[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