Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11335 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 13, 

2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 22, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04013 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003] 

RIN 1904–AE42 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Variable 

Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or the 

‘‘Department’’) is proposing amended 

energy conservation standards for 

variable refrigerant flow (VRF) multisplit air conditioners and VRF multisplit system heat pumps (collectively 

referred to as ‘‘VRF multi-split 

systems’’) that rely on a new cooling 

efficiency metric and are equivalent to 

those levels specified in the industry 

standard. DOE has preliminarily 

determined that it lacks the clear and 

convincing evidence required by the 

statute to adopt standards more 

stringent than the levels specified in the 

industry standard. This document also 

announces a public meeting webinar to 

receive comment on these proposed 

standards and associated analyses and 

results. 

DATES:

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) no later than May 2, 

2022. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ of this document for 

details. 

Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard should be sent to the 

Department of Justice contact listed in 

the ADDRESSES section on or before 

March 31, 2022. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 

March 23, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 

p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003, by 

any of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Email: to 

multisplitachp2018std0003@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2018–BT– 

STD–0003 in the subject line of the 

message. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing corona virus (COVID–19) 

pandemic. DOE is currently suspending 

receipt of public comments via postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier. If a 

commenter finds that this change poses 

an undue hardship, please contact 

Appliance Standards Program staff at 

(202) 586–1445 to discuss the need for 

alternative arrangements. Once the 

COVID–19 pandemic health emergency 

is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming 

all of its regular options for public 

comment submission, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2018-BT-STD0003. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII (Public 

Participation) for information on how to 

submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy following the instructions at 

www.RegInfo.gov. 

EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney 

General to provide DOE a written 

determination of whether the proposed 

standard is likely to lessen competition. 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Antitrust Division invites input from 

market participants and other interested 

persons with views on the likely 

competitive impact of the proposed 

standard. Interested persons may 

contact the Antitrust Division at 

energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this proposed rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting webinar, contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2All 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). 

3 In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: 

(1) In making a determination of economic 

justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an 

amended standard based on the seven criteria 

described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any 

standard that increases the energy use or decreases 

the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and 

(3) DOE may not prescribe an amended standard 

that interested persons have established by a 

preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of any product 

type (or class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and 

volumes) that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)–(iii)) 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 

3. ASRAC Negotiations 

III. General Discussion 

A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk 

Analysis 

1. Crosswalk Background 

2. Crosswalk Details 

3. Crosswalk Results 

B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF 

IV. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

V. Conclusions 

A. Consideration of More-Stringent 

Efficiency Levels 

B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback 

Provision 

C. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

VI. 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 of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation at the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended 

(EPCA),2 established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317) Such equipment includes small, 

large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, of which VRF multi-split 

systems, the subject of this rulemaking, 

are a category. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)– 

(D)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to 

consider amending the energy efficiency 

standards for certain types of covered 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

document, whenever the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

amends the standard levels or design 

requirements prescribed in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings,’’ (ASHRAE Standard 90.1), 

and at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(B)) For each type 

of equipment, EPCA directs that if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, 

DOE must adopt amended energy 

conservation standards at the new 

efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, unless clear and convincing 

evidence supports a determination that 

adoption of a more-stringent efficiency 

level would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii); referred to as the 

‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’) If DOE adopts as a 

uniform national standard the efficiency 

level specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such 

standard not later than 18 months after 

publication of the amended industry 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) 

If DOE determines that a more-stringent 

standard is appropriate under the 

statutory criteria, DOE must establish 

such more-stringent standard not later 

than 30 months after publication of the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) 

Under EPCA, DOE must also review 

its energy conservation standards for 

VRF multi-split systems 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 under the relevant 

statutory criteria 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).3 (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 on October 26, 

2016, thereby triggering DOE’s 

previously referenced obligations 

pursuant to EPCA to determine for 

certain classes of VRF multi-split 

systems, whether: (1) The amended 

industry standard should be adopted; or 

(2) clear and convincing evidence exists 

to justify more-stringent standard levels. 

For any class where DOE was not 

triggered, the Department routinely 

considers those classes under the 

statute’s 6-year-lookback provision at 

the same time, so as to address the 

subject equipment in a comprehensive 

fashion. 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for air-cooled 

VRF multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h and water-source VRF multi-split 

heat pumps are codified in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. These 

standards are specified in terms of 

Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) for 

cooling mode and Coefficient of 

Performance (COP) for heating mode 

based on the Federal test procedure at 

10 CFR 431.96, which references 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

1230–2010, ‘‘2010 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Variable 

Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ approved August 2, 2010 

and updated by Addendum 1 in March 

2011 (ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010). 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for air-cooled, 

three-phase VRF multi-split systems 

with cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu/h are also codified in 10 CFR 

431.97. These standards are specified in 

terms of Seasonal Energy Efficiency 

Ratio (SEER) for cooling mode and 

Heating Seasonal Performance Factor 

(HSPF) for heating mode based on the 

rating conditions in ANSI/AHRI 1230– 

2010. Although the current standards 

levels are based on the same test 

procedure as used for all other 

categories of VRF systems (i.e., aircooled VRF multi-split systems with 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h and water-source VRF 

multi-split systems), the organizations 

that maintain the industry consensus 

test procedures have recently updated 

their scope such that air-cooled, threephase VRF multi-split systems with 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11337 

4The VRF ECS Term Sheet can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTSTD-0003-0055. 

5The VRF ASRAC Working Group recommended 

a 2019 draft version of AHRI 1230 with additional 

recommendations for further development of the 

test standard outside of the Working Group. The 

2019 draft of AHRI 1230 was later released as AHRI 

1230–2021, which included the Working Group’s 

recommendations. 

cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h 

are now covered under AHRI 210/240– 

2023 instead of AHRI 1230–2021. 

Consequently, DOE is addressing test 

procedures for air-cooled, three-phase 

VRF multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in a 

separate test procedure rulemaking for 

air-cooled, three-phase, small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h (86 FR 

70316 (Dec. 9, 2021)) instead of in the 

test procedure rulemaking for VRF 

multi-split systems (86 FR 70644 (Dec. 

10, 2021)). Accordingly, DOE is not 

evaluating the Federal energy 

conservation standards for such 

equipment in this notice and is instead 

addressing energy conservation 

standards for air-cooled, three-phase 

VRF multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in a 

separate energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for air-cooled, three-phase, 

small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

with a cooling capacity of less than 

65,000 Btu/h. 

The efficiency levels set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 for VRF 

multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity 65,000 Btu/h or greater are 

specified in terms of both EER and 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 

(IEER) for cooling mode and COP for 

heating mode. These efficiency levels 

are based on the rating conditions of 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230–2014 with 

addendum 1 (ANSI/AHRI 1230–2014), 

which are identical rating conditions to 

those found in AHRI 1230–2010. The 

EER levels found in ASHRAE 90.1–2016 

are unchanged from the current Federal 

EER requirements; however, for certain 

classes of water-source VRF multi-split 

heat pumps, the COP levels specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 are more 

stringent. See additional discussion in 

section II.B.2 of this document. 

On April 11, 2018, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a Notice of Intent 

to establish a negotiated rulemaking 

working group (Working Group) under 

the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC) to negotiate a 

proposed test procedure and amended 

energy conservation standards for VRF 

multi-split systems. 83 FR 15514. The 

Working Group reached consensus on 

an energy conservation standards term 

sheet (VRF ECS Term Sheet) on 

November 5, 2019, outlining 

recommended amended energy 

conservation standards for all 

equipment classes of VRF multi-split 

systems. The standard levels 

recommended by the Working Group in 

the VRF ECS Term Sheet are in terms 

of the IEER and COP metrics and 

equivalent to the levels specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016.4

However, the levels recommended by 

the working group are measured 

according to an amended industry test 

standard for VRF multi-split systems 5— 

AHRI Standard 1230, ‘‘2021 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Variable 

Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (AHRI 1230–2021). See 

additional discussion in section II.B.3 of 

this NOPR. 

As described in detail in section III.A 

of this document, DOE conducted a 

crosswalk analysis during the ASRAC 

negotiation meetings to validate the 

translation of the EER levels currently 

required by the DOE standards to IEER, 

as well as the IEER efficiency levels as 

recommended by the Working Group. 

DOE notes that IEER is a more 

comprehensive metric because it reflects 

the energy efficiency across a range of 

operating conditions, as opposed to the 

efficiency at a single condition. The 

crosswalk translates the current Federal 

EER standards (measured per the 

current DOE test procedure) to IEER 

levels of equivalent stringency 

(measured per the September 20, 2019 

draft version of the AHRI 1230 

standard). As described in section II.B.3 

of this document, the recommended 

2019 draft test procedure was later 

published as AHRI 1230–2021, and no 

substantive changes were made that 

impact crosswalk results. Differences in 

the metrics and test procedures cause 

the crosswalk analysis to yield a range 

of IEER values corresponding to a given 

EER value. DOE’s translation of the 

current EER levels to IEER according to 

the updated test procedure shows that 

each value recommended by the 

Working Group is within the range 

resulting from DOE’s evaluation. Given 

that the metric takes into account a 

wider breadth of energy consumption 

across a variety of operating conditions, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

recommended IEER values are at least 

equivalent in stringency to the current 

EER values. Further, given that IEER is 

a more comprehensive metric, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

recommended IEER values would not 

decrease the minimum required energy 

efficiency of VRF basic models. 

Because the updates in AHRI 1230– 

2021 do not affect the measurement of 

COP, no crosswalk was required to 

evaluate the stringency of the COP 

levels proposed in the VRF ECS Term 

Sheet as compared to the existing 

Federal COP levels. 

In this document, DOE proposes to 

adopt the energy conservation standard 

levels and the equipment class structure 

from ASHRAE 90.1–2016 for air-cooled 

VRF multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h and for all water-source VRF 

multi-split heat pumps. The proposed 

standards, which are expressed in terms 

of IEER and COP, are presented in Table 

I–1. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all VRF multisplit systems listed in Table I–1 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on January 1, 

2024. The proposed standard levels are 

equivalent to the standard levels 

recommended by the Working Group in 

the VRF ECS Term Sheet. The proposed 

equipment class structure differs from 

the existing DOE equipment class 

structure regarding capacity break 

points and designations based on 

heating type; however, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that none of the 

changes to the equipment class structure 

for VRF multi-split systems would 

constitute backsliding—see section III.B 

of this document for additional 

discussion. 

For the reasons described in section 

IV of this document, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the potential 

energy savings associated with adopting 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2016 standard levels 

for the triggered classes are de minimis. 

Also, as described in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that insufficient data are 

available to determine, based on clear 

and convincing evidence, that morestringent standards would result in 

significant additional energy savings 

and be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. As such DOE has 

not conducted further analysis of morestringent standard levels for this 

rulemaking. Consequently, DOE is 

proposing to adopt the levels specified 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, as 

required by EPCA. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11338 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I–1 PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR VRF MULTI-SPLIT SYSTEMS

Equipment type Size category Heating type Minimum efficiency 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air-Cooled) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................ All .................................................................. 15.5 IEER. 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ...................... All .................................................................. 14.9 IEER.

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............ All .................................................................. 13.9 IEER. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) ..... ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................ Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ...................... Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 btu/h ............. Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water-Source) <65,000 Btu/h ............................................... Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................ Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ...................... Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............ Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .............. 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ................... 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for VRF multi-split 

systems. 

A. Authority 

EPCA, among other things, 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 EPCA, 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified) added by Public Law 

95–619, Title IV, section 441(a), 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. This covered equipment 

includes small, large, and very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment, which includes 

the VRF multi-split systems that are the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(B)–(D)) Additionally, as 

discussed in further detail subsequently, 

the statute requires DOE 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 efficiency levels or design 

requirements prescribed in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, and even in the absence 

of an ASHRAE trigger event, a separate 

provision of EPCA requires DOE to 

consider amended standards for such 

equipment, at a minimum, every six 6 

years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)) 

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 include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), energy conservation standards 

(42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), 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 in limited circumstances for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) 

Subject to certain statutory criteria 

and conditions, DOE is required to 

develop test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of covered 

equipment during a representative 

average use cycle and that are not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 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 the relevant 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated under EPCA. The DOE test 

procedures for VRF multi-split systems 

appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry 

energy efficiency levels for small, large, 

and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment, 

packaged terminal air conditioners, 

packaged terminal heat pumps, warm 

air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage 

water heaters, instantaneous water 

heaters, and unfired hot water storage 

tanks (collectively referred to as 

‘‘ASHRAE equipment’’). For each type 

of listed covered equipment, EPCA 

directs that if ASHRAE amends 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with respect to 

the standard levels or design 

requirements applicable under that 

standard, DOE must adopt amended 

standards at the new ASHRAE 

efficiency levels, 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)) 

Although EPCA does not explicitly 

define the term ‘‘amended’’ in the 

context of what type of revision to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger 

DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding 

interpretation has been that the 

statutory trigger is an amendment to the 

standard applicable to that equipment 

under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that 

increases the energy efficiency level for 

that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 

(March 7, 2007). If the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 leaves the energy 

efficiency level unchanged (or lowers 

the energy efficiency level), as 

compared to the energy efficiency level 

specified by the uniform national 

standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, 

regardless of the other amendments 

made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an 

additional metric), DOE has stated that 

it does not have the authority to conduct 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11339 

6 In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: 

(1) In making a determination of economic 

justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an 

amended standard based on the seven criteria 

described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any 

standard that increases the energy use or decreases 

the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and 

(3) DOE may not prescribe an amended standard 

that interested persons have established by a 

preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of any product 

type (or class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and 

volumes) that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)–(iii)) 

a rulemaking to consider a higher 

standard for that equipment pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 FR 

36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 

28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an 

amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

changes the metric for the standard on 

which the Federal requirement was 

based, DOE would perform a crosswalk 

analysis to determine whether the 

amended metric under ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy 

efficiency level that was more stringent 

than the current DOE standard. 

Under EPCA, DOE must also review 

its energy conservation standards for 

VRF multi-split systems 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 under the relevant 

statutory criteria 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).6 (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

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 

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 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))) 

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 

1. Current Standards 

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) EPCA 

further classifies ‘‘commercial package 

air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ into categories based on 

cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, and 

very large categories). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per 

hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated: (i) At or above 135,000 

Btu per hour; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu 

per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 

Btu per hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu 

per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92) 

Pursuant to its authority under EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and in 

response to updates to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE has established the 

category of VRF multi-split systems, 

which meets the EPCA definition of 

‘‘commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment,’’ but which 

EPCA did not expressly identify. See 10 

CFR 431.92 and 10 CFR 431.97. 

DOE defines ‘‘variable refrigerant flow 

air conditioner’’ as a unit of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment that is configured as a split 

system air conditioner incorporating a 

single refrigerant circuit, with one or 

more outdoor units, at least one 

variable-speed compressor or an 

alternate compressor combination for 

varying the capacity of the system by 

three or more steps, and multiple indoor 

fan coil units, each of which is 

individually metered and individually 

controlled by an integral control device 

and common communications network 

and which can operate independently in 

response to multiple indoor thermostats. 

Variable refrigerant flow implies three 

or more steps of capacity control on 

common, inter-connecting piping. 10 

CFR 431.92. 

DOE defines ‘‘variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split heat pump’’ as a unit of 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment that is 

configured as a split system heat pump 

that uses reverse cycle refrigeration as 

its primary heating source and which 

may include secondary supplemental 

heating by means of electrical 

resistance, steam, hot water, or gas. The 

equipment incorporates a single 

refrigerant circuit, with one or more 

outdoor units, at least one variablespeed compressor or an alternate 

compressor combination for varying the 

capacity of the system by three or more 

steps, and multiple indoor fan coil 

units, each of which is individually 

metered and individually controlled by 

a control device and common 

communications network and which 

can operate independently in response 

to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable 

refrigerant flow implies three or more 

steps of capacity control on common, 

inter-connecting piping. 10 CFR 431.92. 

DOE adopted energy conservation 

standards for VRF multi-split systems in 

a final rule published on May 16, 2012 

(May 2012 Final Rule). 77 FR 28928, 

28995. DOE’s initial standards for VRF 

multi-split systems were prompted by 

ASHRAE’s decision to include 

minimum efficiency levels for VRF 

multi-split systems for the first time in 

the 2010 edition of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). For 

four of the VRF water-source heat pump 

classes (including VRF water-source 

heat pumps with cooling capacity less 

than 17,000 Btu/h and VRF waterVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:06 Feb 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM 01MRP1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11340 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

source heat pumps with cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 

Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), 

DOE adopted the standard levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, having 

determined that the updates to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 either raised the 

energy efficiency levels above the 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standards or set standards for 

equipment for which DOE did not 

previously have standards. 77 FR 28928, 

28938 (May 16, 2012). For all other 

equipment classes of VRF multi-split 

systems, DOE maintained the standards 

from the equipment class under which 

the corresponding VRF multi-split 

system equipment class was previously 

regulated (i.e., air-cooled VRF multisplit systems had previously been 

covered as small, large, and very large 

air-cooled central air-conditioning heat 

pumps with electric resistance heating, 

while water-source VRF multi-split heat 

pumps had previously been covered as 

water-source heat pumps). 

For the equipment addressed in this 

NOPR, DOE’s current equipment classes 

for VRF multi-split systems are 

differentiated by refrigeration cycle (air 

conditioners or heat pumps), condenser 

heat rejection medium (air-cooled or 

water-source), cooling capacity, and 

heating type (for air-cooled: ‘‘No heating 

or electric resistance heating’’ or ‘‘all 

other types of heating’’; for watersource: ‘‘Without heat recovery,’’ ‘‘with 

heat recovery,’’ or ‘‘all’’). DOE’s current 

standards for VRF multi-split systems 

are set forth at Table 13 to 10 CFR 

431.97 and repeated in Table II–1 of this 

document. 

TABLE II–1—CURRENT DOE STANDARDS FOR VRF MULTI-SPLIT SYSTEMS

Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type 1 Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products 

manufactured 

on and after . . . 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).<65,000 Btu/h ..................................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h

All .....................................................

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

13.0 SEER ......................

11.2 EER ........................

June 16, 2008. 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 11.0 EER ........................ January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 10.8 EER ........................ January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.0 EER ........................ January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 9.8 EER .......................... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).<65,000 Btu/h .................................. All ..................................................... 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .... June 16, 2008. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........ January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP ........ January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........ January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........ January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

9.5 EER, 3.2 COP .......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP .......... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).<17,000 Btu/h .................................. Without heat recovery ...................... 12.0 EER 4.2 COP ......... October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

With heat recovery ........................... 11.8 EER 4.2 COP ......... October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ... All ..................................................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h All ..................................................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ October 29, 2003. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Without heat recovery ...................... 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........ October 29, 2013. 

With heat recovery ........................... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP .......... October 29, 2013. 

1VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’ 

2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 

ASHRAE released the 2016 version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016) on October 26, 

2016, which increased the heating mode 

efficiency level (in terms of COP) for six 

of the current DOE VRF multi-split 

system equipment classes: 

(1) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, 

Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, Without 

Heat Recovery; 

(2) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, 

Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, With Heat 

Recovery; 

(3) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, 

Water-source ≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<65,000 Btu/h; 

(4) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps. 

Water-source ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h; 

(5) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, 

Water-source ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery; 

and 

(6) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, 

Water-source ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 left 

unchanged the heating mode efficiency 

level for the remaining six DOE 

equipment classes of VRF multi-split 

heat pump systems with cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h and left unchanged the cooling 

mode efficiency levels in terms of EER 

for all DOE equipment classes. 

DOE published a notice of data 

availability and request for information 

(NODA/RFI) in response to the 

amendments to ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 in the Federal Register on 

July 8, 2019 (July 2019 NODA/RFI). 84 

FR 32328. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE compared the current Federal 

standards for VRF multi-split systems 

(in terms of EER and COP) to the levels 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and 

requested comment on its preliminary 

findings. 84 FR 32328, 32333–32334 

(July 8, 2019). In addition to evaluating 

amended energy conservation standards 

for the six equipment classes triggered 

by the updated levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016, DOE also 

examined the other 14 equipment 

classes of VRF multi-split systems under 

its 6-year lookback authority (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) and solicited data from 

stakeholders. 84 FR 32328, 32334 (July 

8, 2019). DOE received comments in 

response to the July 2019 NODA/RFI 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11341 

7The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for VRF multi-split systems. (Docket No. 

EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

8 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92–463. 

9 5 U.S.C. 561–570, Public Law 101–648. 

10A complete list of the ASRAC VRF Working 

Group members is available by clicking on the 

‘‘Working Group’’ tab at: www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemakingfederal-advisory-committee#Variable%20

Refrigerant%20Flow%20Multi-Split%20

Air%20Conditioners%20and%20

Heat%20Pumps%20Working%20Group. 

from the interested parties listed in 

Table II–2. 

TABLE II–2—JULY 2019 NODA/RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

California Investor-Owned Utilities .......................................................... CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute ................................ AHRI .............................................. Trade Association. 

Hydronic Industry Alliance—Commercial ................................................ HIA—C ........................................... Trade Association. 

Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law ................................. Policy Integrity ............................... Academic Institution. 

DOE discusses comments received in 

response to the July 2019 NODA/RFI in 

the following sections of this document. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.7

On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE 

officially released for distribution and 

made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 

maintained the equipment class 

structure for VRF multi-split systems 

from ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and 

did not update efficiency levels for any 

VRF equipment classes. 

3. ASRAC Negotiations 

On April 11, 2018, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a notice of its 

intent to establish a negotiated 

rulemaking working group (Working 

Group) under the Appliance Standards 

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC), in accordance 

with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act 8 and the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Act,9 to negotiate an amended test 

procedure and amended energy 

conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems. 83 FR 15514. The purpose 

of the Working Group was to discuss 

and, if possible, reach consensus on a 

proposed rule regarding the test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards for VRF multi-split systems, 

as authorized by EPCA. Id. The Working 

Group comprised 21 voting members 

including manufacturers, energy 

efficiency advocates, utilities, and trade 

organizations.10

On October 1, 2019, the Working 

Group reached consensus on a test 

procedure term sheet (VRF TP Term 

Sheet; Docket No. EERE–2018–BT– 

STD–0003–0044) that includes several 

recommendations. The following list 

includes the most substantial 

recommendations: 

(1) VRF multi-split systems should be 

rated with the Integrated Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (IEER) metric to allow 

consumers to make consistent 

comparisons with other equipment 

using the IEER metric (e.g., rooftop air 

conditioner ratings). 

(2) Use of the amended test procedure 

should not be required until the 

compliance date of amended energy 

conservation standards. 

(3) The Federal test procedure for VRF 

multi-split systems should be consistent 

with the September 20, 2019 draft 

version of AHRI 1230, with additional 

recommended amendments to be 

implemented after the conclusion of 

ASRAC negotiations. 

Following completion of the VRF TP 

Term Sheet, the Working Group 

proceeded to negotiate recommended 

revised energy conservation standards 

for VRF multi-split systems that 

accounted for the translation from the 

EER metric to the IEER metric, as well 

as the changes between the Federal test 

procedure that references AHRI 1230– 

2010 and the recommended 2019 draft 

test procedure AHRI 1230 (which was 

later published as AHRI 1230–2021). As 

described in greater detail in section 

III.A of this document, DOE conducted 

a crosswalk analysis to inform the 

development of standard levels for VRF 

multi-split systems in terms of the new 

test procedure and metric. DOE 

presented the results of its crosswalk 

analysis on November 5, 2019 (Docket 

No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003–0061 at 

p. 45), and subsequently, the Working 

Group reached consensus on an energy 

conservation standards term sheet (VRF 

ECS Term Sheet; Docket No. EERE– 

2018–BT–STD–0003–0055) 

recommending: 

(1) Amendments to the Federal 

minimum efficiency standards for VRF 

multi-split systems (as presented in 

Table II–3 of this NOPR) and per the test 

procedure recommended in the VRF TP 

Term Sheet. 

(2) The compliance date of the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards should be January 1, 2024 for 

all VRF multi-split system equipment 

classes included in this proposed 

rulemaking. 

TABLE II–3—RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FROM VRF ECS TERM SHEET

Equipment class Energy efficiency 

levels recommended 1

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .............................................................................. 15.5 IEER. 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................................ 14.9 IEER. 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................................................................ 13.9 IEER. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ............. 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating ....................................... 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ........... 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating ..................................... 13.7 IEER; 3.2 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ........... 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating ..................................... 12.5 IEER; 3.2 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ........................................................................ 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11342 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II–3—RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FROM VRF ECS TERM SHEET—Continued 

Equipment class Energy efficiency 

levels recommended 1

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ............................................................................. 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ......................................... 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery .............................................. 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ....................................... 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ............................................ 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ..................................... 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery .......................................... 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ..................................... 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery .......................................... 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

1The VRF ECS Term Sheet includes the notation ‘‘COPH’’ which indicates coefficient of performance in heating mode at 47 °F outdoor ambient temperature (for air-cooled VRF multi-split heat pumps) and at 68 °F entering water temperature (for water-source VRF multi-split heat 

pumps). 

DOE notes that there are minor 

differences in equipment class structure 

(related to cooling capacity, 

supplementary heating type, and 

presence of heat recovery) between the 

VRF ECS Term Sheet, ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019, and the current 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for VRF multi-split systems. This topic 

is discussed in greater detail in section 

III.B of this document. 

On May 18, 2021, AHRI published an 

updated industry test standard for VRF 

multi-split systems AHRI 1230–2021. 

Subsequently, on December 10, 2021, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

the VRF TP NOPR (December 2021 VRF 

TP NOPR), in which DOE proposed an 

amended test procedure for VRF multisplit systems that incorporates by 

reference AHRI 1230–2021 and 

proposed to adopt IEER as the test 

metric for VRF multi-split systems. 86 

FR 70644, 70652. In the December 2021 

VRF TP NOPR, DOE tentatively 

determined that the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure, if 

made final, would alter the measured 

efficiency of VRF multi-split systems, as 

compared to ratings using the current 

Federal regulated metric, EER (see 10 

CFR 431.97). In that document, DOE 

stated that were the proposed test 

procedure to be made final (i.e., were 

DOE to adopt IEER as the metric for VRF 

multi-split systems), testing pursuant to 

the amended test procedure would not 

be required until such time as 

manufacturers were required to comply 

with amended energy conservation 

standards that are denominated in terms 

of IEER, should such standards be 

adopted. 86 FR 70644, 70652 (Dec. 10, 

2021). 

III. General Discussion 

A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk 

Analysis 

1. Crosswalk Background and Overview 

Consistent with the recommendation 

of the Working Group, DOE is proposing 

to amend the energy conservation 

standards for VRF multi-split systems to 

rely on the IEER metric for cooling 

efficiency. DOE is not proposing to 

amend the metric for heating efficiency 

(i.e., COP). The Department has 

tentatively concluded that a change of 

metrics would be beneficial for a 

number of reasons. The current Federal 

metric for cooling efficiency, EER, 

captures the system performance at a 

single, full-load operating point (i.e., 

single outdoor air temperatures for aircooled systems and single entering 

water temperatures for water-source 

systems). EER does not provide a 

seasonal or load-weighted measure of 

energy efficiency. In contrast, the IEER 

metric factors in the efficiency of 

operating at full-load conditions as well 

as part-load conditions of 75-percent, 

50-percent, and 25-percent of full-load 

capacity. Under part-load conditions, air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

may cycle off/on or may modulate down 

the capacity in order to match the 

imposed load. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the IEER metric 

provides a more representative measure 

of field performance of VRF multi-split 

systems by weighting the full-load and 

part-load efficiencies by the average 

amount of time equipment spends 

operating at each load. 

As stated, EPCA prohibits DOE 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)); 

commonly referred to as EPCA’s ‘‘antibacksliding provision’’) In consideration 

of the IEER metric and to ensure any 

potential amendment would not violate 

EPCA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, 

DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis to 

validate the translation of the EER levels 

currently required by the DOE standards 

to IEER, as well as the IEER efficiency 

levels as recommended by the Working 

Group. The crosswalk analysis 

translates the current Federal EER 

standards (measured per the current 

DOE test procedure) to IEER levels of 

equivalent stringency (measured per the 

updated AHRI Standard 1230). (Docket 

No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003–0056). 

The proposed energy conservation 

standards presented in this document 

were developed based on an update to 

the relevant industry test standard (i.e., 

the 2019 draft test procedure AHRI 1230 

that was finalized as ASHRAE 1230– 

2021). Compared to the current Federal 

test procedure (which references ANSI/ 

AHRI 1230–2010), AHRI 1230–2021 

included two substantive changes that 

impact the translation of standards in 

EER to standards using IEER. 

Specifically, DOE considered in its 

crosswalk analysis in addition to the 

metric change from EER to IEER: 

(1) Maximum sensible heat ratio 

(SHR) limits of 0.82 and 0.85 were 

added for full-load and 75-percent, partload conditions, respectively. SHR 

represents the ratio of sensible cooling 

capacity (i.e., the ability to change the 

temperature of indoor air) to the total 

cooling capacity, which also includes 

latent cooling capacity (i.e., the ability 

to remove moisture from indoor air). For 

example, an SHR of 0.80 indicates that 

80 percent of the capacity of a system 

reduces the temperature of the air and 

the remaining 20 percent dehumidifies 

the air. 

(2) A controls verification procedure 

(CVP) was added that verifies that the 

values provided by manufacturers in the 

supplemental test instruction (STI) for 

setting critical parameters during 

steady-state testing are within the range 

of critical parameters that would be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11343 

11According to a report from Cadeo group, aircooled VRF multi-split heat pump systems in the 

cooling capacity range greater than 135,000 Btu/h 

and less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h without 

heat recovery account for 12.4 percent of the VRF 

multi-split system market. Air-cooled VRF multisplit systems in the same capacity range equipped 

with heat recovery account for an additional 32.6 

percent of the VRF multi-split system market. 

(EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0002). 

12 VapCyc and CoilDesigner are HVAC energy 

modeling software programs. CoilDesigner is a 

detailed heat exchanger modeling program. VapCyc 

integrates CoilDesigner heat exchanger simulations 

with compressor and expansion models to complete 

a refrigeration cycle model to simulate performance 

of an air conditioning or heat pump system at 

specific operating conditions. Available at: 

www.optimizedthermalsystems.com. 

used by the system’s native controls at 

the same conditions. 

On November 5, 2019, DOE presented 

its crosswalk findings to the Working 

Group to inform the development of 

recommended standards levels for VRF 

multi-split systems in terms of the new 

test procedure and cooling metric. 

(Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–STD– 

0003–0056). To validate the relative 

equivalency of the IEER standard levels 

as recommended by the Working Group 

and the current Federal EER standards, 

DOE analyzed a minimally-compliant 

model from a high-sales-volume 

equipment class (with a current Federal 

standard of 10.6 EER) to ensure that 

translation of the current EER standards 

to the recommended IEER values would 

not decrease the minimum required 

energy efficiency of VRF multi-split 

systems. As discussed, because of the 

change in metric and changes in the test 

procedure, DOE cannot translate the 

current EER to a single IEER value 

(further discussed in section III.A.3 of 

this NOPR). DOE identified the resulting 

crosswalked efficiency of the 

minimally-compliant model from the 

selected class ranged from 13 to 16 

IEER. 

DOE also presented to the Working 

Group anonymized and aggregated data 

provided by VRF multi-split system 

manufacturers. These data showed a 

preliminary translation of ratings to the 

IEER metric in terms of the updated test 

procedure for a collection of VRF multisplit systems spanning four equipment 

classes. The sample data were mostly 

composed of systems above the current 

Federal baseline efficiency levels in 

terms of EER and, thus, were not 

instructive as to a crosswalk of 

minimum energy efficiency levels. 

(Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–STD– 

0003–0056). The IEER efficiency level 

specified in the VRF ECS Term Sheet for 

the selected class was 13.9 IEER, which 

was within the range of crosswalked 

results. 

Given that translating the current EER 

levels to IEER according to the updated 

test procedure does not provide for a 

single point answer (as would thereby 

allow for a direct comparison), DOE 

believes it is reasonable to ensure that 

the recommended value lies within the 

range resulting from DOE’s evaluation 

as a proxy for understanding whether 

there is a potential for backsliding. 

Consequently, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the recommended IEER 

levels are at least equivalent in 

stringency to the current EER levels. 

Further, given that IEER is a more 

comprehensive metric (reflecting energy 

efficiency across a range of operating 

conditions, as opposed to the efficiency 

at a single condition), DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

recommended IEER levels would not 

decrease the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a VRF multi-split system. 

2. Crosswalk Details 

In its analysis to crosswalk the current 

DOE energy conservation standards for 

VRF cooling efficiency, DOE sought to 

account for the translation from EER to 

IEER, as well as changes in the updated 

industry test standard—namely the 

addition of SHR limits and the 

introduction of the CVP. Because these 

three factors have interacting effects on 

the measured cooling performance of 

VRF multi-split systems, DOE modeled 

their interaction holistically and did not 

examine incremental changes in 

performance due to any one factor. 

As discussed, DOE is not proposing to 

change the heating efficiency metric 

(i.e., COP), because both ASHRAE 90.1– 

2016 and the Working Group VRF ECS 

Term Sheet define heating mode 

efficiency in terms of COP. 

Additionally, the changes to the test 

procedure for VRF multi-split systems 

did not impact measured efficiency in 

heating mode. Therefore, DOE did not 

conduct a crosswalk analysis for VRF 

heating mode efficiency. 

The following paragraphs describe 

DOE’s crosswalk methodology to 

translate the current cooling efficiency 

standards for VRF multi-split systems 

that rely on the EER metric to standards 

using IEER that are of equivalent 

efficiency. DOE also identifies the 

various factors that limit the ability to 

strictly translate standards that rely on 

EER to standards that standards that rely 

on IEER. 

In order to develop a crosswalk 

approach that is applicable to all 

equipment classes of VRF multi-split 

systems, DOE analyzed a basic model 

representative of equipment classes 

with high sales volume.11 Specifically, 

DOE selected an air-cooled VRF multisplit heat pump system in the cooling 

capacity range greater than 135,000 Btu/ 

h and less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/ 

h without heat recovery. The selected 

basic model had an EER rating within 

0.2 points of the Federal standard for 

the applicable equipment class (i.e., a 

10.8 rating vs 10.6 EER minimum 

required), and 0.4 points above the 

Federal standard for the corresponding 

equipment class equipped with heat 

recovery (i.e., a 10.8 rating vs 10.4 EER 

minimum required). 

In support of the Working Group 

DOE, along with several manufacturers, 

DOE conducted investigative testing on 

VRF multi-split systems operating under 

native controls. Included in this testing 

was the basic model selected to serve as 

the basis for the crosswalk analysis. 

DOE created a performance model using 

VapCyc and CoilDesigner software 12 to 

evaluate capacity and efficiency of the 

selected system per the updated 

industry test standard. DOE first 

modeled the system’s behavior at the 

full-load cooling condition by selecting 

compressor speed, outdoor fan speed, 

indoor airflow rate, and superheat 

condition to match information that was 

available in STI and provided 

confidentially by the manufacturer to 

DOE contractors under a nondisclosure 

agreement (NDA). DOE then calibrated 

the system as modeled in VapCyc and 

CoilDesigner so that the predicted 

capacity and EER matched the rated 

capacity and efficiency for the system 

(at full-load conditions) as certified by 

the manufacturer. Specifically, in its 

investigative testing, DOE observed 

typical control strategies for unloading 

at part-load conditions, including 

turning individual indoor units off, 

modulating compressor and fan speeds, 

and increasing evaporating temperature. 

DOE also observed patterns in which 

compressor speed and outdoor fan 

speed tended to scale together at 

reduced load conditions. DOE used this 

information to adjust the model so as to 

project the performance of the selected 

VRF multi-split system at partial loads 

by decreasing the operating state of 

components according to load level. 

As discussed, the capacity and EER 

rating for the basic model used in DOE’s 

analysis were measured according to the 

current DOE test procedure, but DOE is 

seeking to translate the current EER 

standards to equivalent IEER standards 

when tested according to the updated 

industry test standard. As such, DOE 

also considered in its crosswalk analysis 

the maximum SHR limits that were 

added in the industry test procedure 

AHRI 1230–2021. By establishing upper 

limits on SHR, DOE understands AHRI 

1230–2021 to create test conditions that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13 In a January 2016 energy conservation 

standards direct final rule for ACUACs, DOE 

discussed a metric translation from EER to IEER in 

which a single EER level corresponds to a range of 

IEERs. 81 FR 2420, 2452 (Jan. 15, 2016). 

are more representative of field 

applications for VRF multi-split 

systems, as compared to the current 

DOE test procedure. AHRI 1230–2021 

sets SHR limits of 0.82 and 0.85 at the 

full-load cooling condition and the 75- 

percent part-load cooling condition, 

respectively, but does not include SHR 

limits for the 50-percent or 25-percent 

part-load cooling conditions. AHRI 

1230–2021 also establishes a calculation 

method for the efficiency rating 

reduction for systems that exceed the 

SHR limits at the full-load and/or 75- 

percent part-load cooling conditions in 

the IEER test. 

Because manufacturers do not 

currently certify or publicize any 

information about SHR at the full-load 

EER test condition, DOE was unable to 

precisely determine SHR values 

representative of a baseline EER VRF 

multi-split system. Also, because the 

current DOE test procedure does not 

include any part-load cooling test 

points, no information was available 

about SHR values that VRF multi-split 

systems would produce at the 75- 

percent part-load IEER test condition. 

Because SHR data was not publicly 

available, DOE instead examined data 

from its investigative testing to identify 

the typical range of SHR values for VRF 

multi-split systems when operating 

under native controls at the full-load 

and 75-percent part-load conditions. 

DOE observed several cases of basic 

models with native controls test data 

indicating SHR values above the AHRI 

1230–2021 limits at the full-load and 

75-percent part-load condition, and also 

observed some basic models testing 

below the SHR limits. The precision of 

the crosswalk from existing EER levels 

to IEER levels in terms of the updated 

industry test standard was limited by 

the lack of available data about 

representative SHR values at the fullload EER test condition and by the 

variation in SHR values observed in the 

native controls test data. 

To account for the effect of the SHR 

limits in the updated industry test 

standard in its crosswalk analysis, DOE 

relied on the native controls test data to 

establish a range of potential initial SHR 

values observed at the full-load and 75- 

percent part-load IEER test conditions. 

DOE then adapted the VapCyc and 

CoilDesigner performance model to 

examine the effect of changing indoor 

airflow and evaporating temperature on 

SHR and the associated impacts on 

energy efficiency. Reducing the 

evaporating temperature increased the 

rate of dehumidification (thus reducing 

SHR), but also required more power 

input from the compressor, which 

reduced the measured efficiency. DOE 

also observed that at reduced airflow 

rates, the dehumidification capacity was 

higher, but the overall system capacity 

and efficiency were lower. 

Ultimately, the crosswalked IEER 

values varied depending on modeling 

input assumptions, such as whether the 

initial SHR was below or above the new 

SHR limits (and by how much), as well 

as the different control strategies 

employed to reduce SHR. The 

crosswalked IEER values also depended 

on overlapping input assumptions 

related to the EER-to-IEER translation, 

such as the number of thermally-active 

indoor units at part-load conditions. 

Reducing the number of indoor units at 

partial loads (while keeping all else 

constant) increased the amount of 

refrigerant flow to each remaining 

indoor fan coil, which provided better 

dehumidification performance and, 

thus, reduced SHR at the 75-percent 

load condition. 

As discussed, the updates in AHRI 

1230–2021 include a CVP for verifying 

that the certified operational settings for 

critical parameters are representative of 

values that would be observed with the 

VRF multi-split system operating under 

its own native controls. As described in 

AHRI 1230–2021, critical parameters 

include compressor speed(s), outdoor 

fan speed(s) and outdoor variable valve 

position(s). As proposed in the 

December 2021 VRF TP NOPR, 

manufacturers would specify 

operational settings for each of these 

components in their STI to implement 

during steady-state tests for IEER and 

COP. 86 FR 70644, 70666 (Dec. 10, 

2021). The CVP is not a part of rating 

tests for IEER, but rather, it serves as a 

validation method for cooling mode 

only. 

DOE’s ability to fully account for the 

potential changes to the measured 

performance of VRF multi-split systems 

as a result of the CVP was limited by the 

lack of available information regarding 

the control strategies employed by VRF 

system manufacturers—particularly at 

part-load conditions where 

manufacturers do not currently certify 

or make public any information about 

control settings. DOE was also limited 

by uncertainty about how these control 

strategies may change or how 

manufacturers may certify their critical 

parameter settings in response to the 

CVP. 

As discussed, the CVP is intended to 

validate that the certified operational 

settings (i.e., those used during IEER 

testing) for critical parameters are 

representative of controls behavior 

exhibited under the system’s own 

controls at the same conditions. DOE 

used information about the ranges of 

operational settings observed during 

native controls testing to represent a 

future system that would pass the CVP 

(i.e., a system for which the certified 

critical parameter settings would be 

validated by a CVP conducted with the 

system operating under native controls). 

Specifically, DOE selected inputs used 

in its VapCyc and CoilDesigner 

performance model for simulating IEER 

that were consistent with native 

controls testing observations, including 

the number of thermally-active indoor 

units at part-load conditions, 

compressor and fan speeds, expansion 

valve control strategy, and other 

refrigeration cycle parameters. DOE 

tentatively concluded that modelling 

IEER results using control settings 

observed during native controls testing 

was the most accurate approach for 

estimating how manufacturers would 

certify critical parameter control settings 

as part of testing to IEER as measured by 

AHRI 1230–2021. 

3. Crosswalk Results 

As discussed, DOE conducted its 

crosswalk analysis on a high-salesvolume equipment class of VRF multisplit systems and selected a 

representative model with EER near the 

Federal baseline level (10.8 EER vs 10.6 

EER baseline) in developing its VapCyc 

and CoilDesigner performance model. 

Based on the modeling conducted, the 

expected performance of the selected 

equipment class of VRF multi-split 

systems when tested according to AHRI 

1230–2021 would be in the range of 13 

to 16 IEER. Because of the wider range 

of operation conditions captured in 

IEER as well as the various strategies 

that manufacturers may employ to 

respond to the test procedure changes, 

a single EER baseline value inherently 

translates to a range of IEER values. 

As discussed, the IEER metric 

captures performance at additional partload operating conditions not 

considered by the EER metric; therefore, 

a single EER value translates to a range 

of potential IEER values.13 IEER 

captures the impacts of design features 

and control strategies that may not affect 

full-load operation but do affect partload operation. For example, VRF multisplit systems may use different 

strategies for reducing capacity at part 

loads like reducing the number of 

thermally active indoor units or slowing 

compressor speeds, which may result in 

differential impacts on measured IEER, 

but which would not have any impact 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11345 

on the measured full-load performance 

EER. DOE also recognizes that there are 

a variety of paths that manufacturers 

may take to account for the new test 

procedure, and that the crosswalk 

analysis approximates how 

manufacturers in the aggregate may 

respond to test procedure changes. For 

example, some manufacturers may elect 

to meet the new SHR limitations by 

reducing evaporating temperatures, 

while other manufacturers may meet the 

new SHR limitations by reducing indoor 

airflow and decreasing the number of 

thermally-active indoor units. Each 

strategy may have different tradeoffs in 

terms of overall system performance and 

measured energy efficiency. 

As described in section II.B.3 of this 

document, the Working Group 

recommended efficiency levels for VRF 

multi-split systems that align with the 

efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 

90.1–2016 in terms of IEER and COP. 

While DOE’s crosswalk analysis showed 

that a single EER baseline could result 

in a range of IEER values (as discussed, 

due to the wider range of operation 

conditions captured in IEER, as well as 

the various strategies that manufacturers 

may employ to respond to the test 

procedure changes), the IEER levels 

included in the VRF ECS Term Sheet 

(which the Working Group 

recommended as an appropriate 

crosswalk of current Federal EER 

standards) are within the range of DOE’s 

crosswalked results. As explained 

previously, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the recommended IEER 

levels are at least equivalent in 

stringency to the current EER levels. 

Further, given that IEER is a more 

comprehensive metric (reflecting energy 

efficiency across a range of operating 

conditions, as opposed to the efficiency 

at a single condition), DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

recommended IEER levels would not 

decrease the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a VRF multi-split system, 

thereby avoiding statutorily 

impermissible backsliding with respect 

to the current Federal standards in 

terms of EER. DOE has also tentatively 

determined that no changes to heating 

mode ratings in terms of COP are 

expected from the changes to the test 

procedure for VRF multi-split systems 

included in AHRI 1230–2021. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its 

crosswalk analysis methodology and 

crosswalk results. 

B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF 

In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE 

discussed two areas where the 

equipment class structure for VRF 

multi-split systems differs between 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal 

standards. 84 FR 32328, 32334 (July 8, 

2019). First, DOE noted that in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 (as in previous 

versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1), 

two water-source VRF multi-split heat 

pump equipment classes (greater than or 

equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 

65,000 Btu/h; and greater than or equal 

to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 

Btu/h) are disaggregated into equipment 

with heat recovery and equipment 

without heat recovery, with each 

ASHRAE equipment class having a 

separate minimum cooling efficiency. 

The current Federal standards do not 

disaggregate water-source VRF multisplit heat pumps in these capacity 

ranges based on the presence of heat 

recovery. (See Table 13 to 10 CFR 

431.97.) However, as DOE pointed out 

in the NODA/RFI, the cooling efficiency 

EER standard in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 for these units with heat 

recovery is below the current Federal 

standard. Consequently, under EPCA, 

the Secretary cannot prescribe those 

levels due to anti-backsliding concerns, 

so those classes were not subdivided 

further. Id. 

Second, DOE identified that ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 disaggregates and 

sets distinct standards for VRF watersource heat pumps by cooling capacity 

above and below 240,000 Btu/h (i.e., 

separate equipment classes with cooling 

capacities greater than or equal to 

135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 

Btu/h and greater than or equal to 

240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 

Btu/h). The DOE standards provide for 

VRF water-source heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity of greater than or equal 

to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 

Btu/h. (See table 13 to 10 CFR 431.97.) 

DOE sought feedback from stakeholders 

on whether to consider additional 

equipment classes for VRF water-source 

heat pumps between 135,000 and 

760,000 Btu/h, which would align with 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2016 structure for 

those classes of equipment. Id. 

In response to the July 2019 NODA/ 

RFI, AHRI and the CA IOUs both 

commented that DOE should align its 

equipment class structure for all classes 

of VRF multi-split systems with the 

equipment structure found in ASHRAE 

90.1–2016 (i.e., not just for the specific 

equipment classes on which DOE 

requested comment). (AHRI, No. 42 at p. 

3; CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3) AHRI 

commented that aligning with ASHRAE 

90.1 would reflect the structure of other 

VRF classes, such as air-cooled heat 

pumps and air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 

42 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that 

aligning with the equipment structure in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2016 would provide 

additional clarity regarding which 

standards apply to heat pumps versus 

units with heat recovery. (CA IOUs, No. 

41 at pp. 3–4) The CA IOUs further 

commented that for air-source VRF 

multi-split heat pumps, in order to be 

more easily understood by the market, 

DOE should align with the convention 

from ASHRAE Standard 90.1 by adding 

a new column titled ‘‘subcategory’’ that 

specifies ‘‘heat pump’’ or ‘‘heat pump 

with heat recovery’’ and should remove 

its existing designation of ‘‘no heating or 

electric resistance heating’’ and ‘‘all 

other types of heating,’’ which is 

terminology more applicable to 

commercial unitary air conditioners 

than to VRF multi-split systems. (CA 

IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also 

recommended that DOE should follow 

ASHRAE regarding breaking out the 

135,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/h 

categorization into two size categories, 

and that DOE should eliminate the 

17,000 Btu/h cutoff for water-source 

equipment so as to align with ASHRAE. 

Id. 

As stated, EPCA generally directs 

DOE to establish amended uniform 

national standards for the VRF multisplit systems at the minimum levels 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) Consistent 

with EPCA, and in consideration of the 

comments received, DOE proposes to 

adopt the ASHRAE 90.1–2016 

equipment class structure for VRF 

multi-split systems in its regulations at 

10 CFR 431.97. By adopting the 

equipment class structure from 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, DOE 

would fulfill requests by stakeholders, 

utilize terminology that is more 

representative of distinctive features in 

the VRF market, and would better align 

the cooling capacity break points with 

those for other equipment categories 

(e.g., the standards for commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, which are subdivided by the 

same capacity boundaries. See Table 3 

to 10 CFR 431.97). As noted previously, 

DOE has identified two areas for which 

the equipment class structure differs 

between the existing DOE standards and 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

(1) Capacity break points. For water-source 

VRF multi-split heat pumps, the current 

Federal standards include VRF multi-split 

systems with cooling capacity greater than or 

equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 

Btu/h in a single category. ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 splits this grouping at 240,000 

Btu/h to create capacity categories of greater 

than or equal to 135,000 and less than 

240,000 btu/h and greater than or equal to 

240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h. Also for 

water-source VRF multi-split systems, the 

current Federal standards include separate 

classes for systems with cooling capacity less 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

than 17,000 Btu/h and for systems with 

cooling capacity between 17,000 Btu/h and 

65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 

groups these classes together into a single 

equipment class with cooling capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h. 

(2) Heating type. The current Federal 

standards are disaggregated for certain 

classes of VRF multi-split systems based on 

heating type. For all air-cooled VRF multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps with 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h, the Federal cooling standards 

differ by 0.2 EER points depending on 

whether a system is equipped with ‘‘no 

heating or electric resistance heating’’ or ‘‘all 

other types of heating.’’ For water-source VRF 

multi-split heat pumps, some capacity 

classes disaggregate instead by systems with 

heat recovery versus without heat recovery 

(also with a 0.2 EER difference in the 

applicable standards classes). Other watersource VRF multi-split heat pump standards 

are not disaggregated beyond the specified 

capacity range. ASHRAE 90.1–2016 

disaggregates standards for air-cooled and 

water-source VRF multi-split heat pumps 

based on the presence of heat recovery, 

instead of ‘‘heating type.’’ Air-cooled VRF 

multi-split air conditioners do not have 

subdivided cooling efficiency levels based on 

heating type in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016. 

These differences are presented in 

Table III–1: 

TABLE III–1—COMPARISON OF CURRENT DOE EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH ASHRAE 90.1 

Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type DOE efficiency level ASHRAE 90.1–2016/ 

2019 efficiency level 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.2 EER ........................ 11.2 EER, 15.5 

IEER. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 11.0 EER ........................ No Standard.3

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ 11.0 EER, 14.9 

IEER. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 10.8 EER ........................ No Standard.3

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.0 EER ........................ 10.0 EER, 13.9 

IEER. 

All Other Types of Heating .............. 9.8 EER .......................... No Standard.3

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating1.

11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........ 11.0 EER, 14.6 

IEER, 3.3 COP. 

All Other Types of Heating 1 2 .......... 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP ........ 10.8 EER, 14.4 

IEER, 3.3 COP. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating 1.

10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........ 10.6 EER, 13.9 

IEER, 3.2 COP. 

All Other Types of Heating 1 2 .......... 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........ 10.4 EER, 13.7 

IEER, 3.2 COP. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating 1.

9.5 EER, 3.2 COP .......... 9.5 EER, 12.7 IEER, 

3.2 COP. 

All Other Types of Heating1 2 ........... 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP .......... 9.3 EER, 12.5 IEER, 

3.2 COP. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).<17,000 Btu/h .................................. Without heat recovery ...................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 12.0 EER, 16.0 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

With heat recovery ........................... 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 11.8 EER, 15.8 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ... Without heat recovery ...................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 12.0 EER, 16.0 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

With heat recovery ........................... 11.8 EER, 15.8 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Without heat recovery ...................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 12.0 EER, 16.0 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

With heat recovery ........................... 11.8 EER, 15.8 

IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h Without heat recovery ......................

With heat recovery ...........................

10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........

9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ..........

10.0 EER, 14.0 

IEER, 4.0 COP. 

9.8 EER, 13.8 IEER, 

4.0 COP. 

≥ 240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Without heat recovery ...................... 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........ 10.0 EER, 12.0 

IEER, 3.9 COP. 

With heat recovery ........................... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP .......... 9.8 EER, 11.8 IEER, 

3.9 COP. 

1 In terms of current Federal standards, VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the heating type ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless 

they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’ 2 In ASHRAE Standard 90.1, this equipment class is referred to as units with heat recovery rather than all other types of heating. 3ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only includes standards for VRF air conditioners with ‘‘electric resistance or none’’ heating type. Because stakeholders have expressed 

that it is unlikely that VRF air conditioners would ever be paired with other forms of supplemental heating, DOE’s proposed equipment classes for VRF air conditioners are condensed using ‘‘all types of heating’’ to ensure no change in coverage or backsliding. 

In this document, DOE proposes to 

amend 10 CFR 431.97 to adopt the 

equipment class structure found in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2016 for VRF multi-split 

systems (which is identical to the most 

current version, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019). This proposal would amend 

the existing DOE class structure by 

expanding the number of VRF watersource heat pump classes, reducing the 

number of air-cooled VRF air 

conditioner classes, and amending the 

convention for heating type for heat 

pump systems with and without heat 

recovery. Additionally, DOE is 

proposing a minor clarification in the 

language used to describe the heating 

type for VRF multi-split system heat 

pumps—ASHRAE 90.1–2016 currently 

includes separate classes for systems 

with and without heat recovery, 

designated as ‘‘VRF multisplit systems’’ 

or ‘‘VRF multisplit system with heat 

recovery.’’ However, DOE proposes a 

minor clarification to revise these 

descriptions to explicitly state either 

‘‘heat pump without heat recovery’’ or 

‘‘heat pump with heat recovery.’’ 

For VRF multi-split system air 

conditioners, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 only 

includes classes with the heating type 

designation of ‘‘Electric resistance (or 

none),’’ thus excluding any VRF multisplit air conditioners with ‘‘other’’ kinds 

of heating. As previously described, 

DOE received comment from 

stakeholders requesting that DOE align 

its equipment class structure with the 

structure from ASHRAE 90.1–2016. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11347 

14Cadeo Report, Variable Refrigerant Flow: A 

Preliminary Market Assessment. See: 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BTTP-0018-0002. The report presents market share by 

VRF multi-split system equipment class, based on 

confidential sales data given in interviews with 

several major manufacturers of VRF multi-split 

equipment and DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database. 

15Energy Plus is a whole-building energy 

simulation program that engineers, architects, and 

researchers use to model both energy consumption 

for heating cooling, ventilation, lighting, plug and 

process loads, and water use in buildings. 

(Available at https://energyplus.net/) 

(AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 41 

at p. 3) However, because the current 

Federal standards include separate 

efficiency levels for VRF multi-split air 

conditioners having electric resistance 

(or no) heat vs. those having ‘‘all other 

types of heating,’’ DOE is proposing to 

label the condensed equipment classes 

for VRF multi-split air conditioners as 

having ‘‘All’’ types of heating, and to set 

IEER standards for the proposed 

condensed classes that are equivalent in 

stringency to the EER standards for the 

class with ‘‘electric resistance or none’’ 

heating type. DOE does not have any 

knowledge of VRF multi-split air 

conditioners on the market that have 

‘‘all other types of heating’’ (e.g., a 

furnace), and, thus, has tentatively 

concluded that setting IEER standards to 

cover ‘‘all’’ kinds of heating would not 

constitute an increase of stringency for 

any models currently in existence. 

The ASRAC Working Group 

recommended IEER levels for VRF 

multi-split systems that utilized the 

equipment class structure of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 (with limited 

exceptions as previously described). As 

discussed in section III.A of this 

document, DOE evaluated the IEER 

levels recommended by the ASRAC 

Working Group using a crosswalk 

analysis and determined that there is 

limited precision in translating the 

current EER levels to IEER according to 

the updated test procedure. In cases 

where DOE is proposing to subdivide or 

condense equipment classes relative to 

the existing DOE equipment class 

structure, the IEER levels recommended 

by the Working Group are within the 

limits of precision determined by DOE’s 

crosswalk translation. For example, in 

cases where the current DOE equipment 

class only includes a single EER 

standard but ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016 includes separate IEER standards 

for classes with and without heat 

recovery, both of the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 IEER levels fall within the 

crosswalk range determined by DOE to 

represent equivalent stringency to 

existing EER standard. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that adopting 

the proposed class structure and 

efficiency levels would not result in a 

change in stringency for any classes. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to align equipment classes for 

VRF multi-split systems with the 

structure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016, with additional clarification of 

heating type. 

IV. Estimates of Potential Energy 

Savings 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), for VRF multi-split 

system equipment classes for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 set levels 

more stringent than the current Federal 

standards, DOE performed an 

assessment to determine the energysavings potential of amending Federal 

standard levels to reflect the efficiency 

levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, 

DOE presented the findings of the 

energy savings potential for the six 

considered equipment classes for which 

the Department was triggered. 84 FR 

32328, 32335 (July 8, 2019). DOE 

tentatively determined, based on a 

report by Cadeo Group,14 that four of the 

six affected classes—those with cooling 

capacities that are less than 17,000 Btu/ 

h or greater than or equal to 135,000 

Btu/h (with or without heat recovery), 

do not have any market share and, thus, 

no energy savings potential from 

amended standards. The Cadeo report 

showed that the remaining two affected 

classes, with cooling capacities greater 

than 17,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 

Btu/h, represented under 3 percent of 

the VRF multi-split system market. DOE 

tentatively concluded that potential 

energy savings for these equipment 

classes were de minimis. Id. DOE notes 

that in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, 

the COP was raised by 0.1 on both of 

these equipment classes, and that most 

commercial buildings are cooling 

dominant. Given this information, and 

the small market share, in this NOPR 

DOE maintains its tentative conclusion 

that energy savings for these equipment 

classes are de minimis. Consideration of 

more-stringent efficiency levels than 

those specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 are discussed in section V.A of this 

document. 

V. Conclusions 

A. Consideration of More-Stringent 

Efficiency Levels 

When triggered by an update to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA requires 

DOE to establish an amended uniform 

national standard for equipment classes 

at the minimum level specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless 

DOE determines, by rule published in 

the Federal Register and supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, that 

adoption of a uniform national standard 

more stringent than the amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the 

equipment class 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)). In the July 2019 

NODA/RFI, DOE requested feedback on 

its proposal to adopt the levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 as the 

Federal standards for the six VRF watersource classes for which DOE was 

triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016. 84 FR 32328, 32335 (July 8, 2019). 

DOE also requested data and 

information that could help it determine 

whether standards levels more stringent 

than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 for VRFs would result in 

significant additional energy savings for 

classes for the 14 classes where DOE 

was not triggered (i.e., classes reviewed 

under the six-year-lookback provision). 

Id. at 84 FR 32335–32336. 

AHRI supported DOE’s proposal to 

adopt the energy efficiency levels for the 

six equipment classes triggered by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. (AHRI, 

No. 42 at p. 3) AHRI added that the 

adoption of a more-stringent standard of 

the non-triggered classes is not 

economically justified at this time and 

that the stringency of any new standards 

need to account for all of the changes in 

the test procedure as a result of the 

Working Group negotiations (especially 

the CVP and SHR limits). (AHRI, No. 42 

at p. 4) AHRI also provided information 

regarding the building types that are 

common applications for VRF. (AHRI, 

No. 42 at p. 4) 

The CA IOUs recommended that the 

Working Group and DOE analyze a 

range of efficiency levels (including 

max-tech) for both water-source and airsource VRF systems. The CA IOUs also 

stressed that any changes to the energy 

conservation standards should account 

for the test procedure changes being 

discussed by the Working Group. The 

CA IOUs acknowledged that while 

DOE’s data show limited sales on watersource VRF multi-split systems, they 

still believe that the Working Group 

should analyze trial standard levels for 

these classes. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 4) 

The CA IOUs provided a set of historical 

VRF incentive program data to assist in 

the energy use analysis and 

recommended that DOE use Energy 

Plus 15 to analyze the energy use of VRF 

multi-split systems. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at 

pp. 6–12) 

HIA–C commented that DOE should 

first ensure that VRF multi-split systems 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11348 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gasses, United States Government, 

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (2021) 

(Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf). 

17The VRF TP Term Sheet recommended an 

effective date for the amended test procedure to 

coincide with the compliance date of amended 

standards in terms of IEER, if adopted by DOE. 

can actually meet the current ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 efficiency levels before 

attempting to adopt new efficiency 

levels. (HIA–C, No. 40 at p. 4) 

Policy Integrity commented on the 

emissions analysis, suggesting that DOE 

should monetize the full benefits of 

emissions reductions and use the global 

estimate of the social cost of greenhouse 

gases. (Policy Integrity, No. 39 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE considers the 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of greenhouse 

gases when analyzing efficiency levels 

more stringent than the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 levels. DOE uses the 

social cost of greenhouse gases from the 

most recent update of the Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States 

Government (IWG) working group, 

which are available in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990.16 The IWG recommended 

global values be used for regulatory 

analysis. Because DOE is not conducting 

an economic analysis of levels more 

stringent than the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 levels in this notice, there is no 

corresponding consideration of 

emission reductions or the associated 

monetary benefits. As DOE is required 

by EPCA to adopt the levels set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE did not 

conduct an economic analysis or 

corresponding emissions analysis for 

the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019. 

As discussed in section II.B.3 of this 

NOPR, following publication of the July 

2019 NODA/RFI, the Working Group 

(which included AHRI and the CA 

IOUs) reached consensus on two term 

sheets containing recommendations 

regarding the test procedure and energy 

conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems. As discussed in section 

III.A of this document, the 

recommended standards are consistent 

with the crosswalk conducted by DOE 

to translate the existing Federal 

standards in terms of EER to equivalent 

levels in terms of IEER, measured per 

AHRI 1230–2021. These recommended 

efficiency levels also align with the 

IEER and COP levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016. The Working 

Group did not consider more-stringent 

efficiency levels. 

DOE considered but did not estimate 

potential energy savings that would 

occur from more-stringent standards. To 

assess the magnitude of potential energy 

savings from amended standards and 

determine which level, if any, of morestringent standards would be 

economically justified, DOE must be 

able to properly represent the no-newstandards case—the case without 

amended standards—and must be able 

to properly characterize the technology 

options and costs associated with 

specific levels of efficiency. With 

regards to VRF multi-split systems, this 

would require developing efficiency 

data for the entire market in terms of 

IEER measured per AHRI 1230–2021. 

DOE considered two approaches for 

developing market-wide performance 

data in terms of IEER measured per 

AHRI 1230–2021: (1) DOE examined 

whether any such data exist in publiclyavailable sources, and (2) DOE 

considered whether existing 

performance data (in terms of EER, 

measured per the current Federal test 

procedure) could be effectively 

translated to IEER, measured per AHRI 

1230–2021. 

On the first approach, DOE found that 

public data in terms of IEER measured 

per AHRI 1230–2021 are not available, 

as the rating of VRF multi-split systems 

using the updated metric and test 

procedure is not currently required.17

While DOE acknowledges that IEER 

performance data are widely 

represented by VRF manufacturers, all 

such data are measured per an earlier 

version of the industry test standard 

(AHRI 1230–2014) and, thus, not 

directly comparable. DOE also found 

that the AHRI Directory does not yet 

require IEER representations measured 

per AHRI 1230–2021. 

On the second approach, DOE 

considered the results of its crosswalk 

analysis to determine whether a marketwide translation of existing EER data to 

IEER data (measured per AHRI 1230– 

2021) was possible. As discussed in 

section III.A of this document, the 

combined effect of translating the 

Federal cooling efficiency metric from 

EER to IEER and the effect of test 

procedure changes between the current 

DOE test procedure (which references 

AHRI 1230–2010) and the proposed 

DOE test procedure (which would 

reference AHRI 1230–2021) is likely to 

produce different impacts on measured 

efficiency across different 

manufacturers and different models. As 

DOE’s crosswalk analysis has shown, a 

minimally-compliant VRF multi-split 

system with 10.8 EER can result in a 

range of crosswalked IEER levels from 

13 to 16, depending on control inputs 

selected by the manufacturer. 

Additionally, an estimation of energy 

savings potentials of more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels would require 

developing efficiency data for the entire 

VRF multi-split system market, which 

would be a much broader analysis than 

that conducted for the crosswalk. The 

crosswalk analysis conducted to support 

the Working Group recommendations 

and presented in this NOPR only 

translated the baseline efficiency level 

between the metrics for a single class of 

VRF multi-split system, and did not 

translate all efficiency levels currently 

represented in the market. As noted, 

there are insufficient market data 

regarding the performance of VRF multisplit systems measured in terms of IEER 

per AHRI 1230–2021. As such, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that it lacks 

clear and convincing evidence to adopt 

more-stringent standard levels. 

Regardless of whether DOE 

preliminarily determined that morestringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, DOE would be 

unable to adopt such standards absent a 

determination, supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that morestringent standards would result in 

significant additional energy savings. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

Therefore, having preliminarily 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence as to the energy 

savings that would result from morestringent standards, DOE has not 

conducted analysis as to the 

technological feasibility or economic 

justification of such standards for VRF 

multi-split systems. 

B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback 

Provision 

As discussed, DOE is required to 

conduct an evaluation of each class of 

covered equipment in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, DOE is 

evaluating 12 of the Federal VRF 

equipment classes for which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 did not increase the 

stringency of the standards. Energy 

conservation standards for the two 

remaining classes of VRF multi-split 

systems (i.e., three-phase, air-cooled 

VRF multi-split systems with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) are not 

addressed in this NOPR and instead will 

be addressed in a separate energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

DOE may only adopt more-stringent 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11349 

standards pursuant to the six-year lookback review if the Secretary determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that the adoption 

of more-stringent standards would 

result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

For the reasons presented in the prior 

section, DOE has preliminarily 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that more-stringent 

standards for these 12 equipment 

classes would result in significant 

additional energy savings. Because DOE 

does not have sufficient data to meet the 

‘‘clear and convincing’’ threshold for 

these 12 classes, DOE did not conduct 

an analysis of standard levels more 

stringent than the current Federal 

standard levels for VRF multi-split 

systems that were not amended in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. See 

section V.A of this document for further 

discussion of the consideration of 

energy efficiency levels more stringent 

than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 

levels. 

C. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

Based on the foregoing, DOE proposes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for VRF multi-split systems in terms of 

IEER and COP equivalent to those 

specified for VRF multi-split systems in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, which 

align with the levels recommended in 

the VRF ECS Term Sheet. The proposed 

standards are presented in Table I–1. 

Compliance with the proposed 

standards, if adopted, would be required 

for VRF multi-split systems 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting January 1, 2024. 

which aligns with the Working Group’s 

recommendation in the VRF ECS Term 

Sheet. 

As discussed, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 includes more-stringent COP 

standards for six water-source VRF 

multi-split heat pump classes. If DOE 

were to prescribe COP standards at the 

efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 for these classes, 

EPCA provides that the compliance date 

shall be on or after a date that is two or 

three years (depending on the 

equipment type or size) after the 

effective date of the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency requirement 

in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). The effective date 

for amended COP standards in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2016 was January 1, 

2017. DOE acknowledges that the 

statute originally tied calculation of a 

compliance date to either two or three 

years after the effective date of amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. However, 

because these dates have passed, DOE is 

proposing the date recommended in the 

VRF ECS Term Sheet (i.e., January 1, 

2024) as a reasonable amount of lead 

time supported by a broad array of 

interested stakeholders. If DOE receives 

comments in response to this notice that 

recommend alternative compliance 

date(s) later than January 1, 2024, DOE 

will consider adopting alternative 

compliance date(s) in the final rule. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that the 

proposed standards for VRF multi-split 

systems set forth in this NOPR are 

intended to address are as follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases, the benefits of 

more-efficient equipment are not 

realized due to misaligned incentives 

between purchasers and users. An 

example of such a case is when the 

equipment purchase decision is made 

by a building contractor or building 

owner who does not pay the energy 

costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of appliances and equipment 

that are not captured by the users of 

such products. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

energy security that are not reflected in 

energy prices, such as reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases that impact human 

health and global warming. DOE 

attempts to quantify some of the 

external benefits through use of social 

cost of carbon values. 

The Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has determined that this 

regulatory action is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory impact analysis 

for this rule, and OIRA in the OMB has 

not reviewed this proposed rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to E.O. 13563, issued on 

January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to 

and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in E.O. 

12866. To the extent permitted by law, 

agencies are required by E.O. 13563 to: 

(1) Propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 

13563 requires agencies to use the best 

available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible. In its 

guidance, OIRA has emphasized that 

such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this NOPR is 

consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify 

costs and that net benefits are 

maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11350 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18The size standards are listed by NAICS code 

and industry description and are available at: 

www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards (Last accessed on July 16, 2021). 

19 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (Last 

accessed May 10, 2021). 

20The AHRI Directory Database is available at: 

www.ahridirectory.org (Last accessed on May 10, 

2021). 

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 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed rule to 

amend the Federal energy conservation 

standards for VRF multi-split systems 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE certifies that the proposed 

rule, if adopted, would not have 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis of this certification is 

set forth in the following paragraphs. 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing Federal minimum energy 

conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems under EPCA’s ASHRAE 

trigger requirement and the six-year 

lookback provision. Under the trigger, 

EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must 

adopt uniform national amended 

standards at the new ASHRAE 

efficiency level, unless DOE determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and 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 the sixyear-lookback, DOE must also review 

energy efficiency standards for VRF 

multi-split systems every six years and 

either: (1) Issue a notice of 

determination that the standards do not 

need to be amended based upon the 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) (i.e., 

that there is clear and convincing 

evidence to show that adoption of a 

more-stringent level would save 

significant additional energy and would 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified); or (2) issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

including new proposed standards 

based on certain criteria and procedures 

in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

update the standards for VRF multi-split 

systems at 10 CFR 431.97 to align with 

the most recent version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, including the updated 

COP levels for the six classes of VRF 

multi-split water-source heat pumps on 

which DOE was triggered. DOE is also 

proposing to express cooling efficiency 

standards in terms of the IEER metric, 

as measured according to the amended 

industry test procedure AHRI 1230– 

2021, and to remove standard levels in 

terms of the EER metric, as measured 

according to the current DOE test 

procedure. Finally, DOE is proposing to 

amend the equipment class structure for 

VRF multi-split systems to align with 

the equipment class structure present in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, with regards to 

capacity break points, supplementary 

heating type, and presence of heat 

recovery. The proposed standard levels, 

if adopted, would have a compliance 

date applying to all VRF multi-split 

systems manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2024. The proposed Table 14 

to 10 CFR 431.97 accounts for all 

changes between the previous Federal 

VRF multi-split system standards and 

those outlined in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 (as reaffirmed in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019). 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) small business 

size standards to determine whether 

manufacturers qualify as small 

businesses, which are listed by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS).18 The SBA considers a 

business entity to be a small business, 

if, together with its affiliates, it employs 

less than a threshold number of workers 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. 

VRF multi-split system manufacturers 

are classified under NAICS code 

333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm 

Air Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. This 

employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

DOE has recently conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the equipment covered 

by this rulemaking. DOE used available 

public information to identify potential 

small manufacturers that manufacture 

domestically. DOE identified 

manufacturers using DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database 19 and the AHRI 

Directory database.20 DOE used this 

publicly-available information to 

identify ten distinct original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) of the covered 

VRF multi-split system equipment. In 

reviewing the ten OEMs, DOE did not 

identify any companies that met the 

SBA criteria for a small entity. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusions that no small 

business OEMs of VRF multi-split 

systems, that adoption of the prevailing 

industry standard levels would not 

result in any significant economic 

impact, and, accordingly, that the 

proposed rule would not have 

significant impacts on a substantial 

number of small manufacturers. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes 

that this proposed rule, if finalized, 

would not have ‘‘a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities’’ 

and that preparation of an IRFA is not 

warranted. Additional information 

about this proposal is addressed 

elsewhere in this document. DOE will 

transmit this 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 of 1995 

Manufacturers of VRF multi-split 

systems must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

DOE test procedures for VRF multi-split 

systems, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including VRF multi-split systems. See 

generally 10 CFR part 429. The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11351 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

This NOPR is not proposing changes 

to the certification and reporting 

requirements for VRF multi-split system 

manufacturers. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

that establish energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, none 

of the exceptions identified in 

categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

require further environmental analysis, 

and it otherwise meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 

will complete its NEPA review before 

issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have federalism 

implications. The Executive order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has tentatively determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Therefore, no 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 

4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 

agencies the general duty to adhere to 

the following requirements: (1) 

Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; 

(2) write regulations to minimize 

litigation; (3) provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, and (4) promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 

whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at https://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_

97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that this 

proposed rule contains neither a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year. 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 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

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 proposed 

rule would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

21The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: https://energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/downloads/energy-conservationstandards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0. 

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: 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2019/12/f70/DOE%20

Final%20Updated%20

IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%20

2019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this NOPR 

under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 

has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

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 proposed significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which proposes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for VRF multi-split systems, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

proposed 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 proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

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 

(Jan. 14, 2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.21

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. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation at the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the public meeting 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests to speak via email to the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program at: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the public meeting 

webinar. At its discretion, DOE may 

permit persons who cannot supply an 

advance copy of their statement to 

participate, if those persons have made 

advance alternative arrangements with 

the Building Technologies Office. As 

necessary, requests to give an oral 

presentation should ask for such 

alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11353 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking. 

The public meeting webinar will be 

conducted in an informal, conference 

style. DOE will present a general 

overview of the topics addressed in this 

proposed rulemaking, allow time for 

prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this proposed 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting webinar will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

NOPR. In addition, any person may buy 

a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting 

webinar, but no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its 

crosswalk analysis methodology and 

crosswalk results. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to align equipment classes for 

VRF multi-split systems with the 

structure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016, with additional clarification for 

heating type. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its 

tentative conclusions that there are no 

small businesses that are OEMs of VRF 

multi-split systems, that adoption of the 

prevailing industry standard levels 

would not result in any significant 

economic impact, and accordingly, that 

the proposed rule would not have 

significant impacts on a substantial 

number of small manufacturers. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comment. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 9, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 17, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 431.97 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (f) and Table 13; 

and 

■ b. Adding Table 14. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(f)(1) Each variable refrigerant flow air 

conditioner or heat pump manufactured 

on or after the compliance date listed in 

Table 13 of this section and prior to 

January 1, 2024, must meet the 

applicable minimum energy efficiency 

standard level(s) set forth in Table 13 of 

this section. 

TABLE 13 TO PARAGRAPH (F)(1)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR

CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type 1 Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products 

manufactured 

on and after . . . 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners 

(Air-Cooled).

<65,000 Btu/h ..............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

All .................................................

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

13.0 SEER ...................................

11.2 EER .....................................

June 16, 2008. 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 11.0 EER ..................................... January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER ..................................... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.8 EER ..................................... January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.0 EER ..................................... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 9.8 EER ....................................... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).<65,000 Btu/h ..............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

All .................................................

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .................

11.0 EER, 3.3 COP .....................

June 16, 2008. 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP ..................... January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ..................... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ..................... January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ....................... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP ....................... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps 

(Water-Source).

<17,000 Btu/h .............................. Without Heat Recovery ................ 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ..................... October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

With Heat Recovery ..................... 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ..................... October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h All ................................................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ..................... October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

All ................................................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ..................... October 29, 2003. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

Without Heat Recovery ................ 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ..................... October 29, 2013. 

With Heat Recovery ..................... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ....................... October 29, 2013. 

1VRF multi-split heat pumps (air-cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’ 

(2) Each variable refrigerant flow air 

conditioner or heat pump (except aircooled systems with cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h) manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2024, must meet 

the applicable minimum energy 

efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 

Table 14 of this section. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11355 

TABLE 14 TO PARAGRAPH (F)(2)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTISPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Size category Heating type Minimum efficiency 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ..............

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............

All ........................................................

All ........................................................

15.5 IEER. 

14.9 IEER. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .. All ........................................................ 13.9 IEER. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h .............. Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........

14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP. 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............ Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .... 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ......... 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 btu/h ... Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .... 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ......... 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).<65,000 Btu/h ..................................... Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........

16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h .............. Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .... 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ......... 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP. 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............ Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .... 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ......... 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .. Heat Pump without Heat Recovery .... 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ......... 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03836 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0150; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2021–00839–E] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type 

Certificate Previously Held by RollsRoyce plc) Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG 

(RRD) Trent 7000–72 and Trent 7000– 

72C model turbofan engines. This 

proposed AD was prompted by inservice experience showing that certain 

high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades may 

prematurely deteriorate to an 

unacceptable condition when managed 

in accordance with the inspection 

intervals in the Time Limits Manual 

(TLM). This proposed AD would require 

initial and repetitive on-wing borescope 

inspections (BSIs) of the HPT blades to 

detect axial cracking and, depending on 

the results of the inspections, 

replacement of the HPT blade set, as 

specified in a European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

(IBR). This proposed AD would also 

require replacement of the HPT blade 

set before exceeding a specified number 

of flight cycles. The FAA is proposing 

this AD to address the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by April 15, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For material that is proposed for IBR 

in this AD, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, 

Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; 

email: ADs@easa.europa.eu. You may 

find this material on the EASA website 

at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For RollsRoyce service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce plc, 

Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 

31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; 

phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44 

(0)1332 249936; website: https://

www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. 

You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222– 

5110. It is also available at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2022– 

0150. For the material identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by 

reference, contact Rolls-Royce plc, 

Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 

31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; 

phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44 

(0)1332 249936; website: https://

www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0150; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

NPRM, the EASA AD, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for Docket Operations is 

listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 

District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: (781) 238–7116; email: 

nicholas.j.paine@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0150; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2021–00839–E’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this proposal 

because of those comments. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1