This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

18290 

Vol. 87, No. 61 

Wednesday, March 30, 2022 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0008] 

RIN 1904–AF32 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Air 

Cooled, Three-Phase, Small 

Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of 

Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and AirCooled, Three-Phase, Variable 

Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity 

of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including small, large, and very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment, of which air 

cooled, three-phase, small commercial 

air conditioners and heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h and air-cooled, three-phase, variable 

refrigerant flow air conditioners and 

heat pumps with a cooling capacity of 

less than 65,000 Btu/h are categories. 

EPCA requires the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) to 

consider the need for amended 

standards each time the relevant 

industry standard is amended with 

respect to the standard levels or design 

requirements applicable to that 

equipment, or periodically under a sixyear-lookback review provision. For the 

three-phase equipment that is the 

subject of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), DOE is 

proposing amended energy conservation 

standards that rely on new efficiency 

metrics and align with amended 

efficiency levels in the industry 

standard. DOE has preliminarily 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence required by the 

statute to adopt standards more 

stringent than the levels specified in the 

industry standard. This NOPR also 

announces a webinar to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on Monday, May 

16, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

in Washington, DC. See section VII, 

‘‘Public Participation’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NOPR no later than May 

31, 2022. 

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 

April 29, 2022. 

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–2022–BT–STD–0008, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

AirCooledACHP2022STD0008@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2022–BT–STD–0008 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. 

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 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-2022-BT-STD0008. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII 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 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18291 

1 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)) 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email: 

kristin.koernig@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, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 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 90.1–2019 

3. September 2020 NODA/RFI 

III. Discussion of Crosswalk Analysis 

A. Crosswalk Background 

B. Crosswalk Methodology 

1. Crosswalk for Three-Phase, Less Than 

65,000 Btu/h, Single-Package and SplitSystem ACUACs and ACUHPs 

2. Crosswalk for Three-Phase, Less Than 

65,000 Btu/h, Space-Constrained and 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity ACUACs and 

ACUHPs 

a. Space-Constrained Equipment 

b. Small-Duct, High-Velocity Equipment 

3. Crosswalk for Three-Phase, Less Than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF 

C. Crosswalk Results 

IV. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

V. Conclusions 

A. Consideration of More Stringent 

Efficiency Levels for Split Systems 

B. Review Under Six Year Lookback 

1. Proposed Addendum to ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 

C. Definitions for Space-Constrained and 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity Equipment 

D. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

1. Standard Levels 

2. Compliance Date 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements Including Differences in 

Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of 

Small Entities 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part C1 of EPCA 2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) Such equipment includes 

air cooled, three-phase, small 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps (‘‘ACUACs and ACUHPS’’) with 

a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 

Btu/h (‘‘three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs’’) and aircooled, three-phase, variable refrigerant 

flow (‘‘VRF’’) air conditioners and heat 

pumps with a cooling capacity of less 

than 65,000 Btu/h (‘‘three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF’’), the subject of 

this proposed rulemaking. 

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 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings,’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 90.1’’), and at a 

minimum, every 6 years (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)). For each type of 

equipment, EPCA directs that if 

ASHRAE 90.1 is amended, DOE must 

adopt amended energy conservation 

standards at the new efficiency level in 

ASHRAE 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a morestringent 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 an 

amended uniform national standard at 

the efficiency level specified in the 

amended ASHRAE 90.1, DOE must 

establish such standard no 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 a morestringent standard no later than 30 

months after publication of the revised 

ASHRAE 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) 

Under EPCA, DOE must also review 

its energy conservation standards for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUAC, ACUHP, and VRF equipment 

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).1 (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

ASHRAE officially released the 2019 

version of Standard 90.1 (‘‘ASHRAE 

90.1–2019’’) on October 25, 2019, 

thereby triggering DOE’s previously 

referenced obligations, pursuant to 

EPCA, to determine for certain classes of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUAC, ACUHP, and VRF 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 classes where DOE was not 

triggered by ASHRAE 90.1–2019, the 

Department routinely considers those 

classes under EPCA’s six-year-lookback 

provision at the same time to address 

the subject equipment in a 

comprehensive fashion. 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF are codified in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. These 

standards for both equipment types are 

specified in terms of seasonal energy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2See, e.g., 80 FR 42614, 42622 (July 17, 2015), 83 

FR 49501, 49504 (Oct. 2, 2018), and 86 FR 70316, 

70322 (Dec. 9, 2021). 

3Energy conservations standards for air-cooled, 

three-phase, small, commercial packaged air 

conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity of greater than 65,000 Btu/h and aircooled, VRF, multi-split systems with a cooling 

capacity of greater than 65,000 Btu/h are not 

addressed in this NOPR. Instead this equipment 

will be addressed in separate energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

4EPCA’s anti-backsliding provision 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)) 

efficiency ratio (‘‘SEER’’) for cooling 

mode and heating seasonal performance 

factor (‘‘HSPF’’) for heating mode. The 

current Federal test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.96 for three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs references 

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) 

Standard 210/240–2008, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & 

Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,’’ 

approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011, 

and updated by Addendum 1 in June 

2011 and Addendum 2 in March 2012 

(‘‘AHRI 210/240–2008’’). The current 

Federal test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 

for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF references ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010, 

‘‘2010 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) 

Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment,’’ approved August 2, 

2010 and updated by Addendum 1 in 

March 2011 (‘‘ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010’’). 

As set forth in ASHRAE 90.1–2019, 

the efficiency levels for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs are specified in terms of 

seasonal energy efficiency ratio-2 

(‘‘SEER2’’) for cooling mode and heating 

seasonal performance factor-2 

(‘‘HSPF2’’) for heating mode. These 

efficiency levels are measured per 

ANSI/AHRI 210/240, ‘‘2023 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2023’’). 

Furthermore, ASHRAE 90.1–2019 and 

AHRI 210/240–2023 align the test 

procedures for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h equipment with those of 

their single-phase counterparts (i.e., 

measuring performance in terms of 

SEER2 and HSPF2), which, aside from 

the three-phase power supply, are 

otherwise identical.2

DOE is also proposing definitions for 

space-constrained (‘‘S–C’’) commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment (‘‘S–C ACUACs and 

ACUHPs’’) and for small-duct, highvelocity (‘‘SDHV’’) commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

(‘‘SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs’’) as 

described in section V.C. Additionally, 

DOE is proposing to separate equipment 

classes and corresponding energy 

conservation standards for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUAC and 

ACUHP that are (1) S–C split-system 

ACUACs; (2) S–C split-system ACUHPs; 

(3) S–C single-package ACUACs; (4) S– 

C single-package ACUHPs; (5) SDHV 

ACUACs; and (6) SDHV ACUHPs. These 

additional equipment classes are 

included in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

As described in detail in section III of 

this document, DOE conducted a 

crosswalk analysis to translate the 

current SEER and HSPF standards 

(measured per the current DOE test 

procedure) to SEER2 and HSPF2 levels, 

respectively (measured per the latest 

version of AHRI Standard AHRI 210/240 

(i.e., AHRI 210/240–2023)). DOE then 

compared these crosswalked metrics to 

those presented in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

to determine which equipment classes 

are triggered by the increased stringency 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

In this document, DOE proposes to 

update the minimum energy 

conservation standard levels found at 

Tables 3, 4, and 13 of 10 CFR 431.97. 

The proposed standards for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF systems, which are 

expressed in SEER2 and HSPF2, are 

presented in Table I–1 and Table I–2.3

If adopted, the standards in Table I–1 

are proposed for all three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs manufactured in or imported 

into the United States starting January 1, 

2025. If adopted, the standards in Table 

I–2 would apply to all three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF manufactured in 

or imported into the United States 

starting January 1, 2025. 

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. The clear and 

convincing threshold is a heightened 

standard, and would only be met where 

the Secretary has an abiding conviction, 

based on available facts, data, and 

DOE’s own analyses, that it is highly 

probable an amended standard would 

result in a significant additional amount 

of energy savings, and is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. See 

American Public Gas Association v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 20–1068, 2022 

WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir. January 18, 

2022) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 

467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 

L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). 

DOE normally performs multiple indepth analyses to determine whether 

there is clear and convincing evidence 

to support more stringent energy 

conservation standards (i.e., whether 

more stringent standards would produce 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and be technologically feasible 

and economically justified). However, 

as discussed in the section V of this 

NOPR, due to the lack of available 

market and performance data, DOE is 

unable to conduct the analysis 

necessary to evaluate the potential 

energy savings or evaluate whether 

more stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justifiable, with sufficient certainty. As 

such, DOE is not proposing standards at 

levels more stringent than those 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

Rather, DOE is proposing to adopt the 

levels specified in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs, as required by 

EPCA, except for S–C ACUACs and 

ACUHPs, SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs, 

and three-phase less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF equipment, for which DOE is 

proposing crosswalked levels that 

maintain equivalent stringency to the 

currently applicable Federal standards 

but do not align with the levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

For S–C ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the levels 

specified in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 are less 

stringent than the applicable current 

Federal standards. Therefore, to avoid 

backsliding (as required by EPCA),4

DOE is proposing standards for S–C 

ACUACs and ACUHPs and SDHV 

ACUACs and ACUHPs in terms of 

SEER2 and HSPF2 that maintain 

equivalent stringency to the applicable 

current Federal standards (in terms of 

SEER and HSPF). 

For three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h VRF equipment, ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

did not update the efficiency metrics to 

be in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 and 

instead left the metrics in terms of SEER 

and HSPF with no change to efficiency 

levels. In this document, DOE is 

proposing translated standard levels in 

terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 that are of 

equivalent stringency to the current 

SEER and HSPF Federal standards. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18293 

TABLE I–1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL

PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/h 

Equipment type Size category 

(cooling) Subcategory Minimum efficiency 

Air Conditioners ......................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 13.4 SEER2 

Single-Package ....................... 13.4 SEER2 

Heat Pumps ............................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 14.3 SEER2 

7.5 HSPF2 

Single-Package ....................... 13.4 SEER2 

6.7 HSPF2 

Space-Constrained Air Conditioners ......................................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 13.9 SEER2 

Single-Package ....................... 13.9 SEER2 

Space-Constrained Heat Pumps ............................................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 13.9 SEER2 

7.0 HSPF2 

Single-Package ....................... 13.9 SEER2 

6.7 HSPF2 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity Air Conditioners ............................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 13.0 SEER2 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity Heat Pumps ..................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 14.0 SEER2 

6.9 HSPF2 

TABLE I–2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, VRF MULTI-SPLIT AIR

CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/h 

Equipment type Size category 

(cooling) Subcategory Minimum efficiency 

VRF Air Conditioners ................................................................. <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 12.9 SEER2 

VRF Heat Pumps ...................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split System ............................ 12.9 SEER2 

6.5 HSPF2 

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 three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency 

for covered equipment. This covered 

equipment includes small, large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

including three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, the 

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

6311(1)(B)–(D)) Additionally, DOE must 

consider amending the energy efficiency 

standards for certain types of 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

document, whenever ASHRAE amends 

the standard levels or design 

requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1, and, at a minimum, 

every 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), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a)–(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, 

however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(b)(2)(D)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers 

of covered equipment must use the 

Federal test procedures as the basis for: 

(1) Certifying to DOE that their 

equipment complies with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 

U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). 

Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

The DOE test procedures for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs and for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF appear at 10 CFR 

431, subpart F, appendix A. 

ASHRAE 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 ‘‘ASHRAE 

equipment’’). For each type of listed 

ASHRAE equipment, EPCA directs that 

if ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1, DOE 

must adopt amended standards at the 

new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless 

DOE determines, supported by clear and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

convincing evidence, that adoption of a 

more stringent level would produce 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

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

Under EPCA, DOE must also review 

energy efficiency standards for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs and three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF every six years and 

either: (1) Issue a notice of 

determination that the standards do not 

need to be amended as adoption of a 

more stringent level is not supported by 

clear and convincing evidence; or (2) 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

including new proposed standards 

based on certain criteria and procedures 

in subparagraph (B). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) 

In deciding whether a more-stringent 

standard is economically justified, 

under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), 

DOE must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard and by 

considering, to the maximum extent 

practicable, the following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of 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 equipment 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 product 

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 considers relevant. 

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

As discussed previously, EPCA also 

contains what is known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ 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) 

The energy conservation standards for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs were most 

recently amended through a final rule 

for energy conservation standards and 

test procedures for certain commercial 

HVAC and water heating equipment 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 17, 2015 (July 2015 final rule). 80 

FR 42614. For three of the four 

equipment classes of three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs (packaged air conditioners, 

packaged heat pumps, and split-system 

heat pumps), the July 2015 final rule 

adopted energy conservation standards 

that correspond to the levels in the 2013 

revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. For 

the remaining equipment class (splitsystem air conditioners), the July 2015 

final rule did not amend the energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs are 

codified at Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 

431.97. The current equipment classes 

are differentiated by configuration (split 

system or single package) and by 

heating capability (air conditioner or 

heat pump) and repeated in Table II–1 

of this document. 

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; 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18295 

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. 

When determining the appropriate 

standard levels, DOE considered 

updates to the 2010 edition of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (‘‘ASHRAE 90.1–2010’’), 

which designated separate equipment 

classes for VRF multi-split systems for 

the first time. Id. at 77 FR 28934. For 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF, DOE maintained the standards 

from the equipment class under which 

the corresponding VRF multi-split 

system equipment class was previously 

regulated (i.e., three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF had previously been 

covered as three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs). Id. at 77 

FR 28938. 

DOE’s current equipment classes for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF 

are differentiated only by refrigeration 

cycle (air conditioners or heat pumps). 

DOE’s current standards for VRF multisplit systems are set forth at Table 13 to 

10 CFR 431.97 and repeated in Table II– 

2 of this document. 

TABLE II–1—CURRENT FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL

COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN

65,000 BTU/H

Equipment type Cooling 

capacity Subcategory Heating type Efficiency level Compliance date 

Small Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Split-System).

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

HP ................

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

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

13 SEER ......

14 SEER ......

8.2 HSPF 

June 16, 2008. 

January 1, 2017. 

Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single-Package).

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

HP ................

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

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

14 SEER ......

14 SEER ......

8.0 HSPF 

January 1, 2017. 

January 1, 2017. 

TABLE II–2—CURRENT FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, VARIABLE

REFRIGERANT FLOW AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H

Equipment type Cooling 

capacity Heating type Efficiency level Compliance date 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air-Cooled) ................................... <65,000 Btu/h ... All ..................... 13 SEER ........... June 16, 2008. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) ........................................ <65,000 Btu/h ... All ..................... 13 SEER ...........

7.7 HSPF 

June 16, 2008. 

2. ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

As previously discussed, ASHRAE 

released ASHRAE 90.1–2019 on October 

25, 2019, which updated the test 

procedure references for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF. ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

also updated the efficiency metrics for 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs from SEER and HSPF to SEER2 

and HSPF2 and updated the efficiency 

levels for all classes to reflect the new 

metrics. ASHRAE 90.1–2019 did not 

update the efficiency metrics or 

efficiency levels for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

For three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h ACUACs and ACUHPs, the current 

DOE test procedure references the 

industry test procedure ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 210/240–2008 with Addenda 1 

and 2, Performance Rating of Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Air-Source Heat 

Pump Equipment (‘‘AHRI 210/240– 

2008’’) and measures performance in 

terms of SEER and HSPF. ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 references the updated 

industry test procedure ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 210/240–2023, 2023 

Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump 

Equipment, (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2023’’) 

beginning on January 1, 2023, which 

measures performance in terms of 

SEER2 and HSPF2. As discussed in 

section III.A.2 of this document, DOE 

conducted a preliminary crosswalk 

analysis to determine whether the new 

metrics and efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 represent at least 

equivalent stringency as compared to 

the existing DOE standards in terms of 

SEER and HSPF. As discussed in 

section I.A.1 of this document, DOE’s 

preliminary crosswalk analysis 

determined that ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

increased the stringency of cooling and 

heating mode efficiency levels for the 

two DOE equipment classes of threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUAC and ACUHP equipment 

while leaving unchanged the stringency 

of single-packaged, three-phase 

equipment. 

Regarding three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF, ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

also updates the relevant industry test 

procedure. The current DOE test 

procedure references AHRI Standard 

1230–2010 with Addendum 1, 

Performance Rating of Variable 

Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-split Airconditioning and Heat Pump Equipment 

(‘‘AHRI 1230–2010’’). ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 updates this reference to the more 

recent version of this standard: AHRI 

Standard 1230–2014 with Addendum 1. 

As discussed in a separate rulemaking 

for commercial VRF multi-split systems 

with rated cooling capacity of greater 

than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE determined that 

the test procedure changes between 

AHRI 1230–2010 and AHRI 1230–2014 

do not have a significant impact on the 

measured heating or cooling efficiency 

of VRF multi-split systems, therefore a 

crosswalk analysis was not required. 86 

FR 70644, 70650 (Dec. 10, 2021). 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 did not update the 

efficiency metrics or standards levels for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF—which are still specified in terms 

of SEER and HSPF. 

3. September 2020 NODA/RFI 

DOE published a notice of data 

availability and request for information 

(‘‘NODA/RFI’’) in response to the 

amendments to ASHRAE 90.1–2019 in 

the Federal Register on September 25, 

2020 (‘‘September 2020 NODA/RFI’’). 85 

FR 60642. In the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, DOE compared the current 

Federal standards for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs (in terms of SEER and HSPF) 

to the levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 (in 

terms of SEER2 and HSPF2) and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

requested comment on its preliminary 

findings. Id. at 85 FR 60662–60666. The 

September 2020 NODA/RFI did not 

address standards for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. DOE received 

comments in response to the September 

2020 NODA/RFI from interested parties 

listed in Table II–2. 

TABLE II.2—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE SEPTEMBER 2020 NODA/RFI 

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type 

Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute .................................................... AHRI ................................... Manufacturer Trade Group. 

Carrier Corporation ........................................................................................................ Carrier ................................ Manufacturer. 

Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P ....................................................................... Goodman ............................ Manufacturer. 

Rheem Manufacturing Company ................................................................................... Rheem ................................ Manufacturer. 

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

Northwest Energy Alliance, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council.Joint Advocates .................. Advocacy Group. 

Trane Technologies ....................................................................................................... Trane .................................. Manufacturer. 

III. Discussion of Crosswalk Analysis 

A. Crosswalk Background 

The energy conservation standards 

proposed in this document were 

developed in response to updates to the 

relevant industry test standard (i.e., 

AHRI 210/240–2023), as well as updates 

to the minimum efficiency levels 

specified in ASHRAE 90.1–2019. As 

stated in section II.A, DOE must 

consider amending the energy efficiency 

standards for certain types of 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

document, whenever ASHRAE amends 

the standard levels or design 

requirements prescribed in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, and at a minimum, every 

6 years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)) 

EPCA also 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’’) DOE conducted 

separate crosswalk analyses for each 

equipment class to ensure that EPCA’s 

anti-backsliding provision would not be 

violated if DOE were to adopt the 

standards proposed in this NOPR. 

As described in the following 

sections, DOE presented a preliminary 

crosswalk in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs 

that qualitatively evaluated whether the 

levels presented in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

were of higher, lower, or equivalent 

stringency to the existing Federal 

standard levels. 85 FR 60642, 60662– 

60663 (Sept. 25, 2020). The September 

2020 NODA/RFI did not consider 

standards for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF and therefore did not 

conduct a crosswalk translation for such 

equipment. In the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, DOE accounted for the 

changes in the updated industry test 

standard AHRI 210/240–2023. Id. at 85 

FR 60663. Specifically, DOE evaluated 

the impact to measured efficiency 

resulting from increased external static 

pressure requirements and changes to 

the heating load line in AHRI 210/240– 

2023. Id. at 85 FR 60662. In AHRI 210/ 

240–2023, most equipment classes have 

increased external static pressure testing 

requirements for ducted systems as 

compared to the current Federal test 

procedures. As a result, most classes of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

equipment consume more power under 

the updated test procedure and thus 

have lower numerical values of SEER2 

and HSPF2 when translated from a 

given SEER or HSPF rating, 

respectively. Id. AHRI 210/240–2023 

also includes changes to the heating 

load line calculations. Specifically, 

AHRI 210/240–2023 includes different 

slope factors for the heating load line, 

which results in higher calculated 

heating demand for most systems. The 

increased heating demand has an 

overall impact of decreased numerical 

values for HSPF2 as compared to HSPF. 

Id. 

On January 6, 2017, DOE published a 

direct final rule concerning energy 

conservation standards for residential 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

(‘‘CACs and HPs’’) (‘‘January 2017 CAC/ 

HP ECS DFR’’). 82 FR 1786. The January 

2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR established 

crosswalk translations for CACs and 

HPs from SEER and HSPF (measured 

per 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix M (‘‘Appendix M’’)) to SEER2 

and HSPF2 (measured per 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix M1 

(‘‘Appendix M1’’)). Specifically, in the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR DOE 

established multiple SEER-to-SEER2 

translations that were unique to the test 

conditions for each product class. Id. at 

82 FR 1849. In the January 2017 CAC/ 

HP ECS DFR, DOE also established an 

HSPF-to-HSPF2 translation and 

concluded that the 15 percent reduction 

from HSPF to HSPF2 that was observed 

in an earlier rule for split-system and 

single-package heat pumps was 

appropriate also for S–C and SDHV heat 

pumps. Id. at 82 FR 1850. 

As described in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, AHRI 210/240–2023 aligns 

test methods and ratings to be consistent 

with DOE’s test procedure for singlephase central air conditioners at 

appendix M1. 85 FR 60642, 60647 (Sept. 

25, 2020). Given that three-phase 

equipment are generally identical to 

their single-phase counterparts, aside 

for three-phase power input, DOE 

presented a preliminary metric 

translation for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs 

based on the metric translation used for 

single-phase CAC/HPs presented in the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI. Id. at 85 FR 

60662. For three-phase equipment 

classes with Federal standards matching 

SEER and HPSF standards in Table V– 

29 of the January 2017 CAC/HP ECS 

DFR, DOE used the corresponding 

SEER2 and HSPF2 value from Table V– 

30 of the January 2017 CAC/HP ECS 

DFR. For three-phase equipment classes 

that did not having matching SEER and/ 

or HSPF values in Table V–29 of the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR, DOE 

evaluated the stringency of the ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 SEER2 and HSPF2 levels 

relative to the Federal SEER and HSPF 

standards by qualitatively assessing how 

the testing method changes made for 

single phase switching from SEER/HSPF 

to SEER2/HSPF2 would impact threephase equipment. See id. at 85 FR 

60662–60663. 

DOE received multiple comments in 

response to this preliminary crosswalk 

analysis in the September 2020 NODA/ 

RFI. AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and the 

Joint Advocates all commented in 

support of DOE’s crosswalk 

methodology. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 5; 

Carrier, No. 3 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 7 

at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p. 2) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18297 

Goodman commented further that all 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2019, 

effective January 1, 2023, are greater 

than or equal to the current Federal 

standards. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2) In 

response to comments received from 

stakeholders, DOE is evaluating its 

preliminary crosswalk analysis and is 

proposing an additional crosswalk 

analysis for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF in this document. 

B. Crosswalk Methodology 

1. Three-Phase, Less Than 65,000 Btu/ 

h, Single-Package and Split-System 

ACUACs and ACUHPs 

Because three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h single-package air conditioners 

and heat pumps have directly 

comparable single-phase product 

classes, DOE was able to utilize the 

same crosswalk as described in the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR when 

evaluating the relative stringency of 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels. See 82 FR 

1786, 1848–1851 (Jan. 6, 2017). In the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE 

determined that the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

efficiency standards are equivalent to 

the translated Federal efficiency 

standards for single-package ACUACs 

and ACUHPs. 85 FR 60642, 60662– 

60663 (Sept. 25, 2020). However, for 

three-phase, split-system, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs, 

DOE’s preliminary crosswalk analysis 

determined that the levels in ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 are more stringent than 

current Federal standards, which 

triggered DOE’s review of the standard 

levels for three-phase, split-system 

equipment. Id. 

In response to the proposed crosswalk 

in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, 

Goodman requested that DOE provide 

specific crosswalk values for the 

equipment classes where DOE 

determined that the post-2023 levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 are more stringent 

than the current Federal standards (i.e., 

the two classes of three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs). (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2) 

Specifically, Goodman requested that 

DOE provide specific crosswalked 

values for the translation from 13 SEER 

to SEER2 and from 8.2 HSPF to HSPF2. 

(Id.) Goodman asserted that these values 

would be useful to help eliminate 

potential market confusion in the years 

2023–2024, where some products on the 

market may be rated to SEER/HSPF (in 

compliance with current Federal 

standards) while other products would 

simultaneously be rated early to SEER2/ 

HSPF2. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE conducted the 

crosswalk to evaluate the relative 

stringency of ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels 

as compared to the existing Federal 

standards to ensure that backsliding 

would not result were the ASHRAE 90.1 

levels adopted. Based on the crosswalk, 

DOE finds that it is unnecessary to 

provide specific crosswalk values for 

the two equipment classes of threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs for which 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 increased 

stringency as compared to the current 

Federal standards. 

2. Three-Phase, Less Than 65,000 Btu/ 

h, Space-Constrained and Small-Duct, 

High-Velocity ACUACs and ACUHPs 

In its preliminary crosswalk analysis 

in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE 

determined that the post-2023 standards 

levels for S–C and SDHV equipment 

found in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 are less 

stringent than the current Federal 

standards for the following six 

equipment classes: (1) S–C, split-system 

ACUAC; (2) S–C, split-system ACUHP; 

(3) S–C, single-package ACUAC; (4) S– 

C, single-package ACUHP; (5) SDHV 

split-system ACUAC; and (6) SDHV 

split-system ACUHP. DOE’s preliminary 

crosswalk showed that the crosswalked 

Federal standard levels for these 

equipment classes are qualitatively 

higher than the SEER2 and/or HSPF2 

levels found in ASHRAE 90.1–2019, 

however DOE did not determine 

specific values for an appropriate 

crosswalk. In the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, DOE noted that although 

the post-2023 values for S–C and SDHV 

equipment are less stringent than 

current Federal standards, it still 

intended to consider these ASHRAE 

classes separately in this rulemaking as 

part of the six-year-lookback review. 85 

FR 60642, 60663 (Sept. 25, 2020). 

In response to the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, AHRI commented that it 

disagreed with DOE’s preliminary 

determination that it could not adopt 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 standard levels 

for S–C ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs that are 

aligned with their single-phase 

counterparts. AHRI contended that 

these products could not meet the 

general levels established for threephase equipment and urged DOE to set 

levels for three-phase S–C and SDHV 

equipment at the levels prescribed by 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019, which are 

harmonized with the single-phase 

equivalents for those products. AHRI 

further stated that it is not aware of any 

three-phase S–C or SDHV products on 

the market and speculated that S–C 

products are unlikely to exist because 

the equipment class is limited to 

products having capacity less than 

30,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 5) 

In a NOPR published on January 8, 

2015, which covered energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

HVAC equipment, including threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h air 

conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘January 

2015 ASHRAE 90.1 NOPR’’), DOE stated 

that EPCA does not separate these six 

additional equipment classes from other 

types of small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment in 

its definitions, and, therefore, EPCA’s 

definition of ‘‘small commercial package 

air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ includes SDHV and S–C air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 80 FR 

1172, 1184. DOE reiterated this position 

in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 

FR 60642, 60662 (Sept. 25, 2020). EPCA 

generally directs DOE to establish 

amended uniform national standards for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs at the minimum 

levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1. (43 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) As 

DOE has previously stated, when 

considering the ASHRAE trigger, DOE 

evaluates ASHRAE amendments at the 

class level. Because the six equipment 

classes of three-phase S–C and SDHV 

equipment prescribed in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 are covered as small commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, DOE cannot propose 

standard levels that are any lower than 

the current Federal standards. However, 

to distinguish S–C and SDHV 

equipment from the three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs equipment for which DOE 

was triggered by more stringent levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019, DOE proposes to 

establish six separate equipment classes 

of three-phase S–C and SDHV 

equipment with separate standard 

levels. Consistent with EPCA, the levels 

that DOE is proposing for these S–C and 

SDHV equipment classes maintain 

equivalent stringency to the current 

applicable Federal standards, and are 

therefore more stringent than the 

corresponding levels set forth in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

In this document, DOE proposes to 

extend its preliminary crosswalk 

analysis for these types of equipment 

(the September 2020 NODA/RFI 

presented a qualitative discussion of 

relative stringency) and propose specific 

efficiency levels in terms of SEER2 and 

HSPF2 that are crosswalked from the 

existing Federal standards for small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. DOE developed 

a crosswalk for S–C, split-system, and 

single-package ACUACs and ACUHPs 

and SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5See table in paragraph (c)(1) of 10 CFR 430.32 

for current standards. 

applying similar translations as 

observed in the January 2017 CAC/HP 

ECS DFR for single-phase S–C and 

SDHV equipment to the existing Federal 

standards for small commercial package 

air conditioners and heat pumps. 

a. Space-Constrained Equipment 

Single-phase S–C air conditioners, 

which are not further separated into 

split-systems and single-package 

systems, have a DOE minimum SEER of 

12 that was translated to 11.7 SEER2. 82 

FR 1786, 1848–1849 (Jan. 6, 2017). 

Single-phase S–C heat pumps also have 

a minimum SEER of 12, but the January 

2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR established a 

different translated SEER2 of 11.9. Id. 

This difference in the SEER2 

requirement between S–C air 

conditioners and S–C heat pumps is due 

to differences in the requirements for 

determination of represented values 

codified at Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1) of 

10 CFR 429.16. In a December 9, 2021, 

NOPR to amend the test procedure for 

three-phase ACUACs and ACUHPs with 

cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h and three-phase VRF with cooling 

capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h 

(‘‘December 2021 Three-Phase TP 

NOPR’’), DOE proposed to align the 

representation requirements for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

equipment with the representation 

requirements for single-phase CACs and 

HPs. 86 FR 70316, 70326–70327. 

Accordingly, DOE is proposing in this 

document to utilize the same coolingmetric translations for three-phase, 

space-constrained equipment as the 

translations present for single-phase, 

space-constrained equipment (i.e., 

applying a 0.3 point SEER2 decrement 

for space-constrained air conditioners 

and a 0.1 point SEER2 decrement for 

space-constrained heat pumps). DOE 

notes that split-system S–C ACUACs are 

currently covered under the Federal 

standard of 13.0 SEER for three-phase, 

split-system, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs, whereas S–C split-system 

ACUHPs and S–C single-packaged 

ACUACs and ACUHPs are each covered 

under corresponding DOE equipment 

classes with a standard of 14 SEER.5

With regards to the translation from 

HSPF to HSPF2 for S–C ACUACs and 

ACUHPs, DOE is proposing to use the 

same 15 percent reduction from the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR when 

translating from HSPF to HSPF2 at an 

equivalent stringency. Because the 

changes to the heating load line between 

AHRI 210/240–2008 and AHRI 210/ 

240–2023 are equivalent to the changes 

in the heating load line between 

appendix M and appendix M1, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that utilizing the 

same HSPF2 translation from singlephase CACs and HPs is appropriate for 

S–C ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

b. Small-Duct, High-Velocity Equipment 

For single-phase SDHV CACs and 

HPs, there is no increase in external 

static pressure requirements in 

appendix M1 as compared to appendix 

M. Consequently, in the January 2017 

CAC/HP ECS DFR, there was no 

decrease in numerical value when 

translating standards from SEER to 

SEER2. 82 FR 1786, 1848–1849 (Jan. 6, 

2017). Given that the test procedures for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs are aligned with 

the test procedures for single-phase 

CACs and HPs, there are also no 

increases in external static pressure 

requirements for SDHV ACUACs and 

ACUHPs in AHRI 210/240–2023. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing no 

decrement when translating from SEER 

to SEER2 for SDHV ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. 

For the heating mode for SDHV 

ACUHPs, DOE is proposing to use the 

same 15 percent reduction from the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR when 

translating from HSPF to HSPF2. Id. at 

82 FR 1850. Because the changes to the 

heating load line between AHRI 210/ 

240–2008 and AHRI 210/240–2023 are 

equivalent to the changes in the heating 

load line between appendix M and 

appendix M1, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that utilizing the same 

HSPF2 translation from single-phase 

CACs and HPs is appropriate for SDHV 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

3. Three-Phase, Less Than 65,000 Btu/ 

h VRF 

The current DOE test procedure for 

VRF multi-split systems (including 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF) references AHRI 1230–2010 with 

addendum 1. For three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF, AHRI 1230–2010 is 

used to calculate cooling and heating 

efficiency in terms of the SEER and 

HSPF metrics, respectively. In May 

2021, AHRI published AHRI 1230–2021, 

which excludes from its scope threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

Accordingly, in the December 2021 

Three-Phase TP NOPR, DOE proposed 

to remove its reference to AHRI 1230– 

2010 and instead to reference AHRI 210/ 

240–2023 in the test procedure for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. 86 FR 70316, 70321–70322 (Dec. 9, 

2021). In that proposed rule, DOE noted 

that AHRI 210/240–2023 includes in its 

scope three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h VRF systems and harmonizes with the 

updated Federal test method for singlephase central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps 

with rated cooling capacities of less 

than 65,000 Btu/h (i.e., appendix M1, 

effective January 1, 2023), which 

includes single-phase, air-cooled, VRF 

systems with a cooling capacity of less 

than 65,000 Btu/h. Id. at 85 FR 70322. 

Like appendix M1, AHRI 210/240–2023 

is used to calculate cooling and heating 

efficiency in terms of updated metrics, 

SEER2 and HSPF2, respectively. As 

discussed in section II.B.2, ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 established SEER2 and 

HSPF2 levels for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h CUACs and CUHPs (some 

with increased stringency over current 

DOE levels) but did not consider new 

metrics or an increase in stringency for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. Accordingly, DOE is proposing in 

this document to update its efficiency 

metrics for three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h VRF from SEER and HSPF 

measured per AHRI 1230–2010 to 

SEER2 and HSPF2 measured per AHRI 

210/240–2023. 

To translate the existing SEER and 

HSPF levels to SEER2 and HSPF2 levels 

with equivalent stringency, DOE 

conducted a crosswalk analysis. As 

described in section III.B, there are 

several classes of three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h CUACs and CUHPs for 

which DOE was able to apply identical 

crosswalk methodologies as were used 

for corresponding product classes of 

single-phase residential CACs and HPs 

in the January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR. 

However, there are not separate product 

classes for single-phase, residential, 

multi-split CACs and HPs (the consumer 

products that correspond to three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF). Therefore, 

DOE could not rely on existing analysis 

specific to multi-split systems from the 

January 2017 CAC/HP ECS DFR and 

instead conducted an analytical 

crosswalk by evaluating changes in the 

test procedure between AHRI 1230– 

2010 and AHRI 210/240–2023. 

Additionally, DOE is not aware of any 

models of three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h VRF currently on the market. 

When deciding how to translate SEER 

to SEER2 for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF, DOE considered the 

external static pressure testing 

requirements in AHRI 1230–2010 and 

AHRI 210/240–2023. While DOE is not 

aware of the existence of any models of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF, the Department expects that, 

should they exist, the most common 

configuration would likely be nonducted indoor units, similar to other 

categories of VRF systems (e.g., singleVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM 30MRP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18299 

phase, residential, multi-split CACs and 

HPs). Because both AHRI 1230–2010 

and AHRI 210/240–2023 require testing 

at zero external static pressure (‘‘ESP’’) 

for non-ducted indoor units, there 

would be no change in the numerical 

value translating from SEER to SEER2 

for systems comprising of non-ducted 

indoor units. For systems rated with 

ducted indoor units, AHRI 1230–2010 

specifies ESP requirements that vary 

with indoor unit cooling capacity 

(varying between 0.1 to 0.2 in H2O), 

while AHRI 210/240–2023 specifies ESP 

requirements of 0.1 in H2O for low-static 

indoor units and 0.3 in H2O for midstatic indoor units. Therefore, the ESP 

requirements would only result in 

different ratings for certain 

combinations of ducted indoor units. 

For example, DOE expects a typical 

configuration would be low-static 

indoor units with per-indoor-unit 

cooling capacity less than 28,800 Btu/h 

(given an overall system capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h)—in which case both 

test procedures require testing at 0.1 in 

H2O. Consequently, DOE has tentatively 

determined that for a significant 

majority of three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h VRF systems (should they exist in 

the future), there would be no change in 

the required external static pressure 

when testing to the updated industry 

test procedure AHRI 210/240–2023. 

Therefore, DOE is not proposing a 

change in the numerical value of SEER2 

standards crosswalked from existing 

SEER standards. 

With regards to the translation from 

HSPF to HSPF2 for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, DOE is 

proposing to use the same 15 percent 

reduction from the January 2017 CAC/ 

HP ECS DFR when translating from 

HSPF to HSPF2 at an equivalent 

stringency. Because the changes to the 

heating load line between AHRI 1230– 

2010 and AHRI 210/240–2023 are 

equivalent to the changes in the heating 

load line between appendix M and 

appendix M1, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that utilizing the same 

HSPF2 translation from single-phase 

CACs and HPs is appropriate for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

C. Crosswalk Results 

DOE conducted the crosswalk 

discussed in section III.B of this 

document to translate the current 

Federal standards to the SEER2 and 

HSPF2 metrics and determine whether 

the levels specified in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 represent more, less, or equivalent 

stringency as compared to the current 

Federal standards. DOE’s crosswalk 

results for three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF 

are presented in Table III–1 

TABLE III—1 CROSSWALK RESULTS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H ACUAC, ACUHP, AND

VRF EQUIPMENT

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 equipment 

class Current federal equipment class 

Federal energy 

conservation 

standard(s) 

Crosswalk of 

current federal 

standard(s) 

Energy efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

Comparison of 

ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 to 

crosswalk 1

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........ 13.4 SEER2 ...... 14.0 SEER before 1/1/2023 ........

13.4 SEER2 on and after 1/1/ 

2023.

Equivalent. 

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ........ <13.0 SEER2 2 .. 13.0 SEER before 1/1/2023 ........

13.4 SEER2 on and after 1/1/ 

2023.

More Stringent. 

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........

8.0 HSPF ..........

13.4 SEER2 ......

6.7 HSPF2 ........

14.0 SEER/8.0 HSPF before 1/1/ 

2023.

13.4 SEER2/6.7 HSPF on and 

after 1/1/2023.

Equivalent. 

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........

8.2 HSPF ..........

13.4 SEER2 ......

<7.5 HSPF2 3 ....

14.0 SEER/8.2 HSPF before 1/1/ 

2023.

14.3 SEER2/7.5 HSPF2 on and 

after 1/1/2023.

More Stringent. 

Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air 

Conditioner, Three-Phase, Single-Package, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........ 13.9 SEER2 ...... 12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023 ........

11.7 SEER2 on and after 1/1/ 

2023.

Less Stringent.3

Space-Constrained, Air-cooled Air 

Conditioner, Three-Phase, SplitSystem, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ........ 12.7 SEER2 ...... 12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023 ........

11.7 SEER2 on and after 1/1/ 

2023.

Less Stringent.3

Space-Constrained, Air-Cooled 

Heat Pump, Three-Phase, Single-Package, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Single-Package, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........

8.0 HSPF ..........

13.9 SEER2 ......

6.7 HSPF2 ........

12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/ 

2023.

11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 on and 

after 1/1/2023.

Less Stringent.3

Space-Constrained, Air-cooled 

Heat Pump, Three-Phase, SplitSystem, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

Air-cooled Heat Pump, threephase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........

8.2 HSPF ..........

13.9 SEER2 ......

7.0 HSPF2 ........

12.0 SEER/7.4 HSPF before 1/1/ 

2023.

11.7 SEER2/6.3 HSPF2 on and 

after 1/1/2023.

Less Stringent.3

Small Duct High Velocity, Aircooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

Air-cooled Air Conditioner, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ........ 13.0 SEER2 ...... 12.0 SEER before 1/1/2023 ........

12.0 SEER2 on and after 1/1/ 

2023.

Less Stringent.3

Small Duct, High Velocity, Aircooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Split-System, <65,000 

Btu/h.

Air-cooled Heat Pump, ThreePhase, Split-Package, <65,000 

Btu/h.

14.0 SEER ........

8.2 HSPF ..........

14.0 SEER2 ......

6.9 HSPF2 ........

12.0 SEER/7.2 HSPF before 1/1/ 

2023.

12.0 SEER2/6.1 HSPF2 on and 

after 1/1/2023.

Less Stringent.3

VRF, Air-Cooled, Air Conditioner Air-cooled VRF Multi-Split Air 

Conditioners, < 65,000 Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ........ 12.9 SEER2 ...... 13.0 SEER ................................... Equivalent.4

VRF, Air-Cooled, Heat Pump ....... Air-cooled VRF Multi-Split Heat 

Pumps, < 65,000 Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ........

7.7 HSPF ..........

12.9 SEER2 ......

6.5 HSPF2 ........

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

7.7 HSPF 

Equivalent.4

1 Column indicates whether the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels, beginning on January 1, 2023, are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent than the crosswalked 

Federal standards. 2The Federal SEER standard is lower than the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 SEER2 level indicating that the crosswalked Federal SEER2 standard will also be lower than 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 SEER2 level. 3For S–C and SDHV equipment, the ASHRAE 90.1 levels are less stringent than the crosswalked Federal efficiency levels because these classes are split off from 

split-system and single-package, respectively. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4As discussed in section III.B.3, ASHRAE 90.1–2019 did not establish SEER2/HSPF2 levels for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF equipment. DOE’s crosswalk values represent an equivalent-stringency translation. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the 

crosswalk methodology described in 

section III.B of this proposed rule and 

the crosswalk results in Table III–1 for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs and three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

IV. Estimates of Potential Energy 

Savings 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h CUAC equipment 

classes for which ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

set more stringent levels than the 

current Federal standards, DOE 

performed an assessment to determine 

the energy-savings potential of 

amending Federal standard levels to 

reflect the efficiency levels specified in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. The two 

equipment classes analyzed in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI were aircooled, three-phase, split-system, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h air conditioners and 

air-cooled, three-phase, split-system, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h heat pumps. In 

the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE 

presented the methodology to determine 

energy savings along with the findings 

of the energy savings potential for the 

two equipment classes and sought 

comment on the analysis. 85 FR 60642, 

60666–60673 (Sep. 25, 2020). 

In response to the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, AHRI and Carrier supported 

DOE’s approach to develop unit energy 

consumption, shipments, and the nonew standards efficiency distributions 

that were used to estimate the energy 

savings potential of air-cooled, threephase, split-system air conditioners and 

heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h. 

(AHRI, No. 2, at pp. 5–6; Carrier, No. 3 

at pp. 2–3) However, AHRI, Carrier, and 

Goodman all disagreed with DOE’s 

approach to equipment lifetime. (AHRI, 

No. 2, at p. 6; Carrier, No. 3 at p. 3; 

Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI stated 

that DOE should use the average 

lifetime of 18.4 years for central air 

conditioners and 15.2 years for heat 

pumps stated in the January 2016 Final 

Rule for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. (AHRI, No. 2 at 

p. 6) Carrier stated that the lifetime is 

overestimated and suggested a range of 

10 to 15 years (Carrier, No. 3 at p. 3) 

Goodman suggested using a lifetime that 

is lower than the single-phase lifetime, 

such as 15 years, because three-phase 

products are typically installed in 

commercial applications and thus 

operate more hours per year and at more 

extreme conditions, resulting in a 

shorter lifetime. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 

2) 

In its analysis for this NOPR, DOE did 

not make any changes to the inputs into 

the energy savings analysis that was 

presented in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, including the average 

lifetimes of 19 years for air conditioners 

and 16.2 years for heat pumps. First, 

DOE notes that the average lifetimes 

cited by AHRI are from the September 

30, 2014 NOPR and not the January 15, 

2016 final rule. See 79 FR 58948, 58981 

(Sept. 30, 2014). In the January 15, 2016 

final rule, DOE updated the lifetimes 

based on new shipment data. The 

average lifetimes for small commercial 

package air conditioning equipment 

used in the January 15, 2016 final rule 

was 21.1 years. 81 FR 2479, 2481 

(January 15, 2016). As the commenters 

provided a range of lifetimes, DOE 

chose to maintain the average lifetimes 

used in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 

DOE estimated the potential site, 

primary, and full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 Btu) 

for adopting ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for the 

two equipment classes analyzed. The 

potential energy savings of adopting 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels are measured 

relative to the current Federal standards. 

Table IV–1 displays the energy savings 

at the ASHRAE level for air-cooled, 

three-phase, split-system air 

conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h and 

air-cooled, three-phase, split-system 

heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h. The 

values in the table below are identical 

to the values presented in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 

60642, 60673 (Sept. 25, 2020) 

TABLE IV–1—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SPLIT-SYSTEM, LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H

AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Split-system, air conditioner Split system, heat pump 

ASHRAE efficiency level quads ASHRAE efficiency level quads 

Site Energy Savings Estimate 

Level 0—ASHRAE .................................................. 13.4 SEER2 ....................... 0.0007 14.3 SEER2 .......................

7.5 HSPF2 

0.0017 

Primary Energy Savings Estimate 

Level 0—ASHRAE .................................................. 13.4 SEER2 ....................... 0.0017 14.3 SEER2 .......................

7.5 HSPF2 

0.0044 

FFC Energy Savings Estimate 

Level 0—ASHRAE .................................................. 13.4 SEER2 ....................... 0.0018 14.3 SEER2 .......................

7.5 HSPF2 

0.0047 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking. 86 FR 70892, 70901 

(Dec. 13, 2021) For example, the United 

States rejoined the Paris Agreement on 

February 19, 2021. As part of that 

agreement, the United States has 

committed to reducing GHG emissions 

in order to limit the rise in mean global 

temperature. As such, energy savings 

that reduce GHG emissions have taken 

on greater importance. Additionally, 

some covered products and equipment 

have most of their energy consumption 

occur during periods of peak energy 

demand. The impacts of these products 

on the energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18301 

relatively constant demand. In 

evaluating the significance of energy 

savings, DOE considers differences in 

primary energy and FFC effects for 

different covered products and 

equipment when determining whether 

energy savings are significant. Primary 

energy and FFC effects include the 

energy consumed in electricity 

production (depending on load shape), 

in distribution and transmission, and in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus present a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE conducted an analysis of the 

emissions reductions at the ASHRAE 

efficiency level for air-cooled, threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h air conditioners and air-cooled, 

three-phase, split-system, less than 

65,000 Btu/h heat pumps. This 

emissions analysis consists of two 

components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

combustion emissions of CO2, NOX, 

SO2, and Hg. The second component 

estimates the impacts of potential 

standards on emissions of two 

additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 

N2O, as well as the reductions to 

emissions of other gases due to 

‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. Table IV–2 displays 

the emissions reductions estimates for 

the power sector, the upstream sector, 

and the full-fuel-cycle. 

TABLE IV–2—POTENTIAL EMISSIONS SAVINGS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SPLIT-SYSTEM, LESS THAN

65,000 BTU/H AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Split system, air 

conditioner 

Split system, heat 

pump 

ASHRAE efficiency 

level 

ASHRAE efficiency 

level 

Power Sector Emissions: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................................................. 0.1 0.2 

CH4 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 

SO2 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.1 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

Upstream Emissions: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 

CH4 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.5 1.2 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 

SO2 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.1 0.2 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

Total FFC Emissions: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................................................. 0.1 0.2 

CH4 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.5 1.2 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.0 0.0 

SO2 (thousand tons) ......................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................ 0.1 0.3 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 

V. Conclusions 

A. Consideration of More Stringent 

Efficiency Levels for Split Systems 

As discussed, ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

includes efficiency levels more stringent 

than the current Federal standards for 

three-phase, split-system, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

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)). As noted 

previously, clear and convincing 

evidence is a heightened standard, and 

would only be met where the Secretary 

has an abiding conviction, based on 

available facts, data, and DOE’s own 

analyses, that it is highly probable an 

amended standard would result in a 

significant additional amount of energy 

savings, and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. See 

American Public Gas Association v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 20–1068, 2022 

WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir. January 18, 

2022) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 

467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 

L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). 

In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, 

DOE did not consider more stringent 

efficiency levels, as this would require 

DOE to crosswalk the entire market for 

this equipment. 85 FR 60642, 60674 

(Sept. 25, 2020) The amended levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 rely on updated 

metrics (SEER2 and HSPF2), which are 

not applicable until 2023. Furthermore, 

the single-phase market, which is nearly 

identical to three-phase equipment, will 

not begin to use SEER2 and HSPF2 until 

2023. Single-phase and three-phase 

models generally are manufactured on 

the same production lines and are 

physically identical to their 

corresponding single-phase central air 

conditioner and central air conditioning 

heat pump models except the former 

have three-phase electrical systems and 

use components, primarily motors and 

compressors, that are designed for threephase power input. 86 FR 70316, 70322 

(Dec. 9, 2021). The amended levels for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs in ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 are the same efficiency levels 

that will be required for single-phase air 

conditioners and heat pumps in 2023 

(See 10 CFR 430.32(c)(5)). Given that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

amended levels for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF, or those for singlephase air conditioners and heat pumps, 

will not be effective until January 1, 

2023 at the earliest, manufacturers have 

not yet made representations using the 

updated metrics. 85 FR 60642, 60674 

(Sept. 25, 2020). As a result, there are 

currently no public databases with 

ratings in terms of the updated metrics. 

EPCA states that in order for DOE to 

adopt a standard more stringent than an 

amended ASHRAE 90.1 standard, DOE 

must support its decision with clear and 

convincing evidence. In the September 

2020 NODA/RFI, DOE tentatively 

determined that the lack of market data 

for the amended efficiency metric 

creates substantial doubt in any analysis 

of energy savings that would result from 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 given the 

2023 compliance date. 85 FR 60642, 

60674 (Sept. 25, 2020) Therefore, DOE 

did not conduct any analysis of energy 

savings from more stringent standards 

for the two triggered classes of threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs. DOE 

requested data and information that 

would enable it to determine whether 

more stringent standards would result 

in significant energy savings for the two 

triggered equipment classes in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI. Id.. 

In response to the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, AHRI and Rheem 

commented in support of generally 

adopting the amended ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 standard levels for all classes of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs as the national 

standards (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 1; Rheem, 

No. 4 at p. 1) However, AHRI stated that 

it did not have any data that it could 

provide to DOE to develop more 

stringent efficiency levels and 

supported harmonization with the 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels. (AHRI, No. 2 

at p. 6) 

Similarly, Carrier commented that it 

had no data that would suggest that 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 would result in 

additional energy savings for classes 

where DOE is triggered. (Carrier, No. 3 

at p. 3) 

Conversely, Joint Advocates and CA 

IOUs encouraged DOE to evaluate morestringent standards than the ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 levels and said that they 

disagreed with DOE’s preliminary 

conclusion in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI that the test metric change 

created uncertainty that would prevent 

an adequate evaluation of more 

stringent standards. (Joint Advocates, 

No. 6 at pp. 2, 3–4; CA IOUs, No. 5 at 

p. 2) These commenters asserted that 

only when economic analyses are 

complete can the determination be 

made as to whether the statutory ‘‘clear 

and convincing evidence’’ requirement 

has been met. Id. Further, CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to evaluate on a caseby-case basis whether the standard of 

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ of 

energy savings has been met for 

increasing stringency of standards when 

there is a metric change. (CA IOUs, No 

5 at 2) CA IOUs presented the concern 

that if DOE were to generalize the 

position taken in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI to other product categories, 

some members of the ASHRAE 90.1 

committee will be less likely to support 

updates to the test procedure if they 

believe that DOE will use the update as 

a reason to decline to conduct further 

analysis. (Id.) 

CA IOUs requested that DOE 

complete an analysis using information 

from the Compliance and Certification 

Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) 

database, noting that the maximum 

SEER rating in the database has 

increased since the previous final rule 

(Id. at pp. 2–3) CA IOUs also noted that 

DOE successfully used a crosswalk to 

compare SEER and SEER2 as well as 

HSPF and HSPF2 metrics for singlephase products in the January 2017 

CAC/HP ECS DFR. (Id. at p. 3) 

Likewise, the Joint Advocates stated 

that it is not unprecedented for DOE to 

adopt amended standards at levels 

higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

levels based on a revised metric, 

referencing a prior standards 

rulemaking for ACUACs in which DOE 

adopted integrated energy efficiency 

ratio (‘‘IEER’’) standards at levels that 

were more stringent than the 

corresponding ASHRAE 90.1 levels in a 

2016 direct final rule (81 FR 2420 (Jan. 

15, 2016)). (Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p. 

4) 

In response to the comments from 

Joint Advocates and CA IOUs, DOE 

notes that it makes determinations 

pursuant to the ASHRAE trigger (and 

the six-year look back review) by 

evaluating the information and data 

available specific to the equipment 

under review. In this NOPR, DOE is not 

making a general determination on 

whether the clear and convincing 

threshold can be met in instances in 

which there is a metric change. The 

preliminary position taken in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI and in this 

NOPR on whether the clear and 

convincing evidence requirement for 

showing that more stringent standards 

would result in significant additional 

energy savings is specific to three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. As suggested by CA IOUs, 

DOE makes this determination on a 

case-by-case basis. As to the concern 

that the preliminary determination put 

forward in this NOPR may cause some 

members of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

committee to be less likely to support 

updates to industry test procedures, 

DOE notes that EPCA requires DOE to 

review periodically the test procedures 

for covered equipment and make 

amendments to the extent justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

As discussed in the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, an estimation of energy 

savings potentials of energy efficiency 

levels more stringent than the amended 

ASHRAE 90.1 levels would require 

developing efficiency data for the entire 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs market in terms 

of the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics. 85 FR 

60642, 60674 (Sept 25, 2020). Because 

there are minimal market efficiency data 

currently available in terms of SEER2 

and HSPF2, this would require a 

crosswalk analysis much broader than 

the analysis used to evaluate ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 levels. Id. The crosswalk 

analysis of ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels 

presented in this NOPR required only 

that DOE translate the efficiency levels 

between the metrics at the baseline 

levels, and not that DOE translate all 

efficiency levels currently represented 

in the market (i.e., high efficiency 

levels). To obtain SEER2 and HSPF2 

market data for purposes of analysis of 

standard levels more stringent than 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019, DOE would be 

required to translate the individual 

SEER and HSPF ratings to SEER2 and 

HSPF2 ratings for all three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs models certified in DOE’s 

CCMS Database. As noted in the 

September 2020 NODA/RFI, there is the 

added issue of the new metrics not 

being applicable until 2023, which 

compounds the problem of a lack of 

market data. Id. The change in metrics 

and the future compliance date create 

uncertainty in the development of more 

stringent efficiency levels as well as the 

market distribution by efficiency. Id. 

Because of the lack of market data and 

the test metric change, DOE has 

tentatively determined that it lacks clear 

and convincing evidence that a more 

stringent standard level would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively decided not to 

conduct further analysis for this 

particular rulemaking because DOE 

lacks the data necessary to assess 

potential energy conservation. Although 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18303 

6 DOE noted that AHRI Standard 340/360–2007 

already included methods and procedures for 

testing and rating equipment with the IEER metric. 

ASHRAE, through its Standard 90.1, includes 

requirements based on the part-load performance 

metric, IEER. These IEER requirements were first 

established in Addenda to the 2008 Supplement to 

Standard 90.1–2007, and were required for 

compliance with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on 

January 1, 2010. 81 FR 2419, 2441 (Jan. 15, 2014). 

7As part of a NODA/RFI for energy conservation 

standards for ACUACs published on February 1, 

2013 (78 FR 7296), DOE made available a document 

that provides the methodology and results of an 

investigation of EER and IEER market data for 

ACUACs. See Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD– 

0007–0001. 

DOE has not conducted an analysis of 

manufacturer impacts resulting from 

more stringent standards, DOE would 

expect that standards for three-phase 

equipment more stringent than the 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels could impose 

burden to manufacturers by potentially 

requiring them to develop and 

manufacture new models of three-phase 

equipment that are not otherwise 

identical to models of single-phase 

products for sale. 

In this specific instance, DOE 

disagrees with comments from CA IOUs 

and Joint Advocates that the statutory 

clear and convincing evidence criterion 

can only be assessed after full economic 

analyses have been conducted. EPCA 

requires that DOE determine, supported 

by clear and convincing evidence, that 

adoption of a uniform national standard 

more stringent than the amended 

ASHRAE 90.1 for three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs would result in significant 

additional conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); emphasis added) 

The inability to make a determination, 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, with regard to any one of the 

statutory criteria prohibits DOE from 

adopting more stringent standards 

regardless of determinations as to the 

other criteria. As a result, DOE has 

tentatively determined that at this time 

there is insufficient data specific to 

three-phase, split-system, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs 

(including but not limited to market 

efficiency data in terms of the new 

efficiency metric) to provide clear and 

convincing evidence of significant 

additional energy savings from threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs efficiency 

levels more stringent than ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 levels. 

The CA IOUs cited as precedent the 

crosswalk in the January 2017 CAC/HP 

ECS DFR, but that crosswalk was not 

analogous to the present NOPR for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. Specifically, for 

single-phase CACs and HPs, DOE 

conducted its analysis in terms of the 

metrics at the time, SEER and HSPF. 

After selecting amended efficiency 

levels, DOE then crosswalked the 

selected levels to SEER2 and HSPF2 

using a methodology consistent with the 

recommendations of the CAC/HP 

Working Group. 82 FR 1786, 1849 (Jan. 

6, 2017). DOE did not crosswalk the 

entire market for single-phase CACs and 

HPs—the crosswalk addressed only 

single-phase CAC and HPs with rated 

efficiency at the selected levels. Because 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 included efficiency 

levels for three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs based on 

SEER2 and HSPF2, DOE is unable to 

conduct an analysis based on SEER and 

HSPF metrics as it did for single-phase 

CACs and HPs. 

Likewise, the past ACUAC 

rulemaking cited by the Joint Advocates 

as precedent was not analogous to the 

present situation for three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs, because at the time that 

ACUAC rulemaking began, the IEER 

metric was already in use by the 

ACUAC industry. See 81 FR 2419, 2441 

(Jan. 15, 2014).6 Specifically, the vast 

majority of ACUAC models on the 

market were already rated for IEER (in 

addition to Energy Efficiency Ratio 

(EER), which was the federally regulated 

metric at the time), and these IEER 

market data for ACUACs were available 

in the AHRI Directory at the time.7

In contrast, during the development of 

this NOPR, there was no available 

SEER2 and HSPF2 market data. 

Specifically, the CCMS database and the 

AHRI directory do not currently rate any 

units with SEER2 or HSPF2 as the 

compliance date for these metrics is not 

until 2023. 

After considering the stakeholder 

comments and the lack of sufficient 

SEER2 and HSPF2 market data available 

following the September 2020 NODA/ 

RFI, DOE maintains its preliminary 

decision not to conduct additional 

analysis of more stringent standards for 

this rulemaking. The lack of market and 

performance data in terms of the new 

metric limits the analysis of energy 

savings that would result from 

efficiency levels more stringent than the 

amended ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels for 

this equipment. Given the limits of any 

energy use analysis resulting from this 

lack of data, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that more stringent 

standards would result in a significant 

additional amount of energy savings as 

required for DOE to establish morestringent standards. 

As a result, DOE has tentatively 

determined that, due to the lack of 

market and performance data for the 

market as a whole in terms of SEER2 

and HSPF2, it is unable to estimate 

potential energy savings from more 

stringent standards that meets the clear 

and convincing evidence threshold 

required by statute to justify standards 

more stringent than the amended 

ASHRAE 90.1 efficiency levels for threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

B. Review Under Six Year Lookback 

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, in this 

document, DOE is evaluating also the 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

equipment for which ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 did not increase the stringency of 

the standards: (1) Three-phase, single 

package, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs; (2) S–C, threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs; (3) SDHV, three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs; and (4) three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

As discussed in section III of this 

NOPR, DOE has tentatively concluded 

that there are no models on the market 

in the equipment classes of: (1) S–C, 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs; (2) SDHV, threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs; and (3) three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. Therefore, there 

would be no potential energy savings 

associated with more stringent 

standards for these classes, and DOE did 

not conduct further analyses of more 

stringent standards for these classes. 

For three-phase, single package, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs, similar to the triggered classes 

discussed in section V.A of this 

document (i.e., three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs), there are limited SEER2 

and HSPF2 data for models of varying 

efficiencies, and there is not a 

comparable industry analysis (i.e., 

translating ratings to the updated metric 

for these models on the market) for 

comparison. The market-wide analysis 

necessary to evaluate whether amended 

standards would result in significant 

energy savings and be technologically 

feasible and economically justified 

under the clear and convincing 

threshold would require more than 

baseline data. 

Therefore, in line with the same 

initial reasoning presented in DOE’s 

evaluation of more stringent standards 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8While ASHRAE 90.1–2019 does not specify 

updated standards in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 

for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, the 

proposed levels for three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h VRF are consistent with the updated industry 

test procedure for this equipment. Specifically, as 

discussed in section III.B.3 of this document, the 

updated industry test procedure applicable to threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF is AHRI 210/ 

240–2023, which measures performance in terms of 

the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics. Further, as 

discussed in section V.B.1 of this document, 

industry has shown intent to adopt efficiency levels 

in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 for this equipment 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in the first public review 

draft of Addendum ay to ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

for those classes of three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs for which ASHRAE updated 

the industry standards (i.e., split 

systems), DOE tentatively determines 

that the ‘‘clear and convincing’’ 

threshold is not met for three-phase, 

single-package, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. As such, DOE 

did not conduct an energy savings 

analysis of standard levels more 

stringent than the current Federal 

standard levels for three-phase, single 

package, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs not triggered by 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

1. Proposed Addendum to ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 

On November 8, 2021, ASHRAE 

published the First Public Review Draft 

of Addendum ‘ay’ to ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 (‘‘the first public review draft’’). 

The first public review draft proposes to 

update the efficiency metrics for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF to be 

in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 starting 

January 1, 2023. The first public review 

draft also proposes to update the test 

procedure for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF to specify AHRI 

1230–2014 with addendum 1 prior to 

Jan 1, 2023, and then AHRI 210/240– 

2023 starting Jan 1, 2023. 

While the proposed Addendum ay to 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 includes SEER2 

and HSPF2 levels for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, those levels are 

not yet formally incorporated into an 

approved version of ASHRAE 90.1. As 

a result, DOE is not triggered by the 

EPCA requirement to consider adopting 

amended standards at the new ASHRAE 

efficiency level. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Because there are no 

models of three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h VRF currently on the market, DOE 

tentatively finds that there would be no 

potential energy savings associated with 

adopting the levels in the first public 

review draft, and thus no energy savings 

analysis would be required. Therefore, if 

ASHRAE finalizes a future version of 

ASHRAE 90.1 that (1) publishes prior to 

DOE publishing a final rule for amended 

energy conservation standards for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF and 

(2) includes SEER2/HSPF2 levels for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF 

that are more stringent than the existing 

federal standards, DOE proposes that it 

would adopt those levels in a final rule. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the more stringent 

SEER2/HSPF2 efficiency levels for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF 

in the first public review draft of 

Addendum ‘ay’ to ASHRAE 90.1–2019, 

should such levels be incorporated into 

an updated version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 that publishes prior to 

DOE publishing a final rule for amended 

energy conservation standards for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

C. Definitions for Space-Constrained 

and Small-Duct, High-Velocity 

Equipment 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 includes S–C and 

SDHV equipment classes for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs. Because DOE is proposing 

to adopt separate standards for S–C, 

split-system, and single-package 

ACUACs and ACUHPs and SDHV 

ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE is 

proposing the following definitions for 

‘‘small-duct, high-velocity commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ and ‘‘space-constrained 

commercial package and heating 

equipment’’ at 10 CFR 431.92. These 

two definitions align with the 

definitions specified in 10 CFR 430.2 for 

single-phase CACs and HPs, which, as 

discussed in section V.A, are identical 

to three-phase products except for the 

power input. 

• Small-duct, High-velocity 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment means a basic 

model of commercial package, splitsystem air conditioning and heating 

equipment that: has a rated cooling 

capacity no greater than 65,000 Btu/h; is 

air-cooled; and is paired with an indoor 

unit that (1) includes an indoor blower 

housed with the coil; (2) is designed for, 

and produces, at least 1.2 inches of 

external static pressure when operated 

at the certified air volume rate of 220– 

350 CFM per rated ton cooling in the 

highest default cooling airflow-controls 

setting; and (3) when applied in the 

field, uses high velocity room outlets 

generally greater than 1,000 fpm that 

have less than 6.0 square inches of free 

area. 

• Space-constrained Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment means a basic model of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (packaged or 

split) that: (1) Is air-cooled; (2) has a 

rated cooling capacity no greater than 

30,000 Btu/h; (3) has an outdoor or 

indoor unit having at least two overall 

exterior dimensions or an overall 

displacement that: (i) Is substantially 

smaller than those of other units that 

are: (A) Currently usually installed in 

site-built single-family homes; and (B) 

of a similar cooling, and, if a heat pump, 

heating capacity; and (ii) if increased, 

would certainly result in a considerable 

increase in the usual cost of installation 

or would certainly result in a significant 

loss in the utility of the product to the 

consumer; and (3) of a product type that 

was available for purchase in the United 

States as of December 1, 2000. 

D. Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards 

1. Standard Levels 

In this proposed rule, DOE is 

proposing amended energy conservation 

standards for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. The proposed amended energy 

conservation standards are in terms of 

SEER2 and HSPF2, which would align 

with the efficiency metrics specified in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs 8 and with the updated 

industry test procedure AHRI 210/240– 

2023. 

DOE is proposing amended energy 

conservation standards in terms of 

SEER2 and HSPF2 that generally align 

with the standard levels in ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 for three-phase equipment 

with some exceptions. For three-phase, 

split-system, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE is 

proposing standards that align with the 

more stringent levels in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019. For three-phase, single-package, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs, DOE is proposing standards 

that align with the levels in ASHRAE 

90.1–2019, which maintain equivalent 

stringency to the current Federal 

standards. For S–C split-system and 

single-package ACUACs and ACUHPs, 

SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs, and for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF, DOE is proposing standards that 

differ from the values specified in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. These standards 

are equivalent stringency to the current 

Federal standards but are translated to 

the new metrics SEER2 and HSPF2. The 

proposed standards are presented in 

Table I.1 and Table I.2 of this document. 

2. Compliance Date 

In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, 

DOE discussed the potential compliance 

dates for amended standards for threeVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM 30MRP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18305 

9EPCA states that any such standard shall apply 

to equipment manufactured after a date that is the 

latter of the date three years after publication of the 

final rule establishing such standard or six years 

after the effective date for the current standard (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv). 

phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs. 85 FR 60642, 60671 (Sept. 

25, 2020). In that September 2020 

NODA/RFI, DOE determined that for the 

two equipment classes where DOE was 

triggered by an increase in stringency in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 (three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs) the earliest compliance 

date for amended Federal standards 

would be two years after the ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 compliance date (January 1, 

2023), resulting in a compliance date of 

January 1, 2025. Id. DOE also discussed 

that EPCA specifies similar 

considerations on compliance date if 

DOE were to adopt amended standards 

more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1 

levels 9 for the two equipment classes 

for which DOE is evaluating standards 

under its 6-year lookback authority 

(three-phase, single-package, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs). 

Id. Ultimately, DOE determined that it 

did not have clear and convincing 

evidence to justify adopting standards 

more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 levels, and, therefore, the threeyear and/or six-year delay period would 

not apply. DOE presented an 

approximate compliance date of January 

1, 2025 for all four equipment classes of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. Id. 

In response to the September 2020 

NODA/RFI, Rheem agreed that the 

compliance date for amended Federal 

standards should be January 1, 2025 for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs, based on the 

statutory provision by EPCA for a sixyear lookback to amend uniform 

national standards. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 

1) Carrier, Goodman, and Trane 

requested that DOE align the 

compliance date of amended standards 

in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 for threephase equipment with the 

corresponding compliance date for 

single-phase products of January 1, 

2023, arguing that discrepancy in 

compliance dates between single-phase 

products and three-phase equipment 

would be undesirable and confusing for 

consumers and manufacturers. (Carrier, 

No. 3 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2; 

Trane, No. 8 at p. 2) 

In response to the comments from 

Carrier, Goodman, and Trane, DOE 

notes that while there may be benefits 

to aligning the compliance dates for 

SEER2 and HSPF2 standards between 

single-phase products and three-phase 

equipment, DOE cannot prescribe a 

compliance date for amended standards 

that would violate its obligations under 

EPCA. As discussed, EPCA requires that 

DOE specify a compliance date no 

earlier than 2 years after the compliance 

date specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 for triggered classes of three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. As a result, to provide a 

consistent compliance date for 

standards in terms of SEER2 and HSPF2 

for all three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h equipment, DOE proposes that the 

amended standards proposed in this 

NOPR would apply for all three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h equipment that is 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2025. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

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

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(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: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. 

The following sections detail DOE’s 

IRFA for this energy conservation 

standards proposed rulemaking. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing DOE energy conservation 

standards for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. EPCA requires DOE to consider 

amending the existing Federal energy 

conservation standard for certain types 

of listed commercial and industrial 

equipment (generally, commercial water 

heaters, commercial packaged boilers, 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment, and packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 is amended with respect to such 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For 

each type of equipment, EPCA directs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10The size standards are listed by NAICS code 

and industry description and are available at: 

www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards (Last accessed on February 24, 2022). 

11 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

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

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 as a national 

standard would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) This is referred to as 

‘‘the ASHRAE trigger.’’ DOE must also 

review and determine whether to amend 

standards of each class of covered 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

every 6 years. (42 U.S.C. 

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

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

amending the existing Federal energy 

conservation standard each time 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to such equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) ASHRAE officially 

released ASHRAE 90.1–2019 on October 

25, 2019, thereby triggering DOE’s 

previously referenced obligations to 

determine, for certain classes of threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUAC, 

ACUHP, and VRF systems, whether: (1) 

The amended industry standard levels 

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 EPCA’s 6-year-lookback 

provision at the same time, to address 

the subject equipment in a 

comprehensive fashion. 

3. Description on Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF, the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) has set a size 

threshold. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the 

proposed rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The 

equipment covered by this proposed 

rule is classified under North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415,10 ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

as a small business for this category. 

DOE reviewed the energy 

conservation standards proposed in this 

NOPR under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. DOE relied on the 

Compliance Certification Database 11 in 

identifying manufacturers. For threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs, DOE identified 17 

original equipment manufacturers 

(‘‘OEM’’). Of those 17 OEMs, DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. DOE used subscription-based 

business information tools to determine 

headcount and revenue of the small 

businesses. DOE identified 4 small, 

domestic OEMs for consideration. DOE 

did not identify any manufacturers of 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. 

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on the 

number of small manufacturers 

producing three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements Including 

Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different 

Groups of Small Entities 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to: 

• Adopt amended energy 

conservations standards for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs corresponding to the minimum 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

The levels are in terms of new metrics 

seasonal energy efficiency ratio-2 

(SEER2) and heating seasonal 

performance factor-2 (HSPF2); 

• Separate energy conservation 

standards for three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h ACUAC and ACUHP 

further into: (1) Three-phase, S–C, 

commercial split-system air 

conditioners (‘‘S–C ACUACs’’); (2) 

three-phase, S–C, commercial splitsystem heat pumps (‘‘S–C ACUHPs’’); 

(3) S–C single-package ACUACs; (4) S– 

C single-package ACUHPs; (5) threephase, SDHV commercial air 

conditioners (‘‘SDHV ACUACs’’); and 

(6) three-phase, SDHV commercial heat 

pumps (‘‘SDHV ACUHPs’’). These 

additional equipment classes are 

included in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs; and 

• Adopt amended energy 

conservation standards for three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. Because the 

levels for this equipment were not 

updated in ASHRAE 90.1–2019, the 

proposed standards are translated from 

the existing Federal regulatory metrics 

(SEER and HSPF) to the updated metrics 

(SEER2 and HSPF2)—as measured per 

the updated industry test procedure 

AHRI 210/240–2023. 

For S–C ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

SDHV ACUACs and ACUHPs, the 

current applicable Federal standards are 

more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1– 

2019 levels. To avoid backsliding (as 

required by EPCA), DOE cannot adopt 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 levels for these 

classes and is therefore proposing 

standards for S–C ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and SDHV ACUACs and 

ACUHPs equipment in terms of SEER2 

and HSPF2 that maintain equivalent 

stringency to the applicable current 

Federal standards (in terms of SEER and 

HSPF). Of note, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that there are no models of 

S–C ACUACs and ACUHPs and SDHV 

ACUACs and ACUHPs on the market. 

For three-phase, single-package, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs as well as three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, the ASHRAE 

90.1–2019 levels are of equivalent 

stringency to the current Federal 

standards. Therefore, DOE’s proposal to 

adopt standards in terms of the new 

metrics SEER2 and HSPF2 that are 

crosswalked from the current Federal 

standards would not increase the 

stringency of standards. 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 includes 

minimum efficiency levels for threephase, split-system, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs that are 

more stringent than the current Federal 

standards. DOE must adopt amended 

standards at the amended ASHRAE 

efficiency levels unless DOE 

determines, supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that adoption of a 

more stringent standard would produce 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii). Because DOE 

proposes no such determination, this 

NOPR proposes to adopt amended 

standards at the amended ASHRAE 

efficiency levels for three-phase, splitsystem, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs. 

In estimating the impact to small 

manufacturers, DOE recognizes that 

manufacturers may incur conversion 

costs as a result of the proposed 

standards for three-phase, split-system, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. In reviewing all commercially 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18307 

available models of three-phase, splitsystem. less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs in DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, the 4 small 

manufacturers account for 30 percent of 

model offerings. For each of the 4 small 

manufacturers, approximately 58 

percent of the companies’ current 

models would meet the proposed levels. 

For the current models that do not meet 

the proposed levels, the small 

manufacturers would need to either 

discontinue or redesign non-compliant 

models. However, adoption of standards 

at least as stringent as the ASHRAE 

levels is required under EPCA; 

furthermore, adopting standards above 

ASHRAE levels (DOE’s only other 

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

would lead to an even greater portion of 

small manufacturer models requiring 

redesign. Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed efficiency 

level provides the least cost option for 

small manufacturers. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

understanding of the current market 

accounted for by small manufacturers. 

DOE also requests comment on its 

understanding of the efficiency of the 

equipment offered by such 

manufacturers. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt 

the ASHRAE levels or to propose higher 

standards, DOE is limited in options to 

mitigate impacts to small businesses 

from the more stringent ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 levels. DOE’s proposal to 

adopt the more stringent levels in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for three-phase, 

split-system, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs is the least cost 

option to industry. 

Manufacturers subject to DOE’s 

energy efficiency standards may apply 

to DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals 

for exception relief under certain 

circumstances. Manufacturers should 

refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and 

ACUHPs and three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF 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, 

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 three-phase, less than 65,000 

Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and for 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

VRF. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 2011); 80 FR 

5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

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(b) because it is a proposed 

rulemaking that establishes 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 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

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 equipment 

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. 6316(a) and (b); 42 

U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

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

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

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

specifically requires that executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at: 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed December 10, 2021). 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this 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 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal intergovernmental mandate, 

nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by the private sector. 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 (Mar. 15, 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. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%20

Guidelines%20Dec%202019.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 proposed rule, which proposes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h 

ACUACs and ACUHPs and three-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF, 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. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.12

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. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18309 

13The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.13

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date for 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/ 

public-meetings-and-commentdeadlines. 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 document, or 

who is representative of a group or class 

of persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit to 

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 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 Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

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 proceedings and any 

aspect of the rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a summary of the proposals, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

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. 

Otherwise, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 the 

crosswalk methodology described in section 

III.B of this document and the crosswalk 

results in Table III–1 for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs and ACUHPs and 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the more stringent SEER2/ 

HSPF2 efficiency levels for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h VRF in the first public 

review draft of Addendum ‘ay’ to ASHRAE 

90.1–2019, should such levels be 

incorporated into an updated version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that publishes prior 

to DOE publishing a final rule for amended 

energy conservation standards for threephase, less than 65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on the 

number of small manufacturers producing 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h ACUACs 

and ACUHPs and three-phase, less than 

65,000 Btu/h VRF. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

understanding of the current market 

accounted for by small manufacturers. DOE 

also requests comment on its understanding 

of the efficiency of the equipment offered by 

such manufacturers. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this proposed rulemaking 

that may 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 test 

procedures, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on March 23, 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 March 23, 

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 chapter II, subchapter D, 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 431.92 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Small-duct, Highvelocity Commercial Package Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment’’ 

and ‘‘Space-constrained Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment’’ to read as follows: 

§ 431.92 Definitions concerning 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

Small-duct, High-velocity Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment means a basic model of 

commercial package, split-system air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

that: 

(1) Has a rated cooling capacity no 

greater than 65,000 Btu/h; 

(2) Is air-cooled; and 

(3) Is paired with an indoor unit that 

(i) Includes an indoor blower housed 

with the coil; 

(ii) Is designed for, and produces, at 

least 1.2 inches of external static 

pressure when operated at the certified 

air volume rate of 220–350 CFM per 

rated ton cooling in the highest default 

cooling airflow-controls setting; and 

(iii) When applied in the field, uses 

high velocity room outlets generally 

greater than 1,000 fpm that have less 

than 6.0 square inches of free area. 

Space-constrained Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment means a basic model of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (packaged or 

split) that: 

(1) Is air-cooled; 

(2) Has a rated cooling capacity no 

greater than 30,000 Btu/h; 

(3) Has an outdoor or indoor unit 

having at least two overall exterior 

dimensions or an overall displacement 

that: 

(i) Is substantially smaller than those 

of other units that are: 

(A) Currently usually installed in sitebuilt single-family homes; and 

(B) Of a similar cooling, and, if a heat 

pump, heating capacity; 

and 

(ii) If increased, would certainly result 

in a considerable increase in the usual 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 18311 

cost of installation or would certainly 

result in a significant loss in the utility 

of the product to the consumer; 

and 

(4) Of a product type that was 

available for purchase in the United 

States as of December 1, 2000. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 431.97 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the rows of Table 1 to 

paragraph (b), under the column 

heading, ‘‘Equipment Type’’ for: ‘‘Small 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3- 

Phase, Split-System)’’ and ‘‘Small 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3- 

Phase, Single-Package)’’; 

■ b. Removing each instance in Table 1 

to paragraph (b), ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘3’’ and adding 

in their place ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘2’’; 

■ c. Removing footnote 1 in Table 1 to 

paragraph (b) and redesignating 

footnotes ‘‘2’’ and ‘‘3’’ as footnotes ‘‘1’’ 

and ‘‘2’’, respectively; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘June 16, 2008.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘June 16, 2008.2’’, in 

row 13, ‘‘Small Commercial Package 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, SplitSystem)’’, in Table 3 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ e. Removing ‘‘January 1, 2017.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘January 1, 2017.2’’, 

in row 14, ‘‘Small Commercial Package 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, SplitSystem)’’, in Table 3 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ f. Removing ‘‘January 1, 2017.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘January 1, 2017.2’’, 

in row 15, ‘‘Small Commercial Package 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, SinglePackage)’’, in Table 3 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ g. Removing ‘‘January 1, 2017.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘January 1, 2017.2’’, 

in row 16, ‘‘Small Commercial Package 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, SinglePackage)’’, in Table 3 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ h. Adding, immediately following 

footnote 1 below Table 3 to paragraph 

(b), ‘‘2 And manufactured before January 

1, 2025. For equipment manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2025, see Table 14 

to paragraph (g) of this section for 

updated efficiency standards.’’; 

■ i. Removing ‘‘January 1, 2017.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘January 1, 2017.3’’, 

in row 1, ‘‘Small Commercial Package 

Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, SplitSystem)’’, in Table 4 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ j. Removing the words ‘‘January 1, 

2017.’’ and adding in its place ‘‘January 

1, 2017.3’’, in row 2, ‘‘Small Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single 

Package)’’, in Table 4 to paragraph (b) 

under the column heading, 

‘‘Compliance date: Equipment 

manufactured starting on . . .’’; 

■ k. Adding, immediately following 

footnote 2 below Table 4 to paragraph 

(b), ‘‘3 And manufactured before January 

1, 2025. For equipment manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2025, see Table 14 

to paragraph (g) of this section for 

updated efficiency standards.’’; 

■ l. Removing ‘‘June 16, 2008.’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘June 16, 2008.2’’, in 

rows 1, VRF Multi-Split Air 

Conditioners (Air-Cooled)’’, and 7, 

‘‘VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled)’’, of Table 13 to paragraph (f) 

under the column heading: 

‘‘Compliance date: Products 

manufactured on and after . . .’’; 

■ m. Adding, immediately following 

footnote 1 below Table 13 to paragraph 

(f), ‘‘2 And manufactured before January 

1, 2025. For equipment manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2025, see Table 14 

to paragraph (g) of this section for 

updated efficiency standards.’’; and 

■ n. Adding a new paragraph (g) and 

Table 14 to read as follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(g) Each air-cooled, three-phase, small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment with a cooling 

capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and 

air-cooled, three-phase variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

with a cooling capacity of less than 

65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2025, or if certifying to 

SEER2/HSPF2, must meet the 

applicable minimum energy efficiency 

standard level(s) set forth in Table 14 of 

this section. 

TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL

COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN

65,000 BTU/H AND AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING

AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H

Equipment type Size category 

(cooling) Subcategory Minimum efficiency 

Air Conditioners ......................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................

Single-Package .......................

13.4 SEER2. 

13.4 SEER2. 

Heat Pumps ............................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................ 14.3 SEER2. 

7.5 HSPF2. 

Single-Package ....................... 13.4 SEER2. 

6.7 HSPF2. 

Space-Constrained Air Conditioners ......................................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................

Single-Package .......................

12.7 SEER2. 

13.9 SEER2. 

Space-Constrained Heat Pumps ............................................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................ 13.9 SEER2. 

7.0 HSPF2. 

Single-Package ....................... 13.9 SEER2. 

6.7 HSPF2. 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity Air Conditioners ............................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................ 13.0 SEER2. 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity Heat Pumps ..................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... Split-System ............................ 14.0 SEER2. 

6.9 HSPF2. 

VRF Air Conditioners ................................................................. <65,000 Btu/h .......................... .................................................. 13.0 SEER2. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
18312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14 TO § 431.97—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN—Continued 

65,000 BTU/H AND AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING

AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H

Equipment type Size category 

(cooling) Subcategory Minimum efficiency 

VRF Heat Pumps ...................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .......................... .................................................. 13.0 SEER2. 

6.5 HSPF2. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06450 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 240 and 242 

[Release No. 34–94499; File No. S7–11–22] 

RIN 3235–AL14 

Removal of References to Credit 

Ratings From Regulation M 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is reproposing amendments to remove the 

references to credit ratings included in 

certain Commission rules. The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), 

among other things, requires the 

Commission to remove any references to 

credit ratings from its regulations. In 

one rule governing the activity of 

distribution participants, the 

Commission is proposing to remove the 

reference to credit ratings, substitute 

alternative measures of creditworthiness, and impose related 

recordkeeping obligations in certain 

instances. In another rule governing the 

activity of issuers and selling security 

holders during a distribution, the 

Commission is proposing to eliminate 

the exception for investment-grade 

nonconvertible debt, nonconvertible 

preferred securities, and asset-backed 

securities. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before May 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/submitcomments.htm); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number S7– 

11–22 on the subject line; or 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments to Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number S7–11–22. This file number 

should be included on the subject line 

if email is used. To help us process and 

review your comments more efficiently, 

please use only one method of 

submission. The Commission will post 

all comments on the Commission’s 

website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ 

proposed.shtml). Comments are also 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Operating conditions 

may limit access to the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

we do not edit personal identifying 

information from comment submissions. 

You should submit only information 

that you wish to make publicly 

available. 

Studies, memoranda, or other 

substantive items may be added by the 

Commission or staff to the comment file 

during this rulemaking. A notification of 

the inclusion in the comment file of any 

such materials will be made available 

on the Commission’s website. To ensure 

direct electronic receipt of such 

notifications, sign up through the ‘‘Stay 

Connected’’ option at www.sec.gov to 

receive notifications by email. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Guidroz, Branch Chief, Laura Gold, 

Special Counsel, Jessica Kloss, 

Attorney-Adviser, or Josephine Tao, 

Assistant Director, in the Office of 

Trading Practices, at (202) 551–5777, 

Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is proposing to amend the 

existing exceptions found in 17 CFR 

242.101 (‘‘Rule 101’’) and 17 CFR 

242.102 (‘‘Rule 102’’) for investmentgrade nonconvertible debt securities, 

nonconvertible preferred securities, and 

asset-backed securities. Specifically, the 

Commission is proposing to remove the 

requirement to qualify for the exception 

in each of these rules that these 

securities be rated investment grade by 

at least one nationally recognized 

statistical rating organization 

(‘‘NRSRO’’). In its place, in Rule 101, 

the Commission proposes to except (1) 

nonconvertible debt securities and 

nonconvertible preferred securities 

(collectively, ‘‘Nonconvertible 

Securities’’) that meet a specified 

probability of default threshold, and (2) 

asset-backed securities that are offered 

pursuant to an effective shelf 

registration statement filed on the 

Commission’s Form SF–3. In addition, 

the Commission is proposing to 

eliminate the existing exception in Rule 

102 for investment-grade 

Nonconvertible Securities, and assetbacked securities. The Commission is 

also proposing amendments to 17 CFR 

240.17a–4(b) (‘‘Rule 17a–4(b)’’) under 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’) to require brokerdealers to maintain the written 

probability of default determination. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Prior Proposals To Remove References to 

Credit Ratings in Regulation M 

A. 2008 Proposal 

B. 2011 Proposal 

III. Application of Regulation M to 

Distributions of Nonconvertible 

Securities and Asset-Backed Securities 

IV. Proposed Amendments to Rules 101 and 

102 To Remove References to Credit 

Ratings 

A. Rule 101 

B. Rule 102 

V. Recordkeeping Requirement: Rule 17a– 

4(b)(17) 

A. Proposed Recordkeeping Requirement 

B. Request for Comment 

VI. General Request for Comment 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

A. Background 

B. Proposed Use of Information 

C. Information Collections 

D. Collection of Information Is Mandatory 

E. Confidentiality 

F. Retention Period of Recordkeeping 

Requirement 

G. Request for Comment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS