[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35286-35315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11958]
[[Page 35285]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 111
June 9, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Dehumidifiers; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35286]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2019-BT-TP-0026]
RIN 1904-AE60
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Dehumidifiers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedure for dehumidifiers. The proposed amendments would
reference the current version of an applicable industry standard; allow
the rating test period to be 2 or 6 hours; permit the use of a sampling
tree in conjunction with an aspirating psychrometer for testing a
dehumidifier with a single process air intake grille; and specify for
dehumidifiers with network capabilities that all network functions must
be disabled throughout testing. DOE is seeking comment from interested
parties on the proposal.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this proposal no later than August 8, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, July 12, 2022, from
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0026. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments by
email to [email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2019-BT-TP-0026 in the subject line of the message. No telefacsimiles
(``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on this process, see section V of
this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0026. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-0371. Email [email protected].
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain previously approved
incorporations by reference for ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 and IEC
62301, and incorporate by reference the following industry standard
into part 430:
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') Standard DH-
1-2017, ``Dehumidifiers,'' (``AHAM DH-1-2017'').
Copies of AHAM DH-1-2017 can be obtained from the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers at www.aham.org/ht/d/Store/.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Applicability and Definitions
C. Test Procedure
1. Updates to Industry Standards
2. Variable-Speed Dehumidifiers
3. Psychrometer Setup
4. Whole-Home Dehumidifiers
5. Network Functions
6. Removal of Appendix X
D. Reporting
E. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
F. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 35287]]
I. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) These products include dehumidifiers, the subject of this notice.
DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for
dehumidifiers are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 430.32(v); and 10 CFR part 430 subpart B
appendix X1 (``appendix X1''), respectively. The following sections
discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for dehumidifiers
and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of
test procedures for this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Authority
Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These
products include dehumidifiers, the subject of this document. (42
U.S.C. 6291(34); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those
consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including
dehumidifiers, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)(ii))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off
mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each
covered product unless the current test procedures already account for
and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such
integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure
is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment
must consider the most current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \3\ and IEC
Standard 62087 \4\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\4\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
DOE last amended the test procedure for dehumidifiers on July 31,
2015 (``July 2015 Final Rule''), to provide technical clarifications
and improve repeatability of the test procedure. 80 FR 45801. The July
2015 Final Rule also established a new test procedure for dehumidifiers
at appendix X1 that, among other things, established separate
provisions for testing whole-home dehumidifiers. Id. Manufacturers were
not required to use appendix X1 until the compliance date of a
subsequent amendment to the energy conservation standards for
dehumidifiers. On June 13, 2016, DOE published a final rule
establishing amended energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers,
for which compliance was required beginning June 13, 2019. 81 FR 38337.
On June 30, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register an early
assessment review request for information (``RFI'') (``June 2021 TP
RFI'') in which it sought data and information regarding issues
pertinent to whether an amended test procedure would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirement that the test procedure produces
results that measure energy use during a representative average use
cycle for the product without being unduly burdensome to conduct. 86 FR
34640.
[[Page 35288]]
DOE also requested comments on specific topics relevant to the
dehumidifier test procedure, including updates to industry test
standards, variable-speed dehumidifiers, psychrometer setup, network
functions, and ventilation air for whole-home dehumidifiers. Id.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2021 TP RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the June 2021 TP RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket
Commenter(s) document No. Reference in this NOPR Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance 3 AHAM...................... Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Aprilaire, a division of Research 4 Aprilaire................. Manufacturer.
Products Corporation (``RPC'') \5\.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, 5 Joint Commenters.......... Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficiency Economy, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Madison Indoor Air Quality............... 6 MIAQ...................... Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 7 California IOUs........... Utility.
Southern California Gas Company,
Southern California Edison, and San
Diego Gas and Electric Company
(collectively, the California Investor-
Owned Utilities (``IOUs'')).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE also received a request from Aprilaire to extend the
comment period of the June 2021 TP RFI. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-TP-
0026-0002) DOE declined to extend the comment period because the
June 2021 TP RFI was a preliminary assessment and if DOE determined
to initiate a rulemaking, DOE would provide additional opportunity
for comment.
\6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for dehumidifiers. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-TP-0026,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are
arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page
of that document). The regulations.gov site appends the docket ID
number at the end of a field labeled ID. For example, EERE-2019-BT-
TP-0026-0002 has a docket ID of 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for a test
procedure rulemaking. Section 8(b) of appendix A states that if DOE
determines that it is appropriate to continue the test procedure
rulemaking after the early assessment process, it will provide further
opportunities for early public input through Federal Register
documents, including notices of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is
opting to deviate from this provision by publishing a NOPR following
the early assessment review RFI because, as discussed previously, DOE
requested comment on a number of specific topics in the June 2021 TP
RFI, and comments received in response to the June 2021 TP RFI informed
the proposals included in this NOPR.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to remove appendix X to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430 ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption
of Dehumidifiers.'' DOE proposes three changes to accomplish this: (1)
amend 10 CFR 429.36 ``Dehumidifiers,'' by removing reporting
requirements for dehumidifiers tested using appendix X; (2) amend 10
CFR 430.3 ``Materials incorporated by reference,'' by removing
reference to the ENERGY STAR program requirements for dehumidifiers
testing using appendix X; (3) amend 10 CFR 430.23 ``Test procedures for
the measurement of energy and water consumption,'' by removing
instructions for using appendix X in paragraph (z).
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to amend appendix X1 as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference the most recent version of the
relevant industry test procedure, AHAM DH-1-2017, ``Dehumidifiers;''
(2) Amend the definitions for ``portable dehumidifier'' and
``whole-home dehumidifier'' to reference the manufacturer instructions
available to a consumer as they relate to the ducting configuration and
installation;
(3) Allow the rating test period in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 5.4
to be 2 or 6 hours;
(4) Add a provision in section 3.1.1.3 allowing for the use of a
sampling tree in conjunction with an aspirating psychrometer for a
dehumidifier with a single process air intake grille; and
(5) Add a requirement in section 3.1.2.3 that dehumidifiers with
network functions be tested with the network functions in the ``off''
position if it can be disabled by the end-user; otherwise test in the
factory default setting.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 and Table II.2
compared to the current test procedure, as well as the reason for the
proposed change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3,
and 10 CFR Part 430 Subpart B Relative to Current 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR
430.3, and 10 CFR Part 430 Subpart B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 10 CFR
Current 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 429.36, 10 CFR 430.3,
430.3, and 10 CFR part 430 and 10 CFR part 430 Attribution
subpart B subpart B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 429.36 requires 10 CFR 429.36 provides Improve clarity
manufacturers to provide the public product- of
energy factor as public specific information certification
product-specific information requirements for requirements.
for dehumidifiers tested in dehumidifiers tested
accordance with appendix X in accordance with
and the integrated energy appendix X1 only.
factor for dehumidifiers
tested according to appendix
X1.
10 CFR 430.3(m)(2) 10 CFR 430.3(m) omits Improve clarity
incorporates the ENERGY STAR reference to appendix of IBR section.
Program Requirements by X.
reference for appendix X.
10 CFR 430.23(z) provides 10 CFR 430.23(z) Improve clarity
instructions for determining provides instructions of test
capacity and efficiency using for determining procedure.
appendix X or appendix X1. capacity and
efficiency using
appendix X1 only.
Subpart B contains appendix X Subpart B contains Improve clarity
and appendix X1. appendix X1 only. of test
procedure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35289]]
Table II.2--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference Incorporates by Updated industry
American National Standards reference AHAM DH-1- test method.
Institute (``ANSI'')/AHAM DH- 2017.
1-2008.
Defines ``portable Defines ``portable Improve clarity
dehumidifier'' and ``whole- dehumidifier'' and of definitions.
home dehumidifier'' based on ``whole-home
their designed purpose. dehumidifier'' by
reference to the
manufacturer
instruction as they
relate to the ducting
configuration and
installation.
Does not allow for the use of Adds provision to Improve test
a sampling tree for a allow for the use of procedure
dehumidifier with a single a sampling tree in repeatability
process air intake grille. conjunction with an and
aspirating reproducibility
psychrometer for a .
dehumidifier with a
single process air
intake grille.
Requires a dehumidification Allows two options for Reduce test
mode rating test period of 6 the length of burden while
hours. dehumidification mode maintaining
rating test period: 2 representativen
or 6 hours. ess.
Does not explicitly address Adds a requirement to Ensure test
dehumidifiers with network test dehumidifiers procedure
functions. that offer network reproducibility
functions with the .
network functions in
the ``off'' position
if it can be disabled
by the end-user;
otherwise test in the
factory default
setting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured
efficiency of dehumidifiers, or require retesting or recertification
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the
test procedures, if made final. Additionally, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed amendments, if made final, would not
increase the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are
addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its
test procedures for dehumidifiers. For each proposed amendment, DOE
provides relevant background information, explains why the amendment
merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments, and proposes
a potential approach.
A. General Comments
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE received comments from
AHAM and MIAQ regarding the timing of the rulemaking process,
specifically the importance of completing the test procedure rulemaking
before the standards rulemaking begins. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3; MIAQ, No.
6 at p. 9) AHAM further stated that when DOE does not finish a test
procedure rulemaking before the relevant standards rulemaking begins in
earnest, DOE and stakeholders' time and efforts are wasted, the
rulemaking process is complicated, and the overall rulemaking process
is slowed. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3) MIAQ stated that this order is
essential, as it lends to a more thorough review of the minimum levels
via full understanding of the test procedure. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9)
On June 4, 2021, DOE published an early assessment RFI to determine
whether to amend applicable energy conservation standards for
dehumidifiers. 86 FR 29964. (``June 2021 Standards RFI'') DOE requested
data and information to help determine whether DOE should propose a
``no-new-standard'' determination. In particular, DOE asked for
information showing a more stringent standard (a) would not result in a
significant savings of energy, (b) is not technologically feasible, (c)
is not economically justified, or any combination of the above. 86 FR
29964. DOE continues to evaluate the comments received and whether to
propose amended energy conservation standards. As discussed later in
this NOPR, DOE has tentatively determined that the changes proposed in
this document would not impact the measured efficiency of a
dehumidifier, were DOE to finalize the amendments as proposed.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, MIAQ also reiterated its
comment to the June 2021 Standards RFI regarding its concern about any
reduction in test requirements or energy conservation standards for
smaller capacity dehumidifiers. MIAQ expressed its understanding that
units they have identified as consumer product dehumidifiers are
typically less expensive products purchased through retailers, and that
homeowners may opt to purchase multiple portable dehumidifiers to meet
their latent load requirements instead of a single whole-home or
crawlspace dehumidifier. MIAQ stated that this may lead to significant
increases in energy consumption. MIAQ further stated that a balanced
requirement for efficiency and testing procedures could reduce this
waste. (MIAQ, No. No 6 at p. 9)
DOE notes that issues regarding minimum efficiency requirements
would be addressed in an energy conservation standards rulemaking for
dehumidifiers, were DOE to publish such proposal. As for reduced test
requirements, DOE notes that, as required in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), any
new or amended test procedure shall be reasonably designed to measure
energy use during a representative average use cycle and shall not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE also notes that the July 2015 Final
Rule discusses the representativeness and test burden considerations
associated with the current test procedure for portable and whole-home
dehumidifiers. 80 FR 45801, 45810-45812.
B. Scope of Applicability and Definitions
EPCA defines a dehumidifier as a self-contained, electrically
operated, and mechanically encased assembly consisting of (1) a
refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the
atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating system, including an electric motor;
(3) an air-circulating fan; and (4) a means for collecting or disposing
of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) In the July 2015 Final Rule,
DOE codified a regulatory definition of ``dehumidifier'' that clarified
the definition by excluding products that may provide condensate
removal or latent heat removal as a secondary function. 80 FR 45801,
45805. DOE therefore adopted a definition that explicitly excludes
portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, and packaged terminal
air conditioners, because these are products that may provide
condensate removal or latent heat removal as a secondary function. As
codified at 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines ``dehumidifier'' as:
A product, other than a portable air conditioner, room air
conditioner, or packaged terminal air conditioner, that is a self-
contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assembly
consisting of--
(1) A refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture
from the atmosphere;
(2) A refrigerating system, including an electric motor;
(3) An air-circulating fan; and
[[Page 35290]]
(4) A means for collecting or disposing of the condensate.
Consumer products meeting this definition are subject to DOE's
regulations for testing, certifying, and complying with energy
conservation standards.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE established definitions for two
groups of dehumidifiers: ``portable dehumidifiers'' and ``whole-home
dehumidifiers.'' 80 FR 45801, 45805. A ``portable dehumidifier'' is a
dehumidifier designed to operate within the dehumidified space without
ducting (although means may be provided for optional duct attachment).
10 CFR 430.2. A ``whole-home dehumidifier'' is a dehumidifier designed
to be installed with ducting to deliver return process air to its inlet
and dehumidified process air to one or more locations in the
dehumidified space. Id. The July 2015 Final Rule also established a
definition for ``refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifier'' to mean a whole-
home dehumidifier that removes moisture from the process air by means
of a desiccant material in addition to a refrigeration system. Id.
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought comment on whether (1) the
current definitions of ``dehumidifier,'' ``portable dehumidifier,'' and
``whole-home dehumidifier'' require amendment, and if so, how the terms
should be defined; and (2) the existing product definitions in 10 CFR
430.2 for dehumidifiers require amendments to distinguish further
between portable and whole-home units. If so, DOE also sought
information on what identifying characteristics may be included in
potential amended definitions to differentiate better between the two
configurations. 86 FR 34640, 34641-34642.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, MIAQ stated that the current
definitions of ``dehumidifier,'' ``portable dehumidifier,'' and
``whole-home dehumidifier'' should be amended to refine the
classification of these units. MIAQ further stated that, without proper
classification, it is difficult for the dehumidifier and heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning (``HVAC'') industry and associated
regulatory entities to determine which regulations apply to their
products and that additional clarity in the definitions of different
dehumidification products would allow test conditions and regulations
to be refined for each product type.
MIAQ recommended amending the definition of ``dehumidifier'' by
specifying in the introductory paragraph that a dehumidifier is
``designed primarily for the purpose of removing moisture from the
air.'' (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 2)
MIAQ asserted that a packaged (unitary) air conditioner is a unit
that meets enumerated criteria in the definition, (1)-(4), but is built
for the purpose of cooling the air, not primarily removing moisture.
MIAQ also asked that DOE consider a definition that includes
dehumidifiers with external heat rejection, which MIAQ described as
units that provide cool, dry air like an air conditioner, except the
focus is on obtaining the proper level of dehumidification first and
cooling is a by-product of the process. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 3)
As stated in the July 2015 Final Rule, the primary function of an
air conditioner is to provide cooling by removing both sensible and
latent heat, whereas a dehumidifier is intended to remove only latent
heat. 80 FR 45801, 45804. Accordingly, DOE explicitly excluded from the
definition portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, and
packaged terminal air conditioners. These explicit exclusions include
the unitary air conditioning products of concern to MIAQ. Any other
non-dehumidifier product on the market that would meet the definition
of ``dehumidifier'' is already explicitly excluded. Accordingly, DOE
tentatively finds that the explicit exclusions in the regulatory
definition of dehumidifier already address MIAQ's concern. Therefore,
DOE is not proposing to add exclusions to the dehumidifier definition.
DOE requests comment on (1) its preliminary determination that the
explicit exclusions from the definition of ``dehumidifier''
sufficiently distinguish dehumidifiers from consumer products that
provide cooling by removing both sensible and latent heat, and (2)
whether there are products on the market that are not explicitly
excluded from the ``dehumidifier'' definition but should be.
MIAQ also suggested that the definition of ``refrigerant-desiccant
dehumidifier'' be expanded to include units that do not include a
refrigeration system and specify that such units may include a
combustion process or electric resistance heat to regenerate the
desiccant. MIAQ recommended replacing the term ``refrigerant-desiccant
dehumidifier'' with ``desiccant dehumidifier''.
MIAQ stated that, with the increase of individuals with severe
allergies, there is an increased demand for the use of desiccant
dehumidifiers like those used in the industrial markets to reduce the
relative humidity of dwellings to 40 percent or less. (MIAQ, No. 6 at
p. 3)
DOE notes that desiccant dehumidifiers without refrigerant systems
are outside of the scope of dehumidifiers as defined by EPCA. As
described above, the statutory definition of dehumidifier is limited to
units with a refrigerating system. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) Therefore, DOE
is not proposing to expand the definition of refrigerant-desiccant
dehumidifier as suggested by MIAQ. Units that may include a combustion
process or electric resistance heat to regenerate the desiccant are
covered products if they meet the definition of ``dehumidifier'' or any
other covered product or equipment.
MIAQ further suggested replacing the existing term ``portable
dehumidifier'' with ``consumer product dehumidifier,'' adding the term
``crawl space dehumidifier,'' and amending the definition of ``whole-
home dehumidifier.'' MIAQ recommended defining ``consumer product
dehumidifier'' as a dehumidifier that can be purchased by the end-user
through retail channels for individual use, is used as a free-standing
appliance without the option for ducting; and is not subject to code
inspection prior to operation and is controlled by an on-board sensor.
MIAQ recommended defining ``crawlspace dehumidifier'' as a dehumidifier
designed to operate within the dehumidified space without the
attachment of additional ducting, although means may be provided for
optional duct attachment; is used in typically unoccupied areas such as
a crawlspace or unfinished basement; and is controlled by an on-board
sensor or sensor placed in the same space as the dehumidifier. MIAQ
recommended amending the definition of ''whole-home dehumidifier'' to
mean a dehumidifier designed to be installed with ducting set up to
provide process air to the unit's inlet that originates from the
dwelling, from outside for ventilation purposes, or a combination of
both; the unit is then ducted to supply dehumidified process air from
its outlet to one or more locations in the dehumidified space; and the
unit will have the capability of being controlled using a remote
humidity sensor. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 3)
MIAQ asserted that its recommended changes to terminology and
definitions would avoid confusion with the use of ``dehumidifier'' or
``residential dehumidifier'' by state and federal regulatory agencies
(e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), California Air
Resource Board, State of Washington) when referring to
[[Page 35291]]
either what MIAQ has recommended to define as ``consumer product
dehumidifiers,'' or all dehumidifiers used for residential dwellings.
MIAQ further asserted that its suggested terms and definitions would
avoid confusion with commercial, industrial, and agricultural
dehumidifiers, and would allow a better separation of test conditions
applicable to each product's intended use. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 3-4)
The California IOUs encouraged DOE to clarify how the current
dehumidifier definitions apply to non-residential dehumidifiers, such
as horticultural dehumidifiers. (California IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
DOE does not agree with MIAQ's suggested terminology changes.
Renaming portable dehumidifiers as ``consumer product dehumidifiers''
as suggested by MIAQ may give the incorrect impression that the other
defined dehumidifiers are not consumer products. Further, the
justification for delineating ``crawlspace dehumidifiers'' from the
other categories of dehumidifiers is unclear. DOE is not aware of any
units within the suggested definition of ``crawlspace dehumidifier''
that have physical features that would distinguish such units from
``portable dehumidifiers.'' Moreover, regarding MIAQ's suggestion to
base the ``whole-home dehumidifier'' definition on the intended
installation location for installing the unit, intent suggests
subjectivity. This approach would not only reduce regulatory
transparency but also create challenges for enforcement. DOE has
previously rejected such an approach in a test procedure final rule for
commercial prerinse spray valves published by DOE in the Federal
Register on March 11, 2022. 87 FR 13901, 13904. Additionally, the test
conditions suggested by MIAQ for ``crawlspace dehumidifiers'' are the
same as for portable dehumidifiers in appendix X1.
With respect to horticultural dehumidifiers and other dehumidifiers
marketed for non-residential applications, DOE notes that dehumidifiers
are ``consumer products.'' (See generally 42 U.S.C. 6291(2); 42 U.S.C.
6295(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) EPCA defines a ``consumer product'' as
any article (other than an automobile, as defined in section
32901(a)(3) of title 49) of a type (A) which in operation consumes, or
is designed to consume, energy or, with respect to showerheads,
faucets, water closets, and urinals, water; and (B) which, to any
significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or
consumption by individuals; without regard to whether such article of
such type is in fact distributed in commerce for personal use or
consumption by an individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Accordingly, to the
extent that a dehumidifier model is of a type distributed in commerce
for personal use or use by an individual, it would be within the scope
of the dehumidifier test procedure, regardless of how it is marketed
and whether the model is distributed for personal or individual use.
DOE has published guidance on making ``of a type'' determinations at
www.energy.gov/gc/enforcement-policies-and-statements, ``Guidance
Concerning Consumer/Commercial Distinction''.
A manufacturer may submit a petition to waive any appendix X1
requirements if it believes that its dehumidifier contains one or more
design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model
according to appendix X1 or that appendix X1 evaluates the dehumidifier
in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy and/or water
consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a). The petition should suggest an
alternative method for testing the basic models identified in the
waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
The California IOUs encouraged DOE to clarify how dehumidifiers are
categorized by product class and suggested using the distinction
between ducted and ductless units to better differentiate the range of
products that are available. The California IOUs also requested that
DOE clarify the applicability of the appendix X1 test procedure to
larger units, commenting that the test procedure in appendix X1 does
not limit scope by capacity, but that ANSI/AHAM Standard DH-1-2008,
``Dehumidifiers,'' (``ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008'') has a capacity limit of
185 pints/day. The California IOUs also recommended that DOE consider
addressing steam cabinets, which they described as an emerging product
that deodorizes, sanitizes, and dries clothes using heat pump
technology and that operates like a portable dehumidifier. (California
IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 1-3)
DOE notes that the current definitions for portable and whole-home
dehumidifiers already address whether a unit is designed to be
installed or operated with or without ducting. As described, a whole-
home dehumidifier is defined as a dehumidifier designed to be installed
with ducting (emphasis added) to deliver return process air to its
inlet and to supply dehumidified process air from its outlet to one or
more locations in the dehumidified space. By contrast, a portable
dehumidifier is defined as a dehumidifier designed to operate within
the dehumidified space without the attachment of additional ducting
(emphasis added), although a means may be provided for optional duct
attachment. However, DOE understands that the ``designed to'' wording
in these definitions may imply that DOE makes subjective determinations
about how a dehumidifier is categorized and may lead to confusion.
Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to change the portable
dehumidifier and whole-home dehumidifier definitions to reference
manufacturer instructions available to a consumer as they relate to the
ducting configuration and installation. DOE proposes to define a
portable dehumidifier as a dehumidifier that, in accordance with any
manufacturer instructions available to a consumer, operates within the
dehumidified space without the attachment of additional ducting,
although means may be provided for optional duct attachment. DOE
proposes to define a whole-home dehumidifier as a dehumidifier that, in
accordance with any manufacturer instructions available to a consumer,
operates with ducting to deliver return process air to its inlet and to
supply dehumidified process air from its outlet to one or more
locations in the dehumidified space.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definitions for
portable dehumidifier and whole-home dehumidifier.
The applicability of the Federal test procedure is not limited by
capacity. DOE acknowledges that ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 specifies a
capacity limit. While certain provisions of ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 have
been adopted as part of the Federal test procedure, section 1 of
appendix X1 specifies the Federal test procedure must be used to
measure the energy performance of dehumidifiers regardless of capacity.
With regard to steam cabinets, these products may use heat pump
technology to remove moisture from clothing in an enclosed cabinet, and
in some cases, are advertised as capable of removing moisture from the
room. To the extent that a steam cabinet, or any product, meets the
definition of a dehumidifier, and, in particular, condenses moisture
from the atmosphere, DOE would consider it to be a dehumidifier and
subject to energy conservation standards. Furthermore, DOE tentatively
concludes that steam cabinets that remove moisture from the room can be
tested in accordance with the proposed dehumidifier test procedure. If
a manufacturer believes that its dehumidifier's performance is not
accurately reflected by the test
[[Page 35292]]
procedure, it is encouraged to provide comment in response to this
document and to submit a waiver request containing an alternate test
procedure for consideration.
C. Test Procedure
Dehumidifiers are tested in accordance with appendix X1, which
adopts certain text provisions from ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, with
modification. In part, the DOE test procedure specifies a different
dry-bulb temperature (65 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') for portable
dehumidifiers and 73 [deg]F for whole-home dehumidifiers) than ANSI/
AHAM DH-1-2008, while still maintaining the relative humidity specified
by ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, and specifies provisions for inactive, off-
cycle, and off mode testing. See Sections 4.1.1 and 3.2 of appendix X1.
Appendix X1 also includes instructions regarding instrumentation,
condensate collection, control settings, setup, and ducting for whole-
home dehumidifiers. See Sections 3.1.2.2; 3.1.1.4; 3.1.1.5; 3.1.1.1;
and 3.1.3 of appendix X1.
Under the current test procedure, a unit's capacity is the volume
of water, in pints, the unit removes from the ambient air per day,
normalized to a standard ambient temperature and relative humidity. See
Section 2.14 of appendix X1. The Integrated Energy Factor (``IEF''),
representing the efficiency of the unit expressed in liters per
kilowatt-hour, is the ratio between the capacity and the combined
amount of energy consumed by the unit in dehumidification mode and
standby and/or off mode(s), adjusted for the representative number of
hours per year spent in each mode. See Section 5.4 of appendix X1.
1. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, the dehumidifier test procedure at appendix X1
references ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, an industry test procedure for
dehumidifiers, with modification. In 2017, AHAM published a revision to
AHAM DH-1, AHAM DH-1-2017, which established provisions for testing
dehumidifier energy use in off-cycle, inactive, and off modes, and for
including energy consumption in those modes in efficiency calculations.
AHAM DH-1-2017 also added guidance for instrumentation setup, multiple
air-intakes, and control settings; lowered a temperature; and tightened
tolerances. It lowered the standard dry-bulb temperature condition for
dehumidifiers from 80 [deg]F (as in ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008) to 65 [deg]F
(with the required wet-bulb temperature changing accordingly to
maintain the same relative humidity) and tightened the maximum allowed
variation for dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature readings from 2.0
[deg]F to 1.0 [deg]F and from 1.0 [deg]F to 0.5 [deg]F, respectively.
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and information on
(1) whether the references to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 at appendix X1 should
be updated to the current version, AHAM DH-1-2017; (2) how updating the
references in appendix X1 to AHAM DH-1-2017 would impact the measured
energy efficiency of dehumidifiers tested under the current DOE test
procedure; (3) the reduction of the maximum-allowed temperature
variation in AHAM DH-1-2017, the potential test burden increase from
this change, and any effects on reliability or reproducibility of
results; and (4) whether any modifications to AHAM DH-1-2017, other
than modifications consistent with those made to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 in
the current DOE test procedure, would be needed to ensure that DOE's
test procedure produces results that are representative of an average
use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 86 FR 34640, 34642.
AHAM stated that it convened a task force to review and evaluate
possible revisions to its 2017 test procedure, AHAM DH-1-2017. AHAM
further stated that, working with DOE and its contractors, it expects
to conduct investigative testing on any changes to the test procedure
to ensure that revisions to AHAM DH-1-2017 are supported by test data.
AHAM stated that its goal was to have all investigative testing
complete and a revised test procedure to share officially with DOE by
December 22, 2021, which would be publicly available on AHAM's website.
AHAM further stated that it expects the task force will then conduct
round robin testing and validation testing to examine repeatability,
reproducibility, accuracy, and impact of changes on measured
efficiency, which will be used as a basis for finalizing the test
procedure in 2022. AHAM encouraged DOE to participate in the process
and allow its completion before considering any independent activity on
test procedure development, stating that the goal of the process is to
create an updated version of AHAM DH-1 that DOE can adopt as the energy
test for dehumidifiers. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 2)
Aprilaire and MIAQ commented in support of the incorporation by
reference of AHAM DH-1-2017. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1; MIAQ, No. 6 at
p. 4)
DOE appreciates the efforts underway by AHAM and the task force
group members to further consider improvements to the DH-1 test
procedure, and to then conduct round-robin and validation testing. DOE
notes that on March 30, 2022, the task force released a publicly
available draft version of the updated standard, AHAM DH-1-2022,\7\ but
has not yet finalized the standard. DOE has reviewed the changes to
AHAM DH-1-2017 made in the draft and in this NOPR has either proposed
to adopt the changes or raised them for comment. If the updated DH-1 is
finalized during the course of this rulemaking, DOE would consider
adopting that updated version to the extent it is consistent with the
discussions presented in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AHAM DH-1-2022 (Dehumidifiers)--DRAFT is available for free
on AHAM's website: www.aham.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=12022&Category=MADSTD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received no comments on the impacts to energy efficiency
measured by appendix X1 resulting from the adoption of AHAM DH-1-2017.
DOE notes that the modified dry-bulb temperature in AHAM DH-1-2017
aligns the industry test procedure with the dry-bulb temperature
already required by appendix X1. DOE tentatively concludes that
referencing AHAM DH-1-2017 would not impact the energy efficiency
measured by appendix X1. Where applicable, specifically in section 4.2
of appendix X1, DOE also proposes to reference section 9.3.2 of AHAM
DH-1-2017 for off-cycle mode test requirements/instructions as AHAM DH-
1-2017 reflects the language of appendix X1. See section 4.2 of
appendix X1.
MIAQ and Aprilaire stated that there would not be an appreciable
change in test burden resulting from the tightening of the tolerances
required for testing purposes, and Aprilaire further commented that it
has not had difficulty achieving these conditions while testing. (MIAQ,
No. 6 at pp. 4-6, Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1) MIAQ also stated that it
believes currently available instrumentation can easily provide the
level of accuracy required in AHAM DH-1-2017 and that such a
requirement provides performance data at an improved accuracy. (MIAQ,
No. 6 at pp. 4-6)
MIAQ suggested changing the wet-bulb temperature measurements and
requirements to dewpoint temperature to match the readout of modern
instrumentation. MIAQ further stated that this change would capture the
variable of greater interest to the dehumidification industry. (MIAQ,
No. 6 at p. 6)
DOE is not proposing to amend the test conditions in appendix X1
from
[[Page 35293]]
wet-bulb temperature to dewpoint temperature. DOE notes that the latest
version of the industry test method, AHAM DH-1-2017, uses wet-bulb
temperature. DOE understands the use of wet-bulb temperature in AHAM
DH-1-2017 reflects the general consensus of the industry at this time.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate AHAM DH-1-2017
by reference. DOE requests comment on the proposal not to change
specifying ambient conditions based on wet-bulb temperature, as
currently specified, as opposed to (or in addition to) dewpoint
temperature.
2. Variable-Speed Dehumidifiers
a. Variable-Speed Compressors
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE stated that it is aware that
dehumidifiers are available on the U.S. market that incorporate
variable-speed compressors; i.e., ``variable-speed dehumidifiers.'' 86
FR 34640, 34642. The current test procedure does not specifically
account for this technology. A variable-speed compressor can operate at
a variety of speeds rather than just the single speed achievable by
conventional compressors. A single-speed compressor cycles on and off
during operation, which can introduce inefficiencies in performance
often referred to as ``cycling losses.'' Whereas, a variable-speed
compressor is able to adjust its speed up or down during operation,
thereby reducing or eliminating cycling losses. Variable-speed units
may avoid condensate re-evaporation into the ambient room air, which
can occur when a dehumidifier cycles off its compressor but not its fan
during off-cycle mode. The current test procedure in appendix X1 does
not capture any ``cycling losses'' for single-speed dehumidifiers (and
avoidance of such losses for variable-speed dehumidifiers) because the
test unit operates at full capacity throughout the test.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered a load-based test for
dehumidifiers, which would capture cycling behavior in dehumidifiers
with single-speed compressors or speed modulation for variable-speed
dehumidifiers. The load-based test would involve adding moisture to the
test chamber at a fixed rate and allowing the control system of the
dehumidifier to respond to changing moisture levels in the room. 80 FR
45801, 45809. DOE elected not to adopt a load-based test for the
dehumidifier test procedure in the July 2015 Final Rule, due to
concerns about the potential increase in test burden. Id. at 80 FR
45810. Section III.C.2.c of this document discusses load-based testing
in greater detail.
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought data on single-speed
dehumidifiers as follows: (a) their energy use when cycling on and off
due to varying relative humidity in the room, (b) the extent of re-
evaporation when operating in off-cycle mode, and (c) the effect of re-
evaporation on dehumidification mode efficiency. DOE also sought
feedback and data related to load-based testing, in particular, any
alternative test methods that may produce results that are more
representative of variable-speed dehumidifier energy consumption,
including, but not limited to, a load-based test approach and
information about the nature and extent of the test burden associated
with a load-based test for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34642.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, AHAM stated that variable-
speed dehumidifiers do exist on the market, but that DOE should not
assume that variable-speed compressors are a viable technology option
for improving efficiency for dehumidifiers like they are for products
such as room air conditioners. AHAM commented that, for dehumidifiers,
a slowing compressor may prevent or inhibit the product reaching the
dew point, thus making it difficult to determine how much energy would
be saved through the use of a variable-speed compressor. AHAM suggested
this may be why test procedure waivers have not been sought for
dehumidifiers with variable-speed compressors--the existing test
procedure correctly measures their efficiency. AHAM further stated that
DOE should thoroughly investigate how this technology works in
dehumidifiers before concluding that a variable-speed compressor is a
design option to increase efficiency for portable dehumidifiers. AHAM
stated that the task force will examine whether AHAM DH-1-2017 needs
updating to take into account variable-speed compressors. (AHAM, No. 3
at pp. 2-3)
Aprilaire stated it does not produce household whole-home
dehumidifiers with a variable-speed compressor and is unaware of any
manufacturer that does. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1) MIAQ similarly
stated it does not offer variable-speed compressors in any of its
dehumidifiers. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 6)
MIAQ stated that variable-speed compressors are not used in the
stand-alone dehumidifiers manufactured by its Therma-Stor brands for
the commercial, industrial, agricultural, and restoration markets, and
that variable-speed compressors are not used in the MIAQ product line
except for its integrated HVAC products exceeding 20 tons of compressor
capacity that focus on dehumidification for the agriculture industry.
MIAQ stated, based on its experience, research and development, and
market research, that variable-speed compressors in dehumidifiers offer
little improvement in terms of efficiency and operational benefits over
single-speed compressors, especially for residential dehumidifier
applications, and do not result in a reasonable payback to the
consumer. MIAQ stated that although variable-speed compressors are
beneficial for residential air conditioners, the same is not the case
for mechanical dehumidifiers because their operation is much different
due to their function of removing water from the air--to properly
function, the evaporator temperature must always be significantly lower
than the dewpoint of the air. MIAQ further stated that when there is a
call for dehumidification, the unit operates at full capacity to pull
the moisture from the air until the setpoint is reached, meaning there
is little opportunity for savings from slowing the compressor or
increasing the evaporator temperature. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 6-7)
Based on DOE's evaluation, and consistent with the points raised by
commenters, given that dehumidifiers must maintain evaporator
temperatures below the dew point to efficiently remove water from the
air, variable-speed dehumidifiers may not be able to achieve
significant efficiency gains over single-speed units. However, there
could be some efficiency gains if the variable-speed compressor is
inherently more efficient.
Variable-speed dehumidifiers may avoid significant condensate re-
evaporation into the ambient room air, which can occur when a
dehumidifier cycles off its compressor but not its fan during off-cycle
mode to defrost the heat exchanger. Although it is possible that
variable-speed dehumidifiers could reduce the number of defrost cycles
or avoid them altogether by reducing compressor speed to raise the
evaporator temperature while still dehumidifying the room, DOE is not
aware of any data showing this. DOE has not observed any defrost cycles
in its current market-representative sample of units when testing in
accordance with the appendix X1 test, conducted at a dry-bulb
temperature of 65 [deg]F, which is representative of typical
dehumidifier operation (see section III.B.3 of this document). At
operating temperatures at or below 55 [deg]F, defrost cycles are
possible, and for some units likely. However, those temperatures are
far less likely to occur with a level of humidity
[[Page 35294]]
high enough to lead to operating a dehumidifier than at the current
operating test conditions in appendix X1 (i.e., 65 [deg]F), as
discussed in the following section.
DOE requests information and data regarding any efficiency and
performance benefits associated with variable-speed dehumidifiers, both
generally and relative to those with single-speed dehumidifiers.
b. Multiple Test Conditions
The current test procedure specified in appendix X1 requires one
test condition for each category of dehumidifier: a dry-bulb
temperature of 65 [deg]F for portable dehumidifiers and 73 [deg]F for
whole-home dehumidifiers. See Section 4.1.1 of appendix X1.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE received comments from the
Joint Commenters and MIAQ advocating for multiple test conditions
rather than the current single test condition. (Joint Commenters, No. 5
at p. 2; MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 4-6) The Joint Commenters stated that
dehumidifiers are likely to encounter frost conditions in the field,
but that the current DOE test procedure at appendix X1 may not capture
defrost performance because manufacturers would likely adjust a unit's
controls or refrigeration system operation to avoid triggering defrost
at 65 [deg]F. See Section 4.1.1 of appendix X1. The Joint Commenters
referred to their comments on the dehumidifiers test procedure NOPR
published by DOE in the last rulemaking on May 21, 2014 (79 FR 29271,
``May 2014 NOPR''), in which they encouraged DOE to consider requiring
a test at a dry-bulb temperature of less than 65 [deg]F (e.g., 55
[deg]F) to capture defrost performance in addition to testing at 65
[deg]F. The Joint Commenters asserted that capturing defrost
performance would encourage improved defrost methods and controls. They
stated that in the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE recognized the value of
testing at additional temperatures but determined that soil
temperatures \8\ below 55 [deg]F would be limited during the
dehumidification season (citing 80 FR 45801, 45808). They encouraged
DOE to reevaluate the use of soil temperatures as a proxy for basement
and other sub-ground level location temperatures, reexamine whether
there are significant operating hours below 65 [deg]F, and investigate
at what temperature defrost is typically activated. (Joint Commenters,
No. 5 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used soil temperature data
as a proxy for basement air temperatures. This approach is also
discussed further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAQ also recommended requiring an additional test condition to
provide additional information to homeowners and HVAC professionals to
aid in their selection of a dehumidifier for their application. MIAQ
stated that such additional testing would not create an unnecessary
burden. MIAQ specifically recommended separating products that they
suggested defining as ``consumer product dehumidifiers'' into three
product classes (25 pints/day or less, 25.01 to 50 pints/day, and
greater than 50 pints/day) and two different test conditions (65 [deg]F
dry-bulb and 73 [deg]F dry-bulb, both with 60-percent relative humidity
and 0 inches of water column (``in. w.c.'') external static pressure
(``ESP'')). MIAQ asserted that the products they suggested defining as
``consumer product dehumidifiers'' are typically used, unducted, in the
basement of a dwelling or in the living space. MIAQ also asserted that
the suggested test conditions represent a unit placed in the basement
(i.e., 65 [deg]F dry-bulb) and a unit placed in the living space (i.e.,
73 [deg]F dry-bulb). Additionally, MIAQ suggested that DOE define
certain products as ``crawlspace dehumidifiers,'' create three product
classes (50 pints/day or less, 50.01 to 75 pints/day, and greater than
75 pints/day), and adopt one test condition (65 [deg]F dry-bulb, 60-
percent relative humidity, and 0 in. w.c. of ESP). MIAQ asserted that
these products are typically used, unducted, in the crawlspace below a
dwelling or in the primarily unoccupied basement and that the suggested
test conditions represent a unit placed in the crawlspace or unoccupied
basement. MIAQ stated that providing data at these expanded conditions
would not be an undue burden on manufacturers and that HVAC
professionals often request unit performance at these conditions and
many others. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 4-6)
As noted, the current DOE test procedure at appendix X1 measures
portable dehumidifier performance and efficiency during operation at 65
[deg]F. As discussed in the May 2014 NOPR, before proposing the 65
[deg]F test condition, DOE conducted research regarding the typical
ambient air conditions and soil conditions under which residential
portable and whole-home dehumidifiers operate. 79 FR 29271, 29277-
29278. DOE conducted its analysis based on regions with reported
dehumidifier ownership per available data at the time of the analysis.
DOE limited its analysis to times of expected dehumidifier use: the
months industry identifies for dehumidifier usage (April-October) and
hours of those months above 60-percent relative humidity, which is the
typical setpoint for a dehumidifier. DOE found the weighted-average air
temperature was 64.1 [deg]F and weighted-average soil temperature was
65.2 [deg]F. These closely match the current single test condition of
65 [deg]F. Id. Based on these analyses described in the May 2014 NOPR,
DOE confirmed in the July 2015 Final Rule that the 65 [deg]F dry-bulb
temperature is representative of the majority of conditions during
periods of dehumidifier use. 80 FR 45801, 45808-45809.
As discussed previously and in the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
understands that measuring portable dehumidifier performance at 55
[deg]F may be desirable to capture defrost performance, and, for
variable-speed dehumidifiers, potential defrost cycle avoidance or
mitigation. 80 FR 45801, 45808. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE stated
that the usefulness of determining performance at extreme conditions
did not warrant the additional test burden associated with testing at
80 [deg]F or 55 [deg]F, or any other test condition. 80 FR 45801,
45808-45809. For this NOPR, DOE reevaluated the relative benefits and
burdens that would result from requiring testing at additional test
conditions, including a 55 [deg]F condition. As part of this analysis,
DOE reviewed 2015 hourly air temperature, soil temperature, and ambient
relative humidity data from the National Climatic Data Center
(``NCDC'') of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(``NOAA''),\9\ collected at weather stations in each state and region
for which dehumidifier ownership data were available. DOE used the
Energy Information Administration's Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (``RECS'') from 2015 (``RECS 2015''),\10\ the most recent
version of the full dataset available at the time of this analysis, to
weight the temperature data based on dehumidifier ownership. Figure 1
shows this weighted-average soil temperature and ambient air
temperature data throughout the dehumidification season (i.e., between
April and October, and corresponding with hours of ambient air relative
humidity at or above 60 percent, at which dehumidifier operation is
expected).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NCDC of NOAA hourly temperature and relative humidity data
are available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web (Last accessed January
31, 2022).
\10\ 2015 RECS survey data are available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ (Last accessed January 31, 2022).
\11\ As discussed in the May 2014 NOPR, 60-percent relative
humidity represents an upper bound for an ambient humidity condition
that consumers would find acceptable and is therefore the threshold
above which DOE expects dehumidifier operation. 79 FR 29271, 29276-
29282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.000
Both the soil and ambient air temperature data indicate that the
temperature follows a roughly normal distribution centered around a
mean of approximately 65 [deg]F. As discussed, the current test
procedure represents this distribution as a single test point at 65
[deg]F. To consider further potential modifications to the test
procedure to represent variable-speed dehumidifier operation, DOE
considered the possibility of a multiple-temperature test in which,
instead of a single test condition at the approximate peak of the
normal distribution, three test conditions would represent the
distribution of air and soil temperatures. The three test conditions
would span a range both below and above the ``peak'' of the normal
distribution. DOE investigated a three-temperature test, with tests at
55 [deg]F, 65 [deg]F, and 80 [deg]F,\12\ all with the same 60-percent
relative humidity. These temperatures would capture as wide of a
temperature range as possible while remaining representative of the
peak of the temperature distribution curves. Performance at more
extreme temperatures (i.e., below 55 [deg]F and above 80 [deg]F) are
encountered much less frequently by comparison, as shown by the data in
Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Commenters suggested a highest temperature condition of 75
[deg]F. DOE performed its evaluation using 80 [deg]F instead because
the DOE test procedure required for use prior to the compliance date
of the current energy conservation standards (i.e., appendix X)
specified a test condition of 80 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted investigative testing of a variable-speed
dehumidifier and a single-speed dehumidifier with similar capacity from
the same manufacturer to understand two points. First, DOE sought to
assess the potential for efficiency improvements from variable-speed
dehumidifiers. Second, DOE examined the extent to which any such
improvements would be captured by the current single test condition and
by a multiple-condition test. Figure 2 shows the results from testing
both dehumidifiers at the three different dry-bulb temperature
conditions of 55 [deg]F, 65 [deg]F (the test condition specified in
appendix X1), and 80 [deg]F (the test condition specified in appendix
X). To better show the dehumidification mode performance that would be
affected by the changing operating conditions, DOE is presenting the
values on the graph in Figure 2 using efficiency factor (``EF''), which
addresses only dehumidification mode energy use, rather than the IEF,
which includes standby/inactive mode and off-cycle mode energy use. The
operating temperature is unlikely to affect the energy use in standby/
inactive mode and off-cycle mode.
[[Page 35296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.001
The results from this testing show that, for the tested units,
there are significant differences in the performance and efficiency of
variable-speed and single-speed dehumidifiers when operating at
different test conditions. As shown in Figure 2, at the current 65
[deg]F rating condition, the single-speed unit performed at 2.12 EF,
and 25 percent less at the 55 [deg]F rating condition, with a 1.45 EF.
At the current 65 [deg]F rating condition, the variable-speed unit
performed at 2.66 EF, with a smaller decrease of 14 percent at the 55
[deg]F rating condition, with a 2.29 EF.
Conversely, at the 80 [deg]F rating condition, the single-speed
unit performed at 2.75 EF, an increase of 24 percent relative to the
current 65 [deg]F rating condition. At the 80 [deg]F rating condition,
the variable-speed unit performed at 3.01 EF, a smaller increase of 13
percent relative to the current 65 [deg]F rating condition.
DOE excluded time spent at outlier temperatures below 50 [deg]F or
above 80 [deg]F. For each unit, DOE combined the remaining results from
all three test conditions using weighting factors based on the
percentage of dehumidifier operating hours spent within 5 [deg]F of
each test condition. The resulting weighting factors were 26 percent
for the 55 [deg]F test condition, 54 percent for the 65 [deg]F test
condition, and 20 percent for the 75 [deg]F test condition.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As discussed above, while testing was conducted at a rating
test condition of 80 [deg]F, DOE considered the weighting of a
potential future rating test condition of 75 [deg]F, as suggested by
commenters and to more evenly represent operating conditions between
50 [deg]F and 80 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although single-speed and variable-speed units may perform
differently at individual test conditions either lower or higher than
the current test condition, combining the results from all three test
conditions into a single weighted average shows no significant
difference in measured efficiency compared to the current single 65
[deg]F rating condition, for both single-speed and variable-speed
units. Using this weighted-average approach, the single-speed unit's
weighted-average performance was 2.1 EF, a difference of only 2 percent
from the performance measured at the current 65 [deg]F rating
condition. Similarly, the variable-speed unit's weighted-average
performance was 2.6 EF, a difference of only 1 percent from the
performance measured at the current 65 [deg]F rating condition.
As discussed, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to allow the required
test time to be 2 or 6 hours to give the option of reducing overall
test burden when testing at the current single 65 [deg]F rating
condition. Including a half-hour stabilization period, this would
result in a total test time of 2.5 hours for the current single test
condition.
DOE is also considering specifying three test conditions. In
considering two additional test conditions for portable dehumidifiers,
DOE must also consider the additional test burden such a change would
present to manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE estimates that the
current test procedure requires approximately 6.5 hours to conduct,
representing a half-hour stabilization period followed by a 6-hour
rating test period. If DOE were to proceed using the current test
requirements (i.e., a 6-hour rating test period), the time required for
testing would increase from 6.5 hours to 21.5 hours. Each additional
test condition would require at least 1 hour to change the conditions
within the chamber, a half hour to allow the unit to stabilize within
the chamber, and then 6 hours to conduct each additional test, totaling
15 additional test hours for the two additional test conditions
described previously.
If DOE were to adopt a 2-hour test period, as proposed for the
single test condition below, for each of the two additional test
condition scenarios, the total time required for testing would increase
to about 9.5 hours, adding at least 7 test hours to the manufacturer
test burden (i.e., 5 additional total hours for stabilization and
testing, and 2 total
[[Page 35297]]
hours to adjust the chamber conditions between tests). For comparison,
the current test procedure requires 6.5 hours of testing, and the
proposed revised test procedure requires 2.5 hours of testing, or 6.5
hours if the six-hour test is chosen.
However, in considering a three-condition test, performance at the
lower temperatures during a 2-hour period could be less consistent with
performance during a 6-hour period because defrost occurs. Thus, it is
not clear when testing at 55 [deg]F whether a 2-hour test is equivalent
to a 6-hour test. If DOE chose to adopt a three-condition test and 2-
hour test period with the exception of a 6-hour test at the 55 [deg]F
test condition, the total test burden would be 13.5 hours.
As indicated previously, DOE investigative testing suggests that a
single temperature condition provides test results that are
representative of an average period of use of a dehumidifier. As
discussed, DOE is also considering testing of three possible
temperature conditions although as discussed, investigative testing
indicated no substantive improvement in representativeness over the
current test procedure. Without an improvement in the
representativeness of measuring dehumidifier performance at a range of
temperatures, the increase in test burden associated with requiring
multiple test conditions would not be justified.
DOE requests data regarding whether a three-test condition test is
more representative of an average period of use for a dehumidifier and
the applicability of a 2-hour test, or other reduced test length
between 2 and 6 hours, to a three-condition test, specifically when
testing at 55 [deg]F.
DOE requests comment on maintaining a single-test condition
approach for portable dehumidifiers, and further requests comment on
potential benefits and burden associated with a three-test condition
approach for all portable dehumidifiers.
c. Load-Based Test
Under the current test procedure, temperature and humidity
conditions are held constant throughout the test (i.e., a steady-state
test). As such, the test unit operates at full capacity throughout the
duration of the test.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered a load-based test, in
which the humidity level in the test chamber would be allowed to vary
in response to the operation of the dehumidifier.\14\ This, in turn,
would allow the control system of the dehumidifier to respond to
changing moisture levels in the room, as it would during real-world
usage. As a result, a load-based test would induce cycling behavior in
single-speed dehumidifiers or speed modulation in variable-speed
dehumidifiers. 80 FR 45802, 45809. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
elected not to adopt a load-based test for the dehumidifier test
procedure due to concerns about the potential increase in test burden.
Id. at 80 FR 45810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In a load-based test, moisture would be added to the test
chamber at a fixed rate (i.e., a fixed load) throughout the duration
of the test, simulating a real-world usage scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought (1) feedback and data regarding
any alternative test methods that may produce results that are more
representative of variable-speed dehumidifier energy consumption,
including, but not limited to, a load-based test approach; and (2)
information about the nature and extent of the test burden associated
with a load-based test for dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34642.
The Joint Commenters, MIAQ, and California IOUs supported the
further investigation and development of a load-based test. (Joint
Commenters, No. 5 at p. 1; MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 7; California IOUs, No. 7
at p. 2) The Joint Commenters stated that the current test procedure
for dehumidifiers does not capture the impact of cycling losses,
including moisture re-evaporation. They stated that, in dehumidifiers
that continue to operate the fan after the compressor cycles off, some
moisture that has been removed by the dehumidifier can be re-
evaporated, which results in wasted energy. They cited a part-load
performance test of two portable dehumidifiers conducted by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2014.\15\ They explained that
in that study, the models operated the fan for 3 minutes after the
compressor shut off; when compressor run times ranged from 3 to 6
minutes, 17-42 percent of the removed moisture was returned to the
space. They further stated that the current test procedure measures the
fan power consumed in fan-only mode, but it does not capture this
additional efficiency impact from moisture re-evaporation. The Joint
Commenters asserted that, for variable-speed units, load-based testing
would: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of the unit's controls in
adjusting compressor and fan speeds to optimize efficiency; and (2)
enable variable-speed technology to compete on a fair basis, which the
Joint Commenters asserted would likely increase the adoption of this
feature. They further stated that, for single-speed units, load-based
testing would capture the impact of cycling losses and wasted energy
from re-evaporation. They therefore encouraged DOE to consider a load-
based test, which would ensure that the test procedure reflects the
real-world operation of dehumidifiers. (Joint Commenters, No. 5 at p.
1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Measured Performance of Residential Dehumidifiers Under
Cyclic Operation'' J. Winkler et al., National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, January 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAQ supported a load-based test for both single-speed and
variable-speed dehumidifier operation, as it asserted that such a test
would provide the means to obtain true performance data of all
dehumidifiers over a range of operating conditions, potentially
resulting in a single number representing multiple test conditions,
similar to the seasonal energy efficiency rating used in central air
conditioners. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 7)
The California IOUs commented that there are new variable-speed
dehumidifiers coming into the market that may require a revised test to
account for part-load performance. (California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2)
Aprilaire stated that it has considered the part-load test method
previously described by DOE and asserted that this test would require a
costly retrofit to facilities to implement and may be difficult to
ensure consistent repeatability and reproducibility of the results.
(Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 1)
DOE agrees that a load-based test may better capture energy use
resulting from either of two different circumstances. First, the rate
of dehumidification could exceed the rate of moisture introduced to the
room, leading to the compressor cycling off. Second, moisture could
build up in the room, such as when the dehumidifier cycles off and only
operates its fan to defrost the evaporator. Load-based testing may also
be able to measure energy lost due to re-evaporation, as suggested by
commenters. However, DOE continues to have the same concerns stated in
the July 2015 Final Rule. First, a load-based test would significantly
increase test burden. It is DOE's understanding that load-based testing
is not possible to conduct in a psychrometer chamber designed to be
compliant with requirements of appendix X1, without substantive changes
to the control systems and potential changes to the reconditioning
setup within the chamber. Second, as discussed below, due to the
complexities of operating a test chamber in a load-based configuration,
repeatability and reproducibility could decrease.
[[Page 35298]]
DOE continues to recognize the challenges associated with
implementing load-based testing in the dehumidifier test procedure. As
discussed in the recent room air conditioner test procedure final rule
published by DOE in the Federal Register on March 29, 2021, and in the
June 2021 TP RFI, DOE expects that a load-based test would reduce
repeatability and reproducibility due to current limitations in current
test chamber capabilities--namely, equipment is not designed for a
load-based tests. 86 FR 16446, 16466 (March 29, 2021); 86 FR 34640,
34642 (June 30, 2021). Thus, although they may technically be capable
of doing so, the controls and other systems are not capable of
maintaining a specific load as needed, which would reduce the
representativeness of the results and potentially be unduly burdensome.
Additionally, the psychrometer chambers used to test dehumidifiers
present additional challenges. The equipment and controls systems in
these chambers are designed to maintain specified temperature and
humidity conditions, not to add a steady amount of moisture in the same
way that a calorimeter could.
Despite the challenges with load-based testing described
previously, DOE conducted limited investigative testing of a load-based
testing approach to assess differences in measured performance between
a single-speed and variable-speed dehumidifier under such a test. At
the time of testing, there was only one variable-speed dehumidifier
model on the market. The variable-speed unit and the single-speed unit
tested were from the same manufacturer, had similar designs, and had
similar rated dehumidification capacities. Although the sample was
limited, the data are informative, align with the theoretical
limitations of variable-speed technology for dehumidifiers, and
generally support the assertion from commenters that variable-speed is
not a viable technology to improve efficiency.
DOE tested two dehumidifiers with comparable capacities from the
same manufacturer, one with a variable-speed compressor and one with a
single-speed compressor. DOE conducted multiple rounds of testing using
different moisture introduction rates for each test. The moisture
introduction rates represented 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and
100 percent of the full-load dehumidification capacity of each tested
unit. The ``100-percent'' moisture introduction rate test is equivalent
to the current appendix X1 test.
Figure 3 shows how the two units performed in dehumidification mode
under each tested moisture load. As discussed previously, measured EF
is presented instead of IEF to focus on the dehumidification mode
efficiency; i.e., the portion of IEF that would change due to a change
to the test conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.002
As shown in Figure 3, at each reduced moisture load test, the
single-speed unit performed more efficiently than the variable-speed
unit, relative to each unit's measured efficiency at full load (i.e.,
100-percent load). For example, at the 75-percent load, the efficiency
of the single-speed unit was 99 percent of full-load efficiency,
whereas the efficiency of the variable-speed unit was 89 percent of
full-load efficiency. At the 25-percent load, the efficiency of the
single-speed unit was 73 percent of full-load efficiency, compared to
only 54 percent for the variable-speed unit.
The relatively less efficient performance of the variable-speed
unit at reduced loads runs counter to the general trends observed for
other HVAC products such as room air conditioners, in which variable-
speed units generally perform relatively more efficiently than single-
speed units at reduced loads. The following paragraphs describe some
notable observations made by DOE during testing; however, as discussed,
DOE is unable to draw conclusions at this time as to why the variable-
speed unit tested performed relatively less efficiently than the
single-speed unit at reduced loads. During each load-based test, the
single-speed unit cycled on and off, as expected, in response to the
humidity level in the room being reduced and reaching the setpoint on
the dehumidifier controls. DOE observed that the variable-speed unit
also cycled on and off at the 25-percent moisture load condition. In
addition to
[[Page 35299]]
cycling at the 25-percent load condition, the variable-speed unit also
fluctuated between two different compressor speeds at the 75-percent
moisture load condition. The reason for the compressor behavior at the
75-percent moisture load condition is unclear but may be related to the
control scheme programmed by the manufacturer when the unit senses
certain ambient or operating conditions.
DOE was unable to draw conclusions at this time as to why the
tested variable-speed unit performed relatively less efficiently than
the single-speed unit at reduced moisture loads. DOE would not expect
either the cycling at the 25-percent condition or the fluctuation in
compressor speeds at the 75-percent condition to result in relatively
lower efficiency performance for the variable-speed unit relative to
the single-speed unit, since the single-speed unit also exhibited
cycling at each of the reduced moisture loads. DOE also has no
information to suggest whether the observed trends in performance are
unique to the variable-speed model tested, or whether the same trends
in performance would be observed more generally for other variable-
speed models. DOE notes, however, that the findings of this
investigative testing would appear to support AHAM's comment in
response to the June 2021 RFI that DOE should not assume that variable-
speed compressors are a viable technology option for improving
efficiency for dehumidifiers like they are for products such as room
air conditioners, as discussed previously in section III.C.2.a of this
document.
DOE's investigative testing does not support use of a load-based
test to differentiate single-speed dehumidifiers from variable-speed
dehumidifiers at this time. Therefore, DOE is not proposing a load-
based test in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on load-based testing for dehumidifiers,
including (1) whether DOE's variable-speed dehumidifier test results
are typical of the expected performance under a load-based test, (2)
whether there are other aspects of performance beyond cycling that may
have contributed to the performance observed during these tests, (3)
the feasibility of conducting load-based tests in a typical lab setup,
(4) the relative benefits and burdens of a load-based test, and (5) the
tentative determination not to prescribe a load-based test in appendix
X1.
d. Test Duration
Appendix X1 requires a test duration of 6 hours for the
dehumidification mode test, after a 30-minute stabilization period. See
Section 5.4 of appendix X1. DOE and AHAM's DH-1 working group have
identified an opportunity to reduce this test duration, thereby
reducing test burden. To identify a potential shorter test duration
that could be considered, DOE conducted investigative testing on 13
portable dehumidifiers of varying capacities, one of which was
variable-speed, at the 65 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature, in accordance
with appendix X1. DOE used the gravity drain condensate collection
approach in appendix X1 and recorded the weight of the condensate
collected every 30 seconds. See Section 3.1.1.4 of appendix X1. DOE was
therefore able to calculate energy consumption and collected condensate
at any of the 30-second intervals throughout the 6-hour test and did so
at each hour of testing. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the percent change
in capacity and efficiency (IEF), respectively, at each hour relative
to the results of the 6-hour test for the 13 tested units, as well as
the average of all 13 units. (By definition, all data points would be
plotted at 0-percent difference on the sixth hour).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.003
[[Page 35300]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.004
As demonstrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, capacity and efficiency
vary only slightly from the 6-hour test results with a test duration
reduced to 1 hour. Specifically, at 1 hour, capacity and efficiency
differ from the 6-hour test results on average by 0.4 percent, and both
data sets in combination show a minimum change of -1.2 percent and
maximum change of 1.6 percent at the 1-hour point. At 2 hours, the
percent change in capacity and efficiency for all 13 units is within a
range of 1.4 percent. This investigative testing suggests that a 6-hour
dehumidification mode test duration for portable dehumidifiers may be
unnecessary, as the data show there is minimal difference in measured
efficiency between the 2-hour and 6-hour test durations.
DOE also conducted investigative testing on three whole-home
dehumidifier units at the 73 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature, using the 6-
hour dehumidification mode test duration as specified by appendix X1.
See Section 5.4 of appendix X1. Each of the tested whole-home units
operated the compressor continuously at steady state for the entirety
of the 6-hour test duration, without any cycling due to frost
accumulation. DOE also did not observe any cycling due to frost
accumulation in the previously mentioned investigative testing of
portable dehumidifiers at the 65 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature. Thus, DOE
does not expect cycling due to frost accumulation to occur for whole-
home dehumidifiers or portable dehumidifiers at or above 65 [deg]F dry-
bulb temperature. Because both whole-home and portable units operate
steadily at the rating conditions, one would expect that, like portable
units, for whole-home units the 2-hour and 6-hour results also are
equivalent within a very small percentage. A 2-hour test duration would
therefore provide substantively equivalent measures of capacity and
efficiency to a 6-hour test duration for whole-home units, but with a
significantly shorter test. Based on this evaluation, DOE has
tentatively determined that a 2-hour test duration is appropriate for
both whole-home dehumidifiers and portable dehumidifiers and would
provide representative results with minimized test burden. DOE also
recognizes, however, that removing the requirement for a 6-hour test
duration would require recertification for units previously certified
under a test duration of 6 hours. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is
proposing that the dehumidification mode test duration of either 2 or 6
hours for both portable and whole-home dehumidifiers.
As discussed previously, investigative testing indicates that a
test length between 2 and 6 hours would likely be suitable to maintain
test procedure repeatability and reproducibility. As such DOE is
proposing an alternative test duration of 2 hours to provide consistent
test procedure times, avoid unnecessary test burden, and avoid forcing
manufacturers to retest. However, DOE continues to consider additional
test durations of periods between 2 and 6 hours. DOE is aware that
industry stakeholders are considering alternate test procedure lengths,
including a 4-hour test with an extension to 6 hours should the unit
enter defrost.
DOE requests comment on (1) the proposal to allow the
dehumidification mode test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for both
portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, (2) whether the proposed
approach sufficiently represents capacity and efficiency for
dehumidifiers, and (3) the efficacy of alternate test durations,
including those being considered by industry stakeholders.
3. Psychrometer Setup
Appendix X1, through reference to Section 4 ``Instrumentation'' of
ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, requires dehumidifiers with a single air intake to
be monitored with an aspirating-type psychrometer \16\ perpendicular
to, and 1 foot in front of, the unit; and, in the case of multiple air
intakes, to be monitored with a separate sampling tree. See Sections
3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3 of appendix X1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In an aspirating-type psychrometer, a wet-bulb and a dry-
bulb thermometer are mounted inside a case that also contains a fan.
The fan draws air across both thermometers, and the resulting wet-
bulb and dry-bulb temperatures are used to determine the percent
relative humidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered whether certain
psychrometer configuration issues, such as variable levels of residual
heat from the psychrometer fan and variable air velocity influencing
the accuracy of temperature sensors, were detrimental to test
repeatability. 80 FR 45802, 45812-45813. As discussed in the July 2015
Final Rule, DOE was unable to determine whether any repeatability
improvements are associated with adjusting the fan location in relation
to
[[Page 35301]]
the dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature sensors, or with tightening the
air velocity requirements through the psychrometer. DOE also did not
have sufficient data to quantify the burdens associated with such
requirements. Id. at 80 FR 45813.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE also considered a proposal to
require sampling trees for testing all dehumidifiers, regardless of the
number of air intakes, for consistency and repeatability. However,
based on then-available data, DOE was unable to conclude that the use
of a sampling tree would be more reliable than the psychrometer-only
approach. 80 FR 45802, 45812-45813.
Since publication of the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE has received
feedback from a testing laboratory that use of a sampling tree ducted
to an aspirating psychrometer is a common configuration for testing of
other refrigerant-based products, and that placing the psychrometer
itself in front of the test unit may impede the instrument's ability to
effectively monitor the inlet air conditions.
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested (1) data on the effect of
residual heat from the psychrometer fan and the effects of psychrometer
air velocity on temperature measurement repeatability when using a
psychrometer, rather than a humidity sensor, under the current
(appendix X1) test procedure; (2) data and other information on
measures that can be employed to minimize any such effects when using a
psychrometer, as well as information regarding the repeatability of
measurements from tests using such measures; (3) comment on any
potential test burden increases associated with additional requirements
regarding psychrometer fan placement and orientation relative to the
temperature sensors, and any burden associated with reducing the
acceptable psychrometer air velocity range; and (4) comment on whether
it would be appropriate to require, or to allow, sampling trees to be
used with aspirating psychrometers regardless of the number of air
intakes for a given model, including any data confirming repeatability
and especially repeatability relative to using an aspirating
psychrometer without a sampling tree. 86 FR 34640, 34642-34643.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, MIAQ stated that it uses a
thin-film capacitive humidity measurement sensor that is accurate to
within 1 percent relative humidity, which eliminates the
need for a psychrometer and its added heat. MIAQ asserted that
psychrometers are inaccurate, difficult to maintain, and burdensome to
set up. MIAQ also stated that sampling trees would not be required if
inlet and outlet air flows are not allowed to affect the humidity
sensor. According to MIAQ, the humidity sensor can be affected if the
warm and dry dehumidifier exhaust is allowed to mix near the
dehumidifier inlet where the humidity sensor is located, or if the
mixing of the room air is not sufficient to disperse the warm and dry
exhaust from the inlet. MIAQ recommended permitting devices other than
an aspirating type psychrometer air sampler. They also recommended
specifying that the humidity measuring device used must be able to
achieve 1 percent relative humidity, noting that the
allowable range in dry bulb (0.5 [deg]F) and wet bulb
(0.3 [deg]F) provide the same 1 percent
relative humidity range. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
AHAM commented that the current test procedure allows for two
possible laboratory setups: a single-point measurement or a sampling
tree. AHAM stated that allowing these different test setups may result
in different test outcomes and thus lower reproducibility between test
laboratories. AHAM did not have any specific recommendations on
psychrometer setup. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3)
DOE conducted investigative testing to determine whether and to
what extent there are differences between the relative humidity
measurements obtained when using a relative humidity sensor instead of
a psychrometer. To compare the measured relative humidity throughout
the test period, DOE tested six portable dehumidifiers in accordance
with appendix X1, each instrumented with two relative humidity sensors
and an aspirating psychrometer, with all instrumentation placed 1 foot
in front of the inlet grille. Figure 6 shows the results of this
testing, indicating the average percentage difference in relative
humidity as measured by the two relative humidity sensors compared to
the relative humidity measured with the aspirating psychrometer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.005
[[Page 35302]]
As shown in Figure 6, the average difference observed between
relative humidity sensor and aspirating psychrometer measurements for a
given test unit ranged from less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent
relative humidity. The largest difference that DOE observed in testing
(i.e., from the smallest measured value for the aspirating psychrometer
to the largest measured value for either of the relative humidity
sensors) for any of the units was 3.0 percent relative humidity, and
the average among all six test units of each unit's maximum difference
was 1.8 percent relative humidity. DOE considers this level of
variation to be comparable to the existing accuracy and tolerance
requirements for relative humidity sensors in appendix X1 (see Sections
3.1.1.2 and 3.1.2.2.2 of appendix X1). DOE therefore tentatively
concludes that the repeatability of the dehumidifier test procedure is
similar regardless of whether a relative humidity sensor or aspirating
psychrometer is used. Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain the options
currently offered in appendix X1 regarding the permitted relative
humidity measurement apparatuses.
The test procedure at appendix X1 does not currently permit the use
of a sampling tree in conjunction with an aspirating psychrometer to
measure relative humidity for portable dehumidifiers with a single air
inlet. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE was unable to conclude whether
using a psychrometer-only or using a psychrometer in conjunction with a
sampling tree would produce the most repeatable results. 80 FR 45802.
DOE required using the psychrometer-only approach in the July 2015
Final Rule to minimize test burden. However, DOE is aware that using a
sampling tree with an aspirating psychrometer is standard practice for
many test laboratories when conducing psychrometric testing. Although
DOE is not aware of any data comparing relative humidity measurements
using an aspirating psychrometer with and without a sampling tree, the
widespread industry acceptance of sampling trees used with aspirating
psychrometers and DOE's technical understanding of the validity of
measurements obtained when using sampling trees suggest that allowing
the use of sampling trees in appendix X1 would not substantively impact
the repeatability or reproducibility of the test procedure, or the
representativeness of the measured results. Additionally, allowing
sampling trees would likely reduce the test burden for certain test
laboratories that would otherwise be required to change their
aspirating psychrometer configuration to remove the sampling tree and
reposition the psychrometer within the test chamber. Therefore, when
measuring relative humidity using an aspirating psychrometer for all
portable and whole-home dehumidifiers with a single air inlet, DOE is
proposing to permit the use of sampling trees in appendix X1.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow relative humidity
measurements taken using an aspirating psychrometer with a sampling
tree in appendix X1 for dehumidifiers with a single air inlet.
In addition to the proposal to allow sampling trees in conjunction
with aspirated psychrometer testing, DOE is aware that industry
stakeholders are considering shielding and positioning requirements for
aspirated psychrometer construction and setup to improve the accuracy
of the results. DOE believes that these requirements would improve the
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Based on input
from industry, DOE expects that there would be minimal test burden
increase associated with these requirements, as these practices are
already generally accepted by industry. Therefore, DOE proposes to
require that the sensing elements within the psychrometer box be
shielded or positioned to minimize radiation effects from the fan
motor, that there be line of sight separation between any fans and
sensing elements within the test fixture, and at least 3 feet of
separation, along the path of airflow, between any fans and sensing
elements within the test fixture.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that the
psychrometer box contain shielding or be configured to minimize
radiation effects on the sensing elements, that there be line of sight
separation between any fans and sensing elements within the test
fixture, and at least 3 feet of separation, along the path of airflow,
between any fans and sensing elements within the test fixture.
4. Whole-Home Dehumidifiers
a. Air Velocity
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE established a test procedure for
whole-home dehumidifiers in appendix X1. 80 FR 45802, 45810-45811.
Whole-home dehumidifiers differ from portable dehumidifiers as they are
installed in a ducted configuration in a home. The whole-home
dehumidifier test procedure specifies a ducted test setup with
instructions for measuring and maintaining the air flow through these
ducts. See section 3.1.3 of appendix X1. Section 5.2 of AHAM DH-1-2017
requires that ``the air flow approaching the test unit shall be uniform
in temperature, humidity and velocity. The air velocity shall not
exceed 50 feet per minute (``ft/min'') (0.25 meters per second (``m/
s'')) within 3 ft (0.91 m) of the dehumidifier with the unit not
operating.''
MIAQ expressed concern with the air velocity requirements in
section 5.2 of AHAM DH-1-2017. MIAQ agreed there is a need to properly
mix the air during testing but stated that for the larger whole-home
dehumidifiers, a maximum air velocity of 50 ft/min requires a test
chamber of an excessive size. MIAQ suggested working with DOE to
identify a higher velocity that can be used with larger units. (MIAQ,
No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
As reflected in AHAM DH-1-2017, the 50 ft/min maximum air velocity
requirement ensures that the test chamber is sufficiently equipped and
sized to maintain uniform temperature, humidity, and velocity for the
dehumidifier inlet air. However, when testing high-capacity portable
and whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE understands that this requirement, in
conjunction with the requirement that test chambers must exchange air
within the chamber at a rate no less than two times the airflow of the
dehumidifier under test, may represent a challenge. Because larger
dehumidifiers have a significantly higher airflow than smaller portable
dehumidifiers, they may require the use of test chambers that are
significantly larger than a typical laboratory's. Commenters have
suggested that this specification in AHAM DH-1-2017 may represent an
undue burden on manufacturers of large-capacity portable dehumidifiers
and whole-home dehumidifiers.
DOE is considering alternate air velocity specifications. However,
DOE is not aware of any data that quantify the impact on repeatability
and reproducibility of raising the maximum air velocity requirement to
a less stringent level. Based on anecdotal evidence and information
received from laboratory technicians, an increased air velocity when
testing larger-capacity dehumidifiers in standard chambers (i.e., above
50 ft/min) does not negatively impact the repeatability or
reproducibility of the test procedure. Based on the previous
information, DOE is considering raising the maximum air flow
requirement by an amount appropriate to the increased air flow of the
largest units on the market, e.g., to 100 ft/min.
DOE requests comment regarding the maximum air velocity requirement
generally, the current 50 ft/min
[[Page 35303]]
requirement as specified in AHAM DH-1-2017, and the consideration to
raise the maximum air velocity within 3 ft of the dehumidifier with the
unit not operating, when properly configuring the test chamber. Were
DOE to obtain information or data indicating that a higher permitted
air velocity would not negatively impact the measured results, DOE
would consider adopting an increased air velocity requirement.
Aprilaire commented that appendix X1 currently lists a pitot
traverse method of determining velocity pressures and ultimately
airflow through reference to Section 7.3.1 of ANSI/Air Movement and
Control Association (``AMCA'') 210-07. Aprilaire stated that there is a
very limited number of test facilities that still use this technology.
Aprilaire suggested that DOE adopt the alternative method of using
airflow nozzles to measure airflow detailed in Section 7.3.2 of ANSI/
AMCA 210-07. Aprilaire stated that most laboratories are using the
nozzle method in ANSI/AMCA 210-07 for measuring airflow and that this
method is listed by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 37 as the method to use
for HVAC Equipment. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at pp. 1-2)
DOE inquired with a number of laboratories and is aware that there
is a limited number of test laboratories that use pitot-tube traverses
when conducting testing in accordance with ANSI/AMCA 210-07 (see
Sections 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 7.3.1 of ANSI/AMCA 210-07), as referenced by
appendix X1 for testing whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE is aware that
test laboratories typically use the alternate calibrated nozzle
approach detailed in Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2 and 7.3.2 of ANSI/AMCA 210-
07 when conducting testing in accordance with ANSI/AMCA 210-07 for
products other than dehumidifiers, which is not currently permitted in
appendix X1. Based on feedback from test laboratories and comments
received in response to the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE understands that
pitot-tube traverses are complex to fabricate and that measuring static
pressure using them may require greater expertise, be more costly, and
be more error-prone than the alternative calibrated nozzle approach.
DOE has conducted limited investigative testing of two whole-home
dehumidifiers to compare the IEF measured using pitot-tube traverses to
the calibrated nozzle approach. The results show an average difference
between the two approaches of 1 percent. Based on the industry-accepted
standard, ANSI/AMCA 210-07, the understanding that the two approaches
are substantively similar, and feedback from test laboratories that use
of the calibrated nozzle approach can reduce the test burden as
compared to use of the pitot-tube traverses, DOE is proposing to allow
the calibrated nozzle approach in addition to the pitot-tube traverse
approach in appendix X1 when testing whole-home dehumidifiers, in
accordance with the requirements of Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, and 7.3.2 of
ANSI/AMCA 210-07.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow calibrated nozzle
testing according to the requirements of Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.2, and
7.3.2 of ANSI/AMCA 210-07 for whole-home dehumidifiers in appendix X1.
b. Ventilation Air
Appendix X1 requires capping and sealing any fresh-air inlet on a
whole-home dehumidifier during testing. Section 3.1.3 of appendix X1.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE determined that, while sealing the
fresh-air inlet on dehumidifiers designed to operate with the fresh-air
intake open may negatively impact capacity and efficiency, those
effects are not significant enough to warrant the added test burden of
providing separate fresh-air inflow. 80 FR 45802, 45811. In the June
2021 TP RFI, DOE noted the lack of data regarding representative
consumer use of fresh-air inlet ducts for whole-home dehumidifiers. 86
FR 34640, 34643. DOE subsequently requested (1) data about the
prevalence of fresh-air inlet use among whole-home dehumidifier
consumers, and (2) feedback on the test burden increases associated
with adding another air stream in the testing configuration to account
for the fresh-air inlet on those whole-home dehumidifiers equipped with
such a feature. Id.
Aprilaire and MIAQ stated that capping the fresh-air intake should
not appreciably impact the total airflow through the unit and
subsequently should have little effect on the efficiency. (Aprilaire,
No. 4 at p. 2; MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9) Aprilaire further stated that
alternatives such as requiring an alternate airflow would provide a
serious and substantial burden and would require substantial retrofits
to existing dehumidification test chambers. (Aprilaire, No. 4 at p. 2)
MIAQ stated that nearly all whole-home dehumidifiers it offers include
the option of a fresh-air inlet, and that its units are tested with
this inlet subject to the same ESP as the dehumidifier's return air
inlet. MIAQ asserted that developing a test procedure that requires the
dehumidifier's return air inlet to be subject to one value of ESP and
the fresh-air inlet to a different ESP would be an excessive burden
that would provide little value. MIAQ suggested consideration of
alternatives, for example, a third test condition for whole-home
dehumidifiers at a higher temperature and an ESP of 0.2 in. w.c. to
simulate a blending of return air and outside air at two different
temperatures and ESPs. MIAQ added that another possible approach is to
develop a single metric representing multiple test conditions, as
provided in their comments, that includes a test condition or two
representing a fresh-air inlet combined with return air from the
dwelling. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 9)
DOE is not aware of publicly available data, nor has DOE received
information from commenters, regarding the prevalence of fresh-air
inlet use among whole-home dehumidifier consumers. Comments received on
this issue are consistent with DOE's prior determination that the
burden of adding an additional air stream in the testing configuration
to account for fresh-air inlet on those whole-home dehumidifiers
equipped with such a feature would outweigh the benefits. Doing so
would substantively increase cost, require substantial retrofits to
existing dehumidification test chambers, and provide little value.
Therefore, DOE proposes to retain the requirement to cap and seal the
fresh-air inlet during testing of a whole-home dehumidifier.
DOE requests comment on the tentative determination to continue to
require capping and sealing any fresh-air inlet on a whole-home
dehumidifier during testing in appendix X1.
c. External Static Pressure
The DOE test procedure at appendix X1 requires that the ESP, the
difference in process air outlet static pressure minus the process air
inlet static pressure, be 0.2 in. w.c. for the duration of the test
when conducting whole-home dehumidifier testing. See section
3.1.2.2.3.1 of appendix X1.
MIAQ stated that whole-home dehumidifiers are typically integrated
into the dwelling's HVAC system's ductwork. MIAQ stated that the unit
could (1) draw air from the furnace/air handler's return and send
dehumidified air back to the return (i.e., return-return installation),
or (2) draw from the furnace/air handler's supply and return
dehumidified air to the same supply (i.e., supply-supply installation).
MIAQ stated that in either setup, the ESP experienced by the
dehumidifier would be nearly 0 in. w.c. MIAQ stated that whole-home
dehumidifiers could also draw from the furnace/air handler's
[[Page 35304]]
return and send the dehumidified air to the furnace/air handler's
supply ductwork, in which case the ESP would be the same as that seen
by the furnace/air handler's fan, which is typically 0.25 in. w.c. to
0.5 in. w.c. MIAQ further stated the dehumidifier could also receive a
portion of its intake air from outside for the purpose of meeting
ventilation requirements.
For whole-home dehumidifiers, MIAQ suggested that DOE adopt two
product classes (75 pints/day or less and greater than 75 pints/day)
and two test conditions (73 [deg]F dry-bulb and 60 percent relative
humidity for both test conditions, one at 0 in. w.c. of ESP and the
other at 0.4 in. w.c. of ESP).
MIAQ stated that the first suggested test condition represents a
unit ducted in a furnace return-return or supply-supply arrangement
with 0 in. w.c. of ESP and the second suggested test condition
represents a unit drawing air from the furnace's return air duct and/or
outside air and supplying the air to the furnace's supply air duct with
0.4 in. w.c. of ESP. (MIAQ, No. 6 at pp. 4-6)
Regarding distinguishing between whole-home dehumidifiers based on
capacity, MIAQ did not provide, and DOE does not have, information or
data to indicate that such a distinction is warranted for the test
procedure. If DOE proposes amendments to the energy conservation
standards, DOE will consider whether to create additional whole-home
dehumidifier product classes consistent with the authority at 42 U.S.C.
6295(q).
In this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to amend the test conditions and
test setups for whole-home dehumidifiers, as suggested by MIAQ. MIAQ
did not provide support regarding the representativeness of this setup.
In addition, DOE previously considered and rejected it in a previous
rulemaking based on a field study and other information. While DOE
understands that installation configurations and environmental factors
vary for whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE tentatively concludes that
testing whole-home dehumidifiers twice, once with 0 in. w.c. ESP and
once with 0.4 in. w.c. ESP, would not be sufficiently more
representative as to justify the increased test burden. The 0.2 in.
w.c. ESP specification for the existing single whole-home dehumidifier
test was based on real-world operating data from a field study
conducted in 2014.\17\ This field study and manufacturer comments
addressed in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'')
during the last dehumidifier test procedure rulemaking (``February 2015
SNOPR'') supported that whole-home dehumidifiers are typically
installed in configurations resulting in 0.2 in. w.c. ESP. 80 FR 5994
(Feb. 4, 2015). Manufacturer feedback discussed in the February 2015
SNOPR indicated that using an ESP of 0.5 in. w.c. would be an ``extreme
and unrealistic condition for whole-home dehumidifiers'' and that
whole-home dehumidifiers are typically installed at much lower ESP than
0.5 in. w.c. 80 FR 5994, 5997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ T. Burke, et al., Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: Field-
Monitoring Study, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report No.
LBNL-6777E (September 2014). Available at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1164163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding additional whole-home dehumidifier tests would increase test
burden on manufacturers by a minimum of 2 or 6 hours for each test. In
addition to the increased test chamber time, each test with a new ESP
would require additional time to adjust or refabricate duct
installation setups between tests.
DOE is not proposing to add additional tests to the whole-home
dehumidifier test procedure at appendix X1. DOE tentatively determined
that the current test procedure sufficiently represents typical whole-
home installation configurations and any marginal increase in
representativeness from additional test conditions would not justify
the substantial test burden increase associated with those additional
tests.
DOE requests comment on maintaining a single test approach for
whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE also requests comment on potential
improvements in representativeness and the additional test burden
associated with the testing whole-home dehumidifiers twice, once each
with an external static pressure of 0 in. w.c. ESP and 0.4 in. w.c.
5. Network Functions
In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE noted that many types of consumer
products (e.g., refrigerators, clothes dryers, room air conditioners)
are now equipped with ``network functions,'' such as mobile alerts/
messages, remote control, and energy information and demand response
capabilities to support future smart grid interconnection. 86 FR 34640,
34643. DOE noted that certain manufacturers have also incorporated some
of these features, such as WiFi capability, into dehumidifiers. Id. In
a previously published RFI, DOE sought comment to better understand
market trends and issues in the emerging market for products and
equipment that incorporate smart technology to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation when setting efficiency standards.
83 FR 46886. (Sept. 17, 2018) In the June 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested
(1) data on the prevalence of network functions in dehumidifiers
currently on the market in the United States and (2) information on
whether the current test procedures for dehumidifiers impede providing
smart technology operations on dehumidifiers. 86 FR 34640, 34643.
In response to the June 2021 TP RFI, the Joint Commenters, MIAQ,
and the California IOUs supported further investigation of network
functions in dehumidifiers. (Joint Commenters, No. 5 at pp. 1-2; MIAQ,
No. 6 at p. 8; California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters
stated that, while units with network functions can provide benefits by
facilitating integration with the smart grid, network functions may
consume additional standby power in all operating modes. They further
stated the test procedure should capture any power consumption
associated with network functions to encourage manufacturers to provide
network functions with low power consumption. (Joint Commenters, No. 5
at pp. 1-2)
MIAQ stated it is not aware of any product with significant
residential market impact that uses network functions. MIAQ further
stated that it is aware of commercial dehumidifiers that offer this
technology and of efforts to develop this for the residential market.
MIAQ stated that if network functions were integrated into
dehumidification products, the method of test would need to be re-
evaluated; if the units included faster response or predictive
operation, there may be more time spent in a ``standby'' mode or more
rapid cycling of the unit. (MIAQ, No. 6 at p. 8)
The California IOUs asserted that dehumidifiers are strong
candidates for load shifting due to their typical operation based on
humidity, rather than on consumer preferences. They indicated that
network functions and load shifting are priorities in California and
that dehumidifiers with network functions are already on the market.
The California IOUs also commented that EPA has indicated an intent to
include network functions in future revisions of the ENERGY STAR
Criteria. (California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2)
AHAM stated that enabling network functions results in a negligible
increase in current draw when compared to the current draw of a
dehumidifier's main function. AHAM additionally stated that the
percentage of dehumidifiers with network functions (as per the ENERGY
STAR definition) is 0.4 percent of total shipments. AHAM stated that
further discussion on these aspects of the test procedure will take
place on the AHAM DH-1 task force. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3)
[[Page 35305]]
Based on testing and information from industry regarding network
functions in consumer products, DOE expects that the power consumption
attributable to network functions is expected to be on the order of 1
watt (``W'') or less. The impact on IEF of power consumption of network
functions is expected to be no more than 1 percent, based on DOE's
testing that indicated an average impact on IEF of less than 0.75
percent for the units in DOE's test sample. DOE is aware there are
dehumidifiers on the market with varying implementations of network
functions. However, DOE is not aware of any data available, nor did
interested parties provide any data, regarding the consumer use of
network functions. Without these data, DOE is unable to establish a
representative test configuration to assess the energy consumption of
network functions for dehumidifiers. Therefore, DOE proposes to specify
that, if a dehumidifier has network functions, all network functions
must be disabled throughout testing using means available to the end
user pursuant to instructions provided in the product's user manual.
DOE further proposes to specify that, if network functions cannot be
disabled by the consumer or the manufacturer's user manual does not
provide instruction for disabling the function, the energy consumption
of the enabled network function must be included, as it is more
representative than excluding the energy consumption associated with
the network function.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify in appendix X1
that, for units with network functions, (1) the network functions must
be disabled throughout testing if such settings can be disabled by the
end-user and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to
do so; and (2) if network functions cannot be disabled by the end-user,
or the product's user manual does not provide instruction for disabling
network functions, then the unit must be tested with the network
functions in the factory default configuration for the test period.
6. Removal of Appendix X
Appendix X to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is unnecessary for
dehumidifiers manufactured on or after January 27, 2016. Use of
appendix X1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is currently required for
any representations of energy use or efficiency of portable and whole-
home dehumidifiers, including demonstrating compliance with the
currently applicable energy conservation standards. As discussed in
this document, DOE is proposing to maintain the current appendix X1,
with amendments. That updated version of appendix X1 would be used for
the evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, and
for determining compliance with those standards. Therefore, in this
NOPR DOE proposes to remove appendix X to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430,
along with all references to appendix X in 10 CFR parts 429 and 430.
DOE requested comment on its proposal to remove appendix X to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to appendix X in
10 CFR parts 429 and 430.
D. Reporting
Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For
dehumidifiers, the certification template reflects the general
certification requirements at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific
requirements at 10 CFR 429.36.
The California IOUs suggested that DOE incorporate reporting of
refrigerant type and charge quantity for dehumidifiers into the test
procedure. They stated that this would not increase testing burden as
this information is already being collected to comply with other
industry test procedures and would be useful for compliance with new
refrigerant regulations. (California IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3)
The collection of refrigerant type and charge quantity for
dehumidifiers is not necessary for compliance or to support the DOE
program. For this reason, DOE is not proposing to amend the product-
specific certification requirements for dehumidifiers to require
reporting of refrigerant type or charge quantity.
E. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
dehumidifiers by amending appendix X1 to incorporate the current
version of the applicable industry standard, specify dehumidification
mode rating test period options of 2 or 6 hours, permit the use of a
sampling tree in conjunction with an aspirating psychrometer for a
dehumidifier with a single process air intake grille, and specify
requirements for testing dehumidifiers with network functions. If the
network functions can be disabled by the end-user and instructions to
disable are in the manual, test with those functions disabled;
otherwise, test in the factory default setting. DOE has tentatively
determined that these proposed amendments would not increase testing
costs. As discussed in the following paragraphs, DOE has also
tentatively determined that two proposals would likely reduce testing
costs: shortening the test duration and permitting use of a sampling
tree.
a. Reduced Test Period
DOE proposes to amend appendix X1 to specify dehumidification mode
rating test period options of 2 or 6 hours for portable and whole-home
dehumidifiers. As discussed in section III.B.3 of this document, DOE
expects this proposal would decrease test cost for dehumidifier
manufacturers due to reduced test chamber time, assuming they choose
the 2-hour option. Reducing the test period by 4 hours would yield an
estimated cost savings per test of $750.
DOE has initially determined that the proposed amendments would not
affect the representations of dehumidifier energy efficiency/energy
use, as discussed in section III.B.4 of this document. If DOE adopts
the proposed amendments, DOE expects that manufacturers would be able
to rely on data generated under the current test procedure. As such,
retesting of dehumidifiers would not be required solely as a result of
DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedure.
Recertification would also not be required as a result of this
amendment: the proposal includes retaining the 6-hour option, meaning
existing test data would continue to support certification.
DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposal to specify dehumidification mode rating test period options of
2 or 6 hours for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers.
b. Sampling Tree
DOE proposes in appendix X1 to allow relative humidity measurements
using an aspirating psychrometer with a sampling tree for dehumidifiers
with a single air inlet. As discussed in section III.B.4 of this
document, DOE expects this proposal would not substantively impact
repeatability or reproducibility of the test procedure or the
representativeness of the measured energy efficiency. The proposal, if
made final, would not result in a change of the measured energy
efficiency of any currently certified dehumidifiers because the
proposed use of a sampling tree would be an alternate test set-up to
the current test set-up. The proposal, if made final, would also likely
reduce the test burden for certain test laboratories that would
otherwise be required to
[[Page 35306]]
change their aspirating psychrometer configuration to remove the
sampling tree and reposition the psychrometer within the test chamber.
There is no cost attributable to this amendment.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments would
not impact the measured energy use or representations of dehumidifier
energy efficiency/energy use. DOE has tentatively determined that
manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current
test procedure if DOE adopts the proposed amendments. As such, DOE does
not expect retesting of any dehumidifier would be required solely as a
result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test
procedure.
DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposal to allow relative humidity measurements to be made using an
aspirating psychrometer with a sampling tree in appendix X1 for
dehumidifiers with a single air inlet.
c. Other Amendments
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to
incorporate the updated version of the relevant industry testing
standard and to provide additional direction regarding units with
network functions would not change the measured energy efficiency as
compared to the current test procedure and would not change the test
costs. Based on review of AHAM DH-1-2017, DOE expects that the proposed
test procedure for measuring IEF would not increase testing costs per
unit compared to the current DOE test procedure. DOE also does not
expect that the proposed direction to disable network functions during
testing, if made final, would impact test cost or the measured energy
efficiency, as network function does not represent a significant
portion of the overall energy efficiency, as discussed previously.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. 10 CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix
A, section 8(c). If the industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory
criteria for test procedures, DOE will, through the rulemaking process,
adopt modifications to these standards.
The test procedures for dehumidifiers at part 430, subpart B,
appendix X1 incorporates by reference AHAM DH-1-2017, ANSI/AMCA 210,
ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and IEC 62301. Appendix X1 incorporates sections of
(1) AHAM DH-1-2017 for definitions, instrumentation, and test procedure
requirements, (2) ANSI/AMCA 210 to describe required instrumentation
and measurements of ESP, pressure losses, and velocity pressures for
refrigerant-desiccant whole-home dehumidifiers testing, (3) ANSI/ASHRAE
41.1 to determine the number and locations of temperature sensors
within the ducts for refrigerant-desiccant whole-home dehumidifiers,
and (4) IEC 62301 for requirements for inactive and off mode testing.
The industry standards DOE proposes to incorporate by reference via
amendments described in this proposed rule are discussed in further
detail in section IV.M of this document.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in this
proposed rule are not unduly burdensome. DOE requests comments on the
benefits and burdens of the proposed updates and additions to industry
test standards referenced in the test procedure for dehumidifiers.
F. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of that test procedure final rule in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure and an individual
manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline,
EPCA provides an allowance for those manufacturers to petition DOE for
an extension of the 180-day period. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive
such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461
[[Page 35307]]
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68
FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA'') \18\
requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered product, including dehumidifiers,
to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE is publishing this NOPR in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the
statute as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered product, including dehumidifiers,
to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off
mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each
covered product unless the current test procedures already account for
and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such
integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure
is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment
must consider the most current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \19\ and IEC
Standard 62087 \20\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\20\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of dehumidifiers, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') considers a business entity to be small
business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. DOE used
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. These size
standards and codes are established by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of portable
dehumidifiers is classified under NAICS 335210, ``Small Electrical
Appliance Manufacturing,'' whereas the manufacturing of whole-home
dehumidifiers is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and
Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees
or fewer and 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as
a small business in these industry categories, respectively. For
manufacturers of both portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE used
the higher (or more conservative) threshold of 1,500 employees or
fewer.
DOE used its Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\21\
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System (``MAEDbS''),\22\ and ENERGY STAR's Product Finder dataset \23\
to create a list of companies that sell the products covered by this
rulemaking in the United States. DOE consulted publicly available data,
such as manufacturer websites, manufacturer specifications and product
literature, import/export logs, and basic model numbers, to identify
original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of the products covered by
this rulemaking. DOE relied on public data and subscription-based
market research tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \24\) to
determine company location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened
out companies that do not offer products covered by this proposed
rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's definition of a ``small business,''
or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE's CCD is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last accessed January 24, 2022).
\22\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(Last accessed January 24, 2022).
\23\ ENERGY STAR's Product Finder dataset is available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-dehumidifiers/results (Last accessed January 24, 2022).
\24\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is
available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially identified 15 OEMs of dehumidifiers for the U.S.
market. DOE estimates that 12 are OEMs of portable dehumidifiers, two
are OEMs of whole-home dehumidifiers, and one is an OEM of both
portable and whole-home dehumidifiers. Of the 15 total OEMs identified,
one qualifies as a ``small business'' and is not foreign-owned or
operated.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend appendix X1 to subpart B of
part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Dehumidifiers, as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference parts of AHAM DH-1-2017;
(2) Allow the rating test period in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 5.4
to be 2 or 6 hours;
(3) Add a provision in section 3.1.1.3 allowing for the use of a
sampling tree in conjunction with an aspirating
[[Page 35308]]
psychrometer for a dehumidifier with a single process air intake
grille; and
(4) Add a requirement in section 3.1.2.3 that dehumidifiers with
network functions shall be tested with the network functions in the
``off'' position if it can be disabled by the end-user; otherwise test
in the factory default setting.
DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments would
not increase testing costs, and would likely reduce the testing costs,
as discussed in the following paragraphs.
DOE proposes to amend appendix X1 to allow the dehumidification
mode test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for both portable and whole-home
dehumidifiers. DOE expects that this proposal would decrease testing
costs and test burden for dehumidifier manufacturers due to reduced
test chamber time, assuming they choose the 2-hour option. Considering
a reduction of the test period by 4 hours, if the option is taken, and
the subsequent time for test setup and stabilization, the estimated
cost savings per test would be $750. Additionally, DOE has initially
determined that the proposed amendments would not affect the
representations of dehumidifier energy efficiency/energy use. If DOE
adopts the proposed amendments, DOE expects that manufacturers would be
able to rely on data generated under the current test procedure should
the proposed amendments be finalized. Therefore, retesting would not be
required solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed
amendments to the test procedure.
DOE proposes to allow relative humidity measurements to be made
using an aspirating psychrometer with a sampling tree in appendix X1
for dehumidifiers with a single air inlet. DOE expects this proposal
would not substantively impact repeatability or reproducibility of the
test procedure and would likely reduce the test burden for certain test
labs that would otherwise be required to change their aspirating
psychrometer configuration to remove the sampling tree and reposition
the psychrometer within the test chamber. There is no cost attributable
to this amendment. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed
amendments would not impact the representations of dehumidifier energy
efficiency/energy use, and that manufacturers would be able to rely on
data generated under the current test procedure if DOE adopts the
proposed amendments. As such, DOE does not expect retesting of any
dehumidifier would be required solely due to DOE's adoption of the
proposed amendments to the test procedure.
DOE does not anticipate the proposed test procedure amendments to
result in increased testing costs for manufacturers, including small
manufacturers. Thus, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
DOE requests comment on its initial conclusion that the NOPR would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other
Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule being considered in this
action.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE considered alternative test methods and modifications to the
test procedure for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, and the
Department has initially determined that there are no better
alternatives than the modifications and test procedures proposed in
this Notice, in terms of both meeting the agency's objectives and
reducing burden. As previously discussed, DOE expects that these
proposed amendments would not increase testing costs and would likely
reduce the testing costs for dehumidifier manufacturers. Specifically,
DOE proposes to allow test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for the
dehumidification mode test, thereby reducing test burden, assuming they
choose the 2-hour option.
Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency
standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for
exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should
refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for
additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of dehumidifiers must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including dehumidifiers.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for dehumidifiers in this NOPR.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for dehumidifiers. DOE has determined that this
proposed rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10
CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test
procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
[[Page 35309]]
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in
the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of dehumidifiers is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
[[Page 35310]]
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for dehumidifiers
in appendix X1 would incorporate testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standards: AHAM DH-1-2017, ANSI/
AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and IEC 62301. DOE has previously evaluated
three of these standards (ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and IEC
62301) and was unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether they were
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review. DOE consulted with the Attorney General and the
Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on
competition, and they did not object to the use of those standards. 80
FR 45801, 45823.
DOE has evaluated AHAM DH-1-2017 and is unable to conclude whether
it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE will consult with both
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact
of AHAM DH-1-2017 on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference in appendix
X1 the test standard published by AHAM, titled ``AHAM DH-1-2017.'' AHAM
DH-1-2017 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the
capacity and energy input of portable dehumidifiers under specified
test conditions. AHAM DH-1-2017 includes provisions for testing
dehumidifier energy use in off-cycle, inactive, and off modes, and for
including energy consumption in those modes in efficiency calculations.
Appendix X1 references sections of AHAM DH-1-2017 for definitions,
instrumentation, and test procedure requirements.
Copies of AHAM DH-1-2017 may be purchased from The Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers at 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402,
Washington, DC 20036, or by going to www.aham.org/ht/d/Store/.
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to maintain the incorporation by
reference to the ANSI and AMCA test standard ANSI/AMCA 210, titled
``Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic
Performance Rating,'' (ANSI Approved). ANSI/AMCA 210 is an industry-
accepted test procedure that defines uniform methods for conducting
laboratory tests on housed fans to determine airflow rate, pressure,
power and efficiency, at a given speed of rotation. Appendix X1
references ANSI/AMCA 210 to describe required instrumentation required
and measurements of ESP, pressure losses, and velocity pressures for
refrigerant-desiccant whole-home dehumidifiers testing.
Copies of ANSI/AMCA 210 can be obtained from the Air Movement and
Control Association International, Inc., at AMCA International, 30 West
University Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 60004, or by going to
www.amca.org.
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to maintain the incorporation by
reference to the ANSI and ASHRAE test standard ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, titled
``Standard Method for Temperature Measurement,'' (ANSI Approved). ANSI/
ASHRAE 41.1 is an industry-accepted standard that describes temperature
measurement methods intended for use in heating, refrigerating, and air
conditioning equipment and components. Appendix X1 references ANSI/
ASHRAE 41.1 to determine the number and locations of temperature
sensors within the ducts for refrigerant-desiccant whole-home
dehumidifiers.
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1 can be obtained from the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,
at 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, or by going to
www.ashrae.org.
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to maintain the incorporation by
reference to the IEC test standard IEC 62301, titled ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power, Edition 2.0, 2011-
01.'' IEC 62301 specifies methods of measurement of electrical power
consumption in standby mode(s) and other low power modes, such as off
mode and network mode, as applicable. Appendix X1 references sections
of IEC 62301 for requirements for inactive and off mode testing.
Copies of IEC Standard 62301 can be obtained from the International
Electrotechnical Commission at 3 rue de Varemb[eacute], P.O. Box 131,
CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland, or by going to webstore.iec.ch/ and
www.webstore.ansi.org.
The Director of the Federal Register previously approved ANSI/
ASHRAE 41.1, ANSI/AMCA 210, and IEC 62301 (Edition 2.0, 2011-01) for
incorporation by reference in the locations in which they appear in
this proposed rule's regulatory text for 10 CFR part 430.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=24&action=viewcurrent. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[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 proposed rulemaking and the topics
they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in
[[Page 35311]]
accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter
will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE
reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to
establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar. There
shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices,
market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust
laws. After the webinar and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of this proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document.\25\ Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1,
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect,
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email to [email protected]; 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,
[[Page 35312]]
without change and as received, including any personal information
provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on (1) its preliminary determination that
the explicit exclusions from the definition of ``dehumidifier''
sufficiently distinguish dehumidifiers from consumer products that
provide cooling by removing both sensible and latent heat, and (2)
whether there are products on the market that are not explicitly
excluded from the ``dehumidifier'' definition but should be.
(2) DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definitions for
portable dehumidifier and whole-home dehumidifier.
(3) DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate AHAM DH-1-
2017 by reference. DOE requests comment on the proposal not to change
specifying ambient conditions based on wet-bulb temperature, as
currently specified, as opposed to (or in addition to) dewpoint
temperature.
(4) DOE requests information and data regarding any efficiency and
performance benefits associated with variable-speed dehumidifiers, both
generally and relative to those with single-speed dehumidifiers.
(5) DOE requests comment on maintaining a single-test condition
approach for portable dehumidifiers, and further requests comment on
potential benefits and burden associated with a three-test condition
approach for all portable dehumidifiers.
(6) DOE requests comment on load-based testing for dehumidifiers,
including (1) whether DOE's variable-speed dehumidifier test results
are typical of the expected performance under a load-based test, (2)
whether there are other aspects of performance beyond cycling that may
have contributed to the performance observed during these tests, (3)
the feasibility of conducting load-based tests in a typical lab setup,
(4) the relative benefits and burdens of a load-based test, and (5) the
tentative determination not to prescribe a load-based test in appendix
X1.
(7) DOE requests comment on (1) the proposal to allow the
dehumidification mode test duration to be 2 or 6 hours for both
portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, (2) whether the proposed
approach sufficiently represents capacity and efficiency for
dehumidifiers, and (3) the efficacy of alternate test durations,
including those being considered by industry stakeholders.
(8) DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow relative humidity
measurements taken using an aspirating psychrometer with a sampling
tree in appendix X1 for dehumidifiers with a single air inlet.
(9) DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that the
psychrometer box be shielded or positioned to minimize radiation
effects on the sensing elements, that there be line of sight separation
between any fans and sensing elements within the test fixture, and at
least 3 feet of separation, along the path of airflow, between any fans
and sensing elements within the test fixture.
(10) DOE requests comment regarding the maximum air velocity
requirement generally, the current 50 ft/min requirement as specified
in AHAM DH-1-2017, and the consideration to raise the maximum air
velocity within 3 ft of the dehumidifier with the unit not operating,
when properly configuring the test chamber. Were DOE to obtain
information or data indicating that a higher permitted air velocity
would not negatively impact the measured results, DOE would consider
adopting an increased air velocity requirement.
(11) DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow calibrated
nozzle testing according to the requirements of Section 7.3.2 of ANSI/
AMCA 210-07 for whole-home dehumidifiers in appendix X1.
(12) DOE requests comment on the tentative determination to
continue to require capping and sealing any fresh-air inlet on a whole-
home dehumidifier during testing in appendix X1.
(13) DOE requests comment on maintaining a single test approach for
whole-home dehumidifiers. DOE also requests comment on potential
improvements in representativeness and the additional test burden
associated with the testing whole-home dehumidifiers twice, once each
with an external static pressure of 0 in. w.c. ESP and 0.4 in. w.c.
(14) DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify in appendix X1
that, for units with network functions, (1) the network functions must
be disabled throughout testing if such settings can be disabled by the
end-user and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to
do so; and (2) if network functions cannot be disabled by the end-user,
or the product's user manual does not provide instruction for disabling
network functions, then the unit must be tested with the network
functions in the factory default configuration for the test period.
(15) DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposal to specify dehumidification mode rating test period options of
2 or 6 hours for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers.
(16) DOE requests comment on the impact and associated costs of the
proposal to allow relative humidity measurements to be made using an
aspirating psychrometer with a sampling tree in appendix X1 for
dehumidifiers with a single air inlet.
(17) DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in
this notice are not unduly burdensome. DOE requests comments on the
benefits and burdens of the proposed updates and additions to industry
test standards incorporated in the test procedure for dehumidifiers.
(18) DOE requests comment on its initial conclusion that the NOPR
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 27,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
[[Page 35313]]
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
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. Section 429.36 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.36 Dehumidifiers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), include in each certification
report the following product-specific information:
(i) The integrated energy factor in liters per kilowatt-hour
(liters/kWh), capacity in pints per day; and
(ii) For whole-home dehumidifiers, case volume in cubic feet.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
4. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definitions of ``Portable
dehumidifier'' and ``Whole-home dehumidifier'' to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Portable dehumidifier means a dehumidifier that, in accordance with
any manufacturer instructions available to a consumer, operates within
the dehumidified space without the attachment of additional ducting,
although means may be provided for optional duct attachment.
* * * * *
Whole-home dehumidifier means a dehumidifier that, in accordance
with any manufacturer instructions available to a consumer, operates
with ducting to deliver return process air to its inlet and to supply
dehumidified process air from its outlet to one or more locations in
the dehumidified space.
0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i)(1);
0
b. Removing paragraph (m)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (m)(2) and
(3), respectively; and
0
d. Revising paragraph (o)(6) by removing the wording ``X, '' in the
sentence.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) AHAM DH-1-2017 (``AHAM DH-1''), Dehumidifiers, IBR approved for
appendix X1 to subpart B.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (z) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(z) Dehumidifiers. (1) Determine the capacity, expressed in pints/
day, according to section 5.2 of appendix X1 to this subpart.
(2) Determine the integrated energy factor, expressed in L/kWh,
according to section 5.4 of appendix X1 to this subpart.
(3) Determine the case volume, expressed in cubic feet, for whole-
home dehumidifiers in accordance with section 5.7 of appendix X1 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
Appendix X [Removed and Reserved]
0
7. Appendix X to subpart B of part 430 is removed and reserved.
0
8. Appendix X1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory Note;
0
b. Adding section 0;
0
c. Revising sections 3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.2, 3.1.2.2.3.1,
3.1.2.2.3.2, 3.1.2.3, 3.2.2.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2 and 4.3;
0
d. Removing sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.9, 4.3.1 and 4.3.2; and
0
e. Revising section 5.4.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix X1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Dehumidifiers
Note: After [date 180 days following publication of final rule],
any representations made with respect to the energy efficiency of a
dehumidifier must be made in accordance with the results of testing
pursuant to this appendix. Manufacturers conducting tests of a
dehumidifier prior to [date 180 days following publication of final
rule], must conduct such test in accordance with either this
appendix or the previous version of this appendix as it appeared in
the Code of Federal Regulations on January 1, 2021. Any
representations made with respect to the energy efficiency of such
dehumidifier must be in accordance with whichever version is
selected. Given that after [date 180 days following publication of
final rule] representations with respect to the energy efficiency of
dehumidifiers must be made in accordance with tests conducted
pursuant to this appendix, manufacturers may wish to begin using
this test procedure as soon as possible.
If there is a conflict between the language of the referenced
industry standard and the language of this appendix, the language of
this appendix takes precedence. Any subsequent amendment to a
referenced document by the standard-setting organization will not
affect the test procedure in this appendix, unless and until the
test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it
exists on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in
the incorporation will be published in the Federal Register.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire
standard for AHAM DH-1-2017, ANSI/AMCA 210, ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1, and
IEC 62301; however, only enumerated provisions of those documents
are applicable to this appendix, as follows: 0.1 AHAM DH-1-2017:
(a) Section 3 ``Definitions,'' as specified in section 3.1.1 of
this appendix; and
(b) Section 4 ``Instrumentation,'' as specified in section 3.1.1
of this appendix; and
(c) Section 4.1 ``Temperature Measuring Instruments,'' as
specified in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix; and
(d) Section 4.2 ``Psychrometric Instruments'' as specified in
section 3.1.1.3 of this appendix; and
(e) Section 4.3 ``Relative Humidity Instruments'' as specified
in section 3.1.1.3 of this appendix; and
(f) Section 5 ``Test Procedure,'' as specified in section 3.1.1
of this appendix; and
(g) Section 8.3 ``Standard Test Voltage,'' as specified in
section 3.2.2.1 of this appendix; and
(h) Section 8 ``Capacity Test,'' as specified in sections 4.1.1
and 4.1.2 of this appendix; and
(i) Section 8.7 ``Calculation of Test Results,'' as specified in
section 4.1.2 of this appendix; and
(j) Section 9 ``Energy Consumption,'' as specified in sections
4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix.
0.2 ANSI/AMCA 210:
(a) Section 5.2.1.6 ``Airflow straightener,'' as specified in
section 3.1.2.1 of this appendix; and
(b) Figure 6A ``Flow Straightener--Cell Type,'' as specified in
section 3.1.2.1 of this appendix; and
[[Page 35314]]
(c) Section 4.2.2 ``Pitot-static tube,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
(d) Section 4.2.3 ``Static pressure tap,'' as specified in
section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
(e) Section 4.3.1 ``Pitot Traverse,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
(f) Section 4.3.2 ``Flow nozzle,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
(g) Section 7.5.2 ``Pressure Losses,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
(h) Section 7.3.1 ``Velocity Traverse,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.2 of this appendix; and
(i) Section 7.3.2 ``Nozzle,'' as specified in section
3.1.2.2.3.2 of this appendix; and
(j) Section 7.3 ``Fan airflow rate at test conditions,'' as
specified in section 5.6 of this appendix.
0.3 ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1:
(a) Section 5.3.5 ``Centers of Segments--Grids,'' in section
3.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.
(b) [Reserved]
0.4 IEC 62301:
(a) Section 5.2 ``Preparation of product,'' in section 3.2.1 of
this appendix; and
(b) Section 4.3.2 ``Supply voltage waveform,'' in section
3.2.2.2 of this appendix; and
(c) Section 4.4 ``Power measuring instruments,'' in section
3.2.3 of this appendix; and
(d) Section 4.2 ``Test room,'' in section 3.2.4 of this
appendix; and
(e) Section 5.3.2 ``Sampling method,'' Note 1, in section 4.3 of
this appendix; and
(f) Section 5.3.2 ``Sampling method,'' in section 4.3 of this
appendix.
* * * * *
3.1 * * *
3.1.1 Portable dehumidifiers and whole-home dehumidifiers other
than refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers. The test apparatus and
instructions for testing in dehumidification mode and off-cycle mode
must conform to the requirements specified in Section 3,
``Definitions,'' Section 4, ``Instrumentation,'' and Section 5,
``Test Set-Up,'' of AHAM DH-1, with the following exceptions. If a
product is able to operate as either a portable or whole-home
dehumidifier by means of removal or installation of an optional
ducting kit, in accordance with any manufacturer instructions
available to a consumer, test and rate both configurations.
* * * * *
3.1.1.2 Relative humidity instrumentation. A relative humidity
sensor with an accuracy within 1 percent relative humidity may be
used instead of an aspirating psychrometer. When using a relative
humidity sensor for testing, disregard the wet-bulb test tolerances
in Table I of AHAM DH-1. Instead, the average relative humidity over
the test period must be within 2 percent of the relative humidity
setpoint, and all individual relative humidity readings must be
within 5 percent of the relative humidity setpoint. In addition, use
a dry-bulb temperature sensor that meets the accuracy as required in
Section 4.1 of AHAM DH-1.
3.1.1.3 Instrumentation placement. Place the aspirating
psychrometer, sampling tree that is connected to a psychrometer
using the shortest length of insulated ducting necessary, or
relative humidity and dry-bulb temperature sensors, perpendicular
to, and 1 ft. in front of, the center of the process air intake
grille. When using an aspirating psychrometer, either shield the
sensing elements or position them within the psychrometer box to
minimize radiation effects from the fan motor. Ensure that there is
line of sight separation between any fans and sensing elements
within the test fixture and at least 3 feet of separation, along the
path of airflow, between any fans and sensing elements within the
test fixture. When using an aspirating psychrometer when testing a
unit that has multiple process air intake grille(s), place a
separate sampling tree perpendicular to, and 1 ft. in front of, the
center of the single or each process air intake grille, with the
samples combined and connected to a single psychrometer using the
shortest length of insulated ducting necessary. During each test,
use the psychrometer to monitor inlet conditions of only one unit
under test. When using relative humidity and dry-bulb temperature
sensors when testing a unit that has multiple process air intake
grilles, place a relative humidity sensor and dry-bulb temperature
sensor perpendicular to, and 1 ft. in front of, the center of each
process air intake grille.
* * * * *
3.1.2 Refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers. The test apparatus
and instructions for testing refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers in
dehumidification mode must conform to the requirements specified in
Section 3, ``Definitions,'' Section 4, ``Instrumentation,'' and
Section 5, ``Test Set-Up,'' of AHAM DH-1, except as follows.
* * * * *
3.1.2.2.3.1 External static pressure. Measure static pressures
in each duct using pitot-static tube traverses, a flow nozzle or a
bank of flow nozzles. For pitot-static tube traverses, conform to
the specifications in Section 4.3.1, ``Pitot Traverse,'' of ANSI/
AMCA 210 and Section 4.2.2, ``Pitot-Static Tube,'' of ANSI/AMCA 210,
except use only two intersecting and perpendicular rows of pitot-
static tube traverses . For a flow nozzle or bank of flow nozzles,
conform to the specifications in Section 4.3.2, ``Flow nozzle,'' of
ANSI/AMCA 210 and Section 4.2.3, ``Static pressure tap'' of ANSI/
AMCA 210. Record the static pressure within the test duct as
follows. When using pitot-static tube traverses, record the pressure
as measured at the pressure tap in the manifold of the traverses
that averages the individual static pressures at each pitot-static
tube. When using a flow nozzle or bank of nozzles, record the
pressure or in accordance with Section 4.2.3.2, ``Averaging,'' of
ANSI/AMCA 210 . Calculate duct pressure losses between the unit
under test and the plane of each static pressure measurement in
accordance with Section 7.5.2, ``Pressure Losses,'' of ANSI/AMCA
210. The external static pressure is the difference between the
measured inlet and outlet static pressure measurements, minus the
sum of the inlet and outlet duct pressure losses. For any port with
no duct attached, use a static pressure of 0.00 in. w.c. with no
duct pressure loss in the calculation of external static pressure.
During dehumidification mode testing, the external static pressure
must equal 0.20 in. w.c. 0.02 in. w.c.
3.1.2.2.3.2 Velocity pressure. Measure velocity pressures using
the same pitot traverses or nozzles as used for measuring external
static pressure, which are specified in section 3.1.2.2.3.1 of this
appendix. When using pitot-static tube traverses, determine velocity
pressures at each pitot-static tube in a traverse as the difference
between the pressure at the impact pressure tap and the pressure at
the static pressure tap and calculate volumetric flow rates in each
duct in accordance with Section 7.3.1, ``Velocity Traverse,'' of
ANSI/AMCA 210. When using a flow nozzle or a bank of flow nozzles,
calculate the volumetric flow rates in each duct in accordance with
Section 7.3.2, ``Nozzle,'' of ANSI/AMCA 210.
* * * * *
3.1.2.3 Control settings. If the dehumidifier has a control
setting for continuous operation in dehumidification mode, select
that control setting. Otherwise, set the controls to the lowest
available relative humidity level, and if the dehumidifier has a
user-adjustable fan speed, select the maximum fan speed setting. Do
not use any external controls for the dehumidifier settings. If the
dehumidifier has network functions, the network functions can be
disabled by the end-user, and the product's user manual provides
instructions on how to do so, disable the network functions
throughout testing. If network functions cannot be disabled by the
end-user, or the product's user manual does not provide instruction
for disabling network functions, test the unit with the network
functions in the factory default configuration for the test period.
* * * * *
3.2.2 * * *
3.2.2.1 Electrical supply. For the inactive mode and off mode
testing, maintain the electrical supply voltage and frequency
indicated in Section 8.3, ``Standard Test Voltage,'' of AHAM DH-1.
The electrical supply frequency shall be maintained 1
percent.
* * * * *
4.1 * * *
4.1.1 Portable dehumidifiers and whole-home dehumidifiers other
than refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers. Measure the energy
consumption in dehumidification mode, EDM, in kilowatt-hours (kWh),
the average percent relative humidity, Ht, either as measured using
a relative humidity sensor or using the tables provided below when
using an aspirating psychrometer, and the product capacity, Ct, in
pints per day (pints/day), in accordance with the test requirements
specified in Section 8, ``Capacity Test,'' and Section 9, ``Energy
Consumption,'' respectively, of AHAM DH-1, with two exceptions.
First, the rating test period must be 2 or 6 hours. Second, maintain
the standard test conditions as shown in Table 1.
[[Page 35315]]
Table 1--Standard Test Conditions for Dehumidifier Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspirating
Dry-bulb psychrometer wet- Relative humidity
Configuration temperature bulb temperature sensor relative
([deg]F) ([deg]F) humidity (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable dehumidifiers.............................. 65 56.6 60 2
2.0 1.0
Whole-home dehumidifiers............................ 73 63.6 60 2
2.0 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When using relative humidity and dry-bulb temperature sensors,
for dehumidifiers with multiple process air intake grilles, average
the measured relative humidities and average the measured dry-bulb
temperatures to determine the overall intake air conditions.
* * * * *
4.1.2 Refrigerant-desiccant dehumidifiers. Establish the testing
conditions set forth in section 3.1.2 of this appendix. Measure the
energy consumption, EDM, in kWh, in accordance with the test
requirements specified in Section 8, ``Capacity Test,'' and Section
9, ``Energy Consumption,'' respectively, of AHAM DH-1, with the
following exceptions:
(1) Each measurement of the temperature and relative humidity of
the air entering the process air inlet duct and the reactivation air
inlet must be within 73 [deg]F 2.0 [deg]F dry-bulb
temperature and 60 percent 5 percent relative humidity,
and the arithmetic average of the inlet test conditions over the
test period shall be within 73 [deg]F 0.5 [deg]F dry-
bulb temperature and 60 percent 2 percent relative
humidity;
(2) Disregard the instructions for psychrometer placement;
(3) Record dry-bulb temperatures, relative humidities, static
pressures, velocity pressures in each duct, volumetric air flow
rates, and the number of measurements in the test period;
(4) Disregard the requirement to weigh the condensate collected
during the test; and
(5) The rating test period must be 2 or 6 hours. To perform the
calculations in Section 9.4, ``Calculation of Test Results,'' of
AHAM DH-1:
(i) Replace ``Condensate collected (lb)'' and ``mlb'', with the
weight of condensate removed, W, as calculated in section 5.6 of
this appendix; and
(ii) Use the recorded relative humidities, not the tables in
section 4.1.1 of this appendix, to determine average relative
humidity.
4.2 Off-cycle mode. Follow requirements for test measurement in
off-cycle mode of operation in accordance with Section 9.3.2 of AHAM
DH-1.
4.3 Inactive and off mode. Follow requirements for test
measurement in inactive and off modes of operation in accordance
with Section 9.3.1 of AHAM DH-1.
* * * * *
5. * * *
5.4 Integrated energy factor. Calculate the integrated energy
factor, IEF, in L/kWh, rounded to two decimal places, according to
the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN22.006
Where:
Cr = corrected product capacity in pints per day, as
determined in section 5.2 of this appendix;
t = dehumidification mode test duration in hours, either 2 or 6
hours;
EDM = energy consumption during the 2- or 6-hour
dehumidification mode test in kWh, as measured in section 4.1 of
this appendix;
ETLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption
in kWh per year, as calculated in section 5.3 of this appendix;
1,095 = dehumidification mode annual hours, used to convert
ETLP to combined low-power mode energy consumption per
hour of dehumidification mode;
1.04 = the density of water in pounds per pint;
0.454 = the liters of water per pound of water; and
24 = the number of hours per day.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-11958 Filed 6-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P