Cost Analysis
Spreadsheet is available at: www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0106. (Last
accessed on August 9, 2021)
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5574
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Trane, No. 5, p. 3, CA IOUs, No. 6, p.
7)
A preliminary energy use analysis
was presented in the September 2019
NODA/RFI, and DOE requested
feedback on its calculation approach as
well as data from field studies and
laboratory testing to further inform the
estimation of real-world energy usage
from performance ratings. 84 FR 48006,
48026–48027.
7AC commented that the actual
energy consumption in buildings can be
significantly higher than the tested
ISMRE suggests, primarily at lower
loads where the regular on/off cycling
reduces actual energy load. (7AC, No. 4,
p. 1) DOE understands that 7AC is
referring to cycling start-up losses
which occur when staged compressor
systems turn on and off to meet a
reduced cooling (or heating) demand.
The impact of cycling losses is now
captured in AHRI 920–2020, which DOE
has proposed to incorporate into a new
DOE test procedure for DX–DOASes.
Specifically, the updated test procedure
includes provisions for weighted
averaging when the target conditions
can be bracketed by two stages, as well
as cyclic degradation calculations and a
supplementary cooling penalty when
the lowest stage provides excess
conditioning capacity (which is when
cycling losses would occur). 86 FR
36018, 36032–36033.
7AC also agreed that field data should
be sought to complement the lab data
and correlate ISMRE in the lab with
performance in the field. (7AC, No. 4, p.
1) Additionally, 7AC indicated that
LDHX-based units are being installed
with remote monitoring equipment that
will enable the measurement of total
cooling and total power use, the cost of
which has come down dramatically and
that DOE should seek similar
arrangements with other equipment
providers. (Id.) 7AC did not provide
data correlating tested performance
ratings to performance in field-installed
conditions. AHRI stated that it was
unable to provide data in response to
DOE’s request. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10)
AHRI suggested that DOE consider
addendum ‘‘bi’’ of ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2013, which limits heating supply
air to a maximum of 60 °F when the
majority of a building is expected to
require cooling, in any energy use
estimates. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11)
The elimination of the supplemental
heat penalty in the ISMRE2 metric (see
section IV.B.1 of this document) makes
it so that DX–DOASes are no longer
required to deliver supply air of at least
70 °F in the test procedure. In the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE
discussed that DX–DOASes typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
cool air to, at most, a few degrees above
the 55 °F dew point temperature that is
specified in AHRI 920. 86 FR 36018,
36031. Therefore, DOE expects that the
establishment of ISMRE2 as a regulated
metric for DX–DOASes would not
preclude manufacturers from producing
DX–DOASes which are compliant with
the aforementioned provision in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013.
The energy use analysis presented in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI relied
on the energy use for ventilation and
space cooling from the 2012
Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey 20 (CBECS 2012) to
develop the ASHRAE level unit energy
consumption (UEC) estimates. The
UECs for higher ELs were scaled based
on the ISMRE levels presented in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84 FR
48006, 48026–48027. With an integrated
metric, the power consumption at part
loads is critical to understanding the
energy consumption at various
efficiency levels; however, no part-load
data was available to DOE at the time of
publication in September 2019. DOE
included 30 percent of the space cooling
energy use from CBECS 2012 along with
the ventilation energy use to derive the
UEC. 84 FR 48006, 48027.
Trane agreed with associating
building ventilation cooling with the
DX–DOAS unit but disagreed with
adding 30 percent of the building
annual cooling load to this value
because it may overstate the typical
cooling duty cycle. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
Trane stated that many DX–DOAS
systems are designed to provide no
cooling for the building and requested
that published case studies be cited to
determine the estimated cooling load
percentage handled by the DX–DOAS.
(Id.)
DOE would consider such data in its
energy use analysis should it become
available. However, DOE is not
presenting an energy use analysis in this
NOPR due to insufficient market data,
performance data, and field use data. In
response to Trane, while DX–DOASes
may not be designed to provide space
cooling, there is no variable in CBECS
2012 for dehumidification. DX–DOASes
provide dehumidification by cooling the
ventilation air, therefore DOE included
30 percent of the space cooling energy
use from CBECS 2012 along with the
ventilation energy use to derive the
UEC.
DOE requested field data or
performance data of DX–DOASes in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI and
20 See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
data/2012/index.php?view=microdata (Last
accessed on August 9, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
received no data. In order to develop
UECs that are representative of DX–
DOAS installations across the U.S., DOE
would require data on the equipment
performance at different load
conditions. This data could consist of
manufacturer performance data or field
data for equipment rated using ISMRE2
and ISCOP2, if applicable. As DX–
DOASes would be newly regulated
equipment and ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are
new metrics even within the DX–DOAS
market, there is no energy consumption
data available. In addition, DOE was
unable to develop appropriate efficiency
levels to analyze (see section III.D.2.c of
this document). Given the lack of
available data regarding the
performance of DX–DOASes, DOE is
unable to estimate the UECs.
DOE did not perform an LCC and PBP
analysis for this NOPR. As discussed in
the preceding paragraphs there is not
enough information available to develop
the inputs to the LCC and PBP models.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
the total projected energy savings that
are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III))
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE presented its initial national
energy savings methodology and
estimates for air-cooled DX–DOASes
with and without VERS. 84 FR 48006,
48030–48033. The NES requires inputs
from the energy use analysis. As stated
in section III.D.2.d, DOE was unable to
conduct an energy use analysis.
Therefore, DOE has not conducted or
updated an NES analysis for this NOPR.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing product classes and in
evaluating design options and the
impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential standards that would
not lessen the utility or performance of
the considered products. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) DOE has
tentatively determined that the
standards proposed in this document
would not reduce the utility or
performance of the equipment under
consideration in this rulemaking
because DOE is proposing to adopt
standards of equivalent stringency to
those already found in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result
from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) DOE invites
comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to
result from this proposed rule.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy and water conservation
in determining whether a new or
amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI))
The energy savings from the proposed
standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and
reliability of the Nation’s energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the
Nation’s electricity system.
DOE maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards
are likely to result in environmental
benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated
with energy production and use.
The utility impact analysis, emissions
analysis, and emissions monetization all
rely on the national energy savings
estimates from the NIA. As discussed
previously, DOE did not conduct an
NIA and as a result could not conduct
these downstream analyses.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified, DOE may consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To the extent DOE
identifies any relevant information
regarding economic justification that
does not fit into the other categories
described previously, DOE could
consider such information under ‘‘other
factors.’’
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
A. Overview
As discussed in section III.D of this
NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum
efficiency levels of equivalent
stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP
minimum efficiency levels currently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
The determination of these equivalent
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 efficiency levels is
referred to as a ‘‘crosswalk analysis.’’
AHRI commented that the current
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels reflect
the current DX–DOAS market, however,
that use of ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 is not
ideal and this test procedure was
undergoing revisions at the time. AHRI
stated that harmonizing the Federal
energy conservation standards with
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 energy
efficiency levels would help reduce
compliance and test burdens on
manufacturers; however, the metrics
would change with the revision to AHRI
920. AHRI commented that the changes
may seem drastic between the first and
second edition of a standard, but they
were agreed to by relevant stakeholders.
(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 7–9) Trane
commented that the conditions and
rating calculations were changed in the
update to AHRI 920 so that independent
test labs could easily generate reliable
results for these products, and Trane
prefers that AHRI 920–2020 be the basis
for any new standard levels adopted by
DOE for DX–DOASes. (Trane, No. 5 at
p. 3)
As discussed in section II.B of this
NOPR, in the July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR, DOE proposed a new Federal test
procedure for DX–DOASes that would
incorporate AHRI 920–2020, which is
the most recent version of the test
procedure (AHRI 920) recognized by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for DX–
DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The
proposed test procedure incorporates
AHRI 920–2020 in its entirety, with
certain minor clarifications DOE has
preliminarily determined would be
consistent with the industry test
procedure. 86 FR 36018, 36047. The
updates to AHRI 920 include certain
revised test conditions and weighting
factors for ISMRE and ISCOP, which
were redesignated as ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2, respectively. These revisions
result in the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
metrics that more accurately reflect the
actual energy use for DX–DOASes,
improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test methods, and
also reduce testing burden compared to
ISMRE and ISCOP.
The minimum energy efficiency levels
specified for DX–DOASes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 are not based on
equipment efficiency as measured
pursuant to AHRI 920–2020 (i.e.,
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a result,
should DOE adopt the test procedure as
proposed in the July 2021 TP NOPR, the
efficiency measurements from the
version of the industry test procedure
recognized in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5575
2019 for DX–DOASes (i.e., ISMRE and
ISCOP), would not be comparable to
efficiency measurements under the DOE
test procedure. DOE would generally be
required to adopt the ISMRE and ISCOP
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
as the basis for energy conservation
standards; however, in the case of an
amended test procedure that would alter
the measured energy efficiency or
measured energy use of a covered
ASHRAE equipment, EPCA prescribes
requirements to amend the applicable
energy conservation standard so that
products or equipment that complied
under the prior test procedure remain
compliant under the amended test
procedure. (See generally 42 U.S.C.
6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) While
these provisions are not explicitly
applicable to DX–DOASes in the present
case because DOE currently has no test
procedure or energy conservation
standards for this equipment, DOE
considers them as generally instructive
for conducting the crosswalk analysis.
EPCA provides that in the case of any
amended test procedure, DOE must
determine, in the rulemaking carried out
with respect to prescribing such
procedure, to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency, measured
energy use, or measured water use of the
subject ASHRAE equipment as
determined under the existing test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) If the Secretary
determines that the amended test
procedure will alter the measured
efficiency or measured use, the
Secretary shall amend the applicable
energy conservation standard during the
rulemaking carried out with respect to
such test procedure. In such case, under
the process prescribed in EPCA DOE is
directed to measure, pursuant to the
amended test procedure, the energy
efficiency or energy use of a
representative sample of covered
products that minimally comply with
the existing standard. (See 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) The
average of such energy efficiency or
energy use determined under the
amended test procedure constitutes the
amended energy conservation standard
for the applicable covered products.
(Id.)
As stated, EPCA requires DOE to
adopt uniform national standards for
DX–DOASes at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary
determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a uniform national standard
more stringent than the amended
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5576
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) DOE has preliminarily
determined that, in the present case
given the limited data available,
conducting a crosswalk analysis
generally consistent with the process
prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)
would result in efficiency levels that are
of the same stringency as those in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019.
A crosswalk analysis requires data on
the performance of a representative
sample of DX–DOASes under both test
procedures. In response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, 7AC
offered to provide DOE with a full
performance map of a 10-ton LDHX DX–
DOAS. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) However, as
noted in section III.D.1.a of this NOPR,
DOE understands LDHX technology to
be a proprietary technology and thus
could not consider it as representative
for the crosswalk analysis. Trane
suggested that it could provide
information as confidential business
information. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI
committed to working with DOE to
develop an acceptable crosswalk based
on calculations and test data, if
available. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9) DOE did
not receive any submissions from
stakeholders containing data that would
help DOE conduct the crosswalk
analysis. DOE determined the ISMRE-toISMRE2 crosswalk based on testing
conducted by DOE and Pacific Gas and
Electric. DOE determined the ISCOP-toISCOP2 crosswalk based on a technical
analysis of heat pump performance. The
methodology and results of the
crosswalk analysis are presented in
detail in the Crosswalk Analysis
Support Document (CASD) 21 and are
summarized in the following sections of
this document.
B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test
Procedure Changes
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE requested comment and data on
developing a potential crosswalk from
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–
2016 based on ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 to
efficiency levels based on the revisions
to AHRI 920 (i.e., AHRI 920–2020). 84
FR 48006, 48022. While DOE is
proposing to adopt the test procedure in
AHRI 920–2020 with minor revisions,
these revisions are not expected to have
an impact on DX–DOAS ratings. 86 FR
36018, 36046. As such, the minor
revisions to the procedure in AHRI 920–
2020 proposed by DOE would not
impact the crosswalk or the following
discussion.
DOE received comments from two
stakeholders regarding the test
procedure updates in AHRI 920–2020
which affect the dehumidification
efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9;
CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7) The comments
from stakeholders regarding the
potential impacts of the update from
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 to AHRI 920–
2020 on the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2
crosswalk are presented in Table IV.1.
Although the comments do not provide
quantitative indication of the expected
change in the measurement, they
suggest the direction and general
magnitude of the change in the ISMREto-ISMRE2 crosswalk.
TABLE IV.1—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISMRE-TO-ISMRE2 CROSSWALK
AHRI 920–2020
Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation air and return
air) dry bulb and wet bulb conditions for four
Standard Rating Conditions (SRCs) A, B, C,
and D.
Specifies minimum required external static
pressures (ESPs) for supply air streams as a
function of supply airflow rate.
Revises inlet conditions at SRCs C & D a .......
Decrease in MRE at SRC D for units with
VERS due to less favorable conditions.a
Increases minimum required ESPs for supply
air streams; a establishes minimum required
ESPs for return air streams (for units with
VERS) a b.
Revises weighting coefficients; a b re-labels efficiency metric as ISMRE2 a b.
Decrease in ISMRE2 due to increased fan
power at higher static pressures.b
Specifies weighting coefficients to calculate
ISMRE from the moisture removal efficiencies (MREs) at the four SRCs.
Does not include instructions for achieving the
target supply air conditions for units with
staged capacity control.
Penalizes delivery of supply air below 70 °F
(the ‘‘supplementary heat penalty’’).
Does not require a consistent supply air dew
point temperature across all SRCs.
Does not specify how to calculate MRE for
units with VERS.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Expected impact on dehumidification
efficiency rating
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015
a
b
Provides an interpolation method and a degradation coefficient calculation to determine
efficiency for units with staged capacity
control a.
Eliminates the supplementary heat penalty for
ISMRE2 a b.
Requires that SRCs B–D target the supply air
dew point temperature achieved at SRC A
within a 0.3 °F condition tolerance a.
Includes instructions for calculating the total
moisture removal capacity for units with
VERS; a provides specific equations to
apply the interpolation method and degradation coefficient method to units with
VERS a.
Increase in ISMRE2 due to greater weight on
SRCs A and B.b
Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is
not credited.a
Increase in ISMRE2 due to removal of penalty; b increase in ISMRE2 due to decrease
in discharge head pressure (higher head
pressures are required to increase reheat
capacity, but also increase compressor
power draw).b
Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is
not credited.a
Decrease in ISMRE2 for units with staged capacity because excess dehumidification is
not credited.a
(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9).
(CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7).
21 The CASD is available at www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5577
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Comments from AHRI and the CA
IOUs indicated that the various test
procedure updates may generally lend
to decreases in the dehumidification
efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9;
CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6–7)
2. Technical Analysis
DOE conducted investigative testing
on four DX–DOASes and collaborated
with Pacific Gas and Electric on testing
of a fifth DX–DOAS to measure the
average impact of the test procedure
updates on the dehumidification
efficiency metric.22 A crosswalk
consistent with the process prescribed
at 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would typically
involve testing minimally compliant
units, or in this case, testing units that
had efficiencies at the minimum level
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019. As noted previously, ISMRE
ratings for DX–DOASes are generally
not available to determine which
models may perform at the minimum
ISMRE levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. In its testing DOE
determined that these DX–DOAS units
had efficiencies above the ISMRE
minima specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. In order to account for this,
DOE assessed the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2
crosswalk on the basis of an overall
percent-change in the dehumidification
efficiency metric, which can then be
used to estimate the net impact of the
updates to AHRI 920. The test results
are summarized in Table IV.2.
TABLE IV.2—INVESTIGATIVE TESTING RESULTS
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
5
ASHRAE
Standard 90.1
minimum
ISMRE
Tested
ISMRE
Tested
ISMRE2
Percent
change
Equipment class
MRC at SRC A
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
AC w/o VERS .......................
AC w/o VERS .......................
AC w/o VERS .......................
AC w/ VERS .........................
WSHP w/ VERS ...................
111 lb/h ...................
94 lb/h .....................
72 lb/h .....................
256 lb/h ...................
136 lb/h ...................
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
4.8
5.1
7.6
4.6
6.9
8.6
5.7
6.4
5.2
6.0
6.8
+12%
¥16%
+14%
¥13%
¥21%
Average ............
...............................................
.................................
........................
........................
........................
¥5%
On average, the updates to AHRI 920
have a net impact of reducing the
dehumidification efficiency ratings of
DX–DOASes by five percent. These
results are consistent with the
comments provided by stakeholders
indicating a general decrease in ratings.
The tested units ranged from a
reduction of 21% to an increase of 14%.
The units which were negatively
impacted by the test procedure changes
were those which had the highest
ISMRE ratings compared to the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minima
(samples no. 2, 4, and 5). The units
which had ISMRE ratings closer to the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minima
(samples no. 1 and 3), by contrast,
increased in rating; therefore, DOE
tentatively does not expect DX–DOASes
which are only minimally compliant
with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
ISMRE levels to reduce in rating by
more than five percent based on the
limited test data available indicating
that an increase in rating is possible for
these designs. DOE would consider
additional crosswalk data from DX–
DOAS models which are minimally
compliant with the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 ISMRE levels should such
data become publicly available.
Based on the available data, DOE is
proposing ISMRE2 standards that are
five percent lower than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 ISMRE levels.
DOE’s methodology is described in
further detail in sections 2.2–2.3 of the
CASD, and the resulting ISMRE2 levels
are proposed in Table IV.4 of this
NOPR.
C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk
1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure
Changes
DOE received comments from AHRI
regarding the test procedure updates in
AHRI 920–2020 which affect the heating
efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8–9)
These comments are presented in Table
IV.3. DOE did not receive comments
indicating the actual impacts of each
test procedure update on the heating
efficiency metric.
TABLE IV.3—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISCOP-TO-ISCOP2 CROSSWALK
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015
AHRI 920–2020 & July 2021 test procedure NOPR
Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation air and return air) dry bulb and wet
bulb conditions for two SRCs E and F.
Specifies minimum required external static pressures (ESPs) for supply
air streams as a function of supply airflow rate.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Specifies weighting coefficients to calculate ISCOP from the coefficients of performance (COPs) at the two SRCs.
Implies testing at both SRCs in order to calculate an ISCOP rating .......
Instructs that the target supply air dry bulb temperature must be as
close to 75 °F as possible. Credits delivery of supply air above 75 °F
in determination of total heating capacity.
22 Data from Sample No. 3 was collected as part
of a collaboration between Pacific Gas & Electric
and DOE. Sample point no. 3 is the result of testing
one DX–DOAS with multiple control
configurations, as discussed in section 2.2 of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
Revises inlet conditions at SRCs E & F.
Increases minimum required ESPs for supply air streams; a establishes
minimum required ESPs for return air streams (for units with
VERS).a
Revises weighting coefficients; a re-labels efficiency metric as
ISMRE2.a
Makes SRC F optional to test (with the resulting COPF = 1.0) in order
to calculate an ISCOP2 rating.
Provides an interpolation method to determine efficiency for units with
staged capacity control; specifies that the supply air temperature for
the determination of total heating capacity must be 70–75 °F.a
CASD. These configurations investigated a range of
staging, reheat, and airflow control options
available to manufacturers for testing DX–DOASes
within the allowances of ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 and
AHRI 920–2020. The data shown in Table IV.4 for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Sample point no. 3 are the average results of the
control configurations tested. Data for each
individual configuration is provided in the CASD.
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5578
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.3—TEST PROCEDURE UPDATES IMPACTING ISCOP-TO-ISCOP2 CROSSWALK—Continued
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015
AHRI 920–2020 & July 2021 test procedure NOPR
Specifies multiple inlet water conditions for water-source heat pump
DX–DOASes at each SRC.
Revises inlet water conditions; assigns ‘water-source heat pump’ as
the inlet condition for ISCOP2 ratings.
a (AHRI,
No. 7, pp. 8–9).
DOE considered the updates in AHRI
920–2020 in its calculated performance
of heat pump DX–DOASes. One notable
factor affecting the ratings of heat pump
DX–DOASes is that ANSI/AHRI 920–
2015 did not specify a target supply air
dry bulb temperature range for
determining ratings, whereas AHRI 920–
2020 specifies that ratings must be
based on temperatures between 70 °F
and 75 °F. As a result, heating in excess
of 75 °F was credited in ANSI/AHRI
920–2015 but is no longer considered in
AHRI 920–2020 (the supplementary
heat penalty for delivery of supply air
below 70 °F is maintained in both test
procedures). The impact of this would
be a decrease in rating for units that
have coarse staging of compressor
capacity, which may result in
overshooting the 75 °F limit due to the
inability to unload capacity.
2. Technical Analysis
DOE did not receive data from
commenters regarding ISCOP or ISCOP2
performance ratings. DOE is aware of
only one manufacturer publishing
ISCOP ratings and one other
manufacturer publishing ISCOP2
ratings. Due to insufficient market data
for the ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 crosswalk,
DOE evaluated the performance of
representative heat pump DX–DOAS
designs under both test procedures
using engineering-based analysis to
determine the crosswalk.
DOE calculated results for a two-stage
heat pump system delivering
approximately 15 tons of capacity based
on a design description consistent with
AHRI comments (see section III.D.3.c of
this NOPR) and based on the calculated
results identified that that the test
procedure updates affect each heat
pump equipment class in different
ways. DOE also calculated results for
smaller 3–4 ton heat pump systems with
only one compressor stage. The
assumptions and inputs of this
calculation are provided in detail in
section 3.3 of the CASD. DOE assumed
that air-source heat pumps without
VERS would deactivate heat pump
operation at SRC F and assume a default
COPF of 1.0 for both ISCOP and ISCOP2;
air-source heat pumps with VERS
would also deactivate heat pump
operation at SRC F but would be
capable of running the VERS to provide
some sensible heating capacity for both
ISCOP and ISCOP2. The outputs are
provided in sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the
CASD. In general, DOE observed that
air-source heat pump DX–DOASes
without VERS may reduce in rating
because AHRI 920–2020 does not credit
excess heating above 75 °F. Air-source
heat pump DX–DOASes with VERS may
use VERS-only operation as the lowestcapacity stage to interpolate to a supply
air temperature between 70 °F and 75 °F,
thus avoiding being penalized for excess
heating. As a result, air-source heat
pump DX–DOASes may slightly
increase in rating. DOE observed (in
testing of a water-source heat pump DX–
DOAS, as well as in its calculations)
that water-source heat pump DX–
DOASes generally perform better at SRC
F than at SRC E (under both test
procedures), but the reduction in the
averaging weight for SRC F for ISCOP2
would cause the ISCOP2 value to
decrease for water-source heat pump
DX–DOASes as compared to ISCOP.
Like the air-source heat pump DX–
DOASes, DOE found that water-source
heat pump DX–DOASes without VERS
might be more sensitive to the target
supply air temperature requirements
than water-source heat pump DX–
DOASes with VERS. DOE applied the
average change in rating to the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 ISCOP levels, and the
resulting ISCOP2 levels are provided in
Table IV.4.
D. Crosswalked Standard Levels
DOE crosswalked the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 minimum ISMRE
and ISCOP efficiency levels for DX–
DOASes to determine standards of an
equivalent stringency in terms of the
updated metrics ISMRE2 and ISCOP2.
The results of this analysis are shown in
Table IV.4.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.4—CROSSWALKED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR DX–DOASES
Subcategory
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 level using
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps
with ventilation energy recovery systems.
ISMRE = 4.0 .....................................................
ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ISMRE = 5.2 .....................................................
ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP = 2.7 ..............................
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05.
ISMRE = 5.2, ISCOP = 3.3 ..............................
ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20.
ISMRE = 4.9 .....................................................
ISMRE2 = 4.7.
ISMRE = 5.3 .....................................................
ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP = 3.5 ..............................
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13.
ISMRE = 4.8, ISCOP = 4.8 ..............................
ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Equivalent stringency level using proposed
DOE TP
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the
proposed minimum ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 standards for DX–DOASes, as
well as comment on any aspect of its
crosswalk analysis, which is detailed
in the CASD. DOE continues to seek
information which compares ISMRE
and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 ratings for the DX–DOASes
that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level.
V. Conclusions
A. Proposed Energy Conservation
Standards
EPCA requires DOE to establish an
amended uniform national standard for
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, which includes DX–
DOASes, at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register, and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)). DOE is
proposing to adopt energy conservation
standards for DX–DOASes that are of
equivalent stringency as the minimum
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. As discussed in the
following section, DOE has tentatively
determined it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that adoption of
more stringent standards would result
in additional conservation of energy and
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified.
DOE is proposing standards using the
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics, which are
5579
the metrics used in the most recent
version of the industry test procedure
for DX–DOAS recognized by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 (i.e., AHRI 920–
2020) Based on the crosswalk analysis
presented, DOE preliminarily
determines that the proposed energy
conservation standards in terms of
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are of equivalent
stringency to the standards for DX–
DOAS in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019,
which rely on the ISMRE and ISCOP
metrics.
The proposed standards for DX are
shown in Table V.1 of this NOPR. The
proposed standards, if adopted would
apply to all DX–DOASes with an MRC
of less than 324 lbs moisture/hr
manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on the compliance
date discussed in section VI.C of this
document.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DX–DOASES
Equipment type
Subcategory
Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems.
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with ventilation
energy recovery systems.
B. Consideration of More Stringent
Efficiency Levels
As stated, EPCA requires DOE to
establish an amended uniform national
standard for equipment classes at the
minimum level specified in the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless
DOE determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a uniform national standard
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)). As noted above,
clear and convincing evidence would
exist only where the specific facts and
data made available to DOE regarding a
particular ASHRAE amendment
demonstrate that there is no substantial
doubt that a standard more stringent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
than that contained in the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted
because it would result in a significant
additional amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. Process Rule
section 9(b).
As discussed, DOE has not
established standards or test procedures
for DX–DOASes, and ASHRAE did not
specify standards for such equipment
until 2016. The market for DX–DOASes
is still developing. Efficiency in terms of
ISMRE and ISCOP is generally not
provided by manufacturers and only a
limited number of units are rated in
terms of ISMRE2. DOE is not aware of
any market or performance database for
DX–DOASes. DOE has requested data
that is representative of the market, but
to date has not received any such data.
As discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a.,
III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a., and III.D.3.b of this
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Efficiency level
ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05.
ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20.
ISMRE2 = 4.7.
ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13.
ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04.
NOPR, due to the lack of available
market and performance data, DOE is
unable to conduct the analysis
necessary to evaluate the potential
energy savings or evaluate whether
more stringent standards would be
technologically feasible or economically
justifiable, with sufficient certainty. An
estimation of energy savings potentials
of more stringent energy efficiency
levels would require developing
efficiency data for the entire DX–
DOASes market, which would be a
much broader analysis than that
conducted for the crosswalk. The
crosswalk analysis presented in this
NOPR requires only that DOE translate
the efficiency levels between the metrics
at the baseline levels, and not that DOE
translate all efficiency levels currently
represented in the market. As noted,
there is a lack of market data regarding
the performance of DX–DOASes. As
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5580
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
such, DOE has preliminarily determined
that it lacks clear and convincing
evidence that more stringent standards
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified.
VI. Representations, Certification and
Compliance Requirements
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Representations
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
proposed several provisions for the
determination of represented values for
DX–DOASes, including a definition for
a basic model of DX–DOAS, sampling
plan requirements, considerations for
equipment compatible with multiple
refrigerants, alternative energy
determination methods (AEDMs), and
rounding requirements. 86 FR 36018,
36043–36045.
DOE proposed that a basic model for
a DX–DOAS means all units
manufactured by one manufacturer
within a single equipment class; with
the same or comparably performing
compressor(s), heat exchangers,
ventilation energy recovery system(s) (if
present), and air moving system(s), and
with a common ‘‘nominal’’ moisture
removal capacity. 86 FR 36018, 36044.
This proposed definition of a basic
model of a DX–DOAS would be
included in the regulatory text in 10
CFR 431.92. Id.
Because DX–DOASes and Unitary
DOASes are types of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, DOE proposed to apply the
existing sampling plan requirements for
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment under 10 CFR
429.43, Commercial heating, ventilating,
air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, to
DX–DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36044.
As discussed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR, DOE recognizes that
some commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment
may be sold with more than one
refrigerant option (e.g., R–410A or R–
407C). 86 FR 36018, 36044. Typically,
manufacturers specify a single
refrigerant in their literature for each
unique model, but in its review, DOE
has identified at least one manufacturer
that provides two refrigerant options
under the same model number. The
refrigerant chosen by the customer in
the field installation may impact the
energy efficiency of a unit. For this
reason, DOE proposed representation
requirements specific for models
approved for use with multiple
refrigerants. Id.
Use of a refrigerant that requires
different hardware (such as R–407C as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
compared to R–410A) would represent a
different basic model, and according to
the current CFR, separate
representations of energy efficiency are
required for each basic model. 86 FR
36018, 36044. However, some
refrigerants (such as R–422D and R–
427A) would not require different
hardware, and a manufacturer may
consider them to be the same basic
model, which is not currently
addressed. DOE proposed to add a new
paragraph at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)
specifying that a manufacturer must
determine the represented values for
that basic model based on the
refrigerant(s)—among all refrigerants
listed on the unit’s nameplate—that
result in the lowest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
efficiencies, respectively. Id. These
represented values would apply to the
basic model for all refrigerants specified
by the manufacturer as appropriate for
use, regardless of which one may
actually be used in the field, where only
one set of values is reported. Id.
DOE proposed to allow manufacturers
to use AEDMs for determining ISMRE2
and ISCOP2 ratings consistent with the
existing provisions for commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. 86 FR 36018, 36044. DOE
also proposed to create four validation
classes of DX–DOASes within the
Validation classes table at 10 CFR
429.70(c)(2)(iv): Air-cooled/air-source
and water-cooled/water-source, each
with and without VERS. Id. This
proposal requires testing of two basic
models to validate the AEDMs for each
validation class, with a tolerance of 10
percent when comparing test results
with certified ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
ratings—identical to the requirements
for other categories of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment. 86 FR 36018, 36045.
Finally, DOE proposed to adopt the
performance metric rounding
requirements found in Sections 6.1.2.1
through 6.1.2.8 of AHRI 920–2020 as
part of the DOE test procedure, as
enumerated in section 2.2.1(c)(iv) of the
proposed appendix B. 86 FR 36018,
36045.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing new
provisions regarding DX–DOAS
representations in addition to those
proposed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR. DOE is proposing to
require that the represented value of
MRC be either the mean of the MRCs
measured for the units in the selected
sample (see 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(ii))
rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple
according to Table 3 of AHRI 920–2020
or the MRC output simulated by an
AEDM rounded to the nearest lb/hr
multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
920–2020. This provision seeks to
ensure that the reported MRC is
accurate to test or AEDM results and
that the reported MRC is consistent with
the requirements in AHRI 920–2020.
The proposed definition for ‘‘DX–
DOAS’’ includes a maximum MRC
limitation of 324 lb/hr, hence DOE seeks
to provide clear instructions for the
determination of the MRC in
representations.
Issue-4: DOE seeks feedback on the
proposed representation requirement
regarding MRC.
B. Certification and Enforcement
Provisions
1. Scope
As discussed in section III.A of this
NOPR, DOE is proposing a definition of
DX–DOAS which specifies the
capability to dehumidify outdoor air to
a low dew point and a maximum MRC
limit of 324 lbs moisture per hour
(which is consistent with the 760,000
Btu per hour maximum capacity limit
for other commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment).
Effective upon the compliance date for
standards promulgated for DX–DOASes,
manufacturers would be required to
certify to DOE equipment meeting the
DX–DOAS definition. However, as
noted in section VI.B.3, DOE will
address specific certification
requirements for DX–DOASes in a
different rulemaking prior to the
compliance date for standards
promulgated for DX–DOASes.
2. Equipment Selection and Sampling
Plan
In the July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR, DOE stated by proposing to
define (at 10 CFR 431.92) DX–DOAS as
a subset of Unitary DOAS, and to define
Unitary DOAS as a category of small,
large, or very large commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment,
the proposal would apply the same
sampling requirements to DX–DOASes
as applicable to other commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment under 10 CFR 429.43,
Commercial heating, ventilating, air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 86 FR
36018, 36044. DX–DOAS-specific
requirements are discussed in section
VI.A of this document.
In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
DOE discussed one comment received
on the sampling plan requirements.
Lennox had recommended that DOE
harmonize the certification criteria for
commercial HVAC equipment in 10 CFR
429.43 with those for central air
conditioners, a consumer product, in 10
CFR 429.16.; Lennox stated that
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
commercial equipment currently has a
more stringent confidence limit of 95
percent, but the commenter argued that
current testing technology does not
support this level of precision. 86 FR
36018, 36044. DOE noted that other
manufacturers did not raise concerns
regarding the confidence limit required
for sampling more typical commercial
package air conditioning and heat pump
equipment, and Lennox had not
provided data regarding variability of
units in production and testing;
therefore, absent more specific
information or data regarding the
stringency of the confidence level, DOE
did not propose a change. Id.
As discussed in section VI.A of this
NOPR, DOE is maintaining its previous
proposals regarding equipment selection
and sampling plan requirements.
3. Certification Requirements
Manufacturers, including importers,
must use equipment-specific
certification templates to certify
compliance to DOE. There are currently
no certification or reporting
requirements for DX–DOASes. For
covered equipment, the certification
template reflects the general
certification requirements specified at
10 CFR 429.12 as well as the equipmentspecific requirements. Certification
reports for commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment
must include supplemental test
information. 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4). In
particular, the equipment-specific,
supplemental information must include
any additional testing and testing set up
instructions (e.g., charging instructions)
for the basic model; identification of all
special features that were included in
rating the basic model; and all other
information (e.g., operational codes or
component settings) necessary to
operate the basic model under the
required conditions specified by the
relevant test procedure. (10 CFR
429.43(b)(4)).
DOE is not proposing to establish
certification requirements for DX–
DOASes in this NOPR. Instead, DOE
may consider proposals to establish
certification requirements for DX–
DOASes under a separate rulemaking
regarding appliance and equipment
certification. To help interested parties
better appreciate the proposed
requirements, a draft certification
template will be included in the docket
of the certification rulemaking.
4. Enforcement Provisions
Enforcement provisions for
commercial package air-conditioners
and heat pumps are set forth at 10 CFR
429.110(e)(2). The existing provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
specify reliance on an initial sample
size of not more than four units. 10 CFR
429.110(e)(2). For an ‘‘assessment test,’’
DOE may obtain one or more units for
testing at any time. See 10 CFR 429.104.
For an ‘‘enforcement test,’’ DOE issues
a test notice requiring the manufacturer
to provide units for testing. 10 CFR
429.110(b). DOE uses the results of
assessment testing as one tool when
determining whether to pursue
enforcement testing. See 10 CFR
429.106. DOE may pursue enforcement
testing if it has reason to believe that a
basic model is not in compliance with
applicable standards (10 CFR
429.110(a))—a determination that is
informed but not based solely on
assessment test results. DOE has set
forth different sampling plans for DOE
enforcement testing of covered
equipment and certain low-volume
covered products. Appendix B to
subpart C of part 429. These sampling
plans utilize a test sample of no more
than 4 units for low-volume, built-toorder basic models, which would
include DX–DOASes. These sampling
plans are set forth in appendix B to
subpart C to part 429. DOE proposes
that the enforcement provisions
generally applicable to commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment would be applicable to DX–
DOASes.
In addition, when determining
compliance of any DX–DOAS units
tested for enforcement purposes, DOE
proposes to adopt provisions at 10 CFR
429.134 that specify how DOE would
determine the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 for
DX–DOASes with VERS. Specifically, if
the unit is rated based on testing to
either Option 1 or Option 2,
manufacturers may choose to use VERS
EATR ratings based on AHRI 1060–2018
(or AHRI 1060 performance rating
software) or default EATR values to
calculate MRC and/or total heating
capacity to rate the DX–DOAS. For
Option 2, manufacturers may use VERS
effectiveness and EATR ratings based on
AHRI 1060–2018 or default values to set
the simulated test conditions for rating
the DOAS.
If a manufacturer chooses to use
default VERS performance values, DOE
proposes that it could choose to use
those values, or alternatively test the
VERS according to AHRI 1060–2018 to
obtain those values. If a manufacturer
used AHRI 1060–2018 rated values,23
DOE proposes that it may conduct
enforcement testing to AHRI 1060–2018
(with a zero-degree purge angle). In this
23 AHRI’s certification database for AHRI 1060
ratings certifies product performance calculation
software.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5581
case, DOE would determine the ISMRE2
and/or ISCOP2 using the certified VERS
performance values from AHRI 1060–
2018 if all certified values of sensible
effectiveness are found to be no greater
than 105 percent of the mean of the
measured values (for Option 2), all
values of latent effectiveness are found
to be no greater than 107 percent of the
mean of the measured values (for
Option 2), and EATR is found to be no
more than one percentage point less
than the mean of the measured values
(for Options 1 and 2). Otherwise, DOE
would use the mean of the measured
values to determine ISMRE2 and/or
ISCOP2.
DOE is proposing these tolerances on
the certified values based on tolerances
specified in AHRI 1060–2018. DOE
believes these tolerances are also
appropriate for DOE’s enforcement
testing program as they represent typical
variability for this equipment.
In addition, DOE proposes that if a
manufacturer is relying on AHRIcertified product performance
calculation software for VERS as part of
its representation of DX–DOAS
efficiency, a manufacturer would be
required to retain all data underlying
those AHRI-certified results as part of its
underlying test data for DOE
certification testing as specified in 10
CFR 429.71(a)–(c).
Issue–5: DOE requests comment on its
proposed DX–DOAS-specific
enforcement provisions, and in
particular, the appropriateness of the
proposed tolerances on certified
values.
C. Compliance Dates
When establishing energy
conservation standards at the same level
as in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA
requires DOE to establish such
standards no later than 18 months
following the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
update. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If
DOE prescribes energy conservation
standards at the efficiency levels
contained in an amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, EPCA states that
compliance with any such standards
shall be required on or after a date
which is two or three years (depending
on equipment size) after the compliance
date of the applicable minimum energy
efficiency requirement in the amended
ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)) With respect to small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, the initial
compliance date must be a date on or
after a date which is two years after the
effective date of the applicable
minimum energy efficiency requirement
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5582
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) With respect
to large and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, the initial compliance date
must be a date on or after a date which
is three years after the effective date of
the applicable minimum energy
efficiency requirement in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)(ii))
If DOE were to prescribe standards
more stringent than the efficiency levels
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019, EPCA dictates that any such
standard will become effective for
equipment manufactured on or after a
date which is four years after the date
of publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D))
Moreover, there currently is not a
DOE test procedure for DX–DOASes,
and DOE has proposed a test procedure
that relies on the metrics ISCOP2 and
ISMRE2 in the July 2021 Test Procedure
NOPR. 86 FR 36018. Were DOE to adopt
the proposed test procedure, beginning
360 days following the final test
procedure rule, manufacturers would be
prohibited from making representations
respecting the energy consumption of
DX–DOASes, unless such equipment
has been tested in accordance with such
test procedure and such representation
fairly discloses the results of such
testing. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
adopt energy conservation standards for
DX–DOASes that are equivalent to those
contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016. Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016 established equipment classes for
DX–DOASes that do not distinguish
units based on the small, large, or very
large categories, DOE has tentatively
decided to assign a single compliance
date regardless of equipment size and
apply the three-year lead time.
As previously noted, when
establishing energy conservation
standards at the same level as in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
establish such standards no later than
18 months following the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 update, and
manufacturers must comply with such
standards 2 to 3 years after the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 update, depending on the
size of the equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I) & (a)(6)(D)) In order
to provide DX–DOAS manufacturers
with a reasonable lead-time to comply
with the proposed standards, DOE
proposes that manufacturers would be
required to comply with the new
standards for DX–DOASes 18 months
following the publication date of a final
rule establishing these standards. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
proposed compliance date is consistent
with the lead-time following DOE’s
establishment of standards at ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels 18 months after the
ASHRAE update and manufacturers’
compliance with said standards 3 years
after the ASHRAE update (i.e., 18
months following publication of a final
rule) that is provided for under EPCA.
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order
(‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning
and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4,
1993), requires each agency to identify
the problem that it intends to address,
including, where applicable, the failures
of private markets or public institutions
that warrant new agency action, as well
as to assess the significance of that
problem. The problems that the
proposed standards set forth in this
NOPR are intended to address are as
follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the
high costs of gathering and analyzing
relevant information leads some
consumers to miss opportunities to
make cost-effective investments in
energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases, the benefits of
more-efficient equipment are not
realized due to misaligned incentives
between purchasers and users. An
example of such a case is when the
equipment purchase decision is made
by a building contractor or building
owner who does not pay the energy
costs.
(3) There are external benefits
resulting from improved energy
efficiency of appliances and equipment
that are not captured by the users of
such products. These benefits include
externalities related to public health,
environmental protection, and national
energy security that are not reflected in
energy prices, such as reduced
emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases that impact human
health and global warming.
This regulatory action was
determined not to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a regulatory
impact analysis for this proposed rule,
and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the
Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) has not reviewed this
proposed rule.
DOE has also reviewed this proposed
regulation pursuant to E.O. 13563,
issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms
the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in E.O. 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, agencies are required
by E.O. 13563 to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify); (2)
tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that E.O.
13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits
and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, OIRA has emphasized that
such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this NOPR is
consistent with these principles,
including the requirement that, to the
extent permitted by law, benefits justify
costs and that net benefits are
maximized.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel). DOE has
prepared the following IRFA for the
products that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of dehumidifying
direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air
systems (DX–DOASes), the SBA has set
a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’
for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. DOE used the SBA’s
small business size standards to
determine whether any small entities
would be subject to the requirements of
the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size
standards are listed by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and industry description and are
available at www.sba.gov/document/
support--table-size-standards. The
equipment covered by this proposed
rule are classified under North
American Industry Classification
System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered
as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by
Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment. These products
include DX–DOASes, the subject of this
proposed rulemaking. EPCA requires
DOE to consider amending the existing
Federal energy conservation standard
for certain types of listed commercial
and industrial equipment (generally,
commercial water heaters, commercial
packaged boilers, commercial airconditioning and heating equipment,
and packaged terminal air conditioners
and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect
to such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of
equipment, EPCA directs that if
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,
DOE must adopt amended energy
conservation standards at the new
efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, unless clear and convincing
evidence supports a determination that
adoption of a more stringent efficiency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
level as a national standard would
produce significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) This is referred to as
‘‘the ASHRAE trigger.’’
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
In addition to the ASHRAE trigger for
energy conservation standards, EPCA
also requires that the test procedures for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment—of which DX–
DOASes are a type—be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures or
rating procedures developed or
recognized by the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) or by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test
procedure is amended, the Secretary
shall amend the test procedure for the
product as necessary to be consistent
with the amended industry test
procedure or rating procedure unless
the Secretary determines, by rule,
published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that to do so would not meet
the statutory requirements for test
procedures regarding representativeness
and burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
The industry test procedure
referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019 (the latest version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1) for DX–DOASes is ANSI/
AHRI Standard 920–2015, ‘‘Performance
Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air
System Units’’ (ANSI/AHRI 920–2015).
ANSI/AHRI 920–2015 underwent major
updates which resulted in a new version
of the test procedure released in
February 2020: AHRI 920–2020. Due to
these test procedure updates, the
minimum energy efficiency levels
specified for DX–DOASes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 (which uses the
metrics ISMRE and ISCOP) are not
based on equipment efficiency as
measured pursuant to the latest version
of the industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 920–2020 (which uses
the metrics ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a
result, should DOE adopt the test
procedure as proposed in the July 2021
TP NOPR, the efficiency measurements
from the version of the industry test
procedure recognized in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 for DX–DOASes
(i.e., ISMRE and ISCOP), would not be
comparable to efficiency measurements
under the DOE test procedure. DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5583
would generally be required to adopt
the ISMRE and ISCOP levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 as the
basis for energy conservation standards;
however, in the case of an amended test
procedure that would alter the
measured energy efficiency or measured
energy use of a covered ASHRAE
equipment, EPCA prescribes
requirements to amend the applicable
energy conservation standard so that
products or equipment that complied
under the prior test procedure remain
compliant under the amended test
procedure. (See generally 42 U.S.C.
6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C))
As such, in this proposed rule, DOE
is proposing to adopt minimum
efficiency levels using the new metrics
established in AHRI 920–2020 at
equivalent stringency to those levels
currently published in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (which are in terms of the
metrics established in ANSI/AHRI 920–
2015). DOE has done so by determining
a ‘‘crosswalk,’’ or, an equivalent
translation, of the metrics.
DOE conducted a crosswalk informed
by the crosswalk procedure established
in EPCA and required for amended test
procedures that result in changes to the
measured energy efficiency or energy
use as compared to the existing DOE test
procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(e); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) This EPCA
crosswalk provision is not applicable in
the present case as there is not an
existing DOE test procedure for DX–
DOASes; however, DOE found it to be
instructive for determining standards
using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics
that are of equivalent stringency as the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019. The crosswalk approach
relied on by DOE in this NOPR used an
average difference in measured energy
efficiency between ANSI/AHRI 920–
2015 (which relies on ISMRE and
ISCOP) and AHRI 920–2020 (which
relies on ISMRE2 and ISCOP2).
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of small, large, and
very large air-conditioning and heating
equipment (including DX–DOASes),
commercial warm-air furnaces, and
commercial water heaters, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) has set a
size threshold which defines those
entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’.
DOE used the SBA’s small business size
standards to determine whether any
small entities would be subject to the
requirements of this rule. See 13 CFR
part 121. The equipment covered by this
rule are classified under North
American Industry Classification
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5584
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
System (NAICS) code 333415,24 ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered
as a small business for this category.
In reviewing the DX–DOAS market,
DOE used company websites, marketing
research tools, product catalogues, and
other public information to identify
companies that manufacture DX–
DOASes. DOE identified 12 original
equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of
DX–DOASes affected by this
rulemaking. DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the
definition of ‘‘small business’’ or are
foreign-owned and operated. DOE used
subscription-based business information
tools to determine headcount, revenue,
and geographic presence of the small
businesses. Out of these 12 OEMs, DOE
determined that there is one domestic
small manufacturer. DOE understands
the annual revenue of the small
manufacturer to be approximately $66
million.
Issue–6: DOE requests comment and
information on the number of small,
domestic OEMs of the DX–DOASes.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different
Groups of Small Entities
The proposed standards for DX–
DOASes were determined by a
crosswalk of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 efficiency levels to new
efficiency metrics defined in AHRI 920–
2020. As noted in Section 2 of the
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the crosswalk was based on the
average difference in efficiency under
the amended test procedure. While DOE
expects it to be unlikely, some models
currently on the market that are
minimally compliant with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 may not meet the
crosswalked levels, since some units
will fall above the average and some
units will fall below the average. At this
time, identification of such models is
not possible due lack of data, as
manufacturers do not publish sufficient
model performance information.
The proposed adoption of the
crosswalked ASHRAE level may require
small manufacturers to redesign a
portion of equipment offerings.
However, adopting more stringent
standards above the cross-walked
24 The business size standards are listed by
NAICS code and industry description and are
available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards (Last Accessed July 29th, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
ASHRAE levels would lead to higher
costs to manufacturers. Therefore, DOE
determined that the proposed efficiency
level provides the least cost option for
small manufacturers.
Issue–7: DOE requests comment on the
potential number of basic models that
small, domestic OEMs would need to
redesign and the costs associated with
the redesign process. Further, DOE
request comments on its conclusion
that adopting levels other than
ASHRAE would lead to higher costs
for small manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule being
considered in this action.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt
the ASHRAE levels or to propose higher
standards, DOE is limited in options to
mitigate impacts to small businesses. In
this proposed rulemaking, DOE is
adopting the ASHRAE levels (crosswalked to metrics adopted in the DX–
DOAS test procedure), which is the least
cost option to industry.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, manufacturers subject to
DOE’s energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals for exception relief under
certain circumstances. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910–1400,
Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances,
is currently valid and assigned to the
certification reporting requirements
applicable to covered equipment,
including DX–DOASes.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE’s certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of
covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States.
Manufacturers of all covered products
and covered equipment must submit a
certification report before a basic model
is distributed in commerce, annually
thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase
the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that
the certified rating is no longer
supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when
production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part
of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires
the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to
establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification
testing, and of any other testing
conducted to satisfy the requirements of
part 429, part 430, and/or part 431.
Certification reports provide DOE and
consumers with comprehensive, up-to
date efficiency information and support
effective enforcement.
Certification data will be required for
DX–DOASes; however, DOE is not
proposing certification or reporting
requirements for DX–DOASes in this
NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for DX–
DOASes under a separate rulemaking
regarding appliance and equipment
certification. DOE will address changes
to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at
that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed
regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for rulemakings
that establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the
exceptions identified in categorical
exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before
issuing the final rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
rule and has tentatively determined that
it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment
that is the subject of this proposed rule.
States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (See
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C.
6297) Therefore, no further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O.
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments, and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4,
section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely
to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5585
This proposed rule does not contain
a Federal intergovernmental mandate,
nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year by the private sector. In
this document, DOE is proposing to
adopt energy conservation standards at
an equivalent stringency level as the
existing industry standards in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019. The determination
of the proposed energy conservation
standards is based on a crosswalk of the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 minimum
efficiency levels to updated efficiency
metrics, and thus DOE does not expect
that units which are minimally
compliant with ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019 would require redesign. As a
result, the analytical requirements of
UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ‘‘significant energy
action’’ is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that (1) is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or
any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
this regulatory action, which proposes
new energy conservation standards for
DX–DOASes, is not a significant energy
action because this action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, the proposed
standards are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5586
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
been designated as such by the
Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
J. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (January 14,
2005). The Bulletin establishes that
certain scientific information shall be
peer reviewed by qualified specialists
before it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.25
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed
analytical process continues to reflect
current practice, and the Department
followed that process for developing
energy conservation standards in the
case of the present rulemaking.
K. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
25 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed
August 6, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed energy conservation
standards for DX–DOASes would
incorporate the following commercial
standards: AHRI 920–2020 and AHRI
1060–2018. DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review).
DOE will consult with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to
prescribing a final rule.
L. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the following
industry standards:
(1) The test standard published by
AHRI, titled ‘‘2020 Standard for
Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated
Outdoor Air System Units,’’ AHRI
Standard 920–2020 (I–P). AHRI
Standard 920–2020 (I–P) is an industryaccepted test procedure for measuring
the performance of dehumidifying
direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air
system units (DX–DOASes). AHRI
Standard 920–2020 (I–P) is available on
AHRI’s website at: www.ahrinet.org/
App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/
AHRI/AHRI_Standard_920_I-P_
2020.pdf.
(2) The test standard published by
AHRI, titled ‘‘2018 Standard for
Performance Rating of Air-to-Air
Exchangers for Energy Recovery
Ventilation Equipment,’’ ANSI/AHRI
Standard 1060–2018. ANSI/AHRI
Standard 1060–2018 is an industryaccepted test procedure for measuring
the performance of air-to-air exchangers
for energy recovery ventilation
equipment (VERS). ANSI/AHRI
Standard 1060–2018 is available on
AHRI’s website at: www.ahrinet.org/
App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/
AHRI/AHRI_Standard_1060_I-P_
2018.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar
meeting is listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this proposed rule,
or who is representative of a group or
class of persons that has an interest in
these issues, may request an
opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such
persons may submit to
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
that briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
Persons requesting to speak should
briefly describe the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and provide
a telephone number for contact. DOE
requests persons selected to make an
oral presentation to submit an advance
copy of their statements at least two
weeks before the webinar. At its
discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of
their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary,
requests to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar and may also use
a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will
be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
procedures governing the conduct of the
webinar. There shall not be discussion
of proprietary information, costs or
prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the webinar and
until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further
comments on the proceedings and any
aspect of the proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present summaries of comments
received before the webinar, allow time
for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be
included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this NOPR.
In addition, any person may buy a copy
of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public webinar,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5587
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format.
Provide documents that are not secured,
that are written in English, and that are
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
5588
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
E. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/DOE%20Final%20
Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20
Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed
this NOPR under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue–1: DOE requests comment on the
proposed eight equipment classes for
energy conservation standards of DX–
DOASes.
Issue–2: DOE continues to seek
information that may inform a market
and technology assessment for the
DX–DOAS industry, including data
on technology options which may
increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
efficiencies of DX–DOASes.
Issue–3: DOE requests comment on the
proposed minimum ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 standards for DX–DOASes, as
well as comment on any aspect of its
crosswalk analysis, which is detailed
in the CASD. DOE continues to seek
information which compares ISMRE
and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 ratings for the DX–DOASes
that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level.
Issue–4: DOE seeks feedback on the
proposed representation requirement
regarding MRC.
Issue–5: DOE requests comment on its
proposed DX–DOAS-specific
enforcement provisions, and in
particular, the appropriateness of the
proposed tolerances on certified
values.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
Issue–6: DOE requests comment and
information on the number of small,
domestic OEMs of the DX–DOASes.
Issue–7: DOE requests comment on the
potential number of basic models that
small, domestic OEMs would need to
redesign and the costs associated with
the redesign process. Further, DOE
request comments on its conclusion
that adopting levels other than
ASHRAE would lead to higher costs
for small manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
IX. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comment.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on January 19, 2022,
by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 20,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 429.4 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) and the
introductory text to paragraph (c);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as
(4); and
■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and
(3).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in
this section, DOE must publish a
document in the Federal Register and
the material must be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Sixth
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
appliance-and-equipment-standardsprogram, and may be obtained from the
other sources in this section. Also, this
material is available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@
nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to:
www.ahrinet.org.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) AHRI Standard 920–2020 (I–P),
(‘‘AHRI 920–2020’’), ‘‘2020 Standard for
Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated
Outdoor Air System Units,’’ approved
February 4, 2020, IBR approved for
§ 429.134.
(3) AHRI Standard 1060–2018,
(‘‘AHRI 1060–2018’’), ‘‘2018 Standard
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
for Performance Rating of Air-to-Air
Exchangers for Energy Recovery
Ventilation Equipment,’’ approved
2018, (AHRI 1060–2018), IBR approved
for § 429.134.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 429.43 by reserving
paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph
(a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating,
air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) Product-specific provisions for
determination of represented values for
dehumidifying direct-expansion
dedicated outdoor air systems. (i) When
certifying, the following provisions
apply.
(A) For ratings based on tested
samples, the represented value of
moisture removal capacity shall be the
mean of the moisture removal capacities
measured for the units in the sample
selected, as described in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section, rounded to the
nearest lb/hr multiple according to
Table 3 of AHRI 920–2020 (incorporated
by reference; see § 429.4).
(B) For ratings based on an AEDM, the
represented value of moisture removal
capacity shall be the moisture removal
capacity output simulated by the
AEDM, as described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section, rounded to the nearest
lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of
AHRI 920–2020.
(ii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding
paragraph (s) to read as follows:
§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Dehumidifying direct-expansion
dedicated outdoor air systems (DX–
DOASes) with ventilation energy
recovery systems (VERS). (1) If the
manufacturer certified testing in
accordance with Option 1 using default
VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR)
values or Option 2 using default VERS
effectiveness and EATR values, DOE
may determine the integrated seasonal
moisture removal efficiency 2 (ISMRE2)
and/or the integrated seasonal
coefficient of performance 2 (ISCOP2)
using the default values or by
conducting testing to determine VERS
performance according to AHRI 1060–
2018 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 429.4) (with the minimum purge angle
and zero pressure differential between
supply and return air).
(2) If the manufacturer certified
testing in accordance with Option 1
using VERS exhaust air transfer ratio
(EATR) values or Option 2 using VERS
effectiveness and EATR values
determined using an analysis tool
certified in accordance with AHRI
1060–2018, DOE may conduct its own
testing to determine VERS performance
in accordance with AHRI 1060–2018.
(i) DOE would use the values of VERS
performance certified to DOE (i.e.
EATR, sensible effectiveness, and latent
effectiveness) as the basis for
determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
of the basic model only if, for Option 1,
the certified EATR is found to be no
more than one percentage point less
than the mean of the measured values
(i.e. the difference between the
measured EATR and the certified EATR
5589
is no more than 0.01), or for Option 2,
all certified values of sensible
effectiveness are found to be no greater
than 105 percent of the mean of the
measured values (i.e. the certified
effectiveness divided by the measured
effectiveness is no greater than 1.05), all
certified values of latent effectiveness
are found to be no greater than 107
percent of the mean of the measured
values, and the certified EATR is found
to be no more than one percentage point
less than the mean of the measured
values.
(ii) If any of the conditions in
paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this section do not
hold true, then the mean of the
measured values will be used as the
basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/
or ISCOP2 of the basic model.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
5. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
6. Amend § 431.97 by adding
paragraph (g) and Table 14 to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and
their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Each dehumidifying directexpansion dedicated outdoor air system
manufactured on or after the
compliance date listed in this table must
meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
this section.
TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFYING DIRECT-EXPANSION DEDICATED
OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS
Equipment type
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
Subcategory
Efficiency level
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat
pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps
without ventilation energy recovery
systems.
ISMRE2 = 3.8 .......
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Compliance date: Equipment
manufactured starting on . . .
ISMRE2 = 3.8 .......
ISCOP2 = 2.05 .....
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
ISMRE2 = 5.0 .......
ISCOP2 = 3.20 .....
[date 18 months after the publication
of a standards final rule].
ISMRE2 = 4.7 .......
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
[date 18 months after
of a standards final
ISMRE2 = 5.0 .......
ISMRE2 = 5.1 .......
ISMRE2 = 3.8 .......
ISCOP2 = 2.13 .....
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
the publication
rule].
the publication
rule].
the publication
rule].
the publication
rule].
the publication
rule].
the publication
rule].
5590
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DEHUMIDIFYING DIRECT-EXPANSION DEDICATED
OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS—Continued
Equipment type
Subcategory
Efficiency level
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat
pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.
ISMRE2 = 4.6 .......
ISCOP2 = 4.04 .....
Compliance date: Equipment
manufactured starting on . . .
[date 18 months after the publication
of a standards final rule].
[FR Doc. 2022–01375 Filed 1–31–22; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:45 Jan 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\01FEP2.SGM
01FEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5560-5590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01375]
[[Page 5559]]
Vol. 87
Tuesday,
No. 21
February 1, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 5560]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017]
RIN 1904-AD92
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to
establish new energy conservation standards for dehumidifying direct-
expansion dedicated outdoor air systems (DX-DOASes) that are of
equivalent stringency as the minimum levels specified in the amended
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 90.1 ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1'') when
tested pursuant to the most recent applicable industry standard for
this equipment. DOE has preliminarily determined that it lacks clear
and convincing evidence to adopt standards more stringent than the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE also announces a public
meeting via webinar to receive comment on these proposed standards and
associated analyses and results.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Monday, February
28, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VIII, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than April 4, 2022.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before March 3, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VIII of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VIII for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy following the instructions at www.reginfo.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public webinar,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into part 429:
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
Standard 920-2020 (I-P), ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units,'' approved
February 4, 2020.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AHRI Standard 1060-
2018, ``2018 Standard for Performance Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers
for Energy Recovery Ventilation Equipment,'' approved 2018.
Copies of AHRI Standard 920-2020 (I-P), and ANSI/AHRI Standard
1060-2018 can be obtained from the Air-conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA
22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at: www.ahrinet.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section VII.L of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
2. Update to the Industry Metric
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for DX-DOASes
[[Page 5561]]
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure
D. Considerations for Energy Conservation Standards
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
2. Significant Additional Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
A. Overview
B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test Procedure Changes
2. Technical Analysis
C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk
1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure Changes
2. Technical Analysis
D. Crosswalked Standard Levels
V. Conclusions
A. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
B. Consideration of More Stringent Efficiency Levels
VI. Representations, Certification and Compliance Requirements
A. Representations
B. Certification and Enforcement Provisions
1. Scope
2. Equipment Selection and Sampling Plan
3. Certification Requirements
4. Enforcement Provisions
C. Compliance Dates
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
J. Information Quality
K. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
L. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (EPCA),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment
includes dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems
(DX-DOASes), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requires DOE to amend the existing Federal energy conservation
standard for certain types of listed commercial and industrial
equipment (generally, commercial water heaters, commercial packaged
boilers, commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment, and
packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation
standards at the updated efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that
adoption of a more stringent efficiency level as a national standard
would produce significant additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
If DOE adopts as a uniform national standard the efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended
industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines
that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory
criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later
than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
ASHRAE officially released the 2016 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016) on October 26, 2016, which for the first
time created separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes with
corresponding standards, thereby triggering DOE's above referenced
obligations pursuant to EPCA to either: (1) Establish uniform national
standards for DX-DOASes at the minimum levels specified in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1; or (2) adopt more stringent standards based on
clear and convincing evidence that adoption of such standards would
produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically
feasible and economically justified. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 set
minimum efficiency levels using the integrated seasonal moisture
removal efficiency (ISMRE) metric for all DOAS classes and the
integrated seasonal coefficient of performance (ISCOP) metric for air-
source heat pump and water-source heat pump DOAS classes. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 specifies that both metrics are measured in
accordance with Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) Standard 920-2015, ``Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor
Air System Units'' (AHRI 920-2015).\3\ Subsequently, AHRI took to
revise AHRI 920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AHRI 920-2015 additionally references ASHRAE Standard 198-
2013, ``Method of Test for Rating DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
for Moisture Removal Capacity and Moisture Removal Efficiency''
(ASHRAE Standard 198-2013), as the method of test for DX-DOAS units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2019, ASHRAE officially released the 2019 edition of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019). ASHRAE Standard 90.1
did not update the energy efficiency levels for DX-DOASes established
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. On February 4, 2020 AHRI officially
released the 2020 edition of AHRI 920 (AHRI 920-2020), which addresses
a number of issues with the prior test procedure and provides an
updated ISMRE metric (i.e., ISMRE2) and an updated ISCOP metric (i.e.,
ISCOP2).
In accordance with the EPCA provisions discussed, DOE proposes new
energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes. The proposed standards,
which are expressed in terms of ISMRE2 for all DX-DOAS classes in
dehumidification mode, and ISCOP2 for heat pump DX-DOAS classes in
heating mode, are shown in Table I.1. DOE has tentatively determined
that the proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of ISMRE2 and
[[Page 5562]]
ISCOP2, are of equivalent stringency as the standards in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 (and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019), which are expressed
in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. DOE proposes that the standards, if
adopted, would apply to all DX-DOASes listed in Table I.1 manufactured
in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 18 months
following the effective date of a final rule adopting such standards.
Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifying direct-expansion (AC)--Air-cooled ISMRE2 = 3.8.
dedicated outdoor air systems. without
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air- ISMRE2 = 5.0.
cooled with
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source ISMRE2 = 3.8,
heat pumps ISCOP2 = 2.05.
without
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air- ISMRE2 = 5.0,
source heat pumps ISCOP2 = 3.20.
with ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled ISMRE2 = 4.7.
without
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water- ISMRE2 = 5.1.
cooled with
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WSHP)--Water- ISMRE2 = 3.8,
source heat pumps ISCOP2 = 2.13.
without
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)-- ISMRE2 = 4.6,
Water-source heat ISCOP2 = 4.04.
pumps with
ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that, based on the information
presented and its analyses, there is not clear and convincing evidence
that more stringent efficiency levels for this equipment would result
in a significant additional amount of energy savings, is
technologically feasible and economically justified. Clear and
convincing evidence would exist only where the specific facts and data
made available to DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment
demonstrates that there is no substantial doubt that a standard more
stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment is
permitted because it would result in a significant additional amount of
energy savings, is technologically feasible and economically justified.
DOE normally performs multiple in-depth analyses to determine whether
there is clear and convincing evidence to support more stringent energy
conservation standards (i.e., whether more stringent standards would
produce significant additional conservation of energy and be
technologically feasible and economically justified). However, as
discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a., III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a., and
III.D.3.b of this NOPR, due to the lack of available market and
performance data, DOE is unable to conduct the analysis necessary to
evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate whether more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible or economically
justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As such, DOE is not proposing
standards at levels more stringent than those specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016 (and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for DX-
DOASes.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Small, large, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and
test procedures. As discussed in the following section, this includes
Unitary DOASes and, more specifically, dehumidifying Unitary DOASes,
which are the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Additionally, DOE is to consider amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE
amends the standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1, and at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(C))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test
procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine
whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated
under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C.
[[Page 5563]]
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively ``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type of listed
equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE must
adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption
of a more stringent level would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In making a
determination of economic justification, DOE must consider, to the
maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an amended
standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not
prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or decreases the
energy efficiency of a covered product; and (3) DOE may not prescribe
any standard that interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the unavailability in
the United States of any product type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability, features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes) that are substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)))
Unitary DOASes (and DX-DOASes) had not previously been addressed in
DOE rulemakings and are not currently subject to Federal test
procedures or energy conservation standards.
B. Background
EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water
source (not including ground water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR
431.92) Industry standards generally describe unitary central air
conditioning equipment as one or more factory-made assemblies that
normally include an evaporator or cooling coil and a compressor and
condenser combination. Units equipped to also perform a heating
function are included as well.\5\ Unitary DOASes provide conditioning
of outdoor ventilation air using a refrigeration cycle (which normally
consists of a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and
evaporator),\6\ and therefore, DOE has initially concluded that Unitary
DOASes are a category of commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment subject to EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPCA further classifies ``commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment'' into categories based on
cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, and very large categories).
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Small commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated below
135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10
CFR 431.92) ``Large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' means equipment rated: (i) At or above 135,000 Btu per
hour; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Very large commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated: (i)
At or above 240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu per
hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92) DOE
generally refers to these broad classifications as ``equipment
types.''
\5\ See American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.''
\6\ Other types of dedicated outdoor air systems are available
that do not utilize direct expansion (e.g., units that use chilled
water, rather than refrigerant, as the heat transfer medium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a functional perspective, Unitary DOASes operate similarly to
other categories of commercial package air conditioning and heat pump
equipment, in that they provide conditioning using a refrigeration
cycle. Unitary DOASes provide ventilation and conditioning of 100-
percent outdoor air to the conditioned space, whereas for typical
commercial package air conditioners that are central air conditioners,
outdoor air makes up only a small portion of the total airflow (usually
less than 50 percent). Unitary DOASes are typically installed in
addition to a local, primary cooling or heating system (e.g.,
commercial unitary air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow system,
chilled water system, water-source heat pumps)--the Unitary DOAS
conditions the outdoor ventilation air, while the primary system
provides cooling or heating to balance building shell and interior
loads and solar heat gain.
An industry consensus test standard has been established for a
subset of Unitary DOASes, dehumidifying Unitary DOASes (DX-DOASes). On
July 7, 2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing definitions, a new Federal
test procedure, energy efficiency metrics, and representation
requirements for DX-DOASes \7\ (the ``July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR'').
86 FR 36018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE refers to Unitary
DOASes and DX-DOASes as DX-DOASes and DDX-DOASes, respectively. DOE
has recently published a supplemental test procedure NOPR, in which
DOE proposes to use the Unitary DOAS and DX-DOAS terminology. This
NOPR uses the Unitary DOAS and DX-DOAS terminology, which is
consistent with the supplemental test procedure NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
As first established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019 specifies 14 separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes and
sets minimum efficiency levels using
[[Page 5564]]
the integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency (ISMRE) metric for
all DX-DOAS classes and also the integrated seasonal coefficient of
performance (ISCOP) metric for air-source heat pump and water-source
heat pump DX-DOAS classes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies that
both metrics are to be measured in accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard
920-2015, ``Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air System
Units'' (ANSI/AHRI 920-2015). ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 specifies the method
for testing DX-DOASes, in part, through a reference to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 198-2013, ``Method of Test for Rating DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems for Moisture Removal Capacity and Moisture Removal Efficiency''
(ANSI/ASHRAE 198-2013). The energy efficiency standards specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are based on ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 and ANSI/ASHRAE
198-2013, and these standards are shown in Table II.1.
Table II.1--ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency
Equipment class levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled: Without energy recovery............. 4.0 ISMRE.
Air-cooled: With energy recovery................ 5.2 ISMRE.
Air-source heat pumps: Without energy recovery.. 4.0 ISMRE, 2.7 ISCOP.
Air-source heat pumps: With energy recovery..... 5.2 ISMRE, 3.3 ISCOP.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, 4.9 ISMRE.
without energy recovery.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser water, 5.3 ISMRE.
with energy recovery.
Water-cooled: Chilled water, without energy 6.0 ISMRE.
recovery.
Water-cooled: Chilled water, with energy 6.6 ISMRE.
recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed 4.8 ISMRE, 2.0 ISCOP.
loop, without energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-source, closed 5.2 ISMRE, 3.8 ISCOP.
loop, with energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, 5.0 ISMRE, 3.2 ISCOP.
without energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Ground-water source, 5.8 ISMRE, 4.0 ISCOP.
with energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, without 4.0 ISMRE, 3.5 ISCOP.
energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, with 4.8 ISMRE, 4.8 ISCOP.
energy recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Update to the Industry Metric
As discussed in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, AHRI revised
AHRI 920 and published an updated version on February 4, 2020, AHRI
Standard 920-2020 (I-P), ``Performance Rating of Direct Expansion
Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units'' (AHRI 920-2020). 86 FR 36018,
36026. The updates to AHRI 920 include certain revised test conditions
and weighting factors for ISMRE and ISCOP, which were redesignated as
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, respectively. These revisions result in the ISMRE2
and ISCOP2 metrics that more accurately reflect the actual energy use
for DX-DOASes, improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the
test methods, and also reduce testing burden compared to ISMRE and
ISCOP. For example, the revised weighting factors reflect the number of
hours per year for each test condition, and the revised test conditions
are based on weather data from Typical Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2) \8\
provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 86 FR 36018,
36029. A detailed discussion of the summary of the AHRI 920 updates is
provide in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR 36018, 36026-36027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ TMY stands for ``typical meteorological year'' and is a
widely used type of data available through the National Solar
Radiation Database. TMYs contain one year of hourly data that best
represents median weather conditions over a multiyear period. The
datasets have been updated occasionally, thus TMY, TMY2, and TMY3
data are available. See nsrdb.nrel.gov/about/tmy.html (last accessed
April 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR proposes to add a new appendix B
to subpart F of part 431, titled ``Uniform test method for measuring
the energy consumption of dehumidifying direct expansion-dedicated
outdoor air systems,'' that would include the new test procedure
requirements for DX-DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The proposed appendix B
test procedure for DX-DOASes incorporates by reference AHRI Standard
920-2020, the most recent version of the test procedure recognized by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for DX-DOASes, and the relevant industry standards
referenced therein. Id.
The amendments adopted in AHRI 920-2020 result in changes to the
measured efficiency metrics as compared to the results under ANSI/AHRI
920-2015, which as noted above, is the test procedure used to measure
DX-DOAS efficiency levels in Standard 90.1-2016 and 90.1-2019. In the
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR DOE noted that it will address any
potential differences in the measured energy efficiency under the most
recent industry test procedure as compared to the industry test
procedure on which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels are based at such
time as DOE evaluates the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for DX-DOASes
(i.e., by developing an appropriate ``crosswalk'', as necessary). 86 FR
36018, 36027.
Accordingly, because the measured energy efficiency metrics in the
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR are different from those used by the
ASHRAE 90.1-2019, DOE has developed a crosswalk analysis for these
proposed standards, which translates the existing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 ISMRE and ISCOP standards to the new metrics proposed in the July
2021 Test Procedure NOPR. The crosswalk analysis is discussed in detail
in section IV of this document.
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for DX-DOASes
On September 11, 2019--prior to the publication of AHRI 920-2020
and the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR proposing to incorporate by
reference the updated AHRI 920-2020--DOE published an analysis of new
industry standards for DX-DOASes in a notice of data availability and
request for information (the September 2019 NODA/RFI).\9\ 84 FR 48006.
The September 2019 NODA/RFI solicited information from the public to
help DOE determine whether new standards for DX-DOASes at levels more
stringent than specified in ASHRAE Standards 90.1 would result in
significant energy savings and whether such standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. The September 2019
NODA/RFI also presented incremental efficiency levels for air-
[[Page 5565]]
cooled DX-DOASes (based on the ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 metrics, ISMRE and
ISCOP) and annual unit energy consumption estimates for these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI also requested comment and data
regarding standards for computer room air conditioners, which are
being addressed in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received five comments relevant to DX-DOASes in response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI from the interested parties listed in Table
II.2.
Table II.2--September 2019 NODA/RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 AC Technologies............... 7AC............... Manufacturer.
Air-conditioning, Heating, & AHRI.............. Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Ingersoll Rand Trane............ Trane............. Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., CA IOUs........... Utilities.
San Diego Gas and Electric Co.,
Southern California Edison.
Pano Koutrouvelis............... DU................ Individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes. (Docket No. EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0017, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Timing of ASHRAE Test Procedures and Appendix A
Section 8(d) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (``appendix
A'') establishes a general principal that new test procedures and
amended test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency
should be finalized prior to the close of the comment period for a NOPR
proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE also noted,
however, that a one-size-fits-all requirement to finalize new or
amended test procedures a set number of days before issuing a proposed
standard does not allow DOE to account for the particular circumstances
of a rulemaking and may result in unnecessary delays. 86 FR 70920. In
this instance, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (i.e., the standard which triggered DOE
to establish uniform national standards for DX-DOASes) was published
over six years ago, however EPCA requires DOE to establish such
standards no later than 18 months following the publication of ASHRAE
90.1-2016. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) DOE is proposing energy
conservation standards for DX-DOASes before the current test procedure
rule is finalized to accelerate DOE's efforts to meet its EPCA
obligation to establish energy conservation standards. In addition, DOE
notes that DOE has proposed in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR to
incorporate by reference AHRI 920-2020, which was published roughly two
years ago. Given DOE's obligation to adopt the relevant industry test
procedure unless DOE determines, supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that it does not produce results which reflect energy use
during a representative average use cycle or is unduly burdensome to
conduct (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2-4)), stakeholders would have had a
reasonable level of confidence of the test procedure DOE would use as
the basis of the proposed efficiency levels, and finalization of the
test procedure rulemaking is unlikely to affect that understanding.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage
As discussed in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, the inclusion of
energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for DX-DOASes
\11\ triggered DOE to consider energy conservation standards for this
type of equipment. 84 FR 48006, 48010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI used the term ``DOAS''. See
generally 84 FR 48006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, Unitary DOASes
meet the EPCA definition for ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment,'' and, thus, are to be considered as a category of
that covered equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)), and the upper capacity
limit of commercial package air conditioning subject to the DOE test
procedures is 760,000 Btu per hour, based on the definition of ``very
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.'' (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) 86 FR 36018, 36023-36024. In response to the
September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI commented that it supported a maximum
capacity for regulated products that is equivalent to 760,000 Btu per
hour at Standard Rating Condition A in AHRI 920. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9) In
the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR DOE noted that for DX-DOASes, AHRI
920-2020 does not provide a method for determining capacity in terms of
Btu per hour, but instead, it specifies a determination of capacity in
terms of moisture removal capacity (MRC). 86 FR 36018, 36024. DOE is
proposing to translate the upper capacity for coverage of commercial
package air conditioning and heating units established in EPCA (i.e.,
760,000 Btu per hour) from Btu per hour to MRC for DX-DOASes. Id. The
equivalent upper capacity limit proposed for DX-DOASes is 324 lbs
moisture/hr at Standard Rating Condition A in AHRI 920. Id.
In this NOPR DOE proposes that the proposed energy conservation
standards would apply to DX-DOASes with an MRC less than or equal to
324 lbs moisture/hr. This scope of coverage would be consistent with
the definitions of ``Unitary DOAS'' and ``DX-DOAS'' proposed in the
July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR:
(1) ``Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system, or Unitary
DOAS, means a category of small, large, or very large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment which is capable of
providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air or
marketed in materials (including but not limited to, specification
sheets, insert sheets, and online materials) as having such
capability'' and
(2) ``Dehumidifying direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air
system, or DX-DOAS, means a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air
system that is capable of dehumidifying air to a 55 [deg]F dew
point--when operating under Standard Rating Condition A as specified
in Table 4 or Table 5 of AHRI 920-2020 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.95) with a barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg--for any
part of the range of airflow rates advertised in manufacturer
materials, and has a moisture removal capacity of less than 324 lb/
h.''
86 FR 36018, 36057.
[[Page 5566]]
The CA IOUs requested that DOE clarify whether split-system DX-
DOASes (with remote condenser units) are included within the scope of
coverage, stating that AHRI 920 applies to both ``single package'' and
``remote condenser'' DX-DOASes. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 4) DOE is proposing
to include split-system DX-DOASes within the scope of coverage,
consistent with the scope of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 minimum
efficiency levels \12\ for DX-DOASes and AHRI 920-2020. Just as split
systems are included in the scope of other categories of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (e.g., computer room air
conditioners, variable-refrigerant flow multi-split systems) DOE is
proposing to include them in the scope for DX-DOASes. (See, for
example, the definitions of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner'' and
``Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner'' at 10 CFR
431.92.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Tables 6.8.1-13 and 6.8.1-14 of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
indicates that it provides minimum efficiency levels for
``Electrically Operated DX-DOAS Units, Single-Package and Remote
Condenser.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 created 14 separate equipment classes for
DX-DOASes. EPCA generally requires DOE to establish energy conservation
standards for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment
at the minimum efficiencies set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (See 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) DOE is proposing to establish eight DX-DOAS
equipment classes that correspond to eight of the 14 classes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1--this proposal, including the omission of the remaining
six classes, is discussed in the following paragraphs.
14 separate equipment classes (indicated as ``equipment types'' and
``subcategories'') were created by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and
maintained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (see Table II.1). These are
differentiated by condensing type (air-cooled, air-source heat pump,
water-cooled, and water-source heat pump). ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does
not delineate classes for DX-DOASes based on capacity. AHSRAE Standard
90.1 does separate classes into those with ventilation energy recovery
systems (VERS)--often referred to as simply ``energy recovery''--and
those without VERS. The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR proposed to
include a definition for VERS at 10 CFR 431.92 that reads,
``Ventilation energy recovery system, or VERS, means a system that pre-
conditions outdoor ventilation air entering the equipment through
direct or indirect thermal and/or moisture exchange with the exhaust
air, which is defined as the building air being exhausted to the
outside from the equipment.'' 86 FR 36018, 36057.
The ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements for water-cooled condensing
units are divided into two application conditions: Cooling tower
condenser water and chilled water. The requirements for water-source
heat pump units are divided into three application conditions: Ground-
source closed loop, ground-water-source, and water-source. However,
these application rating conditions are labeled as ``subcategories'' in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moreover, as discussed more below, AHRI 920-
2020, the update to the industry test procedure upon which the DX-DOAS
efficiency ratings in Standard 90.1 are based, but which has not yet
been incorporated into Standard 90.1, identifies some of these
application rating conditions as optional for purposes of the test
procedure.
The EPCA definition for ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' does not include ground-water-source equipment (see
42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)), therefore DOE is not considering the ground-
water-source application condition for its regulated equipment classes.
In response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, the CA IOUs commented in
support of the exclusion of ground-water-source equipment from the
regulated equipment classes. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 4)
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE requested comment on the
approach of evaluating water-cooled DX-DOASes as a single category
(with classes still disaggregated by those models with and without
VERS) using the specified cooling tower condenser water entering
temperature conditions, and evaluating water-source heat pump DX-DOASes
as a single category (with classes still disaggregated by those models
with and without VERS) using only the specified water-source inlet
fluid temperature conditions. 84 FR 48006, 48021-48022. As part of its
analysis for the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE considered whether to
evaluate separately the two water-cooled DOAS classes or whether the
water-cooled cooling tower condenser water classes and the water-cooled
chilled water classes should be grouped together and represented as
water-cooled DOASes (with classes still disaggregated by those models
with energy recovery and those models without energy recovery). DOE
also considered whether to evaluate separately the two remaining water-
source heat pump classes or whether the water-source heat pump ground-
source closed loop classes and the water-source heat pump water-source
classes should be grouped together and represented as water-source heat
pump DOASes (with classes still disaggregated by those models with
energy recovery and those models without energy recovery). 84 FR 48021.
Based on DOE's review of equipment specifications of water-cooled
and water-source heat pump DOASes and comments on the concurrent test
procedure evaluation, DOE determined that most water-cooled DOASes use
the same equipment for different applications and that water-source
heat pump DOASes use the same equipment design for different
applications. DOE stated that it is not aware of water-cooled DOAS
units that are exclusively designed for use with cooling tower or
chilled water. Likewise, DOE stated that it is not aware of water-
source heat pump DOAS units that are exclusively designed for use with
water-source or ground-source closed-loop applications. It is also
DOE's understanding that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels are
different across comparable classes within the water-cooled condensing
type (e.g., comparing energy recovery classes to energy recovery
classes) and across comparable classes within the water-source
condensing type because of the different test/application conditions,
as opposed to equipment design differences. For example, when testing a
DOAS to obtain a water-cooled chilled water DOAS rating, a colder
condenser water entering temperature is used than when testing it to
obtain a water-cooled cooling tower DOAS rating, reflecting the
typically cooler temperature of chilled water loops in commercial
buildings, as compared with cooling tower water loops. Id.
As a result, in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE combined the
water-cooled cooling tower condenser water classes and the water-cooled
chilled water classes and evaluated water-cooled DOASes as a single set
of classes (with classes disaggregated by those models with energy
recovery and those models without energy recovery) that is subject to a
single set of operating conditions. DOE also combined the water-source
heat pump ground-source closed loop classes and the water-source heat
pump water-source classes and
[[Page 5567]]
evaluated the water-source heat pump DOASes as a single set of classes
(with classes still disaggregated by those models with energy recovery
and those models without energy recovery) that is subject to a single
set of operating conditions. AHRI, the CA IOUs, and Trane commented in
support of this proposed approach. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9; CA IOUs, No. 6,
p. 4; Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 920-2020
still provides separate inlet fluid rating conditions for the different
water-cooled and water-source heat pump DX-DOAS applications but
identifies the chilled water conditions and ground-source closed loop
conditions as optional application rating conditions. 86 FR 36018,
36033. On this topic, AHRI commented that in almost all cases, a single
design is used for water-cooled equipment used with cooling tower water
and chilled water, and, similarly, a single design is used for all of
the water-source applications, adding that for each of these cases, a
single set of water conditions can be used for testing. Id. Section
2.2.1(c)(i) of the proposed appendix B test procedure specifies the use
of the ``Condenser Water Entering Temperature, Cooling Tower Water''
conditions for rating water-cooled DX-DOASes and the ``Water-Source
Heat Pumps'' conditions for rating water-source heat pump DX-DOASes. 86
FR 36018, 36060. DOE stated in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR that
it would consider establishing standards and the corresponding
certification requirements in the context of these inlet fluid
temperature conditions. 86 FR 36018, 36033.
Based on its review and feedback from stakeholders, DOE has
determined that separate equipment classes for each one of these
subcategories in the proposed standards is not necessary, and that the
8 proposed equipment classes are most representative of DX-DOAS
equipment and rating applications in the field. DOE understands that
the water-cooled equipment ``subcategories'' in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 are meant to represent different application requirements for the
same equipment, and thus DOE's proposed equipment class structure does
not split water-cooled equipment into cooling tower water and chilled
water subcategories. As proposed, all water-cooled equipment would be
rated to the cooling tower water conditions, and standards would be
established for water-cooled DX-DOASes with and without VERS.
Similarly, the equipment class structure DOE is proposing does not
split water-source heat pump equipment into the three subcategories in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Because of the statutory exclusion of
ground-water-source equipment and because ground-source closed loop
conditions are optional to test to in AHRI 920-2020, all water-source
heat pump equipment would be rated to the water-source heat pump water
conditions, and standards would be established for water-source heat
pump DX-DOASes with and without VERS. This approach is consistent with
other commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. For
example, water-source heat pumps include application test conditions
for water-loop, ground-water, and ground-loop heat pumps, but DOE only
requires that equipment be rated using the water-loop conditions (see
Table 3 to 10 CFR 431.97). This approach avoids testing under multiple
application conditions for a single equipment design. In addition, even
if tested at different application conditions because the DOAS
equipment uses a single design, it is expected that the relative
ranking of equipment efficiency would be the same.
7AC commented that DX-DOASes with liquid desiccant heat exchangers
(LDHXs) and variable-speed compressors may achieve high ISMRE
efficiencies and recommended the addition of a new category with a
minimum ISMRE of 7 that covers packaged units with and without exhaust
air. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) DOE understands that liquid-to-air transfer
membranes can improve dehumidification efficiency when coupled with
standard air conditioners. This technology uses porous membranes with
liquid desiccants to absorb water vapor from the supply air stream. In
its review of LDHX DX-DOASes, DOE has initially determined that this
equipment would be covered under the definition of ``relief-air-cooled
DX-DOAS'' in Section 3.6.2 of AHRI 920-2020 (which is incorporated into
section 2.2.1(a) of the proposed appendix B test procedure) due to the
way in which building return air is typically used to regenerate the
liquid desiccant and cool the condenser in the refrigeration cycle.
This definition specifically classifies relief-air-cooled units under
the air-cooled equipment category. Furthermore, DX-DOASes with exhaust
air streams are generally also included within the air-cooled equipment
category demarcated in AHRI 920-2020, thus DOE is not proposing to
create a separate equipment class for LDHX DX-DOASes or DX-DOASes with
exhaust air.
DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for eight DX-DOASes
equipment classes, consistent with the classes provided in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 as discussed above and shown in Table III.1.
Table III.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed equipment class in
Equipment class in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Federal Energy Conservation
Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled: Without energy recovery.... (AC)--Air-cooled without
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Air-cooled: With energy recovery....... (AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Air-source heat pumps: Without energy (ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps
recovery. without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Air-source heat pumps: With energy (ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat
recovery. pumps with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser (WC)--Water-cooled without
water, without energy recovery. ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Water-cooled: Cooling tower condenser (WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with
water, with energy recovery. ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, (WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps
without energy recovery. without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Water-source heat pumps: Water-source, (WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source
with energy recovery. heat pumps with ventilation
energy recovery systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5568]]
Issue-1: DOE requests comment on the proposed eight equipment classes
for energy conservation standards of DX-DOASes.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE does not currently have test procedures or energy conservation
standards established for DX-DOASes. In response to the September 2019
NODA/RFI, AHRI indicated that it strongly agreed with DOE's tentative
conclusion that DOE's existing test procedures are not appropriate for
DX-DOAS units. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 7)
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 references ANSI/AHRI 920-2015, which
relies on the metrics of ISMRE and ISCOP, and the standards for DX-
DOASes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP.
ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 was superseded with the publication of AHRI 920-
2020, which relies on the updated metric ISMRE2 and ISCOP2.
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR proposes a new Federal test
procedure for DX-DOASes that would incorporate AHRI 920-2020, which is
the most recent version of the test procedure recognized by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for DX-DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The proposed test
procedure incorporates AHRI 920-2020 in its entirety, with certain
minor clarifications DOE has preliminarily determined would be
consistent with the industry test procedure. 86 FR 36018, 36047. AHRI
920-2020 specifies Standard Rating Conditions (i.e., controlled
operating conditions) with instructions for instrumentation, test set-
up, tolerances, method of test, and calculations of capacity and
efficiency. The proposed DOE test procedure would establish ISMRE2 as
the dehumidification efficiency metric for all DX-DOASes and ISCOP2 as
the heating efficiency metric for heat pump DX-DOASes. 86 FR 36018,
36027-36029. DOE is proposing to define ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 consistent
with AHRI 920-2020. Id.
AHRI commented that, among other things, the current version of
AHRI 920 transitions the efficiency metrics for DX-DOASes from ISMRE
and ISCOP to ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. AHRI stated that two major differences
between ISMRE and ISMRE2 are: With the new metric, DX-DOASes will no
longer be required to reheat conditioned air to space-neutral
conditions (70-75 [deg]F supply air), and excess dehumidification
beyond the design supply air dew point is no longer credited at part-
load conditions. AHRI commented that the heating metric changes are
similar: The heating coefficient of performance is now determined at
the staging that most closely provides a supply air temperature within
the allowable range. AHRI also noted that two new application rating
metrics were added in AHRI 920-2020: ISMRE270 and
COPDOAS,x. Additionally, AHRI commented that new provisions
have been included in AHRI 920-2020 for the testing and performance
calculations of DX-DOASes with VERS. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 8-9)
The CA IOUs raised the concern that a dehumidification efficiency
metric may not be appropriate for DX-DOASes based on an analysis
showing that, on a national shipment-weighted basis, the outdoor air
dew point is above 55 [deg]F \13\ only 36.7 percent of the time;
therefore, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE consider adjustments to the
DX-DOAS test procedure that contribute to a standard that reflects
sensible cooling and/or fan-only ventilation conditions. The CA IOUs
did not dispute that the primary use-case of a DX-DOAS system is to
cool and dehumidify outdoor air, however they claim not all
installation locations will have dehumidification requirements as
aggressive as the tested conditions required for an ISMRE rating. (CA
IOUs, No. 6, p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ AHRI 920-2020 requires that DX-DOASes dehumidify outdoor
ventilation air to a maximum dew point of 55 [deg]F as a
representative set point for dehumidified building supply air.
Therefore, if the outdoor air dew point temperature is below 55
[deg]F, there would typically not be any dehumidification load on
the DX-DOAS, and the remaining cooling load would be for sensible
cooling only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE addressed this subject in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR
(see 86 FR 36027). In particular, DOE received comments from AHRI
stating that DX-DOASes are installed with separate complementary
sensible-cooling-only systems that provide cooling to address the
interior loads, and that adding sensible cooling to the metric for DX-
DOAS would skew efficiency values toward the non-primary function of
the DX-DOAS. This focus of DX-DOAS performance on dehumidification
loads supports DOE's proposal to adopt the ISMRE2 dehumidification
efficiency metric in AHRI 920-2020. 86 FR 36018, 36027. Nevertheless,
the sensible cooling provided by a DX-DOAS unit may be valuable in many
applications because it reduces the cooling that must be provided by
interior cooling systems, especially at high outdoor temperatures. DOE
may consider in a future rulemaking whether the efficiency metric
should be revised to include sensible cooling; however, EPCA prescribes
that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment must be those generally accepted industry testing
procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by industry as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., AHRI 920 for DX-DOASes). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A))
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR discusses major updates to the
AHRI 920 test procedure, as well as the efficiency metrics, in depth.
86 FR 36018, 36025-36045. DOE is addressing comments regarding specific
aspects of the proposed test procedure in the concurrent test procedure
rulemaking.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish energy conservation
standards for DX-DOASes in terms of ISMRE2 and ISCOP2.
D. Considerations for Energy Conservation Standards
In this proposed rulemaking to establish energy conservation
standards for DX-DOASes, DOE is proposing to adopt ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
minimum efficiency levels of equivalent stringency to the ISMRE and
ISCOP minimum efficiency levels currently published in ASHRAE Standard
90.1.
As discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA requires DOE to
amend the existing Federal energy conservation standard for covered
equipment each time ASHRAE amends \14\ Standard 90.1 with respect to
such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this
manner, DOE must adopt the minimum level specified in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and
convincing evidence to support a determination that a more stringent
standard level would produce significant additional conservation of
energy and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such a determination, it must
publish a final rule to establish the more stringent standards. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) DOE
[[Page 5569]]
states in Section 9(b) of Appendix A to subpart C of part 430 that
clear and convincing evidence would exist only where the specific facts
and data made available to DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment
demonstrate that there is no substantial doubt that a standard more
stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment is
permitted because it would result in a significant additional amount of
energy savings, is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term
``amended'' in the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 would trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding
interpretation has been that the statutory trigger is an amendment
to the standard applicable to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard
90.1 that increases the energy efficiency level for that equipment.
See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE normally performs multiple in-depth analyses to determine
whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support more
stringent energy conservation standards (i.e., whether more stringent
standards would produce significant additional conservation of energy
and be technologically feasible and economically justified). Table
III.2 shows the statutory requirements and DOE's corresponding
analytical approach, including DOE's approach to the seven-factor
analysis for determining whether a standard is economically justified.
Table III.2--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility............... Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and Consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Markups for Product
Compared to Increased Cost for the Price Determination.
Product.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance. Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Manufacturer Impact
Competition. Analysis.
6. Need for National Energy and Shipments Analysis.
Water Conservation.
National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Employment Impact
Considers Relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments from DU regarding the EPCA seven-factor test
and the analytical framework for establishing energy conservation
standards. DU commented that the sixth factor for economic
justification, ``need for national energy and water conservation,'' is
too broad and should specify a goal for savings by the year the amended
standards go into effect. DU also requested clarification on whether
the analytical methods used to determine national energy savings are
limited to a cross-sectional analysis and if so, the rationale behind
eliminating the time series. (DU, No. 3, p. 1) DOE notes that the seven
factors in EPCA were specified by Congress. Regarding the national
energy savings (NES), DOE notes that it is not a cross-sectional
analysis. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, a 30-year time series of
shipments was used to calculate the NES for DX-DOASes.
As previously described, DOE normally conducts the analysis
depicted in Table III.2 to determine whether clear and convincing
evidence supports more stringent energy conservation standards. In this
instance, however, DOE has tentatively determined that a lack of data
precludes such an analysis and therefore precludes a finding of clear
and convincing evidence. DOE provided a technical support document
(TSD) \15\ with the September 2019 NODA/RFI to present initial findings
for certain of these analyses for DX-DOASes. Chapter 4 of the September
2019 NODA/RFI TSD discusses DOE's detailed methodology for estimating
national energy savings. When DOE conducts a national energy savings
analysis, it calculates the cumulative energy savings over the analysis
period by summing the annual energy savings for each year in the
analysis period, thereby considering the long-term impacts--as opposed
to a limited cross-section of time. However, as described in the
following subsections, DOE does not have sufficient data to revise and
expand upon these analyses presented in the TSD at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD is available as Document
No. 2 at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
To evaluate whether more stringent standards than those in the
updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would be technologically feasible, DOE
generally first conducts a market and technology assessment to survey
all current technology options in products on the market and prototype
designs that could improve the efficiency of the subject equipment. DOE
then conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all
current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically
[[Page 5570]]
feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-
available products or in working prototypes to be technologically
feasible. See generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A, sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. See
generally 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5).
DOE is not aware of an existing database or compilation containing
a comprehensive list of DX-DOAS models and performance metrics. As
noted, DX-DOASes are not currently subject to Federal energy
conservation standards, and so manufacturers of DOASes are not required
to certify or report to DOE the energy efficiency of such equipment.
The AHRI Directory does not currently list DX-DOAS equipment
performance ratings. Similarly, DOE was not able to find ISMRE or ISCOP
ratings in much of the manufacturer equipment specifications. It is
unclear to what extent the market has responded to the industry
standards initially specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.
Also as discussed, in the edition of AHRI 920 immediately following
the edition in which an industry testing standard was established for
DOAS, AHRI adopted updated metrics for DX-DOASes (i.e., ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2). Similarly, DOE was not able to find ISMRE2 or ISCOP2 ratings
in much of the manufacturer equipment specifications. Because this test
procedure was fairly recently published, it is not clear to what extent
the test data has been developed based on the updated industry testing
standard (i.e., AHRI 920-2020), although DOE expects that this test
procedure represents the industry consensus for testing DX-DOASes.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE analyzed two incremental
efficiency levels (ELs) above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 minimum ISMRE
efficiency levels for air-cooled DX-DOASes (with and without VERS)
based on technology options that are expected to be available for DX-
DOASes. 84 FR 48006, 48026. The ELs were also based, in part, on an
initial assessment of EER data for commercial unitary air conditioners
due to the lack of market data using the AHRI 920 performance metrics.
84 FR 48006, 48026. DOE tentatively determined based on manufacturer
feedback that the baseline design would likely include staged
compressors, and that the design change from the baseline efficiency
level (the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 minimum) to EL 1 would involve changing
from staged compressor operation to variable-capacity digital scroll
compressors. The design changes from EL 1 to EL 2 include increasing
the condenser heat exchanger size and fin density, increasing the total
condenser fans horsepower, and reducing the capacity of the compressors
needed. Due to the similarity in designs, DOE considered that the same
technology options and resulting increase in efficiency from the
analysis for DX-DOASes without VERS would be applied for DX-DOASes with
VERS. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that the analysis should take into account
all equipment classes of DX-DOAS because, while air-cooled DX-DOASes
may comprise the vast majority of DX-DOAS shipments, there are other
equipment classes with the potential for energy savings. (CA IOUs, No.
6, p. 6) The CA IOUs also disagreed with the efficiency level
distribution and asked DOE to develop a more sophisticated efficiency
analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7) AHRI also disagreed with DOE's
incremental efficiency levels because they were derived from a single
manufacturer's equipment at a single capacity size. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 8)
The CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for new
DX-DOAS standards and apply the experience curve methodology DOE
recommended in 2011 \16\, including both price decline to-date and a
forecast of continued price decline, in order to avoid overestimating
the true costs of efficiency improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 7-8)
AHRI provided confidential business data containing limited estimations
of the ISMRE ranges for DX-DOASes by cooling capacity (in Btu/hr) and
disaggregated by VERS (without distinguishing between the 8 DX-DOAS
equipment classes), as noted in AHRI's public comment. (AHRI, No. 7, p.
10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability
discussing the experience curve methodology. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that the efficiency levels for air-cooled DX-
DOASes presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI may not be
representative of the DX-DOAS market because they were derived from a
very limited amount of publicly available data, and additionally, these
efficiency levels are no longer in terms of the metrics DOE is
proposing to regulate. In this NOPR, DOE has tentatively determined
that this type of engineering analysis cannot be completed due to the
lack of available market and performance data. A lack of performance
data using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics impedes DOE's ability to
correlate efficiency levels to DX-DOAS design options, and AHRI's data
did not provide further details for this aspect of the analysis. As a
result, the development of cost-efficiency curves is not possible at
this time.
AHRI commented that the efficiency benefits of employing variable-
capacity digital scroll compressors were overestimated in the September
2019 NODA/RFI analysis, and that this technology option is implemented
primarily for control purposes. AHRI stated that while a digital scroll
compressor provides capacity control, it does not provide an efficiency
increase over three- or four-step compressor control, and, furthermore,
a digital scroll compressor would provide a modest improvement over a
single- or two-step DX-DOASes based on the equipment cycling. AHRI also
asserted that DX-DOASes with single- or two-step staging do not provide
the necessary control consumers require, and so they are rarely
purchased. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) Trane also commented that the benefits
of digital scroll compressors are more closely correlated to staging
control than efficiency. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
Both AHRI and Trane commented that there is considerable variation
in the technology options that may be utilized at the baseline
efficiency level. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10; Trane, No. 5, p. 3) However,
AHRI generalized that small equipment (below 10 tons) utilize two-stage
or digital compressors, without inverter control, with small heat
exchangers; and above 10 tons, equipment typically utilizes four-stage
or digital compressors, without inverter control, with larger heat
exchangers. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) AHRI stated that for the purposes of
the technology analysis, industry would support the first step to
improving energy efficiency being the addition of inverter control, and
the second step being including a larger condenser with more surface
area. (Id). Additionally, the CA IOUs provided that DX-DOAS heat
exchangers tend to be larger than those in typical commercial unitary
air conditioners. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7)
DOE appreciates these comments on technology options and has
incorporated this feedback into aspects of the crosswalk analysis. DOE
included
[[Page 5571]]
DX-DOASes with two stages of capacity and digital scroll compressors in
its ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk analysis. Additionally, the technology
options referenced by AHRI were used in DOE's analytical modeling of
baseline heat pump DX-DOASes to evaluate the impact of the test
procedure changes for the heating efficiency metric. DOE has initially
determined that the proposed ISCOP2 standards for heat pump DX-DOASes
are technologically feasible because DOE performed the ISCOP-to-ISCOP2
crosswalk based on the baseline technology options recommended by
stakeholders--i.e., staged scroll compressors, no inverter control, and
representative baseline heat exchangers for DX-DOASes. This is
discussed in section IV.C.2 of this NOPR.
As discussed in section III.B of this NOPR, 7AC indicated that
combining a variable-speed compressor with an economically-sized LDHX
can result in an ISMRE of 7.5 without VERS and an ISMRE of 8.5 with
VERS. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) Because DOE could not identify any other
manufacturers of DX-DOASes which employ LDHXs in commercially-
distributed equipment, and DOE expects that this technology option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a particular efficiency level. For this reason, DOE did not
consider LDHX technology in its analysis of whether more stringent
standards would be technologically feasible or as part of the crosswalk
analysis.
Issue-2: DOE continues to seek information that may inform a market and
technology assessment for the DX-DOAS industry, including data on
technology options which may increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
efficiencies of DX-DOASes.
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When evaluating more stringent standards, DOE typically must
determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such
product. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE typically determines the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency using the design parameters for the most efficient equipment
available on the market or in working prototypes.
Prior to the publication of AHRI 920-2020, the September 2019 NODA/
RFI DOE estimated that the max-tech efficiency for air-cooled DX-DOASes
without VERS was an ISMRE of 6.0, whereas for air-cooled DX-DOASes with
VERS the max-tech efficiency was an ISMRE of 7.2. 84 FR 48006, 48026.
In response, the CA IOUs provided data that showed the range of
manufacturer-published ISMRE ratings reached a maximum of 8.9 ISMRE for
air-cooled DX-DOASes without VERS and 10.8 ISMRE for air-cooled DX-
DOASes with VERS. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7)
As discussed, DOE has proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI
920-2020 in its test procedure, which relies on different metrics than
what were presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI and what were
provided by commenters. As discussed further in section IV.B.1 of this
NOPR, the DX-DOAS designs that are likely to yield the highest ISMRE
and ISCOP efficiencies under the ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 test procedure are
not likely to yield the highest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 efficiencies under
AHRI 920-2020 (and the proposed DOE test procedure) due to significant
differences in the test procedures, and therefore DOE cannot rely on
ISMRE/ISCOP efficiency ratings alone (i.e., without knowledge of the
specific design options utilized) to identify max-tech efficiencies
using the proposed test procedure.
Due to the lack of data in terms of AHRI 920-2020 efficiency
metrics, DOE is currently unable to identify the most efficient
equipment available on the market in terms of the proposed metrics. As
such, DOE is unable to estimate the field-installed energy use and cost
of the most efficient equipment (in terms of the proposed metrics)
available on the market (factoring in parameters such as price markups,
installation application, life-cycle cost and payback period, and
overall shipments). Hence, DOE was unable to evaluate the technological
feasibility of standards more stringent than the levels in the updated
ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
2. Significant Additional Conservation of Energy
The ``significant additional conservation of energy'' language in
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) indicates that Congress intended for DOE to
ensure that, in addition to the savings from the ASHRAE standards,
DOE's standards would yield additional energy savings that are
significant. In DOE's view, this statutory provision shares the
requirement with the statutory provision applicable to covered products
and non-ASHRAE equipment that ``significant conservation of energy''
must be present (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))--and supported with ``clear
and convincing evidence''--to permit DOE to set a more stringent
requirement than ASHRAE. See 85 FR 8626, 8666-8667.
In determining whether energy savings are significant, DOE
considers the specific circumstances surrounding a given
rulemaking.\17\ In making this determination, DOE looks at, among other
things, the FFC effects of the proposed standards. These effects
include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on
load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy conservation standards, including greenhouse gas
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has initially determined that there is insufficient data on the
developing DX-DOAS market to conduct an analysis of potential energy
savings resulting from more stringent standards. AHRI 920-2020 is a
relatively recent industry test standard, published in February 2020,
and thus AHRI has not yet established a certification database listing
DX-DOAS ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI DOE
also noted that the AHRI Directory does not list DX-DOAS equipment
performance ratings, and that DOE was not able to find ISMRE or ISCOP
ratings in much of the manufacturer equipment specifications. 84 FR
48006, 48026. DOE requested data on the market efficiency distribution,
field installation applications and performance, the determination of
unit energy consumption (UEC), equipment lifetimes, and shipments (see
84 FR 48006, 48036); however, DOE did not receive sufficient
information with regards to these aspects of its analysis in order to
determine the energy savings of more stringent efficiency levels for
each of the 8 proposed DX-DOAS equipment classes.
3. Economic Justification
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be considered
in determining whether standard levels more stringent than the levels
specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) The following
sections provide an overview of each of those seven factors and
consideration of the factors in this NOPR.
[[Page 5572]]
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential standard on
manufacturers, DOE typically conducts a manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA). DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--
based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between
when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the
industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by
year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of
impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on
different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small
manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic
manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital
investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of
various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in life-cycle costs (LCC) and the payback period (PBP)
associated with new or amended standards. For consumers in the
aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the
consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
As noted, DOE is unaware of any database or compilation containing
a comprehensive list of DX-DOAS models and performance metrics. This
presents significant challenges to performing an accurate assessment of
the DX-DOAS industry structure.
DOE normally uses projections of annual equipment shipments to
calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy
conservation standards on energy use, industry net present value (NPV),
and future manufacturer cash flows. The shipments model typically takes
an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each product class
and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product
shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service
product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service
product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the national
energy savings and NPV because operating costs for any year depend on
the age distribution of the stock.
For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE developed DX-DOAS shipments
estimates based on manufacturer feedback that shipments in 2016 were
around 36,000 units and that DX-DOAS growth is expected to be similar
to that of variable refrigerant flow multi-split system equipment. 84
FR 48006, 48030. A report by the Cadeo Group estimated variable
refrigerant flow multi-split system equipment shipments to have double-
digit growth through 2022. Therefore, to project shipments past 2016,
DOE used a 10-percent growth rate through 2022 and then followed the
same growth rate as other commercial unitary air-conditioning
equipment, basing that growth rate on the reference case shipment
projections in the National Impact Analysis spreadsheet from the
January 15, 2016 direct final rule for commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps and commercial warm air furnaces (81 FR
2420). Id.
Manufacturers estimated that air-cooled DX-DOASes represent 95
percent of all DX-DOAS shipments, and DOE assumed that this percentage
would remain constant for the duration of the 30-year shipments
analysis. Id. For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE only analyzed the
two air-cooled DX-DOAS equipment classes, and so reduced the annual
shipments projections developed above by 5 percent to capture only the
air-cooled product classes. Id. DOE allocated 59-percent of shipments
to air-cooled DOAS without energy recovery and 41-percent of shipments
to air-cooled DOAS with energy recovery, based on manufacturer
estimates of the breakdown by equipment class. Id.
In response, the CA IOUs provided an analysis of an online database
of construction projects called ConstructConnect Insight, which
suggests that DX-DOAS shipments have been increasing at an 18% annual
rate since 2012. (CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 5) Additionally, the CA IOUs
agreed that variable refrigerant flow and water-source heat pump
systems are a good starting point for estimating DX-DOAS shipments but
encouraged DOE to take into account radiant cooling, PTAC, and fan-coil
installation projects as well. (Id.) AHRI suggested that DX-DOASes can
also be paired with chilled beams and room fan coils. (AHRI, No. 7, p.
11) Trane suggested that DOE may have significantly overstated the DX-
DOAS market in the September 2019 NODA/RFI. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI
provided a similar statement, specifically indicating that the 2016
shipments value for DX-DOAS was overestimated. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 10-11)
AHRI also noted that significant DX-DOAS shipment volume is relatively
new to the market. (Id.) AHRI submitted confidential business data
containing shipments estimates for DX-DOASes.
DOE acknowledges that DX-DOASes are paired with many types of space
conditioning systems and that while most DX-DOASes are installed with
variable refrigerant flow and water source heat pumps, other systems
such as chilled beams, package terminal systems, and fan coils are
paired with DX-DOASes. The confidential data submission from AHRI
provided a time series of DX-DOAS shipments from 2010 to 2018. The time
series provides the total number of DX-DOAS shipments along with
estimates of the market share by equipment capacity and the
availability of units with VERS, and this would allow DOE to improve
its shipments projections. However, the shipments data does not break
the shipments down by equipment class. DOE received no comments
regarding the estimate that air-cooled DX-DOASes represent 95 percent
of shipments or on the breakdown of DX-DOAS with and without VERS.
However, DOE still lacks the breakdown of shipments for the other
equipment classes. As stated earlier in this section, the shipments
model is used to measure the national impacts of potential amended or
new energy conservation standards. Without an engineering analysis (see
section III.D.2.c of this document) and an energy use analysis (see
section III.D.2.d of this document), DOE is unable to produce the other
inputs necessary to project the national impact of standards more
stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Therefore DOE did
not update the shipments model for this NOPR.
Were DOE to establish standards as proposed, as well as
accompanying certification requirements, this information would become
more readily available should DOE consider amending standards for DX-
DOASes in any future rulemaking.\18\ Chapter 2 of
[[Page 5573]]
the September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD presents DOE's market assessment to the
extent that DOE was able to retrieve publicly accessible information
for DX-DOASes. Since the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE has, identified
additional manufacturers of DX-DOASes, and these manufacturers are
listed in Table III.3 (which supersedes Table 2.3 in the September 2019
NODA/RFI TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the
levels in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the
statute, EPCA provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the
potential for amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA
under the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act
(Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012)), DOE is required to conduct an
evaluation of each class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the applicable energy
conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a NOPR to propose amended
standards or a notice of determination that existing standards do
not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new
standards under the 6-year review, DOE must undertake the same
considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more
stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II))
Table III.3--Manufacturers of DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers AHRI member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON...................................... Yes.
AnnexAir.................................. No.
Daikin.................................... Yes.
Greenheck................................. Yes.
Ingersoll Rand............................ Yes.
Johnson Controls.......................... Yes.
Madison Industries........................ Yes.
Modine Manufacturing Company.............. Yes.
Multistack................................ Yes.
Munters Group AB.......................... No.
Nortek Global HVAC........................ Yes.
Soler and Palau Industries................ Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not perform an MIA for this rulemaking because there is not
enough information available on the DX-DOAS market to determine which
entities are already compliant with the proposed energy conservation
standards (i.e., producing DX-DOASes which currently meet or exceed the
proposed ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels) and what portion
of annual cash flow these DX-DOASes comprise. However, DOE did examine
potential impacts on small manufacturers in its regulatory flexibility
analysis, which is presented in section VII.B of this NOPR.
For individual consumers, DOE measures the economic impact by
calculating the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended
standards. These measures are discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE would also calculate the
national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected
to result from particular standards, while taking into account the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
DOE continues to seek information that may inform a market and
technology assessment for the DX-DOAS industry, including data on
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 market efficiency distributions, and shipments.
DOE did not perform an LCC or an assessment of NPV for this
rulemaking because there was not enough information available to
develop the inputs required to measure the individual or aggregate
consumer savings from higher standards. The LCC would require an
engineering analysis, an energy use analysis, operating cost inputs,
and a distribution of efficiencies that are available on the market.
These inputs allow DOE to develop equipment prices, representative
efficiency levels, annual operating costs, and a no-standards case
distribution of equipment efficiencies to determine which consumers
will be impacted by a higher standard. The NIA takes the weighted
average national results from the LCC and combines them with shipments
forecasts by equipment class and efficiency level in order to measure
the national impact, in terms of consumer NPV and full-fuel-cycle
energy savings. As stated previously, DOE was unable to develop cost-
efficiency curves for DX-DOASes or to conduct an energy use analysis
with enough degree of certainty that would allow it to propose a
standard level more stringent than ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (see section
III.D.2 of this document). Without these inputs, DOE is unable to
produce the LCC and NIA for this NOPR.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards.
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI DOE developed an efficiency
distribution that assumed that one-third of the products were at each
of the three efficiency levels. 84 FR 48006, 48030. DOE requested
comment on this approach and input on how to determine the no-standards
case efficiency distribution given the lack of publicly available data
on equipment efficiency. DOE also sought historical shipment weighted
efficiency data by equipment class.
In response, AHRI and Trane both generally supported the approach
DOE took which assumed that one-third of the units were at each of the
proposed efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11; Trane, No. 5, p. 3).
AHRI and Trane both commented that they do not collect shipments data
by efficiency level. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11; Trane, No. 5, p. 3)
DOE also lacked data on the equipment lifetime for DX-DOASes in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI. However, DOE had developed lifetimes for other
commercial package air conditioning equipment in previous
rulemakings,\19\ therefore the DX-DOAS lifetime was set to be the same
as that of a 15-ton commercial package air conditioner. 84 FR 48006,
48031. DOE also requested comment on DX-DOAS lifetimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Direct Final Rule Life-Cycle-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet is
available at: www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0106. (Last accessed on August 9, 2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, AHRI, the CA IOUs, and Trane all agreed with the
approach that a DX-DOAS lifetime would be similar to that of a 15-ton
commercial package air conditioner. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 11,
[[Page 5574]]
Trane, No. 5, p. 3, CA IOUs, No. 6, p. 7)
A preliminary energy use analysis was presented in the September
2019 NODA/RFI, and DOE requested feedback on its calculation approach
as well as data from field studies and laboratory testing to further
inform the estimation of real-world energy usage from performance
ratings. 84 FR 48006, 48026-48027.
7AC commented that the actual energy consumption in buildings can
be significantly higher than the tested ISMRE suggests, primarily at
lower loads where the regular on/off cycling reduces actual energy
load. (7AC, No. 4, p. 1) DOE understands that 7AC is referring to
cycling start-up losses which occur when staged compressor systems turn
on and off to meet a reduced cooling (or heating) demand. The impact of
cycling losses is now captured in AHRI 920-2020, which DOE has proposed
to incorporate into a new DOE test procedure for DX-DOASes.
Specifically, the updated test procedure includes provisions for
weighted averaging when the target conditions can be bracketed by two
stages, as well as cyclic degradation calculations and a supplementary
cooling penalty when the lowest stage provides excess conditioning
capacity (which is when cycling losses would occur). 86 FR 36018,
36032-36033.
7AC also agreed that field data should be sought to complement the
lab data and correlate ISMRE in the lab with performance in the field.
(7AC, No. 4, p. 1) Additionally, 7AC indicated that LDHX-based units
are being installed with remote monitoring equipment that will enable
the measurement of total cooling and total power use, the cost of which
has come down dramatically and that DOE should seek similar
arrangements with other equipment providers. (Id.) 7AC did not provide
data correlating tested performance ratings to performance in field-
installed conditions. AHRI stated that it was unable to provide data in
response to DOE's request. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 10) AHRI suggested that DOE
consider addendum ``bi'' of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, which limits
heating supply air to a maximum of 60 [deg]F when the majority of a
building is expected to require cooling, in any energy use estimates.
(AHRI, No. 7, p. 11)
The elimination of the supplemental heat penalty in the ISMRE2
metric (see section IV.B.1 of this document) makes it so that DX-DOASes
are no longer required to deliver supply air of at least 70 [deg]F in
the test procedure. In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE discussed
that DX-DOASes typically cool air to, at most, a few degrees above the
55 [deg]F dew point temperature that is specified in AHRI 920. 86 FR
36018, 36031. Therefore, DOE expects that the establishment of ISMRE2
as a regulated metric for DX-DOASes would not preclude manufacturers
from producing DX-DOASes which are compliant with the aforementioned
provision in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
The energy use analysis presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI
relied on the energy use for ventilation and space cooling from the
2012 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey \20\ (CBECS 2012) to
develop the ASHRAE level unit energy consumption (UEC) estimates. The
UECs for higher ELs were scaled based on the ISMRE levels presented in
the September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84 FR 48006, 48026-48027. With an
integrated metric, the power consumption at part loads is critical to
understanding the energy consumption at various efficiency levels;
however, no part-load data was available to DOE at the time of
publication in September 2019. DOE included 30 percent of the space
cooling energy use from CBECS 2012 along with the ventilation energy
use to derive the UEC. 84 FR 48006, 48027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.php?view=microdata (Last accessed on August 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane agreed with associating building ventilation cooling with the
DX-DOAS unit but disagreed with adding 30 percent of the building
annual cooling load to this value because it may overstate the typical
cooling duty cycle. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) Trane stated that many DX-DOAS
systems are designed to provide no cooling for the building and
requested that published case studies be cited to determine the
estimated cooling load percentage handled by the DX-DOAS. (Id.)
DOE would consider such data in its energy use analysis should it
become available. However, DOE is not presenting an energy use analysis
in this NOPR due to insufficient market data, performance data, and
field use data. In response to Trane, while DX-DOASes may not be
designed to provide space cooling, there is no variable in CBECS 2012
for dehumidification. DX-DOASes provide dehumidification by cooling the
ventilation air, therefore DOE included 30 percent of the space cooling
energy use from CBECS 2012 along with the ventilation energy use to
derive the UEC.
DOE requested field data or performance data of DX-DOASes in the
September 2019 NODA/RFI and received no data. In order to develop UECs
that are representative of DX-DOAS installations across the U.S., DOE
would require data on the equipment performance at different load
conditions. This data could consist of manufacturer performance data or
field data for equipment rated using ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, if applicable.
As DX-DOASes would be newly regulated equipment and ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
are new metrics even within the DX-DOAS market, there is no energy
consumption data available. In addition, DOE was unable to develop
appropriate efficiency levels to analyze (see section III.D.2.c of this
document). Given the lack of available data regarding the performance
of DX-DOASes, DOE is unable to estimate the UECs.
DOE did not perform an LCC and PBP analysis for this NOPR. As
discussed in the preceding paragraphs there is not enough information
available to develop the inputs to the LCC and PBP models.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III))
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE presented its initial national
energy savings methodology and estimates for air-cooled DX-DOASes with
and without VERS. 84 FR 48006, 48030-48033. The NES requires inputs
from the energy use analysis. As stated in section III.D.2.d, DOE was
unable to conduct an energy use analysis. Therefore, DOE has not
conducted or updated an NES analysis for this NOPR.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) DOE has
tentatively determined that the standards proposed in this document
would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under
consideration in this rulemaking because DOE is proposing to adopt
standards of equivalent stringency to those already found in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.
[[Page 5575]]
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) The energy
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use.
The utility impact analysis, emissions analysis, and emissions
monetization all rely on the national energy savings estimates from the
NIA. As discussed previously, DOE did not conduct an NIA and as a
result could not conduct these downstream analyses.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
IV. Crosswalk Analysis
A. Overview
As discussed in section III.D of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
adopt ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels of equivalent
stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP minimum efficiency levels currently
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The determination of these
equivalent ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 efficiency levels is referred to as a
``crosswalk analysis.''
AHRI commented that the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels reflect
the current DX-DOAS market, however, that use of ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 is
not ideal and this test procedure was undergoing revisions at the time.
AHRI stated that harmonizing the Federal energy conservation standards
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 energy efficiency levels would help reduce
compliance and test burdens on manufacturers; however, the metrics
would change with the revision to AHRI 920. AHRI commented that the
changes may seem drastic between the first and second edition of a
standard, but they were agreed to by relevant stakeholders. (AHRI, No.
7, pp. 7-9) Trane commented that the conditions and rating calculations
were changed in the update to AHRI 920 so that independent test labs
could easily generate reliable results for these products, and Trane
prefers that AHRI 920-2020 be the basis for any new standard levels
adopted by DOE for DX-DOASes. (Trane, No. 5 at p. 3)
As discussed in section II.B of this NOPR, in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a new Federal test procedure for DX-DOASes
that would incorporate AHRI 920-2020, which is the most recent version
of the test procedure (AHRI 920) recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for
DX-DOASes. 86 FR 36018, 36022. The proposed test procedure incorporates
AHRI 920-2020 in its entirety, with certain minor clarifications DOE
has preliminarily determined would be consistent with the industry test
procedure. 86 FR 36018, 36047. The updates to AHRI 920 include certain
revised test conditions and weighting factors for ISMRE and ISCOP,
which were redesignated as ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, respectively. These
revisions result in the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics that more accurately
reflect the actual energy use for DX-DOASes, improve the repeatability
and reproducibility of the test methods, and also reduce testing burden
compared to ISMRE and ISCOP.
The minimum energy efficiency levels specified for DX-DOASes in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are not based on equipment efficiency as
measured pursuant to AHRI 920-2020 (i.e., ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a
result, should DOE adopt the test procedure as proposed in the July
2021 TP NOPR, the efficiency measurements from the version of the
industry test procedure recognized in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for DX-
DOASes (i.e., ISMRE and ISCOP), would not be comparable to efficiency
measurements under the DOE test procedure. DOE would generally be
required to adopt the ISMRE and ISCOP levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 as the basis for energy conservation standards; however, in the
case of an amended test procedure that would alter the measured energy
efficiency or measured energy use of a covered ASHRAE equipment, EPCA
prescribes requirements to amend the applicable energy conservation
standard so that products or equipment that complied under the prior
test procedure remain compliant under the amended test procedure. (See
generally 42 U.S.C. 6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) While these
provisions are not explicitly applicable to DX-DOASes in the present
case because DOE currently has no test procedure or energy conservation
standards for this equipment, DOE considers them as generally
instructive for conducting the crosswalk analysis.
EPCA provides that in the case of any amended test procedure, DOE
must determine, in the rulemaking carried out with respect to
prescribing such procedure, to what extent, if any, the proposed test
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency, measured energy
use, or measured water use of the subject ASHRAE equipment as
determined under the existing test procedure. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) If the Secretary determines that the amended test
procedure will alter the measured efficiency or measured use, the
Secretary shall amend the applicable energy conservation standard
during the rulemaking carried out with respect to such test procedure.
In such case, under the process prescribed in EPCA DOE is directed to
measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy efficiency
or energy use of a representative sample of covered products that
minimally comply with the existing standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2);
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) The average of such energy efficiency or
energy use determined under the amended test procedure constitutes the
amended energy conservation standard for the applicable covered
products. (Id.)
As stated, EPCA requires DOE to adopt uniform national standards
for DX-DOASes at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent than the
amended
[[Page 5576]]
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) DOE has preliminarily
determined that, in the present case given the limited data available,
conducting a crosswalk analysis generally consistent with the process
prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) would result in efficiency levels
that are of the same stringency as those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
A crosswalk analysis requires data on the performance of a
representative sample of DX-DOASes under both test procedures. In
response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, 7AC offered to provide DOE
with a full performance map of a 10-ton LDHX DX-DOAS. (7AC, No. 4, p.
1) However, as noted in section III.D.1.a of this NOPR, DOE understands
LDHX technology to be a proprietary technology and thus could not
consider it as representative for the crosswalk analysis. Trane
suggested that it could provide information as confidential business
information. (Trane, No. 5, p. 3) AHRI committed to working with DOE to
develop an acceptable crosswalk based on calculations and test data, if
available. (AHRI, No. 7, p. 9) DOE did not receive any submissions from
stakeholders containing data that would help DOE conduct the crosswalk
analysis. DOE determined the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk based on testing
conducted by DOE and Pacific Gas and Electric. DOE determined the
ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 crosswalk based on a technical analysis of heat pump
performance. The methodology and results of the crosswalk analysis are
presented in detail in the Crosswalk Analysis Support Document (CASD)
\21\ and are summarized in the following sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CASD is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
1. Dehumidification Efficiency Test Procedure Changes
In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE requested comment and data on
developing a potential crosswalk from the efficiency levels in ASHRAE
90.1-2016 based on ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 to efficiency levels based on the
revisions to AHRI 920 (i.e., AHRI 920-2020). 84 FR 48006, 48022. While
DOE is proposing to adopt the test procedure in AHRI 920-2020 with
minor revisions, these revisions are not expected to have an impact on
DX-DOAS ratings. 86 FR 36018, 36046. As such, the minor revisions to
the procedure in AHRI 920-2020 proposed by DOE would not impact the
crosswalk or the following discussion.
DOE received comments from two stakeholders regarding the test
procedure updates in AHRI 920-2020 which affect the dehumidification
efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6-7) The
comments from stakeholders regarding the potential impacts of the
update from ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 to AHRI 920-2020 on the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2
crosswalk are presented in Table IV.1. Although the comments do not
provide quantitative indication of the expected change in the
measurement, they suggest the direction and general magnitude of the
change in the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk.
Table IV.1--Test Procedure Updates Impacting ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 Crosswalk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected impact on
ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 AHRI 920-2020 dehumidification
efficiency rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies inlet (outdoor Revises inlet Decrease in MRE at
ventilation air and return conditions at SRCs SRC D for units
air) dry bulb and wet bulb C & D \a\. with VERS due to
conditions for four less favorable
Standard Rating Conditions conditions.\a\
(SRCs) A, B, C, and D.
Specifies minimum required Increases minimum Decrease in ISMRE2
external static pressures required ESPs for due to increased
(ESPs) for supply air supply air streams; fan power at higher
streams as a function of \a\ establishes static
supply airflow rate. minimum required pressures.\b\
ESPs for return air
streams (for units
with VERS) \a\ \b\.
Specifies weighting Revises weighting Increase in ISMRE2
coefficients to calculate coefficients; \a\ due to greater
ISMRE from the moisture \b\ re-labels weight on SRCs A
removal efficiencies (MREs) efficiency metric and B.\b\
at the four SRCs. as ISMRE2 \a\ \b\.
Does not include Provides an Decrease in ISMRE2
instructions for achieving interpolation for units with
the target supply air method and a staged capacity
conditions for units with degradation because excess
staged capacity control. coefficient dehumidification is
calculation to not credited.\a\
determine
efficiency for
units with staged
capacity control
\a\.
Penalizes delivery of supply Eliminates the Increase in ISMRE2
air below 70 [deg]F (the supplementary heat due to removal of
``supplementary heat penalty for ISMRE2 penalty; \b\
penalty''). \a\ \b\. increase in ISMRE2
due to decrease in
discharge head
pressure (higher
head pressures are
required to
increase reheat
capacity, but also
increase compressor
power draw).\b\
Does not require a Requires that SRCs B- Decrease in ISMRE2
consistent supply air dew D target the supply for units with
point temperature across air dew point staged capacity
all SRCs. temperature because excess
achieved at SRC A dehumidification is
within a 0.3 [deg]F not credited.\a\
condition tolerance
\a\.
Does not specify how to Includes Decrease in ISMRE2
calculate MRE for units instructions for for units with
with VERS. calculating the staged capacity
total moisture because excess
removal capacity dehumidification is
for units with not credited.\a\
VERS; \a\ provides
specific equations
to apply the
interpolation
method and
degradation
coefficient method
to units with VERS
\a\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9).
\b\ (CA IOUs, No. 6, pp. 6-7).
[[Page 5577]]
Comments from AHRI and the CA IOUs indicated that the various test
procedure updates may generally lend to decreases in the
dehumidification efficiency rating. (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9; CA IOUs, No.
6, pp. 6-7)
2. Technical Analysis
DOE conducted investigative testing on four DX-DOASes and
collaborated with Pacific Gas and Electric on testing of a fifth DX-
DOAS to measure the average impact of the test procedure updates on the
dehumidification efficiency metric.\22\ A crosswalk consistent with the
process prescribed at 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would typically involve testing
minimally compliant units, or in this case, testing units that had
efficiencies at the minimum level specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019. As noted previously, ISMRE ratings for DX-DOASes are generally
not available to determine which models may perform at the minimum
ISMRE levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. In its testing DOE
determined that these DX-DOAS units had efficiencies above the ISMRE
minima specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. In order to account for
this, DOE assessed the ISMRE-to-ISMRE2 crosswalk on the basis of an
overall percent-change in the dehumidification efficiency metric, which
can then be used to estimate the net impact of the updates to AHRI 920.
The test results are summarized in Table IV.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Data from Sample No. 3 was collected as part of a
collaboration between Pacific Gas & Electric and DOE. Sample point
no. 3 is the result of testing one DX-DOAS with multiple control
configurations, as discussed in section 2.2 of the CASD. These
configurations investigated a range of staging, reheat, and airflow
control options available to manufacturers for testing DX-DOASes
within the allowances of ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 and AHRI 920-2020. The
data shown in Table IV.4 for Sample point no. 3 are the average
results of the control configurations tested. Data for each
individual configuration is provided in the CASD.
Table IV.2--Investigative Testing Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE
Sample No. Equipment class MRC at SRC A Standard 90.1 Tested ISMRE Tested ISMRE2 Percent change
minimum ISMRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... AC w/o VERS............. 111 lb/h............... 4.0 5.1 5.7 +12%
2.................................... AC w/o VERS............. 94 lb/h................ 4.0 7.6 6.4 -16%
3.................................... AC w/o VERS............. 72 lb/h................ 4.0 4.6 5.2 +14%
4.................................... AC w/ VERS.............. 256 lb/h............... 5.2 6.9 6.0 -13%
5.................................... WSHP w/ VERS............ 136 lb/h............... 4.8 8.6 6.8 -21%
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average.......................... ........................ ....................... .............. .............. .............. -5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On average, the updates to AHRI 920 have a net impact of reducing
the dehumidification efficiency ratings of DX-DOASes by five percent.
These results are consistent with the comments provided by stakeholders
indicating a general decrease in ratings. The tested units ranged from
a reduction of 21% to an increase of 14%. The units which were
negatively impacted by the test procedure changes were those which had
the highest ISMRE ratings compared to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
minima (samples no. 2, 4, and 5). The units which had ISMRE ratings
closer to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 minima (samples no. 1 and 3),
by contrast, increased in rating; therefore, DOE tentatively does not
expect DX-DOASes which are only minimally compliant with the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 ISMRE levels to reduce in rating by more than five
percent based on the limited test data available indicating that an
increase in rating is possible for these designs. DOE would consider
additional crosswalk data from DX-DOAS models which are minimally
compliant with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 ISMRE levels should such
data become publicly available.
Based on the available data, DOE is proposing ISMRE2 standards that
are five percent lower than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 ISMRE levels.
DOE's methodology is described in further detail in sections 2.2-2.3 of
the CASD, and the resulting ISMRE2 levels are proposed in Table IV.4 of
this NOPR.
C. ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk
1. Heating Efficiency Test Procedure Changes
DOE received comments from AHRI regarding the test procedure
updates in AHRI 920-2020 which affect the heating efficiency rating.
(AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9) These comments are presented in Table IV.3. DOE
did not receive comments indicating the actual impacts of each test
procedure update on the heating efficiency metric.
Table IV.3--Test Procedure Updates Impacting ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 Crosswalk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 920-2020 & July 2021 test
ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 procedure NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifies inlet (outdoor ventilation Revises inlet conditions at
air and return air) dry bulb and wet SRCs E & F.
bulb conditions for two SRCs E and F.
Specifies minimum required external Increases minimum required ESPs
static pressures (ESPs) for supply air for supply air streams; \a\
streams as a function of supply establishes minimum required
airflow rate. ESPs for return air streams
(for units with VERS).\a\
Specifies weighting coefficients to Revises weighting coefficients;
calculate ISCOP from the coefficients \a\ re-labels efficiency
of performance (COPs) at the two SRCs. metric as ISMRE2.\a\
Implies testing at both SRCs in order Makes SRC F optional to test
to calculate an ISCOP rating. (with the resulting COPF =
1.0) in order to calculate an
ISCOP2 rating.
Instructs that the target supply air Provides an interpolation
dry bulb temperature must be as close method to determine efficiency
to 75 [deg]F as possible. Credits for units with staged capacity
delivery of supply air above 75 [deg]F control; specifies that the
in determination of total heating supply air temperature for the
capacity. determination of total heating
capacity must be 70-75
[deg]F.\a\
[[Page 5578]]
Specifies multiple inlet water Revises inlet water conditions;
conditions for water-source heat pump assigns `water-source heat
DX-DOASes at each SRC. pump' as the inlet condition
for ISCOP2 ratings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ (AHRI, No. 7, pp. 8-9).
DOE considered the updates in AHRI 920-2020 in its calculated
performance of heat pump DX-DOASes. One notable factor affecting the
ratings of heat pump DX-DOASes is that ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 did not
specify a target supply air dry bulb temperature range for determining
ratings, whereas AHRI 920-2020 specifies that ratings must be based on
temperatures between 70 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F. As a result, heating in
excess of 75 [deg]F was credited in ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 but is no longer
considered in AHRI 920-2020 (the supplementary heat penalty for
delivery of supply air below 70 [deg]F is maintained in both test
procedures). The impact of this would be a decrease in rating for units
that have coarse staging of compressor capacity, which may result in
overshooting the 75 [deg]F limit due to the inability to unload
capacity.
2. Technical Analysis
DOE did not receive data from commenters regarding ISCOP or ISCOP2
performance ratings. DOE is aware of only one manufacturer publishing
ISCOP ratings and one other manufacturer publishing ISCOP2 ratings. Due
to insufficient market data for the ISCOP-to-ISCOP2 crosswalk, DOE
evaluated the performance of representative heat pump DX-DOAS designs
under both test procedures using engineering-based analysis to
determine the crosswalk.
DOE calculated results for a two-stage heat pump system delivering
approximately 15 tons of capacity based on a design description
consistent with AHRI comments (see section III.D.3.c of this NOPR) and
based on the calculated results identified that that the test procedure
updates affect each heat pump equipment class in different ways. DOE
also calculated results for smaller 3-4 ton heat pump systems with only
one compressor stage. The assumptions and inputs of this calculation
are provided in detail in section 3.3 of the CASD. DOE assumed that
air-source heat pumps without VERS would deactivate heat pump operation
at SRC F and assume a default COPF of 1.0 for both ISCOP and
ISCOP2; air-source heat pumps with VERS would also deactivate heat pump
operation at SRC F but would be capable of running the VERS to provide
some sensible heating capacity for both ISCOP and ISCOP2. The outputs
are provided in sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the CASD. In general, DOE
observed that air-source heat pump DX-DOASes without VERS may reduce in
rating because AHRI 920-2020 does not credit excess heating above 75
[deg]F. Air-source heat pump DX-DOASes with VERS may use VERS-only
operation as the lowest-capacity stage to interpolate to a supply air
temperature between 70 [deg]F and 75 [deg]F, thus avoiding being
penalized for excess heating. As a result, air-source heat pump DX-
DOASes may slightly increase in rating. DOE observed (in testing of a
water-source heat pump DX-DOAS, as well as in its calculations) that
water-source heat pump DX-DOASes generally perform better at SRC F than
at SRC E (under both test procedures), but the reduction in the
averaging weight for SRC F for ISCOP2 would cause the ISCOP2 value to
decrease for water-source heat pump DX-DOASes as compared to ISCOP.
Like the air-source heat pump DX-DOASes, DOE found that water-source
heat pump DX-DOASes without VERS might be more sensitive to the target
supply air temperature requirements than water-source heat pump DX-
DOASes with VERS. DOE applied the average change in rating to the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ISCOP levels, and the resulting ISCOP2 levels are
provided in Table IV.4.
D. Crosswalked Standard Levels
DOE crosswalked the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 minimum ISMRE and
ISCOP efficiency levels for DX-DOASes to determine standards of an
equivalent stringency in terms of the updated metrics ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2. The results of this analysis are shown in Table IV.4.
Table IV.4--Crosswalked Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE Standard Equivalent
90.1-2019 level stringency level
Subcategory using ANSI/AHRI using proposed DOE
920-2015 TP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AC)--Air-cooled without ISMRE = 4.0....... ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with ISMRE = 5.2....... ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP ISMRE2 = 3.8,
without ventilation energy = 2.7. ISCOP2 = 2.05.
recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat ISMRE = 5.2, ISCOP ISMRE2 = 5.0,
pumps with ventilation energy = 3.3. ISCOP2 = 3.20.
recovery systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ISMRE = 4.9....... ISMRE2 = 4.7.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with ISMRE = 5.3....... ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps ISMRE = 4.0, ISCOP ISMRE2 = 3.8,
without ventilation energy = 3.5. ISCOP2 = 2.13.
recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source heat ISMRE = 4.8, ISCOP ISMRE2 = 4.6,
pumps with ventilation energy = 4.8. ISCOP2 = 4.04.
recovery systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5579]]
Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the proposed minimum ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
standards for DX-DOASes, as well as comment on any aspect of its
crosswalk analysis, which is detailed in the CASD. DOE continues to
seek information which compares ISMRE and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 ratings for the DX-DOASes that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level.
V. Conclusions
A. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard
for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, which includes DX-DOASes, at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, by
rule published in the Federal Register, and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-
(II)). DOE is proposing to adopt energy conservation standards for DX-
DOASes that are of equivalent stringency as the minimum levels
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. As discussed in the following
section, DOE has tentatively determined it lacks clear and convincing
evidence that adoption of more stringent standards would result in
additional conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible
and economically justified.
DOE is proposing standards using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics,
which are the metrics used in the most recent version of the industry
test procedure for DX-DOAS recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
(i.e., AHRI 920-2020) Based on the crosswalk analysis presented, DOE
preliminarily determines that the proposed energy conservation
standards in terms of ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are of equivalent stringency to
the standards for DX-DOAS in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which rely on
the ISMRE and ISCOP metrics.
The proposed standards for DX are shown in Table V.1 of this NOPR.
The proposed standards, if adopted would apply to all DX-DOASes with an
MRC of less than 324 lbs moisture/hr manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on the compliance date discussed in section
VI.C of this document.
Table V.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DX-DOASes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifying direct-expansion (AC)--Air-cooled without ISMRE2 = 3.8.
dedicated outdoor air systems. ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled ISMRE2 = 5.0.
with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.05.
pumps without ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source ISMRE2 = 5.0, ISCOP2 = 3.20.
heat pumps with
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ISMRE2 = 4.7.
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled ISMRE2 = 5.1.
with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8, ISCOP2 = 2.13.
pumps without ventilation
energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source ISMRE2 = 4.6, ISCOP2 = 4.04.
heat pumps with
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consideration of More Stringent Efficiency Levels
As stated, EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform
national standard for equipment classes at the minimum level specified
in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, by rule
published in the Federal Register, and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-
(II)). As noted above, clear and convincing evidence would exist only
where the specific facts and data made available to DOE regarding a
particular ASHRAE amendment demonstrate that there is no substantial
doubt that a standard more stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted because it would result in a
significant additional amount of energy savings, is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Process Rule section 9(b).
As discussed, DOE has not established standards or test procedures
for DX-DOASes, and ASHRAE did not specify standards for such equipment
until 2016. The market for DX-DOASes is still developing. Efficiency in
terms of ISMRE and ISCOP is generally not provided by manufacturers and
only a limited number of units are rated in terms of ISMRE2. DOE is not
aware of any market or performance database for DX-DOASes. DOE has
requested data that is representative of the market, but to date has
not received any such data.
As discussed in the sections, III.D.1.a., III.D.1.b., III.D.3.a.,
and III.D.3.b of this NOPR, due to the lack of available market and
performance data, DOE is unable to conduct the analysis necessary to
evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate whether more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible or economically
justifiable, with sufficient certainty. An estimation of energy savings
potentials of more stringent energy efficiency levels would require
developing efficiency data for the entire DX-DOASes market, which would
be a much broader analysis than that conducted for the crosswalk. The
crosswalk analysis presented in this NOPR requires only that DOE
translate the efficiency levels between the metrics at the baseline
levels, and not that DOE translate all efficiency levels currently
represented in the market. As noted, there is a lack of market data
regarding the performance of DX-DOASes. As
[[Page 5580]]
such, DOE has preliminarily determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that more stringent standards would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and would be
technologically feasible and economically justified.
VI. Representations, Certification and Compliance Requirements
A. Representations
The July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR proposed several provisions for
the determination of represented values for DX-DOASes, including a
definition for a basic model of DX-DOAS, sampling plan requirements,
considerations for equipment compatible with multiple refrigerants,
alternative energy determination methods (AEDMs), and rounding
requirements. 86 FR 36018, 36043-36045.
DOE proposed that a basic model for a DX-DOAS means all units
manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class; with
the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers,
ventilation energy recovery system(s) (if present), and air moving
system(s), and with a common ``nominal'' moisture removal capacity. 86
FR 36018, 36044. This proposed definition of a basic model of a DX-DOAS
would be included in the regulatory text in 10 CFR 431.92. Id.
Because DX-DOASes and Unitary DOASes are types of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment, DOE proposed to apply
the existing sampling plan requirements for commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment under 10 CFR 429.43, Commercial
heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, to DX-DOASes.
86 FR 36018, 36044.
As discussed in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE recognizes
that some commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment may
be sold with more than one refrigerant option (e.g., R-410A or R-407C).
86 FR 36018, 36044. Typically, manufacturers specify a single
refrigerant in their literature for each unique model, but in its
review, DOE has identified at least one manufacturer that provides two
refrigerant options under the same model number. The refrigerant chosen
by the customer in the field installation may impact the energy
efficiency of a unit. For this reason, DOE proposed representation
requirements specific for models approved for use with multiple
refrigerants. Id.
Use of a refrigerant that requires different hardware (such as R-
407C as compared to R-410A) would represent a different basic model,
and according to the current CFR, separate representations of energy
efficiency are required for each basic model. 86 FR 36018, 36044.
However, some refrigerants (such as R-422D and R-427A) would not
require different hardware, and a manufacturer may consider them to be
the same basic model, which is not currently addressed. DOE proposed to
add a new paragraph at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3) specifying that a
manufacturer must determine the represented values for that basic model
based on the refrigerant(s)--among all refrigerants listed on the
unit's nameplate--that result in the lowest ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
efficiencies, respectively. Id. These represented values would apply to
the basic model for all refrigerants specified by the manufacturer as
appropriate for use, regardless of which one may actually be used in
the field, where only one set of values is reported. Id.
DOE proposed to allow manufacturers to use AEDMs for determining
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings consistent with the existing provisions for
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. 86 FR 36018,
36044. DOE also proposed to create four validation classes of DX-DOASes
within the Validation classes table at 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv): Air-
cooled/air-source and water-cooled/water-source, each with and without
VERS. Id. This proposal requires testing of two basic models to
validate the AEDMs for each validation class, with a tolerance of 10
percent when comparing test results with certified ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
ratings--identical to the requirements for other categories of
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. 86 FR 36018,
36045.
Finally, DOE proposed to adopt the performance metric rounding
requirements found in Sections 6.1.2.1 through 6.1.2.8 of AHRI 920-2020
as part of the DOE test procedure, as enumerated in section
2.2.1(c)(iv) of the proposed appendix B. 86 FR 36018, 36045.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing new provisions regarding DX-DOAS
representations in addition to those proposed in the July 2021 Test
Procedure NOPR. DOE is proposing to require that the represented value
of MRC be either the mean of the MRCs measured for the units in the
selected sample (see 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(ii)) rounded to the nearest
lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020 or the MRC output
simulated by an AEDM rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple according to
Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020. This provision seeks to ensure that the
reported MRC is accurate to test or AEDM results and that the reported
MRC is consistent with the requirements in AHRI 920-2020. The proposed
definition for ``DX-DOAS'' includes a maximum MRC limitation of 324 lb/
hr, hence DOE seeks to provide clear instructions for the determination
of the MRC in representations.
Issue-4: DOE seeks feedback on the proposed representation requirement
regarding MRC.
B. Certification and Enforcement Provisions
1. Scope
As discussed in section III.A of this NOPR, DOE is proposing a
definition of DX-DOAS which specifies the capability to dehumidify
outdoor air to a low dew point and a maximum MRC limit of 324 lbs
moisture per hour (which is consistent with the 760,000 Btu per hour
maximum capacity limit for other commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment). Effective upon the compliance date for
standards promulgated for DX-DOASes, manufacturers would be required to
certify to DOE equipment meeting the DX-DOAS definition. However, as
noted in section VI.B.3, DOE will address specific certification
requirements for DX-DOASes in a different rulemaking prior to the
compliance date for standards promulgated for DX-DOASes.
2. Equipment Selection and Sampling Plan
In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR, DOE stated by proposing to
define (at 10 CFR 431.92) DX-DOAS as a subset of Unitary DOAS, and to
define Unitary DOAS as a category of small, large, or very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, the proposal
would apply the same sampling requirements to DX-DOASes as applicable
to other commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
under 10 CFR 429.43, Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning
(HVAC) equipment. 86 FR 36018, 36044. DX-DOAS-specific requirements are
discussed in section VI.A of this document.
In the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR DOE discussed one comment
received on the sampling plan requirements. Lennox had recommended that
DOE harmonize the certification criteria for commercial HVAC equipment
in 10 CFR 429.43 with those for central air conditioners, a consumer
product, in 10 CFR 429.16.; Lennox stated that
[[Page 5581]]
commercial equipment currently has a more stringent confidence limit of
95 percent, but the commenter argued that current testing technology
does not support this level of precision. 86 FR 36018, 36044. DOE noted
that other manufacturers did not raise concerns regarding the
confidence limit required for sampling more typical commercial package
air conditioning and heat pump equipment, and Lennox had not provided
data regarding variability of units in production and testing;
therefore, absent more specific information or data regarding the
stringency of the confidence level, DOE did not propose a change. Id.
As discussed in section VI.A of this NOPR, DOE is maintaining its
previous proposals regarding equipment selection and sampling plan
requirements.
3. Certification Requirements
Manufacturers, including importers, must use equipment-specific
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. There are
currently no certification or reporting requirements for DX-DOASes. For
covered equipment, the certification template reflects the general
certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 as well as the
equipment-specific requirements. Certification reports for commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment must include
supplemental test information. 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4). In particular, the
equipment-specific, supplemental information must include any
additional testing and testing set up instructions (e.g., charging
instructions) for the basic model; identification of all special
features that were included in rating the basic model; and all other
information (e.g., operational codes or component settings) necessary
to operate the basic model under the required conditions specified by
the relevant test procedure. (10 CFR 429.43(b)(4)).
DOE is not proposing to establish certification requirements for
DX-DOASes in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
establish certification requirements for DX-DOASes under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. To help
interested parties better appreciate the proposed requirements, a draft
certification template will be included in the docket of the
certification rulemaking.
4. Enforcement Provisions
Enforcement provisions for commercial package air-conditioners and
heat pumps are set forth at 10 CFR 429.110(e)(2). The existing
provisions specify reliance on an initial sample size of not more than
four units. 10 CFR 429.110(e)(2). For an ``assessment test,'' DOE may
obtain one or more units for testing at any time. See 10 CFR 429.104.
For an ``enforcement test,'' DOE issues a test notice requiring the
manufacturer to provide units for testing. 10 CFR 429.110(b). DOE uses
the results of assessment testing as one tool when determining whether
to pursue enforcement testing. See 10 CFR 429.106. DOE may pursue
enforcement testing if it has reason to believe that a basic model is
not in compliance with applicable standards (10 CFR 429.110(a))--a
determination that is informed but not based solely on assessment test
results. DOE has set forth different sampling plans for DOE enforcement
testing of covered equipment and certain low-volume covered products.
Appendix B to subpart C of part 429. These sampling plans utilize a
test sample of no more than 4 units for low-volume, built-to-order
basic models, which would include DX-DOASes. These sampling plans are
set forth in appendix B to subpart C to part 429. DOE proposes that the
enforcement provisions generally applicable to commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment would be applicable to DX-DOASes.
In addition, when determining compliance of any DX-DOAS units
tested for enforcement purposes, DOE proposes to adopt provisions at 10
CFR 429.134 that specify how DOE would determine the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
for DX-DOASes with VERS. Specifically, if the unit is rated based on
testing to either Option 1 or Option 2, manufacturers may choose to use
VERS EATR ratings based on AHRI 1060-2018 (or AHRI 1060 performance
rating software) or default EATR values to calculate MRC and/or total
heating capacity to rate the DX-DOAS. For Option 2, manufacturers may
use VERS effectiveness and EATR ratings based on AHRI 1060-2018 or
default values to set the simulated test conditions for rating the
DOAS.
If a manufacturer chooses to use default VERS performance values,
DOE proposes that it could choose to use those values, or alternatively
test the VERS according to AHRI 1060-2018 to obtain those values. If a
manufacturer used AHRI 1060-2018 rated values,\23\ DOE proposes that it
may conduct enforcement testing to AHRI 1060-2018 (with a zero-degree
purge angle). In this case, DOE would determine the ISMRE2 and/or
ISCOP2 using the certified VERS performance values from AHRI 1060-2018
if all certified values of sensible effectiveness are found to be no
greater than 105 percent of the mean of the measured values (for Option
2), all values of latent effectiveness are found to be no greater than
107 percent of the mean of the measured values (for Option 2), and EATR
is found to be no more than one percentage point less than the mean of
the measured values (for Options 1 and 2). Otherwise, DOE would use the
mean of the measured values to determine ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ AHRI's certification database for AHRI 1060 ratings
certifies product performance calculation software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is proposing these tolerances on the certified values based on
tolerances specified in AHRI 1060-2018. DOE believes these tolerances
are also appropriate for DOE's enforcement testing program as they
represent typical variability for this equipment.
In addition, DOE proposes that if a manufacturer is relying on
AHRI-certified product performance calculation software for VERS as
part of its representation of DX-DOAS efficiency, a manufacturer would
be required to retain all data underlying those AHRI-certified results
as part of its underlying test data for DOE certification testing as
specified in 10 CFR 429.71(a)-(c).
Issue-5: DOE requests comment on its proposed DX-DOAS-specific
enforcement provisions, and in particular, the appropriateness of the
proposed tolerances on certified values.
C. Compliance Dates
When establishing energy conservation standards at the same level
as in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA requires DOE to establish such
standards no later than 18 months following the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
update. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE prescribes energy
conservation standards at the efficiency levels contained in an amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA states that compliance with any such
standards shall be required on or after a date which is two or three
years (depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the
applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) With respect to small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, the initial compliance
date must be a date on or after a date which is two years after the
effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement
[[Page 5582]]
in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) With
respect to large and very large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, the initial compliance date must be a date on or
after a date which is three years after the effective date of the
applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(ii))
If DOE were to prescribe standards more stringent than the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA dictates
that any such standard will become effective for equipment manufactured
on or after a date which is four years after the date of publication of
a final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D))
Moreover, there currently is not a DOE test procedure for DX-
DOASes, and DOE has proposed a test procedure that relies on the
metrics ISCOP2 and ISMRE2 in the July 2021 Test Procedure NOPR. 86 FR
36018. Were DOE to adopt the proposed test procedure, beginning 360
days following the final test procedure rule, manufacturers would be
prohibited from making representations respecting the energy
consumption of DX-DOASes, unless such equipment has been tested in
accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly
discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt energy conservation
standards for DX-DOASes that are equivalent to those contained in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
established equipment classes for DX-DOASes that do not distinguish
units based on the small, large, or very large categories, DOE has
tentatively decided to assign a single compliance date regardless of
equipment size and apply the three-year lead time.
As previously noted, when establishing energy conservation
standards at the same level as in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
establish such standards no later than 18 months following the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 update, and manufacturers must comply with such standards
2 to 3 years after the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 update, depending on the
size of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I) & (a)(6)(D)) In
order to provide DX-DOAS manufacturers with a reasonable lead-time to
comply with the proposed standards, DOE proposes that manufacturers
would be required to comply with the new standards for DX-DOASes 18
months following the publication date of a final rule establishing
these standards. The proposed compliance date is consistent with the
lead-time following DOE's establishment of standards at ASHRAE Standard
90.1 levels 18 months after the ASHRAE update and manufacturers'
compliance with said standards 3 years after the ASHRAE update (i.e.,
18 months following publication of a final rule) that is provided for
under EPCA.
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency
to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that
warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of
that problem. The problems that the proposed standards set forth in
this NOPR are intended to address are as follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases, the benefits of more-efficient equipment are not
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An
example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy
costs.
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy
efficiency of appliances and equipment that are not captured by the
users of such products. These benefits include externalities related to
public health, environmental protection, and national energy security
that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of
air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global
warming.
This regulatory action was determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory impact analysis for this
proposed rule, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has not
reviewed this proposed rule.
DOE has also reviewed this proposed regulation pursuant to E.O.
13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). E.O.
13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
E.O. 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by
E.O. 13563 to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt;
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the
best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the
requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify
costs and that net benefits are maximized.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
[[Page 5583]]
2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR
7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office
of the General Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the following IRFA for the products that are
the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated
outdoor air systems (DX-DOASes), the SBA has set a size threshold,
which defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOE used the SBA's small
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would
be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. The equipment
covered by this proposed rule are classified under North American
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code 333415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201,
the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to
be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV,
section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. These
products include DX-DOASes, the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
EPCA requires DOE to consider amending the existing Federal energy
conservation standard for certain types of listed commercial and
industrial equipment (generally, commercial water heaters, commercial
packaged boilers, commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment,
and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation
standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless
clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of
a more stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) This is
referred to as ``the ASHRAE trigger.''
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
In addition to the ASHRAE trigger for energy conservation
standards, EPCA also requires that the test procedures for commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment--of which DX-DOASes are
a type--be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or
rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended,
the Secretary shall amend the test procedure for the product as
necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure or
rating procedure unless the Secretary determines, by rule, published in
the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that to do so would not meet the statutory requirements for test
procedures regarding representativeness and burden. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B))
The industry test procedure referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
(the latest version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1) for DX-DOASes is ANSI/AHRI
Standard 920-2015, ``Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air
System Units'' (ANSI/AHRI 920-2015). ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 underwent major
updates which resulted in a new version of the test procedure released
in February 2020: AHRI 920-2020. Due to these test procedure updates,
the minimum energy efficiency levels specified for DX-DOASes in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 (which uses the metrics ISMRE and ISCOP) are not
based on equipment efficiency as measured pursuant to the latest
version of the industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 920-2020 (which
uses the metrics ISMRE2 and ISCOP2). As a result, should DOE adopt the
test procedure as proposed in the July 2021 TP NOPR, the efficiency
measurements from the version of the industry test procedure recognized
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for DX-DOASes (i.e., ISMRE and ISCOP),
would not be comparable to efficiency measurements under the DOE test
procedure. DOE would generally be required to adopt the ISMRE and ISCOP
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 as the basis for energy
conservation standards; however, in the case of an amended test
procedure that would alter the measured energy efficiency or measured
energy use of a covered ASHRAE equipment, EPCA prescribes requirements
to amend the applicable energy conservation standard so that products
or equipment that complied under the prior test procedure remain
compliant under the amended test procedure. (See generally 42 U.S.C.
6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C))
As such, in this proposed rule, DOE is proposing to adopt minimum
efficiency levels using the new metrics established in AHRI 920-2020 at
equivalent stringency to those levels currently published in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (which are in terms of the metrics established in ANSI/
AHRI 920-2015). DOE has done so by determining a ``crosswalk,'' or, an
equivalent translation, of the metrics.
DOE conducted a crosswalk informed by the crosswalk procedure
established in EPCA and required for amended test procedures that
result in changes to the measured energy efficiency or energy use as
compared to the existing DOE test procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(e); 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) This EPCA crosswalk provision is not applicable
in the present case as there is not an existing DOE test procedure for
DX-DOASes; however, DOE found it to be instructive for determining
standards using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics that are of equivalent
stringency as the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. The
crosswalk approach relied on by DOE in this NOPR used an average
difference in measured energy efficiency between ANSI/AHRI 920-2015
(which relies on ISMRE and ISCOP) and AHRI 920-2020 (which relies on
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2).
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-conditioning
and heating equipment (including DX-DOASes), commercial warm-air
furnaces, and commercial water heaters, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses''. DOE used the SBA's small
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would
be subject to the requirements of this rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The
equipment covered by this rule are classified under North American
Industry Classification
[[Page 5584]]
System (NAICS) code 333415,\24\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250
employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business
for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The business size standards are listed by NAICS code and
industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (Last Accessed July 29th, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the DX-DOAS market, DOE used company websites,
marketing research tools, product catalogues, and other public
information to identify companies that manufacture DX-DOASes. DOE
identified 12 original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of DX-DOASes
affected by this rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that do not
meet the definition of ``small business'' or are foreign-owned and
operated. DOE used subscription-based business information tools to
determine headcount, revenue, and geographic presence of the small
businesses. Out of these 12 OEMs, DOE determined that there is one
domestic small manufacturer. DOE understands the annual revenue of the
small manufacturer to be approximately $66 million.
Issue-6: DOE requests comment and information on the number of small,
domestic OEMs of the DX-DOASes.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
The proposed standards for DX-DOASes were determined by a crosswalk
of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels to new efficiency
metrics defined in AHRI 920-2020. As noted in Section 2 of the Review
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the crosswalk was based on the
average difference in efficiency under the amended test procedure.
While DOE expects it to be unlikely, some models currently on the
market that are minimally compliant with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 may
not meet the crosswalked levels, since some units will fall above the
average and some units will fall below the average. At this time,
identification of such models is not possible due lack of data, as
manufacturers do not publish sufficient model performance information.
The proposed adoption of the crosswalked ASHRAE level may require
small manufacturers to redesign a portion of equipment offerings.
However, adopting more stringent standards above the cross-walked
ASHRAE levels would lead to higher costs to manufacturers. Therefore,
DOE determined that the proposed efficiency level provides the least
cost option for small manufacturers.
Issue-7: DOE requests comment on the potential number of basic models
that small, domestic OEMs would need to redesign and the costs
associated with the redesign process. Further, DOE request comments on
its conclusion that adopting levels other than ASHRAE would lead to
higher costs for small manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule being considered in this
action.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt the ASHRAE levels or to
propose higher standards, DOE is limited in options to mitigate impacts
to small businesses. In this proposed rulemaking, DOE is adopting the
ASHRAE levels (cross-walked to metrics adopted in the DX-DOAS test
procedure), which is the least cost option to industry.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered
equipment, including DX-DOASes.
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the energy and water use
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
Certification data will be required for DX-DOASes; however, DOE is
not proposing certification or reporting requirements for DX-DOASes in
this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish
certification requirements and reporting for DX-DOASes under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment.
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
[[Page 5585]]
because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the
exceptions identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental
analysis, and it otherwise meets the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA
review before issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the equipment that is the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or
more in any one year by the private sector. In this document, DOE is
proposing to adopt energy conservation standards at an equivalent
stringency level as the existing industry standards in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019. The determination of the proposed energy conservation
standards is based on a crosswalk of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
minimum efficiency levels to updated efficiency metrics, and thus DOE
does not expect that units which are minimally compliant with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 would require redesign. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which
proposes new energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes, is not a
significant energy action because this action is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, the proposed standards
are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
[[Page 5586]]
been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
J. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664
(January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it
is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\25\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed August 6,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes would
incorporate the following commercial standards: AHRI 920-2020 and AHRI
1060-2018. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides
for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with
both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the
impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a
final rule.
L. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards:
(1) The test standard published by AHRI, titled ``2020 Standard for
Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units,'' AHRI
Standard 920-2020 (I-P). AHRI Standard 920-2020 (I-P) is an industry-
accepted test procedure for measuring the performance of dehumidifying
direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air system units (DX-DOASes). AHRI
Standard 920-2020 (I-P) is available on AHRI's website at:
www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/AHRI/AHRI_Standard_920_I-P_2020.pdf.
(2) The test standard published by AHRI, titled ``2018 Standard for
Performance Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers for Energy Recovery
Ventilation Equipment,'' ANSI/AHRI Standard 1060-2018. ANSI/AHRI
Standard 1060-2018 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring
the performance of air-to-air exchangers for energy recovery
ventilation equipment (VERS). ANSI/AHRI Standard 1060-2018 is available
on AHRI's website at: www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/AHRI/AHRI_Standard_1060_I-P_2018.pdf.
VIII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting is listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
[[Page 5587]]
procedures governing the conduct of the webinar. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar and until the end of the comment period, interested parties
may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the
proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments received before the webinar, allow
time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general
statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion
of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The
official conducting the webinar will accept additional comments or
questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official
will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public webinar, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (``faxes'')
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects
or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form
of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
[[Page 5588]]
E. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
F. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
Issue-1: DOE requests comment on the proposed eight equipment classes
for energy conservation standards of DX-DOASes.
Issue-2: DOE continues to seek information that may inform a market and
technology assessment for the DX-DOAS industry, including data on
technology options which may increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
efficiencies of DX-DOASes.
Issue-3: DOE requests comment on the proposed minimum ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
standards for DX-DOASes, as well as comment on any aspect of its
crosswalk analysis, which is detailed in the CASD. DOE continues to
seek information which compares ISMRE and ISCOP ratings to ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 ratings for the DX-DOASes that are representative of the market
baseline efficiency level.
Issue-4: DOE seeks feedback on the proposed representation requirement
regarding MRC.
Issue-5: DOE requests comment on its proposed DX-DOAS-specific
enforcement provisions, and in particular, the appropriateness of the
proposed tolerances on certified values.
Issue-6: DOE requests comment and information on the number of small,
domestic OEMs of the DX-DOASes.
Issue-7: DOE requests comment on the potential number of basic models
that small, domestic OEMs would need to redesign and the costs
associated with the redesign process. Further, DOE request comments on
its conclusion that adopting levels other than ASHRAE would lead to
higher costs for small manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 19,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and the introductory text to paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as (4); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and (3).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington,
DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program, and may be obtained from the
other sources in this section. Also, this material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: www.ahrinet.org.
* * * * *
(2) AHRI Standard 920-2020 (I-P), (``AHRI 920-2020''), ``2020
Standard for Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air System
Units,'' approved February 4, 2020, IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
(3) AHRI Standard 1060-2018, (``AHRI 1060-2018''), ``2018 Standard
[[Page 5589]]
for Performance Rating of Air-to-Air Exchangers for Energy Recovery
Ventilation Equipment,'' approved 2018, (AHRI 1060-2018), IBR approved
for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.43 by reserving paragraph (a)(3) and adding
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) Product-specific provisions for determination of represented
values for dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air
systems. (i) When certifying, the following provisions apply.
(A) For ratings based on tested samples, the represented value of
moisture removal capacity shall be the mean of the moisture removal
capacities measured for the units in the sample selected, as described
in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, rounded to the nearest lb/hr
multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 429.4).
(B) For ratings based on an AEDM, the represented value of moisture
removal capacity shall be the moisture removal capacity output
simulated by the AEDM, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of
AHRI 920-2020.
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 429.134 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(s) Dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air systems
(DX-DOASes) with ventilation energy recovery systems (VERS). (1) If the
manufacturer certified testing in accordance with Option 1 using
default VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR) values or Option 2 using
default VERS effectiveness and EATR values, DOE may determine the
integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency 2 (ISMRE2) and/or the
integrated seasonal coefficient of performance 2 (ISCOP2) using the
default values or by conducting testing to determine VERS performance
according to AHRI 1060-2018 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
429.4) (with the minimum purge angle and zero pressure differential
between supply and return air).
(2) If the manufacturer certified testing in accordance with Option
1 using VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR) values or Option 2 using
VERS effectiveness and EATR values determined using an analysis tool
certified in accordance with AHRI 1060-2018, DOE may conduct its own
testing to determine VERS performance in accordance with AHRI 1060-
2018.
(i) DOE would use the values of VERS performance certified to DOE
(i.e. EATR, sensible effectiveness, and latent effectiveness) as the
basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 of the basic model only
if, for Option 1, the certified EATR is found to be no more than one
percentage point less than the mean of the measured values (i.e. the
difference between the measured EATR and the certified EATR is no more
than 0.01), or for Option 2, all certified values of sensible
effectiveness are found to be no greater than 105 percent of the mean
of the measured values (i.e. the certified effectiveness divided by the
measured effectiveness is no greater than 1.05), all certified values
of latent effectiveness are found to be no greater than 107 percent of
the mean of the measured values, and the certified EATR is found to be
no more than one percentage point less than the mean of the measured
values.
(ii) If any of the conditions in paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this
section do not hold true, then the mean of the measured values will be
used as the basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 of the basic
model.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
5. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
6. Amend Sec. 431.97 by adding paragraph (g) and Table 14 to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
* * * * *
(g) Each dehumidifying direct-expansion dedicated outdoor air
system manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in this
table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this section.
Table 14 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Dehumidifying Direct-Expansion Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level Equipment manufactured
starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifying direct-expansion (AC)--Air-cooled without ISMRE2 = 3.8......... [date 18 months after the
dedicated outdoor air systems. ventilation energy publication of a
recovery systems. standards final rule].
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled ISMRE2 = 5.0......... [date 18 months after the
with ventilation energy publication of a
recovery systems. standards final rule].
(ASHP)--Air-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8......... [date 18 months after the
pumps without ventilation ISCOP2 = 2.05........ publication of a
energy recovery systems. standards final rule].
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source ISMRE2 = 5.0......... [date 18 months after the
heat pumps with ISCOP2 = 3.20........ publication of a
ventilation energy standards final rule].
recovery systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ISMRE2 = 4.7......... [date 18 months after the
ventilation energy publication of a
recovery systems. standards final rule].
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled ISMRE2 = 5.1......... [date 18 months after the
with ventilation energy publication of a
recovery systems. standards final rule].
(WSHP)--Water-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8......... [date 18 months after the
pumps without ventilation ISCOP2 = 2.13........ publication of a
energy recovery systems. standards final rule].
[[Page 5590]]
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water- ISMRE2 = 4.6......... [date 18 months after the
source heat pumps with ISCOP2 = 4.04........ publication of a
ventilation energy standards final rule].
recovery systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-01375 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
