[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