[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65651-65668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23185]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65651]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017]
RIN 1904-AD92
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, DOE is establishing energy conservation
standards for direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air systems (``DX-
DOASes'') that are of equivalent stringency as the minimum levels
specified in the most recent publication of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'')
Standard 90.1 ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings'' (``ASHRAE 90.1-2019'') when tested pursuant to
the DOE test procedure for DX-DOASes--which incorporates by reference
the most recent applicable industry standard for this equipment. DOE
has determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence to adopt
standards more stringent than the levels specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 3, 2023. Compliance
with the standards established for DX-DOASes in this final rule is
required on and after May 1, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Matthew Ring, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2555. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
2. Update to the Industry Metric
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for DX-DOASes
III. General Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Equipment Classes
C. Test Procedure
D. Discussion of Specific Comments
1. Non-Standard Indoor Fans
2. Representation Requirement for Moisture Removal Capacity
3. Compliance Date
4. Certification Requirements
5. Market and Technology Assessment
E. Energy Conservation Standards
F. Consideration of Energy Conservation Standards
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
2. Energy Savings
3. Economic Justification
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
h. Rebuttable Presumption
G. Conclusions
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 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) Title III, Part C of the EPCA \2\ established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317). Such equipment includes DX-DOASes, the subject of
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is to consider amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE
amends the standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1, and at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) More specifically, for each type of equipment, which
includes small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (of which DX-DOASes are a category),
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the updated efficiency level in ASHRAE
90.1, unless clear and
[[Page 65652]]
convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more
stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
If DOE adopts as a uniform national standard the efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE 90.1, DOE must establish such standard
not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a
more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria,
DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30
months after publication of the revised ASHRAE 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
ASHRAE officially released the 2016 edition of ASHRAE 90.1
(``ASHRAE 90.1-2016'') on October 26, 2016, which for the first time
created separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes with corresponding
standards, thereby triggering DOE's above referenced obligations
pursuant to EPCA to either: (1) establish uniform national standards
for DX-DOASes at the minimum levels specified in the amended ASHRAE
90.1; or (2) adopt more stringent standards based on clear and
convincing evidence that adoption of such standards would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. ASHRAE 90.1-2016 set minimum efficiency
levels using the integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency
(``ISMRE'') metric for all DOAS classes and the integrated seasonal
coefficient of performance (``ISCOP'') metric for air-source heat pump
and water-source heat pump DX-DOAS classes. ASHRAE 90.1-2016 specifies
that both metrics are measured in accordance with Air-conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') Standard 920-2015,
``Performance Rating of DX-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units''
(``ANSI/AHRI 920-2015'').
In October 2019, ASHRAE officially released the 2019 edition of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (``ASHRAE 90.1-2019''). ASHRAE 90.1 did not update
the energy efficiency levels for DX-DOASes established in ASHRAE 90.1-
2016. On February 4, 2020 AHRI officially released the 2020 edition of
AHRI 920 (``AHRI 920-2020''), which addresses a number of issues with
the prior test procedure and provides an updated ISMRE metric (i.e.,
ISMRE2) and an updated ISCOP metric (i.e., ISCOP2). DOE has recently
established a test procedure for DX-DOASes which incorporates by
reference AHRI 920-2020, and includes provisions for determining DX-
DOAS performance in terms of ISMRE2 and ISCOP2. 87 FR 45164.
In accordance with the EPCA provisions previously discussed, DOE is
establishing energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes in this final
rule. The adopted standards, which are expressed in terms of ISMRE2 for
all DX-DOAS classes in dehumidification mode, and ISCOP2 for heat pump
DX-DOAS classes in heating mode, are shown in Table I.1. DOE has
determined (as discussed in more detail in section III.E) that the
adopted ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 standards are of equivalent stringency as the
standards in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (and ASHRAE 90.1-2019), which are
expressed in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. The standards adopted in this
final rule apply to all DX-DOASes listed in Table I.1 manufactured in,
or imported into, the United States starting on the date 18 months
following the publication of this final rule.
Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for DX-DOASes
[Compliance starting 18 months following the publication of this final rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air (AC)--Air-cooled without ventilation ISMRE2 = 3.8.
systems. energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps without ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ventilation energy recovery systems. ISCOP2 = 2.05.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat pumps ISMRE2 = 5.0.
with ventilation energy recovery ISCOP2 = 3.20.
systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ventilation ISMRE2 = 4.7.
energy recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps without ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ventilation energy recovery systems. ISCOP2 = 2.13.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source heat pumps ISMRE2 = 4.6.
with ventilation energy recovery ISCOP2 = 4.04.
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that, based on the information presented and its
own analyses, there is not clear and convincing evidence that a more
stringent efficiency level for this equipment would result in a
significant additional amount of energy savings and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. DOE normally performs multiple in-
depth analyses to determine whether there is clear and convincing
evidence to support more stringent energy conservation standards (i.e.,
whether more stringent standards would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and be technologically feasible and economically
justified). However, as discussed in the sections III.E and III.F of
this final rule, due to the lack of available market and performance
data in terms of the recently published AHRI 920-2020 performance
metrics (i.e., ISMRE2 and ISCOP2), DOE is unable to conduct the
analysis necessary to evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate
whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible or
economically justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As such, DOE is
not establishing standards at levels more stringent than those
specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (and ASHRAE 90.1-2019).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of standards for DX-DOASes.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619,
[[Page 65653]]
Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment are included in the list of
``covered equipment'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. As discussed
in the following section, this includes unitary DOASes and, more
specifically, direct expansion DOASes, which are the subject of this
final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test
procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine
whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated
under EPCA.
ASHRAE 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for small,
large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged terminal heat
pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks
(collectively ``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type of listed equipment,
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends 90.1, DOE must adopt amended
standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE determines,
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more
stringent level would produce significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Under EPCA, DOE must also
review energy efficiency standards for covered equipment, including DX-
DOASes, every six years and either: (1) issue a notice of determination
that the standards do not need to be amended as adoption of a more
stringent level is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or
(2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed
standards based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B)
of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds
that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product that
complies with the standard will be less than three times the value of
the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as
calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However, while this rebuttable presumption
analysis applies to most commercial and industrial equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for ASHRAE equipment (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1)). Nonetheless, DOE considered the criteria for this
rebuttable presumption as part of its economic justification analysis.
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water
source (not including ground water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92)
Industry standards generally describe unitary central air conditioning
equipment as one or more factory-made assemblies that normally include
an evaporator or cooling coil and a compressor and condenser
combination. Units equipped to also perform a heating function are
included as well. Unitary DOASes provide conditioning of outdoor
ventilation air using a refrigeration cycle (which normally consists of
a compressor, condenser, expansion valve, and evaporator), and
therefore,
[[Page 65654]]
DOE has concluded that unitary DOASes are a category of commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment subject to EPCA.
From a functional perspective, unitary DOASes operate similarly to
other categories of commercial package air conditioning and heat pump
equipment, in that they provide conditioning using a refrigeration
cycle. Unitary DOASes provide ventilation and conditioning of 100-
percent outdoor air to the conditioned space, whereas for typical
commercial package air conditioners that are central air conditioners,
outdoor air makes up only a small portion of the total airflow (usually
less than 50 percent). Unitary DOASes are typically installed in
addition to a local, primary cooling or heating system (e.g.,
commercial unitary air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow system,
central air conditioner or distributed fan-coil units served by a
chilled water system, water-source heat pumps)--the unitary DOAS
conditions the outdoor ventilation air, while the primary system
provides cooling or heating to balance building shell and interior
loads and solar heat gain.
An industry consensus test standard has been established for a
subset of unitary DOASes, direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air
systems (DX-DOASes). On July 27, 2022, DOE published a test procedure
final rule (``July 2022 TP final rule''), adopting definitions, a new
Federal test procedure, energy efficiency metrics, and representation
requirements for DX-DOASes. 87 FR 45164.
1. ASHRAE 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
As first established in ASHRAE 90.1-2016, ASHRAE 90.1-2019
specifies 14 separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes and sets minimum
efficiency levels using the ISMRE metric for all DX-DOAS classes and
also the ISCOP metric for air-source heat pump and water-source heat
pump DX-DOAS classes. ASHRAE 90.1-2019 specifies that both metrics are
to be measured in accordance with ANSI/AHRI 920-2015. ANSI/AHRI 920-
2015 specifies the method for testing DX-DOASes, in part, through a
reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 198-2013, ``Method of Test for Rating DX-
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for Moisture Removal Capacity and
Moisture Removal Efficiency'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 198-2013''). The energy
efficiency standards specified in ASHRAE 90.1, based on ANSI/AHRI 920-
2015 and ANSI/ASHRAE 198-2013, are shown in Table II.1.
Table II.1--ASHRAE 90.1 Efficiency Levels for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Energy efficiency levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled: without energy recovery 4.0 ISMRE.
Air-cooled: with energy recovery... 5.2 ISMRE.
Air-source heat pumps: without 4.0 ISMRE, 2.7 ISCOP.
energy recovery.
Air-source heat pumps: with energy 5.2 ISMRE, 3.3 ISCOP.
recovery.
Water-cooled: cooling tower 4.9 ISMRE.
condenser water, without energy
recovery.
Water-cooled: cooling tower 5.3 ISMRE.
condenser water, with energy
recovery.
Water-cooled: chilled water, 6.0 ISMRE.
without energy recovery.
Water-cooled: chilled water, with 6.6 ISMRE.
energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: ground- 4.8 ISMRE, 2.0 ISCOP.
source, closed loop, without
energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: ground- 5.2 ISMRE, 3.8 ISCOP.
source, closed loop, with energy
recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: ground- 5.0 ISMRE, 3.2 ISCOP.
water source, without energy
recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: ground- 5.8 ISMRE, 4.0 ISCOP.
water source, with energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: water- 4.0 ISMRE, 3.5 ISCOP.
source, without energy recovery.
Water-source heat pumps: water- 4.8 ISMRE, 4.8 ISCOP.
source, with energy recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Update to the Industry Metric
As discussed in the July 2022 TP final rule, AHRI revised AHRI 920
and published AHRI 920-2020, which contains several revisions,
including revised test conditions and weighting factors for ISMRE and
ISCOP. 87 FR 45164. These metrics were redesignated as ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2, respectively. The test standard revisions also more accurately
reflect the actual energy use for DX-DOASes, improve the repeatability
and reproducibility of the test methods, and also reduce testing burden
compared to ISMRE and ISCOP. For example, the revised weighting factors
reflect the number of hours per year for each test condition, and the
revised test conditions are based on weather data from Typical
Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2). 86 FR 36018, 36029. A detailed discussion
of the summary of the AHRI 920 updates is provide in the DX-DOAS test
procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') published on July 7,
2021. 86 FR 36018.
The July 2022 TP final rule adopted a new appendix B to subpart F
of part 431 (``appendix B''), titled ``Uniform test method for
measuring the energy consumption of direct expansion-dedicated outdoor
air systems,'' that includes the new test procedure requirements for
DX-DOASes. 87 FR 46164. The test procedure in appendix B incorporates
by reference AHRI 920-2020, the most recent version of AHRI 920, the
test procedure recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for DX-DOASes, and
the relevant industry standards referenced therein.
The amendments adopted in AHRI 920-2020 result in different
efficiency metric values, ISMRE2 and ISCOP2, than the ISMRE and ISCOP
values measured using ANSI/AHRI 920-2015, which as noted previously, is
the test standard upon which the DX-DOAS efficiency levels in 90.1-2016
and 90.1-2019 are based. Accordingly, because the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
metrics adopted in the July 2022 TP final rule are different from the
metrics used in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (ISMRE and ISCOP), DOE has developed a
crosswalk analysis which translates the existing ASHRAE 90.1-2019 ISMRE
and ISCOP standards to the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics adopted in the
July 2022 TP final rule. This crosswalk analysis is further discussed
in section III.E of this document.
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for DX-DOASes
On February 1, 2022, DOE published a NOPR (``February 2022 NOPR'')
which proposed to adopt energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes
based on ISMRE2 and ICOP2 metrics. 87 FR 5560. DOE, based on a
crosswalk analysis, tentatively determined that the proposed ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2 standards were of equivalent stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP
standards in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. 87 FR 5561-5562.
[[Page 65655]]
DOE requested comment on the proposals included in the February 2022
NOPR, including the energy conservations and equipment classes that
were proposed. 87 FR 5588.
DOE received six comments relevant to DX-DOASes in response to the
February 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--February 2022 NOPR Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Abbreviation the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Indoor Air Quality............... MIAQ...................... 12 Manufacturer.
Carrier Corporation...................... Carrier................... 11 Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates........... 13 Efficiency Advocate.
New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI...................... 15 Industry Representative.
Refrigeration Institute.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs................... 14 Utility.
Southern California Edison, San Diego
Gas and Electric Company.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA...................... 16 Efficiency Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes. (Docket No. EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0017, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this final rule after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. Scope of Coverage
As discussed previously, and in the February 2022 NOPR, unitary
DOASes meet the EPCA definition for ``commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,'' and, thus, are to be considered
as a category of that covered equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)). In the
July 2022 TP final rule, DOE established a definition for unitary DOAS
and DX-DOAS as follows:
(1) ``Unitary dedicated outdoor air system, or unitary DOAS, means
a category of small, large, or very large commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment that is capable of providing
ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air and is marketed
in materials (including but not limited to, specification sheets,
insert sheets, and online materials) as having such capability''
(2) ``Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system, or DX-DOAS,
means a unitary dedicated outdoor air system that is capable of
dehumidifying air to a 55 [deg]F dew point--when operating under
Standard Rating Condition A as specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of AHRI
920-2020 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.95) with a
barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg--for any part of the range of
airflow rates advertised in manufacturer materials, and has a moisture
removal capacity of less than 324 lb/h.''
87 FR 45176.
DOE did not request comment on the DX-DOAS or unitary DOAS
definition in the February 2022 NOPR, however DOE received a comment
from Carrier, who asserted that unitary DOASes that are not DX-DOASes
do not have specified energy conservation standards. (Carrier, No. 11,
pp. 1-2) Carrier noted that these units are typically based on
commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump
(``CUAC/HP'') designs, that they meet the current CUAC/HP energy
conservations standards, and that like CUAC/HPs, they are used to meet
both sensible and latent cooling needs. Carrier also stated that both
unitary DOASes that are not DX-DOASes and CUAC/HPs are used in similar
applications. Therefore, Carrier recommended unitary DOASes that are
not DX-DOASes be required to test to the CUAC/HP test procedure and
meet the CUAC/HP standards. Id.
DOE notes that the definition of a unitary DOAS, as established in
the July 2022 TP final rule, states that unitary DOAS is capable of
providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air and
is marketed in materials (including but not limited to, specification
sheets, insert sheets, and online materials) as having such capability.
87 FR 45170. As stated in the July 2022 TP final rule, to determine
whether a unit is distributed in commerce for a certain application,
DOE reviews manufacturer literature (e.g., brochures, product data,
installation manuals, engineering specifications) sales data, and
available material. Additionally, DOE stated that equipment that is
marketed and/or distributed in commerce for both CUAC/CUHP applications
and unitary DOAS applications must comply with the requirements
applicable to both CUAC/HPs and unitary DOASes. 87 FR 45170. Currently
there are no requirements, and none proposed, for unitary DOASes that
are not also DX-DOASes. However, in response to Carrier's comment, DOE
notes that units that meet the unitary DOAS definition but not the DX-
DOAS definition, that are marketed and/or distributed in commerce for
CUAC/CUHP applications, are required to test to the CUAC/HP test
procedure and meet the CUAC/HP standards.
As noted, DOE finalized the definition of ``unitary dedicated
outdoor air system'' and ``direct expansion- dedicated outdoor air
system'' in the July 2022 TP final rule. Those definitions are
applicable to the energy conservation standards established in this
final rule.
B. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered equipment into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards.
EPCA generally requires DOE to establish energy conservation
standards for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment
at the minimum efficiencies set forth in ASHRAE 90.1. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) As discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, ASHRAE 90.1-2016
created 14 separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes differentiated by,
among other characteristics, condensing type (air-cooled, air-source
heat pump, water-cooled, and water-source heat pump).
[[Page 65656]]
87 FR 5560, 5566. More specifically, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 divides water-
cooled condensing equipment into two subcategories (cooling tower
condenser water and chilled water), and water-source heat pump
equipment into three subcategories (ground-source closed loop, ground-
water-source, and water-source). These subcategories were maintained in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that these subcategories are
meant to represent different application conditions for the same
equipment. 87 FR 5560, 5566. Additionally, DOE noted that ground-water-
source equipment are excluded from the commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment definition in EPCA (see 42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A)), and that the ground-source closed loop and chilled water
conditions are optional application ratings. Therefore, DOE proposed to
establish eight DX-DOAS equipment classes, as shown below in Table
III.1. 87 FR 5560, 5566-5567.
Table III.1--Equipment Classes for DX-DOASes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed equipment class in
Equipment class in ASHRAE 90.1 Federal energy conservation
standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled: without energy recovery.... (AC)--Air-cooled without
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Air-cooled: with energy recovery....... (AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Air-source heat pumps: without energy (ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps
recovery. without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Air-source heat pumps: with energy (ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat
recovery. pumps with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Water-cooled: cooling tower condenser (WC)--Water-cooled without
water, without energy recovery. ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Water-cooled: cooling tower condenser (WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with
water, with energy recovery. ventilation energy recovery
systems.
Water-source heat pumps: water-source, (WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps
without energy recovery. without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
Water-source heat pumps: water-source, (WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source
with energy recovery. heat pumps with ventilation
energy recovery systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on these proposed
equipment classes. 87 FR 5560, 5568.
AHRI, MIAQ, Carrier, and the CA IOUs all supported the eight
equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 15, p. 4; MIAQ, No. 12, p. 3; Carrier,
No. 11, p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 14, p. 1). The Joint Advocates and NEEA
however recommended DOE merge equipment classes for DX-DOASes with
VERS, and DX-DOASes without VERS, because VERS should be treated as a
design option used to improve efficiency. (Joint Advocates, No. 13, p.
2; NEEA, No. 16, p. 2)
Specifically, NEEA stated that DOE's proposed minimum efficiency
standards are unfair to DX-DOAS units with VERS, which would be
required to meet increasing standards over time by improving their
energy recovery efficiency when units without VERS are allowed to
persist with effectively zero energy recovery efficiency. NEEA also
stated that DOE has established precedence for considering equipment
components as technology options rather than performance related
features in their rulemakings for other products such as consumer and
commercial water heaters, and residential furnaces. (NEEA, No. 16, p.
2) NEEA noted that combining equipment classes for units with or
without VERS provides an opportunity to expand the DX-DOAS standard in
the future to effectively require VERS for all DX-DOAS systems, and
that this approach would allow there to be an opportunity for a
significant amount of energy savings in the future. NEEA also noted
that it published an energy efficiency analysis final report for
commercial DX-DOAS systems which discovered a whole-building energy
cost increase of up to 40% for DX-DOAS systems without VERS, depending
on building type, and that this is further evidence that DX-DOASes with
and without VERS should be treated as one equipment class. (NEEA, No.
16, p. 3)
The Joint Advocates stated that they understand that DOASes without
energy recovery does not offer distinct customer utility and that both
types of equipment provide ventilation and dehumidification of 100%
outdoor air, with the VERS functioning to precondition the outdoor air.
The Joint Advocates stated that, due to this preconditioning, a DX-DOAS
with VERS can consume significantly less energy than a model without
energy recovery, and noted DOE's estimate in the 2019 NODA/RFI DOE that
an air-cooled baseline unit (i.e., just meeting ASHRAE 90.1 levels)
with VERS consumes 23 percent less energy than a baseline unit without
VERS. The Joint Advocates stated their belief that energy recovery,
which offers significant potential for energy savings, should be
treated as a design option to improve efficiency. (Joint Advocates, No.
13, p. 2)
As previously mentioned, DOE cannot determine, supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that a more stringent standard is warranted.
As such, DOE must adopt the efficiency levels specified for DOASes in
ASHRAE 90.1, which includes distinct efficiency levels for DOASes with
VERS, and for DOASes without VERS. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)ii)(I))
Therefore, DOE declines to consider combining DOASes with VERS and
without VERS into the same equipment classes in this final rule.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
As discussed, DOE adopted a test procedure for DX-DOASes in the
July 2022 TP final rule. The standards adopted in this final rule shall
be determined using DOE's test procedure for DX-DOASes, as specified in
appendix B.
DOE received a comment from AHRI and MIAQ in response to the
February 2022 NOPR stating that while they agree with DOE's proposed
energy conservation standards, they believe that DOE should not adopt
AHRI 920-2020 as the DOE test procedure and should not adopt energy
conservation standards for DX-DOAS based on AHRI 920-2020 before AHRI
920-2020 is formally adopted in ASHRAE 90.1. (AHRI, No. 15, pp. 1-3;
MIAQ, No. 12, pp. 1-3) AHRI and MIAQ also noted that the ASHRAE 90.1
SSPC committee has voted to release addendum cv to ASHRAE 90.1 which
will adopt AHRI
[[Page 65657]]
920-2020, however they noted that it is unlikely to publish until after
June 2022.\4\ Id. DOE notes that since AHRI and MIAQ have submitted
these comments, the ASHRAE 90.1 SPPC committee has published a public
review draft of Addendum cv, which contains an updated reference to
AHRI 920-2020 rather than ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 as the test standard for
DX-DOAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE understands that AHRI was not indicating DOE should act
upon the publication of addendum cv public review draft, or the
publication of addendum cv, but that DOE should wait to adopt energy
conservation standards for DX-DOASes based on AHRI 920-2020 until
ASHRAE 90.1-2022 is published with a reference to AHRI 920-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the July 2022 TP final rule, DOE disagreed with
AHRI that it is premature to adopt AHRI 920-2020, and that DOE lacks
the authority to do so. As discussed in the July 2022 TP final rule,
the industry test procedure for DX-DOASes referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019, AHRI 920-2015, was superseded in the intervening years since
DOE was first triggered to review the DX-DOAS provisions of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016. As supported by many of the comments that DOE
received in the test procedure rulemaking, including from AHRI itself,
DOE determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that AHRI 920-2015 is
not reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency of DX-DOASes during a representative average use cycle and
that some components of AHRI 920-2015 are unnecessarily burdensome.
Accordingly, DOE incorporated by reference AHRI 920-2020 in the July
2022 TP final rule, and the test procedure established in that rule
must be used to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation
standards established in this final rule. Further discussion of DOE's
justification to adopt AHRI 920-2020 may be found in the July 2022 TP
final rule. 87 FR 45174.
D. Discussion of Specific Comments
1. Non-Standard Indoor Fans
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE did not specifically request comment
on how non-standard indoor fans should be treated when determining DX-
DOAS basic models. However, in response to the February 2022 NOPR,
Carrier stated that it supported DOE's determination of a DX-DOAS basic
model, while AHRI and MIAQ stated that while they generally support
DOE's determination of a DX-DOAS basic model, they believe that because
AHRI 920-2020 does not include non-standard indoor fan motors as an
optional feature for testing and because many model lines offer
multiple higher static indoor fan motor options for higher static
installations, separate basic models are required to accommodate each
of the different indoor fan motor options. (AHRI, No. 15, pp. 5-6;
MIAQ, No. 12, p. 5; Carrier, No. 11, p. 3) AHRI and MIAQ also stated
that this would greatly increase the number of DX-DOAS basic models,
and that this would be at great cost to small and large manufacturers.
AHRI and MIAQ therefore recommended that DOE treat non-standard indoor
fan motors consistent with section D4 of AHRI Standard 340/360-2022
``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2022''),\5\
which allows non-standard indoor fan motors to be optional for basic
model representations, provided they have an efficiency that is
``equivalent'' or better than that of the standard fan motor (the test
standard provides a definition for equivalent efficiency that takes
into consideration that trend for efficiency increase as motor power
increases). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AHRI 340/360-2022 is the most recent publication of the
industry test procedure for CUAC/HPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE acknowledges that AHRI 920-2020 does not include an approach
similar to AHRI 340/360-2022 regarding the treatment of non-standard
indoor fans, as described by AHRI. However, DOE notes that the supply
air external static pressure (ESP) requirements in AHRI 920-2020 are
significantly higher than those found in AHRI 340/360-2022 and ANSI/
AHRI 920-2015.\6\ Hence, the potential mismatch between the power
required to operate a unit as required by the test procedure and the
shaft power rating of a non-standard high-static motor should make much
less difference to results as compared to equipment tested under AHRI
340/360-2022. AHRI did not provide information suggesting the potential
range of such a mismatch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Supply air ESPs in AHRI 920-2020 range from 0.64-1.35 in
H2O. ESPs in AHRI 340/360-2022 and ANSI/AHRI 920-2015
range from 0.10-0.75 in H2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the comment claims that the approach finalized in the test
procedure would ``greatly increase the number of DX-DOAX basic
models,'' no specific details were provided explaining this significant
increase. For example, the comment did not claim that such units with
non-standard high-static motors would not be able to meet the proposed
efficiency standards. DOE notes that the test procedure indicates that
representations be based on the least-efficient of the individual
models within the basic model (with certain allowances for certain
components) but that no limit is imposed regarding the allowable
efficiency difference among those individual models. 87 FR 45183. Thus,
it is not clear why the number of basic models should greatly increase.
DOE does not have sufficient data or information to consider the
impacts of amending the DOE test procedure to adopt a non-standard
indoor fan approach similar to the one implemented in AHRI 340/360-
2022. DOE notes that manufacturer literature for DX-DOASes does not
have nearly as much detail on the ESP operation ranges of the motors
offered within a model line, unlike the literature for CUACs which
typically includes such information. Hence, DOE does not have data
regarding the distribution of DX-DOASes with non-standard indoor fans
compared to DX-DOASes with standard indoor fans, which could be used to
indicate how representative a DX-DOAS with a non-standard indoor fan is
with respect to the overall market. Accordingly, DOE is not at this
time considering revision of the test procedure requirements regarding
non-standard fans.
2. Representation Requirement for Moisture Removal Capacity
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the
represented value of MRC be either the mean of the MRCs measured for
the units in the selected sample rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple
according to Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020 or the MRC output simulated by an
AEDM rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI
920-2020, and requested feedback on this proposal. 87 FR 5560, 5580.
AHRI and MIAQ supported DOE's proposed representation requirements
regarding MRC. (AHRI, No. 15, p. 5; MIAQ, No. 12, p. 4) Carrier agreed
that the MRC should be based on tested values or an AEDM output,
however Carrier recommended that the represented value of MRC should be
between 95 and 100 percent of the mean of the measured capacities in
the selected sample. (Carrier, No. 11, p. 3) Carrier stated that this
process is not a burden for manufacturers and includes the impact of
variation between the samples. Id.
DOE notes that Carrier's recommendation is consistent with the
requirements for making btu/h representations for CUAC/HPs. 10 CFR
429.43(a)(1)(iv) DOE notes that this approach would allow manufacturers
the option to make conservative (i.e., avoid overstating) MRC
representations. As such, and to align with the representation
requirements of CUAC/HP, DOE has determined to amend its proposal in
the February 2022 final rule
[[Page 65658]]
and is adopting Carrier's recommendation in this final rule. Therefore,
DOE is requiring that the represented value of MRC be either between 95
and 100 percent of the mean of the measured capacities of the units in
the selected sample rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple according to
Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020 or the MRC output simulated by an AEDM rounded
to the nearest lb/hr multiple according to Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020.
DOE is adopting these provisions in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(ii), and is
including the rounding requirements from Table 3 of AHRI 920-2020 in
Table 2 to paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of Sec. 429.43.
NEEA supported DOE's proposal to incorporate MRC as the primary
capacity representation, however, NEEA recommended DOE represent
capacity information for DX-DOAS in both MRC and Btu/h because (1)
manufacturers will already know the capacity of units expressed in Btu/
h, thus the addition of this capacity information will not add extra
burden to manufactures; (2) all other heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) regulated DOE products have capacity represented in
Btu/h; (3) there is no statutory limitation for describing capacity in
multiple ways; and (4) capacity represented by Btu/h can be used to
represent total capacity, including both sensible and latent cooling
capacity, and capacity represented by MRC only represents the latent
capacity of the unit. (NEEA, No. 16, pp. 3-4) Additionally, NEEA noted
that the calculation from 760,000 Btu/h to 324 MRC has been performed
by DOE, and asserted that it should be possible for other capacities if
necessary in the future and recommended that if such a calculation is
not specified in AHRI 920-2020, that DOE should include provisions that
provide instructions for how the calculation should be performed.
(NEEA, No. 16, p. 4)
DOE understands that representing capacity in Btu/h in addition to
MRC may provide customers capacity representations in a term they are
more familiar with (i.e., Btu/h). However, DOE has determined that DX-
DOASes, whose primary purpose is to dehumidify, are best represented
solely by the MRC capacity measurement. DOE notes that AHRI 920-2020
includes test methods to determine capacity for dehumidification mode
in terms of MRC, not Btu/h--none of its test provisions indicate how to
determine capacity in terms of Btu/h. At this time, DOE does not have
sufficient data or information to consider the impacts of making DX-
DOAS capacity representations in terms of both MRC and Btu/h, and DOE
has determined that there is not clear and convincing evidence to
deviate from AHRI 920-2020 by making such representations in terms of
Btu/h. Accordingly, DOE declines to follow NEEA's recommendation in
this final rule.
3. Compliance Date
When establishing energy conservation standards at the same level
as in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standards no later
than 18 months following the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 update (in this case,
ASHRAE 90.1-2016), and manufacturers must comply with such standards 2
to 3 years after the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 update, depending on the size
of the equipment.\7\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I) and (a)(6)(D)) In
order to provide DX-DOAS manufacturers with a reasonable lead-time to
comply with the standards proposed in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed that manufacturers would be required to comply with the new
standards for DX-DOASes 18 months following the publication date of
this final rule. 87 FR 5560, 5582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE decided to assign a three-
year compliance date regardless of equipment size because ASHRAE
Standard 90.1- 2016 established equipment classes for DX-DOASes that
do not distinguish units based on the small, large, or very large
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIAQ stated that the HVAC industry has petitioned the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement a January 1, 2025 compliance date
requiring less than 750 GWP refrigerants for many HVAC appliances,
which includes DOAS systems, as a result of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act. MIAQ requests DOE implement an energy conservation
standard compliance date for DOAS no sooner than January 1, 2025, given
the complexity and expense of this low GWP refrigerant transition, and
because this would help to ensure a smoother transition. (MIAQ, No. 12,
p. 6)
DOE notes that its approach to energy conservation standards
rulemakings, and the compliance dates adopted in such rulemakings, are
dictated by the requirements in EPCA. As discussed, the publication of
ASHRAE 90.1-2016 triggered DOE's obligation to establish uniform
national standards for DX-DOASes no later than 18 months after its
publication. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) DOE's action to establish
the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 DX-DOAS standards in this final rule is already 4
years late. Manufacturers have had these years of additional time in
excess of the lead time specified by the statute to prepare for meeting
these standards. Therefore, DOE is not deviating from the approach
discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, and is adopting a compliance date
for DX-DOASes 18 months after the publication of this final rule. As
such, DOE is maintaining the same lead time between final rule and
compliance date as would have occurred if DOE had met the requirements
specified in EPCA regarding finalizing the amended standards and
establishing a compliance date (using a compliance date 3 years after
the update to ASHRAE 90.1 with amended standards established 18 months
after the update to ASRHAE 90.1).
4. Certification and Enforcement Requirements
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that the enforcement
provisions generally applicable to commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment would be applicable to DX-DOASes. 87 FR 5560,
5581. DOE also proposed to establish provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 that
specify how DOE would determine the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 for DX-DOASes
with VERS. Id. DOE received comments from AHRI and MIAQ generally
supporting these proposals and did not receive any additional comments
on this subject. (AHRI, No. 15, p. 5; MIAQ, No. 12, pp. 4-5) As such,
DOE has determined to adopt the enforcement provisions proposed in the
February 2022 NOPR, but has done so by directly referencing DOE's test
procedure, rather than industry standards.
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE did not propose certification or
reporting requirements for DX-DOASes and noted it would consider
proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for DX-
DOASes under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment
certification. 87 FR 5560, 5584. AHRI and MIAQ expressed concern that
DOE is not currently proposing to establish certification requirements
for DX-DOASes and urged DOE to swiftly establish said certification
requirements and certification template. (AHRI, No. 15, p. 5; MIAQ, No.
12, pp. 4-5) The Joint Advocates also encouraged DOE to finalize all
pertinent certification provisions for DX-DOASes as soon as possible,
to allow time for stakeholders to review and submit feedback. (Joint
Advocates, No. 13, p. 2)
DOE appreciates stakeholder feedback regarding this topic and will
take it into consideration upon developing a separate rulemaking
regarding equipment certification.
[[Page 65659]]
5. Market and Technology Assessment
Although DOE has determined it does not have sufficient information
to conduct a proper market and technology assessment, in the February
2022 NOPR DOE sought information that may inform a market and
technology assessment for the DX-DOAS industry, including data on
technology options which may increase the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2
efficiencies of DX-DOASes. 87 FR 5560, 5571.
AHRI and MIAQ stated that in general, small equipment (below 10
tons) utilize two stage or digital compressors, without inverter
control, with small heat exchangers; whereas equipment above 10 tons
typically utilizes four-stage or digital compressors, without inverter
control, with larger heat exchangers. (AHRI, No. 15, p. 4; MIAQ, No.
12, p. 4) AHRI and MIAQ also noted that DOE contractors have also had
extensive conversations with manufacturers to assess the market and
technology. Id.
NEEA noted that while features that increase ISMRE2 ratings will
save energy, there may be other energy saving features that aren't
accounted for in the ISMRE2 metric. (NEEA, No. 16, pp. 5-6) Therefore,
NEEA recommended DOE consider and request information from stakeholders
on all technology options that reduce energy consumption, not just ones
that affect ISMRE2, and that if such technology options are not
accounted for in the ISMRE2 rating, DOE reconsider if the current TP
sufficiently represents DX-DOAS equipment. NEEA also listed several
energy saving technology options they recommend DOE consider in a
future standards and test procedure rulemaking.\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NEEA listed the following features: Decreased fan energy
consumption, low energy defrost, reduced VERS leakage, improved VERS
heat recovery effectiveness, heat recovery bypass control
capability, and low leakage dampers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment provided by AHRI is informative, and DOE appreciates
such feedback. DOE notes that AHRI's comment is generally consistent
with the information DOE has collected regarding typical DX-DOAS
designs, including in discussions with manufacturers. In response to
NEEA, DOE has already finalized the DX-DOAS test procedure. 87 FR
45164. DOE will consider whether the test procedure should be modified
to better address the potential benefits of additional technologies
mentioned in NEEA's comment when considering future revisions to the
DX-DOAS test procedure and standards. Therefore, DOE has determined
that the feedback provided by NEEA and AHRI does not warrant making any
adjustments to the proposals in the February 2022 NOPR.
NEEA also noted that the February 2022 NOPR requested information
only on the market of DX-DOASes and did not broadly request information
on the market of unitary DOASes. (NEEA, No. 16, pp. 4-5) NEEA expressed
concerns that DOE's definition and scope for DX-DOAS and unitary DOAS
equipment does not align with how the market differentiates them, and
that market size and overlap between DX-DOAS and unitary DOAS is an
unknown, which inhibits NEEA from providing meaningful comment on DOE's
scope, test procedure, and proposed standard efficiency levels for
these products. NEEA therefore recommends DOE collect and publish data
on unitary DOAS through this product rulemaking in addition to the
information requested for DX-DOAS to better understand the market size
and overlap between the two. Id.
As discussed in section III.C, DOE established definitions for
unitary DOASes and DX-DOASes in the July 2022 TP final rule and
discussed any potential overlap between unitary DOASes and CUAC/HPs in
that final rule. As discussed in section II.B, DX-DOASes (i.e., the
equipment for which DOE is establishing standards in this final rule)
are a subset of unitary DOASes. While DOE did not specifically request
data on unitary DOASes, commenters were free to provide information
relevant to the DOAS market (unitary DOASes and DX-DOASes) that would
inform DOE's analyses. In response to the NOPR, DOE was not presented
with any data or information on the category of unitary DOASes that are
not DX-DOASes. However, DOE may investigate and request additional
related information on this specific category (unitary DOASes that are
not DX-DOASes) in the future.
E. Energy Conservation Standards
As discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, the efficiency levels
established for DX-DOASes in the ASHRAE 90.1 standard are based on the
ISMRE and ISCOP metrics used in AHRI 920-2015. However, as noted
previously, DOE has incorporated by reference into its test procedure
the most recent version of AHRI 920, AHRI 920-2020. AHRI 920-2020 uses
the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics. DOE was unable to conduct the analysis
necessary to evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate whether
more stringent standards would be technologically feasible or
economically justifiable, with sufficient certainty due to the lack of
available market and performance data with the IMSRE2 and ISCOP2
metrics. Therefore, in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed
establishing ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels of equivalent
stringency to the ISMRE and ISCOP minimum efficiency levels currently
published in ASHRAE 90.1 via a ``crosswalk'' analysis using the
procedures of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e).\9\ 87 FR 5560, 5575. As noted in the
February 2022 NOPR, DOE preliminarily determined that, in the present
case given the limited data available, conducting a crosswalk analysis
generally consistent with the process prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)
would result in efficiency levels that are of the same stringency as
those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. The proposed ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
levels DOE determined using the crosswalk analysis are shown below in
Table III.2. 87 FR 5560, 5562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As DOE noted in the February 2022 NOPR, EPCA prescribes
requirements to amend the applicable energy conservation standard so
that products or equipment that complied under the prior test
procedure remain compliant under the amended test procedure. (See
generally 42 U.S.C. 6293(e); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) While these
provisions are not explicitly applicable to DX-DOASes in the present
case because DOE had no test procedure at the time of the NOPR or
energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes, DOE considers those
procedures as generally instructive for conducting the crosswalk
analysis.
Table III.2--Energy Conservation Standards for DX-DOASes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DX-DOASes............................. (AC)--Air-cooled without ventilation ISMRE2 = 3.8.
energy recovery systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with ISMRE2 = 5.0.
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat pumps without ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ventilation energy recovery systems. ISCOP2 = 2.05.
[[Page 65660]]
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source heat pumps ISMRE2 = 5.0.
with ventilation energy recovery ISCOP2 = 3.20.
systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ventilation ISMRE2 = 4.7.
energy recovery systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled with ISMRE2 = 5.1.
ventilation energy recovery systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat pumps without ISMRE2 = 3.8.
ventilation energy recovery systems. ISCOP2 = 2.13.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source heat pumps ISMRE2 = 4.6.
with ventilation energy recovery ISCOP2 = 4.04.
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the ISMRE2 levels for the crosswalk analysis, DOE
conducted investigative testing on four DX-DOASes and collaborated with
Pacific Gas and Electric on testing of a fifth DX-DOAS to measure the
average impact of the test procedure updates on the dehumidification
efficiency metric. To evaluate the ISCOP2 levels, DOE considered the
updates in AHRI 920-2020 in a calculation to determine the proper
ISCOP2 levels. Details of the crosswalk analysis used to determine
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 levels can be found in the Crosswalk Analysis Support
Document (``CASD'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The CASD is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to
adopt the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 levels determined in DOE's crosswalk
analysis. 87 FR 5560, 5579. AHRI and MIAQ stated that many
stakeholders, including DOE consultants, came together to develop an
appropriate crosswalk between ISMRE and ISMRE2. (AHRI, No. 15, pp. 1-2,
4; MIAQ, No. 12, p. 4) AHRI and MIAQ noted that approximately 23
meetings were held since June 2020 to discuss the crosswalk, that
multiple data points that had both ISMRE & ISMRE2 ratings were
collected by AHRI, DOE, and the CA IOUs, and that all AHRI data
collected was provided to DOE consultants. AHRI and MIAQ noted that the
crosswalk was delayed by the low calculated correlation between ISMRE
and ISMRE2 and consequently required more complex modeling to map the
relationship between the two metrics. AHRI and MIAQ stated that while
work was ongoing to map the relationship between ISCOP to ISCOP2
through the AHRI group, DOE continued a separate analysis (i.e., the
ISCOP2 crosswalk analysis) culminating in the publication of the
February 2022 NOPR and the proposed standards therein. AHRI and MIAQ
stated that while DOE proposed ISMRE2 standards in the February 2022
NOPR before ASHRAE completed their crosswalk, AHRI and MIAQ supports
the standards proposed in the February 2022 NOPR. Id. The CA IOUs also
supported DOE's crosswalk analysis, and the proposed ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
levels. (CA IOUs, No. 14, p. 2)
Carrier and the Joint Advocates however disagreed with the proposed
ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 levels in the February 2022 NOPR. (Carrier, No. 11,
p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 13, pp. 1-2) Specifically, they disagreed
with the proposed levels because of the high variation in the test
results, because models not close to the baseline ISMRE levels in
ASHRAE 90.1-2016 were considered in the crosswalk analysis, and because
while the overall crosswalk showed a decrease in efficiency levels when
moving from ANSI/AHRI 920-2015 to AHRI 920-2020, there was an increase
in efficiency levels for the units tested which had efficiency levels
near the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 baseline. (Carrier, No. 11, pp. 2-3)
Therefore, Carrier and the Joint Advocates expressed concern that the
efficiency levels being proposed in the February 2022 NOPR are too low
because DOE averaged the crosswalk results across all DX-DOASes
analyzed (including units near, and further from the ISMRE levels in
ASHRAE 90.1), which could potentially lead to market demand for
equipment with lower efficiency than baseline DX-DOAS currently on the
market. Carrier and the Joint Advocates stated that the models with
efficiency levels closest to the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 baseline levels
should be the only models considered in the crosswalk and recommended
DOE collect more data from units close to the baseline levels. Id.
Additionally, Carrier asserted that their internal investigations found
that the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 levels should be at the same ISMRE and ISCOP
levels in ASHRAE 920-2016 and ASHRAE 90.1-2019, however Carrier did not
provide any additional data or information to support that conclusion.
(Carrier, No. 11, p. 3)
DOE acknowledges that a crosswalk consistent with the process
prescribed at 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) would typically involve testing
minimally compliant units, or in this case, testing units that had
efficiencies at the minimum level specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 and
ASHRAE 90.1-2019. However, as noted in the February 2022 NOPR, ISMRE
ratings for DX-DOASes are generally not available to determine which
models may perform at the minimum ISMRE levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2019
because the market for DX-DOASes is still developing, and efficiency in
terms of ISMRE and ISCOP is generally not provided by manufacturers.
DOE stated in the February 2022 NOPR that it would consider additional
crosswalk data from DX-DOAS models which are minimally compliant with
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 ISMRE levels should such data become
publicly available. 87 FR 5560, 5577. While Carrier and the Joint
Advocates expressed concern that the standards proposed in the February
2022 NOPR may be too low, DOE has not received any additional data on
this subject, and DOE is not aware of any public data that has been
made available. Therefore, DOE evaluated five DX-DOASes with a range of
moisture removal capacities and ISMRE ratings, as detailed in the CASD,
to develop the standard levels proposed in the February 2022 NOPR.
Separately, the CA IOUs urged DOE to employ more recent weather
data than what was used to create Typical Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2)
files to establish ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 weighting factors, and assert that
more recent weather data would be more appropriate for DOEs analysis.
In response to the CA IOUs comment about more recent weather data,
DOE notes that the purpose of the TMY data is to create hourly weather
data over an average year, based on time series of weather data over 25
to 30 years. While there is a more current version than TMY2, version
TMY3, the impact of a change in TMY data on the outcome of the
weighting factors would be minor. In Chapter 7 of the technical support
document for the 2016 Final Rule for
[[Page 65661]]
CUACs/CUHPs,\11\ DOE compared the cooling degree days (CDD) for the
TMY2 and TMY3 datasets. Nationally, TMY3 had about 5 percent more CDDs
however, the average summer maximum daily temperature increased by less
than 1 degree F. Given that each ISMRE bin represents a range of
temperature conditions and this is a small change in average
temperatures, a transition to TMY3 would result in small, if any,
change in the average conditions for test conditions A, B, C, and D,
and also very small change in the weighting factors for the tests.
Ultimately, there is no evidence that it would result in a change in
test results that would make a significant change in an efficiency-
level ranking of DX-DOAS designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0105, p. 7-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE did not receive any additional data or information to inform
DOE's crosswalk from ISMRE to ISMRE2, or ISCOP to ISCOP2, and absent
such data, DOE has determined that DOE's crosswalk is appropriate. A
such, in this final rule, DOE is establishing ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
efficiency levels as proposed in the February 2022 NOPR in Table 14 of
10 CFR 431.97.
F. Consideration of Energy Conservation Standards
As discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA requires DOE to
amend the existing Federal energy conservation standard for covered
equipment each time ASHRAE amends \12\ ASHRAE 90.1 with respect to such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this manner, DOE
must adopt the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE 90.1,
unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing evidence to
support a determination that a more stringent standard level would
produce significant additional conservation of energy and be
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such a determination, it must publish a
final rule to establish the more stringent standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term
``amended'' in the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE 90.1
would trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation
has been that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard
applicable to that equipment under ASHRAE 90.1 that increases the
energy efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042
(March 7, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE normally performs
multiple in-depth analyses to determine whether there is clear and
convincing evidence to support more stringent energy conservation
standards (i.e., whether more stringent standards would produce
significant additional conservation of energy and be technologically
feasible and economically justified). 87 FR 5560, 5562. However, DOE
tentatively determined in the February 2022 NOPR that a lack of data
precluded such an analysis and therefore precluded a finding, by clear
and convincing evidence, that more stringent energy conservation
standards are justified. But DOE did provide a technical support
document (TSD) \13\ to present initial findings for certain of these
analyses for DX-DOASes based on the information available to DOE at the
time. As described in the following subsections, DOE does not have
sufficient data to revise and expand upon these analyses presented in
the TSD at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The September 2019 NODA/RFI TSD is available as Document
No. 2 at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Technological Feasibility
a. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See generally 10 CFR 431.4; sections
6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C
(``Process Rule''). After DOE has determined that particular technology
options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each
technology option in light of the following additional screening
criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts
on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
DOE received a number of comments in response to the 2019 NODA/RFI
regarding technology options for DOE to include in its analysis. DOE
incorporated this feedback into aspects of the crosswalk performed by
DOE when developing the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 levels proposed in the
February 2022 NOPR. A summary of those comments and the technology
options DOE considered as part of its analysis for the February 2022
NOPR may be found in the February 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 5570-5571. DOE also
received several comments from AHRI and MIAQ related to the technology
options used in DX-DOASes in response to the February 2022 NOPR, which
are discussed in section III.D.5. DOE has determined that information
provided by AHRI and MIAQ does not indicate any updates to DOE's
analysis are needed. DOE did not receive additional information from
stakeholders on these issues after publication of the February 2022
NOPR, and DOE has not found any additional relevant information.
Accordingly, DOE maintained the same inputs for its technology and
market assessment analyses as it did in the February 2022 NOPR.
Additionally, as discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE is not aware
of an existing database or compilation containing a comprehensive list
of DX-DOAS models and performance metrics, and DOE was not able to find
ISMRE and ISCOP, or ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings in much of the
manufacturer equipment specifications. 87 FR 5560, 5570. Currently, DOE
is still not aware of any such database.
b. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it typically determines the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE would typically determine
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in
energy efficiency for DX-DOASes, using the design parameters for the
most efficient equipment available on the market or in working
prototypes.
As discussed in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE was unable to identify
the most efficient equipment available on the market in terms of ISMRE2
and ISCOPE2 because of the lack of data available to DOE. 87 FR 5560,
5571. Therefore, DOE was unable to estimate the field-installed energy
use and cost of the most efficient equipment (in terms of ISMRE2 and
ISCOP2) available on the market (factoring in parameters such as price
markups, installation application, life-cycle cost and payback period,
and overall shipments), and was unable to evaluate the technological
feasibility of
[[Page 65662]]
standards more stringent than the levels in the updated ASHRAE 90.1.
Id.
DOE did not receive any additional information in response to the
February 2022 that would assist DOE in assessing ISMRE2 and ISCOP2
levels more stringent than the levels in AHSRAE 90.1-2019. Therefore,
in this final rule, DOE has determined that it is unable to assess more
stringent levels than those presented in ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
2. Energy Savings
In setting a more stringent standard for ASHRAE equipment, DOE must
have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that doing so ``would result in
significant additional conservation of energy'' in addition to being
technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). This language indicates that Congress intended
for DOE to determine that, in addition to the savings from the ASHRAE
standards, DOE's standards would yield additional energy savings that
are significant. As under the statutory provision applicable to covered
products and non-ASHRAE equipment, this provision requires DOE to
determine that its standards will produce a ``significant conservation
of energy,'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)), but here also requires that DOE
make that determination supported by ``clear and convincing evidence''.
See 85 FR 8626, 8666-8667.
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE initially determined that there is
insufficient data on the developing DX-DOAS market to conduct an
analysis of potential energy savings resulting from more stringent
standards because AHRI 920-2020 is a relatively recent industry test
standard, and thus, no database with ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings has been
established to show the general distribution of DX-DOAS efficiencies
currently on the market. 87 FR 5560, 5571. Since then, DOE has not
received or obtained sufficient data and information needed to conduct
an analysis of potential energy savings resulting from more stringent
standards. While DOE has received data from stakeholders comparing
energy savings of DX-DOASes with VERS and DX-DOASes without VERS (as
discussed in section III.B), DOE has not received data detailing energy
savings of DX-DOASes with varying efficiencies. DOE is also currently
still not aware of any database with ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ratings which
could contribute to an analysis of DX-DOAS efficiency distributions or
energy savings analysis. As such, DOE has not conducted an analysis of
potential energy savings resulting from more stringent standards, and
DOE is adopting ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 DX-DOASes standards that are
equivalent to the ISMRE and ISCOP standards presented in ASHRAE 90.1-
2019, in part because it is unable to establish clear and convincing
evidence to support more stringent standards.
3. Economic Justification
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)) As
required by EPCA, DOE has considered each of these factors ``to the
maximum extent practicable''.\14\ The following sections discuss how
DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Am. Pub. Gas Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Energy, 22
F.4th 1018, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and payback period (``PBP'') associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates
the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
As noted, DOE is unaware of any database or compilation containing
a comprehensive list of DX-DOAS models and performance metrics. This
presents significant challenges to performing an accurate assessment of
the DX-DOAS industry structure.
In determining the impacts of a potential standard on
manufacturers, DOE typically conducts a manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA). DOE did not perform an MIA for this rulemaking because there is
not enough information available on the DX-DOAS market to determine
which entities are already compliant with the finalized energy
conservation standards (i.e., producing DX-DOASes which currently meet
or exceed the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 minimum efficiency levels in this final
rule) and what portion of annual cash flow these DX-DOASes comprise.
However, DOE did examine the potential impacts on small manufacturers
in its regulatory flexibility analysis, which is presented in section
VII.B of this final rule.
DOE notes that a full consideration of more stringent levels, if
undertaken, would assess manufacturer impacts including cumulative
burden. However, because DOE is adopting energy conservation standards
for DX-DOASes of equivalent stringency as those in present in ASHRAE
90.1-2019, and in the absence of more stringent standards, DOE has
determined that the proposals set forth in this final rule would not
add additional burden to manufacturers.
For individual consumers, DOE measures the economic impact by
calculating the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended
standards. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE would also calculate the
national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected
to result from particular standards, while taking into account the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
DOE did not perform an LCC or an assessment of NPV for this
rulemaking because there was not enough information available to
develop the inputs required to measure the individual or aggregate
consumer savings from higher standards. The LCC would require an
engineering analysis, an energy use analysis, operating cost inputs,
and a distribution of efficiencies that are available on the market.
These inputs allow DOE to develop equipment prices, representative
efficiency levels, annual operating costs, and a no-standards case
distribution of equipment efficiencies to determine which consumers
will be impacted by a higher standard. The NIA takes the weighted
average national results from the LCC and combines them with shipments
forecasts by equipment class and efficiency level in order to measure
the national impact, in terms of consumer NPV and full-fuel-cycle
energy savings. As stated previously, DOE was unable to develop cost-
efficiency curves for DX-DOASes or to conduct an energy use analysis
with enough degree of certainty that would allow it to consider a
standard level more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1 (see section III.F.2 of
this document). Without these inputs, DOE is unable to produce the LCC
and NIA for this final rule. Accordingly, DOE did not perform LCC and
NIA analyses.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared
[[Page 65663]]
to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result
from a standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE conducts
this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For a LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards.
DOE did not perform an LCC and PBP analysis for this final rule. As
discussed in the preceding paragraphs there is not enough information
available to develop the inputs to the LCC and PBP models.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) As
discussed, DOE was unable to conduct an energy use analysis with
sufficient certainty. Therefore, DOE has not conducted or updated an
NES analysis for this final rule.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) Based on
data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration
in this rulemaking because DOE is establishing standards of equivalent
stringency to those already found in ASHRAE 90.1, which have applied to
DX-DOASes for several years.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V))
To assist the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') in making such a
determination, DOE transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR
TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ
provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter
responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the adopted energy conservation
standards for DX-DOASes are unlikely to have a significant adverse
impact on competition. The Attorney General's assessment is available
for review in the rulemaking docket.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) The
energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy
system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in
reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's
electricity system.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use.
The utility impact analysis, emissions analysis, and emissions
monetization all rely on the national energy savings estimates from the
NIA. As discussed previously, DOE did not conduct an NIA and as a
result could not conduct these downstream analyses.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII))
To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding
economic justification that does not fit into the other categories
described previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.'' DOE did not identify any relevant ``other factors'' for this
final rule.
h. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
consumer of the equipment that meets the standard is less than three
times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's
LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that
amended energy conservation standards would have on the PBP for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
PBP contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full
range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the
basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results
of any preliminary determination of economic justification).
As discussed, DOE did not perform an LCC and PBP analysis for this
final rule because there is not enough information available to develop
the inputs to the LCC and PBP models. Therefore, DOE does not have
sufficient information to perform this analysis.
G. Conclusions
EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard
for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, which includes DX-
[[Page 65664]]
DOASes, at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE 90.1
unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register, and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform
national standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE 90.1 would
result in significant additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-(II)). As discussed throughout this document, due
to the lack of available market and performance data with the IMSRE2
and ISCOP2 metrics, DOE is unable to conduct the analysis necessary to
evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate whether more
stringent standards would be technologically feasible or economically
justified at this time, with sufficient certainty. Therefore, DOE has
determined it lacks clear and convincing evidence that adoption of more
stringent standards would result in additional conservation of energy
and would be technologically feasible and economically justified.
Accordingly, DOE is establishing energy conservation standards for DX-
DOASes that are of equivalent stringency as the minimum levels
specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
DOE is establishing standards using the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics,
which are the metrics used in the most recent version of the industry
test procedure for DX-DOAS recognized by ASHRAE 90.1-2019 (i.e., AHRI
920-2020). Based on DOE's crosswalk analysis and the discussion in
section III.E, DOE has determined that the adopted energy conservation
standards in terms of ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 are of equivalent stringency to
the standards for DX-DOAS in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which rely on the ISMRE
and ISCOP metrics. The adopted standards for DX-DOASes are shown in
Table III.2 of this final rule. The adopted standards apply to all DX-
DOASes with an MRC of less than 324 lbs moisture/hr manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States starting 18 months after the
publication of this final rule.
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/final 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 final 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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE officially released the 2016 edition of
ASHRAE 90.1 (``ASHRAE 90.1-2016''), which for the first time created
separate equipment classes for DX-DOASes with corresponding standards,
thereby triggering DOE's obligations pursuant to EPCA to either: (1)
establish uniform national standards for DX-DOASes at the minimum
levels specified in the amended ASHRAE 90.1; or (2) adopt more
stringent standards based on clear and convincing evidence that
adoption of such standards would produce significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified.
As result of the ASHRAE trigger, DOE published a NOPR (``February
2022 NOPR'') on February 1, 2022 in which DOE proposed to adopt energy
conservation standards for DX-DOASes. 87 FR 5560. In this final rule,
DOE is establishing energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes at the
stringency levels specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, relying on updated
metrics: ISMRE2 (for all DX-DOASes) and ISCOP2 (for heat pump DX-
DOASes).
For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-conditioning
and heating equipment (including DX-DOASes), the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses.'' DOE used the SBA's small
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would
be subject to the requirements of this rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The
equipment covered by this final rule are classified under North
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code 333415,\15\
``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201,
the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to
be considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The business size standards are listed by NAICS code and
industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/
support--table-size-standards (Last Accessed July 29th, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the DX-DOAS market, DOE used company websites,
marketing research tools, product catalogues, and other public
information to identify
[[Page 65665]]
companies that manufacture DX-DOASes. DOE screened out companies that
do not meet the definition of ``small business'' or are foreign-owned
and operated. DOE used subscription-based business information tools to
determine headcount, revenue, and geographic presence of the small
businesses.
As noted in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE identified 12 manufacturers
of DX-DOASes, of which one met the definition of a domestic small
businesses. DOE understands the annual revenue of the small
manufacturer to be approximately $66 million. 87 FR 5560, 5584.
In this final rule, DOE adopts energy conservation standards for
DX-DOAS based on the ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 metrics. In the July 2022 TP
final rule, DOE adopted the test procedure for DX-DOASes, as specified
in appendix B. In that test procedure final rule, DOE determined that
manufacturers would be unlikely to incur a significant increase in
burden, given that DOE referenced the prevailing industry test
procedure (i.e., AHRI 920-2020). 87 FR 45189. Additionally, DOE has
determined that the adopted ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 standards are of
equivalent stringency as the standards in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (and ASHRAE
90.1-2019), which are expressed in terms of ISMRE and ISCOP. In the
absence of available market and performance data, DOE is unable to
conduct the analysis necessary to evaluate the potential energy savings
or evaluate whether more stringent standards would be technologically
feasible or economically justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As
such, DOE is not establishing standards at levels more stringent than
those specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
Therefore, DOE has determined that manufacturers would only incur
costs as result of this final rule if a manufacturer was not already
testing to current industry practice. However, in the July 2022 TP
final rule, DOE determined that it would be unlikely for manufacturers
to incur testing costs given that DOE is referencing the prevailing
industry test procedure. DOE determined that its adoption as part of
the Federal test procedure would be expected to result in little
additional cost, even with the minor modifications proposed. DOE also
determined that the test procedure would not require manufacturers to
redesign any of the covered equipment, would not require changes to how
the equipment is manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the
equipment. 87 FR 45189.
DOE identified only one domestic small manufacturer affected by
this rulemaking, and received no comments stating otherwise.
Furthermore, DOE is not establishing standards at levels more stringent
than those specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. Therefore, on the basis of
the de minimis compliance burden and that DOE is not proposing more-
stringent standards than those specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (and
ASHRAE 90.1-2019), DOE certifies that this final rule does not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE
will transmit a certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered
equipment, including DX-DOASes. DOE's certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered
products and covered equipment must submit a certification report
before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter,
and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the
consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the
certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual
certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the
manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish,
maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other
testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part 430,
and/or part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with
comprehensive, up-to date efficiency information and support effective
enforcement.
Certification data will be required for DX-DOASes; however, DOE is
not adopting certification or reporting requirements for DX-DOASes in
this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish
certification requirements and reporting for DX-DOASes under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this action rule in accordance with NEPA
and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has
determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b)
apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further
environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application
of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
[[Page 65666]]
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 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 equipment that are the
subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from
such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1)
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a 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 ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor
is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any
one year by the private sector. In this document, DOE is establishing
energy conservation standards at an equivalent stringency level as the
existing industry standards in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. The determination of
the adopted energy conservation standards is based on a crosswalk of
the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 minimum efficiency levels to updated efficiency
metrics, and thus DOE does not expect that units which are minimally
compliant with ASHRAE 90.1-2019 would require redesign. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA 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 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
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final 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
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any 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.
[[Page 65667]]
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth
energy conservation standards for DX-DOASes, is not a significant
energy action because the standards are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
on this final rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer
review.\16\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed October 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
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 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 19,
2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is amending parts 429
and 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.43 by adding paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) and
redesignating table 2 as table 3.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) When certifying, the following provisions apply.
(1) For ratings based on tested samples, the represented value of
moisture removal capacity shall be between 95 and 100 percent of the
mean of the moisture removal capacities measured for the units in the
sample selected, as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,
rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple specified in table 2 to paragraph
(a)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(2) For ratings based on an AEDM, the represented value of moisture
removal capacity shall be the moisture removal capacity output
simulated by the AEDM, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, rounded to the nearest lb/hr multiple specified in table 2 to
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
Table 2 Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B)--Rounding Requirements for Rated Moisture
Removal Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rounding
Moisture removal capacity (MRC), lb/hr multiples,
lb/hr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 < MRC <= 30.............................................. 0.2
30 < MRC <= 60............................................. 0.5
60 < MRC <= 180............................................ 1
180 < MRC.................................................. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.134 by adding paragraphs (s)(2) and (3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(2) If the manufacturer certified testing in accordance with Option
1 using default VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR) values or Option
2 using default VERS effectiveness and EATR values, DOE may determine
the integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency 2 (ISMRE2) and/or
the integrated seasonal coefficient of performance 2 (ISCOP2) using the
default values or by conducting testing to determine VERS performance
[[Page 65668]]
according to the DOE test procedure in appendix B to subpart F of part
431 of this chapter (with the minimum purge angle and zero pressure
differential between supply and return air).
(3) If the manufacturer certified testing in accordance with Option
1 using VERS exhaust air transfer ratio (EATR) values or Option 2 using
VERS effectiveness and EATR values determined using an analysis tool
certified in accordance with the DOE test procedure in appendix B to
subpart F of part 431 of this chapter, DOE may conduct its own testing
to determine VERS performance in accordance with the DOE test procedure
in appendix B to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter.
(i) DOE would use the values of VERS performance certified to DOE
(i.e. EATR, sensible effectiveness, and latent effectiveness) as the
basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 of the basic model only
if, for Option 1, the certified EATR is found to be no more than one
percentage point less than the mean of the measured values (i.e. the
difference between the measured EATR and the certified EATR is no more
than 0.01), or for Option 2, all certified values of sensible
effectiveness are found to be no greater than 105 percent of the mean
of the measured values (i.e. the certified effectiveness divided by the
measured effectiveness is no greater than 1.05), all certified values
of latent effectiveness are found to be no greater than 107 percent of
the mean of the measured values, and the certified EATR is found to be
no more than one percentage point less than the mean of the measured
values.
(ii) If any of the conditions in paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this
section do not hold true, then the mean of the measured values will be
used as the basis for determining the ISMRE2 and/or ISCOP2 of the basic
model.
* * * * *
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
4. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
5. Amend Sec. 431.97 by adding paragraph (g) and table 14 to Sec.
431.97 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
* * * * *
(g) Each direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system manufactured
on or after the compliance date listed in table 14 to this section must
meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set
forth in this section.
Table 14 to Sec. 431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: equipment manufactured
Equipment type Subcategory Efficiency level starting on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor (AC)--Air-cooled without ISMRE2 = 3.8............................. May 1, 2024.
air systems. ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air-cooled with ISMRE2 = 5.0............................. May 1, 2024.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8............................. May 1, 2024.
pumps without ventilation ISCOP2 = 2.05............................
energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air-source ISMRE2 = 5.0............................. May 1, 2024.
heat pumps with ventilation ISCOP2 = 3.20............................
energy recovery systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled without ISMRE2 = 4.7............................. May 1, 2024.
ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water-cooled ISMRE2 = 5.1............................. May 1, 2024.
with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source heat ISMRE2 = 3.8............................. May 1, 2024.
pumps without ventilation ISCOP2 = 2.13............................
energy recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water-source ISMRE2 = 4.6............................. May 1, 2024.
heat pumps with ventilation ISCOP2 = 4.04............................
energy recovery systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-23185 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P