Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 11335-11355 [2022-03836]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 13,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That
document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in
no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 22,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022–04013 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003]
RIN 1904–AE42
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Variable
Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and request for comment.
AGENCY:
In this document, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or the
‘‘Department’’) is proposing amended
energy conservation standards for
variable refrigerant flow (VRF) multisplit air conditioners and VRF multisplit system heat pumps (collectively
referred to as ‘‘VRF multi-split
systems’’) that rely on a new cooling
efficiency metric and are equivalent to
those levels specified in the industry
standard. DOE has preliminarily
determined that it lacks the clear and
convincing evidence required by the
statute to adopt standards more
stringent than the levels specified in the
industry standard. This document also
announces a public meeting webinar to
receive comment on these proposed
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
standards and associated analyses and
results.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) no later than May 2,
2022. See section VII, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ of this document for
details.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before
March 31, 2022.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Wednesday,
March 23, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003, by
any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: to
multisplitachp2018std0003@ee.doe.gov.
Include docket number EERE–2018–BT–
STD–0003 in the subject line of the
message.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
VII of this document (Public
Participation).
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus (COVID–19)
pandemic. DOE is currently suspending
receipt of public comments via postal
mail and hand delivery/courier. If a
commenter finds that this change poses
an undue hardship, please contact
Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586–1445 to discuss the need for
alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID–19 pandemic health emergency
is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming
all of its regular options for public
comment submission, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11335
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at:
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2018-BT-STD0003. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII (Public
Participation) for information on how to
submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy following the instructions at
www.RegInfo.gov.
EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney
General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed
standard is likely to lessen competition.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Antitrust Division invites input from
market participants and other interested
persons with views on the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard. Interested persons may
contact the Antitrust Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting webinar, contact
the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11336
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
3. ASRAC Negotiations
III. General Discussion
A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk
Analysis
1. Crosswalk Background
2. Crosswalk Details
3. Crosswalk Results
B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF
IV. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent
Efficiency Levels
B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback
Provision
C. Proposed Energy Conservation
Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation at the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended
(EPCA),2 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317) Such equipment includes small,
large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, of which VRF multi-split
1 For
editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
systems, the subject of this rulemaking,
are a category. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–
(D))
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to
consider amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of covered
commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this
document, whenever the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
amends the standard levels or design
requirements prescribed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings,’’ (ASHRAE Standard 90.1),
and at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(B)) For each type
of equipment, EPCA directs that if
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,
DOE must adopt amended energy
conservation standards at the new
efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, unless clear and convincing
evidence supports a determination that
adoption of a more-stringent efficiency
level would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii); referred to as the
‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’) If DOE adopts as a
uniform national standard the efficiency
level specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I))
If DOE determines that a more-stringent
standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish
such more-stringent standard not later
than 30 months after publication of the
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i))
Under EPCA, DOE must also review
its energy conservation standards for
VRF multi-split systems every six years
and either: (1) Issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not
need to be amended, as adoption of a
more-stringent level under the relevant
statutory criteria is not supported by
clear and convincing evidence; or (2)
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures
in subparagraph (B).3 (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
3 In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that:
(1) In making a determination of economic
justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum
extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an
amended standard based on the seven criteria
described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any
standard that increases the energy use or decreases
the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and
(3) DOE may not prescribe an amended standard
that interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 on October 26,
2016, thereby triggering DOE’s
previously referenced obligations
pursuant to EPCA to determine for
certain classes of VRF multi-split
systems, whether: (1) The amended
industry standard should be adopted; or
(2) clear and convincing evidence exists
to justify more-stringent standard levels.
For any class where DOE was not
triggered, the Department routinely
considers those classes under the
statute’s 6-year-lookback provision at
the same time, so as to address the
subject equipment in a comprehensive
fashion.
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for air-cooled
VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h and water-source VRF multi-split
heat pumps are codified in DOE’s
regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. These
standards are specified in terms of
Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) for
cooling mode and Coefficient of
Performance (COP) for heating mode
based on the Federal test procedure at
10 CFR 431.96, which references
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard
1230–2010, ‘‘2010 Standard for
Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,’’ approved August 2, 2010
and updated by Addendum 1 in March
2011 (ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010).
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for air-cooled,
three-phase VRF multi-split systems
with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h are also codified in 10 CFR
431.97. These standards are specified in
terms of Seasonal Energy Efficiency
Ratio (SEER) for cooling mode and
Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
(HSPF) for heating mode based on the
rating conditions in ANSI/AHRI 1230–
2010. Although the current standards
levels are based on the same test
procedure as used for all other
categories of VRF systems (i.e., aircooled VRF multi-split systems with
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and water-source VRF
multi-split systems), the organizations
that maintain the industry consensus
test procedures have recently updated
their scope such that air-cooled, threephase VRF multi-split systems with
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))
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
11337
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
are now covered under AHRI 210/240–
2023 instead of AHRI 1230–2021.
Consequently, DOE is addressing test
procedures for air-cooled, three-phase
VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in a
separate test procedure rulemaking for
air-cooled, three-phase, small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h (86 FR
70316 (Dec. 9, 2021)) instead of in the
test procedure rulemaking for VRF
multi-split systems (86 FR 70644 (Dec.
10, 2021)). Accordingly, DOE is not
evaluating the Federal energy
conservation standards for such
equipment in this notice and is instead
addressing energy conservation
standards for air-cooled, three-phase
VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in a
separate energy conservation standards
rulemaking for air-cooled, three-phase,
small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
with a cooling capacity of less than
65,000 Btu/h.
The efficiency levels set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 for VRF
multi-split systems with cooling
capacity 65,000 Btu/h or greater are
specified in terms of both EER and
Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio
(IEER) for cooling mode and COP for
heating mode. These efficiency levels
are based on the rating conditions of
ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230–2014 with
addendum 1 (ANSI/AHRI 1230–2014),
which are identical rating conditions to
those found in AHRI 1230–2010. The
EER levels found in ASHRAE 90.1–2016
are unchanged from the current Federal
EER requirements; however, for certain
classes of water-source VRF multi-split
heat pumps, the COP levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 are more
stringent. See additional discussion in
section II.B.2 of this document.
On April 11, 2018, DOE published in
the Federal Register a Notice of Intent
to establish a negotiated rulemaking
working group (Working Group) under
the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (ASRAC) to negotiate a
proposed test procedure and amended
energy conservation standards for VRF
multi-split systems. 83 FR 15514. The
Working Group reached consensus on
an energy conservation standards term
sheet (VRF ECS Term Sheet) on
November 5, 2019, outlining
recommended amended energy
conservation standards for all
equipment classes of VRF multi-split
systems. The standard levels
recommended by the Working Group in
the VRF ECS Term Sheet are in terms
of the IEER and COP metrics and
equivalent to the levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016.4
However, the levels recommended by
the working group are measured
according to an amended industry test
standard for VRF multi-split systems 5—
AHRI Standard 1230, ‘‘2021 Standard
for Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment’’ (AHRI 1230–2021). See
additional discussion in section II.B.3 of
this NOPR.
As described in detail in section III.A
of this document, DOE conducted a
crosswalk analysis during the ASRAC
negotiation meetings to validate the
translation of the EER levels currently
required by the DOE standards to IEER,
as well as the IEER efficiency levels as
recommended by the Working Group.
DOE notes that IEER is a more
comprehensive metric because it reflects
the energy efficiency across a range of
operating conditions, as opposed to the
efficiency at a single condition. The
crosswalk translates the current Federal
EER standards (measured per the
current DOE test procedure) to IEER
levels of equivalent stringency
(measured per the September 20, 2019
draft version of the AHRI 1230
standard). As described in section II.B.3
of this document, the recommended
2019 draft test procedure was later
published as AHRI 1230–2021, and no
substantive changes were made that
impact crosswalk results. Differences in
the metrics and test procedures cause
the crosswalk analysis to yield a range
of IEER values corresponding to a given
EER value. DOE’s translation of the
current EER levels to IEER according to
the updated test procedure shows that
each value recommended by the
Working Group is within the range
resulting from DOE’s evaluation. Given
that the metric takes into account a
wider breadth of energy consumption
across a variety of operating conditions,
DOE has tentatively determined that the
recommended IEER values are at least
equivalent in stringency to the current
EER values. Further, given that IEER is
a more comprehensive metric, DOE has
tentatively determined that the
recommended IEER values would not
decrease the minimum required energy
efficiency of VRF basic models.
Because the updates in AHRI 1230–
2021 do not affect the measurement of
COP, no crosswalk was required to
evaluate the stringency of the COP
levels proposed in the VRF ECS Term
Sheet as compared to the existing
Federal COP levels.
In this document, DOE proposes to
adopt the energy conservation standard
levels and the equipment class structure
from ASHRAE 90.1–2016 for air-cooled
VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h and for all water-source VRF
multi-split heat pumps. The proposed
standards, which are expressed in terms
of IEER and COP, are presented in Table
I–1. These proposed standards, if
adopted, would apply to all VRF multisplit systems listed in Table I–1
manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on January 1,
2024. The proposed standard levels are
equivalent to the standard levels
recommended by the Working Group in
the VRF ECS Term Sheet. The proposed
equipment class structure differs from
the existing DOE equipment class
structure regarding capacity break
points and designations based on
heating type; however, DOE has
tentatively concluded that none of the
changes to the equipment class structure
for VRF multi-split systems would
constitute backsliding—see section III.B
of this document for additional
discussion.
For the reasons described in section
IV of this document, DOE has
tentatively determined that the potential
energy savings associated with adopting
the ASHRAE 90.1–2016 standard levels
for the triggered classes are de minimis.
Also, as described in section V of this
document, DOE has tentatively
determined that insufficient data are
available to determine, based on clear
and convincing evidence, that morestringent standards would result in
significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and
economically justified. As such DOE has
not conducted further analysis of morestringent standard levels for this
rulemaking. Consequently, DOE is
proposing to adopt the levels specified
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, as
required by EPCA.
4 The VRF ECS Term Sheet can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTSTD-0003-0055.
5 The VRF ASRAC Working Group recommended
a 2019 draft version of AHRI 1230 with additional
recommendations for further development of the
test standard outside of the Working Group. The
2019 draft of AHRI 1230 was later released as AHRI
1230–2021, which included the Working Group’s
recommendations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11338
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–1 PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR VRF MULTI-SPLIT SYSTEMS
Equipment type
Size category
Heating type
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air-Cooled)
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ......................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................
All ..................................................................
All ..................................................................
All ..................................................................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ..............
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery ...................
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) .....
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ......................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 btu/h .............
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water-Source)
<65,000 Btu/h ...............................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ........................
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ......................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for VRF multi-split
systems.
A. Authority
EPCA, among other things, authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,
Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317, as codified) added by Public Law
95–619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This covered equipment
includes small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, which includes
the VRF multi-split systems that are the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(B)–(D)) Additionally, as
discussed in further detail subsequently,
the statute requires DOE to consider
amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this
document, whenever ASHRAE amends
the efficiency levels or design
requirements prescribed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, and even in the absence
of an ASHRAE trigger event, a separate
provision of EPCA requires DOE to
consider amended standards for such
equipment, at a minimum, every six 6
years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards
(42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited circumstances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Subject to certain statutory criteria
and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures that are
reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of covered
equipment during a representative
average use cycle and that are not
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the Federal
test procedures as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42
U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).
Similarly, DOE uses these test
procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with the relevant
energy conservation standards
promulgated under EPCA. The DOE test
procedures for VRF multi-split systems
appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum efficiency
15.5
14.9
13.9
14.6
14.4
13.9
13.7
12.7
12.5
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
14.0
13.8
12.0
11.8
IEER.
IEER.
IEER.
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry
energy efficiency levels for small, large,
and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment,
packaged terminal air conditioners,
packaged terminal heat pumps, warm
air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage
water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively referred to as
‘‘ASHRAE equipment’’). For each type
of listed covered equipment, EPCA
directs that if ASHRAE amends
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with respect to
the standard levels or design
requirements applicable under that
standard, DOE must adopt amended
standards at the new ASHRAE
efficiency levels, unless DOE
determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
more-stringent level would produce
significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
Although EPCA does not explicitly
define the term ‘‘amended’’ in the
context of what type of revision to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger
DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding
interpretation has been that the
statutory trigger is an amendment to the
standard applicable to that equipment
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that
increases the energy efficiency level for
that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042
(March 7, 2007). If the revised ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 leaves the energy
efficiency level unchanged (or lowers
the energy efficiency level), as
compared to the energy efficiency level
specified by the uniform national
standard adopted pursuant to EPCA,
regardless of the other amendments
made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1
requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an
additional metric), DOE has stated that
it does not have the authority to conduct
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
a rulemaking to consider a higher
standard for that equipment pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 FR
36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR
28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an
amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1
changes the metric for the standard on
which the Federal requirement was
based, DOE would perform a crosswalk
analysis to determine whether the
amended metric under ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy
efficiency level that was more stringent
than the current DOE standard.
Under EPCA, DOE must also review
its energy conservation standards for
VRF multi-split systems every six years
and either: (1) Issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not
need to be amended, as adoption of a
more-stringent level under the relevant
statutory criteria is not supported by
clear and convincing evidence; or (2)
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures
in subparagraph (B).6 (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
In deciding whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified,
under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C),
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the maximum extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
(1) The economic impact of the standard
on manufacturers and consumers of the
products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the
covered products in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result
from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy
savings likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products likely to
result from the standard;
6 In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that:
(1) In making a determination of economic
justification, DOE must consider, to the maximum
extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an
amended standard based on the seven criteria
described in EPCA; (2) DOE may not prescribe any
standard that increases the energy use or decreases
the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and
(3) DOE may not prescribe an amended standard
that interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States of any product
type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and
volumes) that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)–(iii))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result from
the standard;
(6) The need for national energy
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy
(Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)))
Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested
persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
EPCA defines ‘‘commercial package
air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ as air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled, or water-source
(not including ground water source)
electrically operated, unitary central air
conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps for
commercial application. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) EPCA
further classifies ‘‘commercial package
air conditioning and heating
equipment’’ into categories based on
cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, and
very large categories). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per
hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated: (i) At or above 135,000
Btu per hour; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu
per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment’’ means
equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000
Btu per hour; and (ii) below 760,000 Btu
per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
Pursuant to its authority under EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and in
response to updates to ASHRAE
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11339
Standard 90.1, DOE has established the
category of VRF multi-split systems,
which meets the EPCA definition of
‘‘commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment,’’ but which
EPCA did not expressly identify. See 10
CFR 431.92 and 10 CFR 431.97.
DOE defines ‘‘variable refrigerant flow
air conditioner’’ as a unit of commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment that is configured as a split
system air conditioner incorporating a
single refrigerant circuit, with one or
more outdoor units, at least one
variable-speed compressor or an
alternate compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by
three or more steps, and multiple indoor
fan coil units, each of which is
individually metered and individually
controlled by an integral control device
and common communications network
and which can operate independently in
response to multiple indoor thermostats.
Variable refrigerant flow implies three
or more steps of capacity control on
common, inter-connecting piping. 10
CFR 431.92.
DOE defines ‘‘variable refrigerant flow
multi-split heat pump’’ as a unit of
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system heat pump
that uses reverse cycle refrigeration as
its primary heating source and which
may include secondary supplemental
heating by means of electrical
resistance, steam, hot water, or gas. The
equipment incorporates a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more
outdoor units, at least one variablespeed compressor or an alternate
compressor combination for varying the
capacity of the system by three or more
steps, and multiple indoor fan coil
units, each of which is individually
metered and individually controlled by
a control device and common
communications network and which
can operate independently in response
to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable
refrigerant flow implies three or more
steps of capacity control on common,
inter-connecting piping. 10 CFR 431.92.
DOE adopted energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems in
a final rule published on May 16, 2012
(May 2012 Final Rule). 77 FR 28928,
28995. DOE’s initial standards for VRF
multi-split systems were prompted by
ASHRAE’s decision to include
minimum efficiency levels for VRF
multi-split systems for the first time in
the 2010 edition of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). For
four of the VRF water-source heat pump
classes (including VRF water-source
heat pumps with cooling capacity less
than 17,000 Btu/h and VRF water-
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11340
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
source heat pumps with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 135,000
Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h),
DOE adopted the standard levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, having
determined that the updates to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2010 either raised the
energy efficiency levels above the
existing Federal energy conservation
standards or set standards for
equipment for which DOE did not
previously have standards. 77 FR 28928,
28938 (May 16, 2012). For all other
equipment classes of VRF multi-split
systems, DOE maintained the standards
from the equipment class under which
the corresponding VRF multi-split
system equipment class was previously
regulated (i.e., air-cooled VRF multisplit systems had previously been
covered as small, large, and very large
air-cooled central air-conditioning heat
pumps with electric resistance heating,
while water-source VRF multi-split heat
pumps had previously been covered as
water-source heat pumps).
For the equipment addressed in this
NOPR, DOE’s current equipment classes
for VRF multi-split systems are
differentiated by refrigeration cycle (air
conditioners or heat pumps), condenser
heat rejection medium (air-cooled or
water-source), cooling capacity, and
heating type (for air-cooled: ‘‘No heating
or electric resistance heating’’ or ‘‘all
other types of heating’’; for watersource: ‘‘Without heat recovery,’’ ‘‘with
heat recovery,’’ or ‘‘all’’). DOE’s current
standards for VRF multi-split systems
are set forth at Table 13 to 10 CFR
431.97 and repeated in Table II–1 of this
document.
TABLE II–1—CURRENT DOE STANDARDS FOR VRF MULTI-SPLIT SYSTEMS
Compliance date:
Products
manufactured
on and after . . .
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Heating type 1
Efficiency level
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
All .....................................................
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
All .....................................................
13.0 SEER ......................
11.2 EER ........................
June 16, 2008.
January 1, 2010.
11.0 EER ........................
11.0 EER ........................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER ........................
10.0 EER ........................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
9.8 EER ..........................
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF ....
January 1, 2010.
June 16, 2008.
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER, 3.3 COP ........
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).
<65,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).
<17,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ...
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..............
Without heat recovery ......................
10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
9.3 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
12.0 EER 4.2 COP .........
With heat recovery ...........................
11.8 EER 4.2 COP .........
All .....................................................
All .....................................................
Without heat recovery ......................
With heat recovery ...........................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ..........
January 1, 2010.
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2013.
October 29, 2013.
1 VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
ASHRAE released the 2016 version of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016) on October 26,
2016, which increased the heating mode
efficiency level (in terms of COP) for six
of the current DOE VRF multi-split
system equipment classes:
(1) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,
Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, Without
Heat Recovery;
(2) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,
Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, With Heat
Recovery;
(3) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,
Water-source ≥17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h;
(4) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps.
Water-source ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
(5) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,
Water-source ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery;
and
(6) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,
Water-source ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 left
unchanged the heating mode efficiency
level for the remaining six DOE
equipment classes of VRF multi-split
heat pump systems with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h and left unchanged the cooling
mode efficiency levels in terms of EER
for all DOE equipment classes.
DOE published a notice of data
availability and request for information
(NODA/RFI) in response to the
amendments to ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 in the Federal Register on
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
July 8, 2019 (July 2019 NODA/RFI). 84
FR 32328. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE compared the current Federal
standards for VRF multi-split systems
(in terms of EER and COP) to the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and
requested comment on its preliminary
findings. 84 FR 32328, 32333–32334
(July 8, 2019). In addition to evaluating
amended energy conservation standards
for the six equipment classes triggered
by the updated levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016, DOE also
examined the other 14 equipment
classes of VRF multi-split systems under
its 6-year lookback authority (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) and solicited data from
stakeholders. 84 FR 32328, 32334 (July
8, 2019). DOE received comments in
response to the July 2019 NODA/RFI
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11341
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
from the interested parties listed in
Table II–2.
TABLE II–2—JULY 2019 NODA/RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS
Commenter(s)
Reference in this NOPR
California Investor-Owned Utilities ..........................................................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute ................................
Hydronic Industry Alliance—Commercial ................................................
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law .................................
CA IOUs ........................................
AHRI ..............................................
HIA—C ...........................................
Policy Integrity ...............................
DOE discusses comments received in
response to the July 2019 NODA/RFI in
the following sections of this document.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.7
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE
officially released for distribution and
made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019
maintained the equipment class
structure for VRF multi-split systems
from ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and
did not update efficiency levels for any
VRF equipment classes.
3. ASRAC Negotiations
On April 11, 2018, DOE published in
the Federal Register a notice of its
intent to establish a negotiated
rulemaking working group (Working
Group) under the Appliance Standards
and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (ASRAC), in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act 8 and the Negotiated Rulemaking
Act,9 to negotiate an amended test
procedure and amended energy
conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems. 83 FR 15514. The purpose
of the Working Group was to discuss
and, if possible, reach consensus on a
proposed rule regarding the test
procedure and energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems,
as authorized by EPCA. Id. The Working
Group comprised 21 voting members
including manufacturers, energy
efficiency advocates, utilities, and trade
organizations.10
On October 1, 2019, the Working
Group reached consensus on a test
procedure term sheet (VRF TP Term
Sheet; Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–
STD–0003–0044) that includes several
recommendations. The following list
includes the most substantial
recommendations:
(1) VRF multi-split systems should be
rated with the Integrated Energy
Efficiency Ratio (IEER) metric to allow
consumers to make consistent
comparisons with other equipment
using the IEER metric (e.g., rooftop air
conditioner ratings).
(2) Use of the amended test procedure
should not be required until the
compliance date of amended energy
conservation standards.
(3) The Federal test procedure for VRF
multi-split systems should be consistent
with the September 20, 2019 draft
version of AHRI 1230, with additional
recommended amendments to be
implemented after the conclusion of
ASRAC negotiations.
Following completion of the VRF TP
Term Sheet, the Working Group
proceeded to negotiate recommended
revised energy conservation standards
Commenter type
Utilities.
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Academic Institution.
for VRF multi-split systems that
accounted for the translation from the
EER metric to the IEER metric, as well
as the changes between the Federal test
procedure that references AHRI 1230–
2010 and the recommended 2019 draft
test procedure AHRI 1230 (which was
later published as AHRI 1230–2021). As
described in greater detail in section
III.A of this document, DOE conducted
a crosswalk analysis to inform the
development of standard levels for VRF
multi-split systems in terms of the new
test procedure and metric. DOE
presented the results of its crosswalk
analysis on November 5, 2019 (Docket
No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003–0061 at
p. 45), and subsequently, the Working
Group reached consensus on an energy
conservation standards term sheet (VRF
ECS Term Sheet; Docket No. EERE–
2018–BT–STD–0003–0055)
recommending:
(1) Amendments to the Federal
minimum efficiency standards for VRF
multi-split systems (as presented in
Table II–3 of this NOPR) and per the test
procedure recommended in the VRF TP
Term Sheet.
(2) The compliance date of the
recommended energy conservation
standards should be January 1, 2024 for
all VRF multi-split system equipment
classes included in this proposed
rulemaking.
TABLE II–3—RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FROM VRF ECS TERM SHEET
Energy efficiency
levels recommended 1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Equipment class
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ..............................................................................
Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................................
Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................................................................
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating .............
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating .......................................
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ...........
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating .....................................
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ...........
Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, All Other Types of Heating .....................................
Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery ........................................................................
7 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems. (Docket No.
EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
8 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92–463.
9 5 U.S.C. 561–570, Public Law 101–648.
10 A complete list of the ASRAC VRF Working
Group members is available by clicking on the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15.5
14.9
13.9
14.6
14.4
13.9
13.7
12.7
12.5
16.0
IEER.
IEER.
IEER.
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER;
IEER,
IEER;
IEER,
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.3
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
‘‘Working Group’’ tab at: www.energy.gov/eere/
buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemakingfederal-advisory-committee#Variable%20
Refrigerant%20Flow%20Multi-Split%20
Air%20Conditioners%20and%20
Heat%20Pumps%20Working%20Group.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11342
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–3—RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCY LEVELS FROM VRF ECS TERM SHEET—Continued
Energy efficiency
levels recommended 1
Equipment class
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
VRF
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Heat
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Pumps,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
Water-source,
<17,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery .............................................................................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery .........................................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ..............................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery .......................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ............................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery .....................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ..........................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery .....................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery ..........................................
15.8
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
14.0
13.8
12.0
11.8
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 The VRF ECS Term Sheet includes the notation ‘‘COP ’’ which indicates coefficient of performance in heating mode at 47 °F outdoor ambiH
ent temperature (for air-cooled VRF multi-split heat pumps) and at 68 °F entering water temperature (for water-source VRF multi-split heat
pumps).
DOE notes that there are minor
differences in equipment class structure
(related to cooling capacity,
supplementary heating type, and
presence of heat recovery) between the
VRF ECS Term Sheet, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019, and the current
Federal energy conservation standards
for VRF multi-split systems. This topic
is discussed in greater detail in section
III.B of this document.
On May 18, 2021, AHRI published an
updated industry test standard for VRF
multi-split systems AHRI 1230–2021.
Subsequently, on December 10, 2021,
DOE published in the Federal Register
the VRF TP NOPR (December 2021 VRF
TP NOPR), in which DOE proposed an
amended test procedure for VRF multisplit systems that incorporates by
reference AHRI 1230–2021 and
proposed to adopt IEER as the test
metric for VRF multi-split systems. 86
FR 70644, 70652. In the December 2021
VRF TP NOPR, DOE tentatively
determined that the proposed
amendments to the test procedure, if
made final, would alter the measured
efficiency of VRF multi-split systems, as
compared to ratings using the current
Federal regulated metric, EER (see 10
CFR 431.97). In that document, DOE
stated that were the proposed test
procedure to be made final (i.e., were
DOE to adopt IEER as the metric for VRF
multi-split systems), testing pursuant to
the amended test procedure would not
be required until such time as
manufacturers were required to comply
with amended energy conservation
standards that are denominated in terms
of IEER, should such standards be
adopted. 86 FR 70644, 70652 (Dec. 10,
2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
III. General Discussion
A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk
Analysis
1. Crosswalk Background and Overview
Consistent with the recommendation
of the Working Group, DOE is proposing
to amend the energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems to
rely on the IEER metric for cooling
efficiency. DOE is not proposing to
amend the metric for heating efficiency
(i.e., COP). The Department has
tentatively concluded that a change of
metrics would be beneficial for a
number of reasons. The current Federal
metric for cooling efficiency, EER,
captures the system performance at a
single, full-load operating point (i.e.,
single outdoor air temperatures for aircooled systems and single entering
water temperatures for water-source
systems). EER does not provide a
seasonal or load-weighted measure of
energy efficiency. In contrast, the IEER
metric factors in the efficiency of
operating at full-load conditions as well
as part-load conditions of 75-percent,
50-percent, and 25-percent of full-load
capacity. Under part-load conditions, air
conditioning and heating equipment
may cycle off/on or may modulate down
the capacity in order to match the
imposed load. DOE has tentatively
determined that the IEER metric
provides a more representative measure
of field performance of VRF multi-split
systems by weighting the full-load and
part-load efficiencies by the average
amount of time equipment spends
operating at each load.
As stated, EPCA prohibits DOE from
prescribing any amended standard that
either increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I));
commonly referred to as EPCA’s ‘‘antibacksliding provision’’) In consideration
of the IEER metric and to ensure any
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
potential amendment would not violate
EPCA’s ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision,
DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis to
validate the translation of the EER levels
currently required by the DOE standards
to IEER, as well as the IEER efficiency
levels as recommended by the Working
Group. The crosswalk analysis
translates the current Federal EER
standards (measured per the current
DOE test procedure) to IEER levels of
equivalent stringency (measured per the
updated AHRI Standard 1230). (Docket
No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–0003–0056).
The proposed energy conservation
standards presented in this document
were developed based on an update to
the relevant industry test standard (i.e.,
the 2019 draft test procedure AHRI 1230
that was finalized as ASHRAE 1230–
2021). Compared to the current Federal
test procedure (which references ANSI/
AHRI 1230–2010), AHRI 1230–2021
included two substantive changes that
impact the translation of standards in
EER to standards using IEER.
Specifically, DOE considered in its
crosswalk analysis in addition to the
metric change from EER to IEER:
(1) Maximum sensible heat ratio
(SHR) limits of 0.82 and 0.85 were
added for full-load and 75-percent, partload conditions, respectively. SHR
represents the ratio of sensible cooling
capacity (i.e., the ability to change the
temperature of indoor air) to the total
cooling capacity, which also includes
latent cooling capacity (i.e., the ability
to remove moisture from indoor air). For
example, an SHR of 0.80 indicates that
80 percent of the capacity of a system
reduces the temperature of the air and
the remaining 20 percent dehumidifies
the air.
(2) A controls verification procedure
(CVP) was added that verifies that the
values provided by manufacturers in the
supplemental test instruction (STI) for
setting critical parameters during
steady-state testing are within the range
of critical parameters that would be
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
used by the system’s native controls at
the same conditions.
On November 5, 2019, DOE presented
its crosswalk findings to the Working
Group to inform the development of
recommended standards levels for VRF
multi-split systems in terms of the new
test procedure and cooling metric.
(Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–
0003–0056). To validate the relative
equivalency of the IEER standard levels
as recommended by the Working Group
and the current Federal EER standards,
DOE analyzed a minimally-compliant
model from a high-sales-volume
equipment class (with a current Federal
standard of 10.6 EER) to ensure that
translation of the current EER standards
to the recommended IEER values would
not decrease the minimum required
energy efficiency of VRF multi-split
systems. As discussed, because of the
change in metric and changes in the test
procedure, DOE cannot translate the
current EER to a single IEER value
(further discussed in section III.A.3 of
this NOPR). DOE identified the resulting
crosswalked efficiency of the
minimally-compliant model from the
selected class ranged from 13 to 16
IEER.
DOE also presented to the Working
Group anonymized and aggregated data
provided by VRF multi-split system
manufacturers. These data showed a
preliminary translation of ratings to the
IEER metric in terms of the updated test
procedure for a collection of VRF multisplit systems spanning four equipment
classes. The sample data were mostly
composed of systems above the current
Federal baseline efficiency levels in
terms of EER and, thus, were not
instructive as to a crosswalk of
minimum energy efficiency levels.
(Docket No. EERE–2018–BT–STD–
0003–0056). The IEER efficiency level
specified in the VRF ECS Term Sheet for
the selected class was 13.9 IEER, which
was within the range of crosswalked
results.
Given that translating the current EER
levels to IEER according to the updated
test procedure does not provide for a
single point answer (as would thereby
allow for a direct comparison), DOE
believes it is reasonable to ensure that
the recommended value lies within the
range resulting from DOE’s evaluation
as a proxy for understanding whether
there is a potential for backsliding.
Consequently, DOE has tentatively
determined that the recommended IEER
levels are at least equivalent in
stringency to the current EER levels.
Further, given that IEER is a more
comprehensive metric (reflecting energy
efficiency across a range of operating
conditions, as opposed to the efficiency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
at a single condition), DOE has
tentatively determined that the
recommended IEER levels would not
decrease the minimum required energy
efficiency of a VRF multi-split system.
2. Crosswalk Details
In its analysis to crosswalk the current
DOE energy conservation standards for
VRF cooling efficiency, DOE sought to
account for the translation from EER to
IEER, as well as changes in the updated
industry test standard—namely the
addition of SHR limits and the
introduction of the CVP. Because these
three factors have interacting effects on
the measured cooling performance of
VRF multi-split systems, DOE modeled
their interaction holistically and did not
examine incremental changes in
performance due to any one factor.
As discussed, DOE is not proposing to
change the heating efficiency metric
(i.e., COP), because both ASHRAE 90.1–
2016 and the Working Group VRF ECS
Term Sheet define heating mode
efficiency in terms of COP.
Additionally, the changes to the test
procedure for VRF multi-split systems
did not impact measured efficiency in
heating mode. Therefore, DOE did not
conduct a crosswalk analysis for VRF
heating mode efficiency.
The following paragraphs describe
DOE’s crosswalk methodology to
translate the current cooling efficiency
standards for VRF multi-split systems
that rely on the EER metric to standards
using IEER that are of equivalent
efficiency. DOE also identifies the
various factors that limit the ability to
strictly translate standards that rely on
EER to standards that standards that rely
on IEER.
In order to develop a crosswalk
approach that is applicable to all
equipment classes of VRF multi-split
systems, DOE analyzed a basic model
representative of equipment classes
with high sales volume.11 Specifically,
DOE selected an air-cooled VRF multisplit heat pump system in the cooling
capacity range greater than 135,000 Btu/
h and less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/
h without heat recovery. The selected
basic model had an EER rating within
0.2 points of the Federal standard for
the applicable equipment class (i.e., a
10.8 rating vs 10.6 EER minimum
required), and 0.4 points above the
11 According to a report from Cadeo group, aircooled VRF multi-split heat pump systems in the
cooling capacity range greater than 135,000 Btu/h
and less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h without
heat recovery account for 12.4 percent of the VRF
multi-split system market. Air-cooled VRF multisplit systems in the same capacity range equipped
with heat recovery account for an additional 32.6
percent of the VRF multi-split system market.
(EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0002).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11343
Federal standard for the corresponding
equipment class equipped with heat
recovery (i.e., a 10.8 rating vs 10.4 EER
minimum required).
In support of the Working Group
DOE, along with several manufacturers,
DOE conducted investigative testing on
VRF multi-split systems operating under
native controls. Included in this testing
was the basic model selected to serve as
the basis for the crosswalk analysis.
DOE created a performance model using
VapCyc and CoilDesigner software 12 to
evaluate capacity and efficiency of the
selected system per the updated
industry test standard. DOE first
modeled the system’s behavior at the
full-load cooling condition by selecting
compressor speed, outdoor fan speed,
indoor airflow rate, and superheat
condition to match information that was
available in STI and provided
confidentially by the manufacturer to
DOE contractors under a nondisclosure
agreement (NDA). DOE then calibrated
the system as modeled in VapCyc and
CoilDesigner so that the predicted
capacity and EER matched the rated
capacity and efficiency for the system
(at full-load conditions) as certified by
the manufacturer. Specifically, in its
investigative testing, DOE observed
typical control strategies for unloading
at part-load conditions, including
turning individual indoor units off,
modulating compressor and fan speeds,
and increasing evaporating temperature.
DOE also observed patterns in which
compressor speed and outdoor fan
speed tended to scale together at
reduced load conditions. DOE used this
information to adjust the model so as to
project the performance of the selected
VRF multi-split system at partial loads
by decreasing the operating state of
components according to load level.
As discussed, the capacity and EER
rating for the basic model used in DOE’s
analysis were measured according to the
current DOE test procedure, but DOE is
seeking to translate the current EER
standards to equivalent IEER standards
when tested according to the updated
industry test standard. As such, DOE
also considered in its crosswalk analysis
the maximum SHR limits that were
added in the industry test procedure
AHRI 1230–2021. By establishing upper
limits on SHR, DOE understands AHRI
1230–2021 to create test conditions that
12 VapCyc and CoilDesigner are HVAC energy
modeling software programs. CoilDesigner is a
detailed heat exchanger modeling program. VapCyc
integrates CoilDesigner heat exchanger simulations
with compressor and expansion models to complete
a refrigeration cycle model to simulate performance
of an air conditioning or heat pump system at
specific operating conditions. Available at:
www.optimizedthermalsystems.com.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11344
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
are more representative of field
applications for VRF multi-split
systems, as compared to the current
DOE test procedure. AHRI 1230–2021
sets SHR limits of 0.82 and 0.85 at the
full-load cooling condition and the 75percent part-load cooling condition,
respectively, but does not include SHR
limits for the 50-percent or 25-percent
part-load cooling conditions. AHRI
1230–2021 also establishes a calculation
method for the efficiency rating
reduction for systems that exceed the
SHR limits at the full-load and/or 75percent part-load cooling conditions in
the IEER test.
Because manufacturers do not
currently certify or publicize any
information about SHR at the full-load
EER test condition, DOE was unable to
precisely determine SHR values
representative of a baseline EER VRF
multi-split system. Also, because the
current DOE test procedure does not
include any part-load cooling test
points, no information was available
about SHR values that VRF multi-split
systems would produce at the 75percent part-load IEER test condition.
Because SHR data was not publicly
available, DOE instead examined data
from its investigative testing to identify
the typical range of SHR values for VRF
multi-split systems when operating
under native controls at the full-load
and 75-percent part-load conditions.
DOE observed several cases of basic
models with native controls test data
indicating SHR values above the AHRI
1230–2021 limits at the full-load and
75-percent part-load condition, and also
observed some basic models testing
below the SHR limits. The precision of
the crosswalk from existing EER levels
to IEER levels in terms of the updated
industry test standard was limited by
the lack of available data about
representative SHR values at the fullload EER test condition and by the
variation in SHR values observed in the
native controls test data.
To account for the effect of the SHR
limits in the updated industry test
standard in its crosswalk analysis, DOE
relied on the native controls test data to
establish a range of potential initial SHR
values observed at the full-load and 75percent part-load IEER test conditions.
DOE then adapted the VapCyc and
CoilDesigner performance model to
examine the effect of changing indoor
airflow and evaporating temperature on
SHR and the associated impacts on
energy efficiency. Reducing the
evaporating temperature increased the
rate of dehumidification (thus reducing
SHR), but also required more power
input from the compressor, which
reduced the measured efficiency. DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
also observed that at reduced airflow
rates, the dehumidification capacity was
higher, but the overall system capacity
and efficiency were lower.
Ultimately, the crosswalked IEER
values varied depending on modeling
input assumptions, such as whether the
initial SHR was below or above the new
SHR limits (and by how much), as well
as the different control strategies
employed to reduce SHR. The
crosswalked IEER values also depended
on overlapping input assumptions
related to the EER-to-IEER translation,
such as the number of thermally-active
indoor units at part-load conditions.
Reducing the number of indoor units at
partial loads (while keeping all else
constant) increased the amount of
refrigerant flow to each remaining
indoor fan coil, which provided better
dehumidification performance and,
thus, reduced SHR at the 75-percent
load condition.
As discussed, the updates in AHRI
1230–2021 include a CVP for verifying
that the certified operational settings for
critical parameters are representative of
values that would be observed with the
VRF multi-split system operating under
its own native controls. As described in
AHRI 1230–2021, critical parameters
include compressor speed(s), outdoor
fan speed(s) and outdoor variable valve
position(s). As proposed in the
December 2021 VRF TP NOPR,
manufacturers would specify
operational settings for each of these
components in their STI to implement
during steady-state tests for IEER and
COP. 86 FR 70644, 70666 (Dec. 10,
2021). The CVP is not a part of rating
tests for IEER, but rather, it serves as a
validation method for cooling mode
only.
DOE’s ability to fully account for the
potential changes to the measured
performance of VRF multi-split systems
as a result of the CVP was limited by the
lack of available information regarding
the control strategies employed by VRF
system manufacturers—particularly at
part-load conditions where
manufacturers do not currently certify
or make public any information about
control settings. DOE was also limited
by uncertainty about how these control
strategies may change or how
manufacturers may certify their critical
parameter settings in response to the
CVP.
As discussed, the CVP is intended to
validate that the certified operational
settings (i.e., those used during IEER
testing) for critical parameters are
representative of controls behavior
exhibited under the system’s own
controls at the same conditions. DOE
used information about the ranges of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operational settings observed during
native controls testing to represent a
future system that would pass the CVP
(i.e., a system for which the certified
critical parameter settings would be
validated by a CVP conducted with the
system operating under native controls).
Specifically, DOE selected inputs used
in its VapCyc and CoilDesigner
performance model for simulating IEER
that were consistent with native
controls testing observations, including
the number of thermally-active indoor
units at part-load conditions,
compressor and fan speeds, expansion
valve control strategy, and other
refrigeration cycle parameters. DOE
tentatively concluded that modelling
IEER results using control settings
observed during native controls testing
was the most accurate approach for
estimating how manufacturers would
certify critical parameter control settings
as part of testing to IEER as measured by
AHRI 1230–2021.
3. Crosswalk Results
As discussed, DOE conducted its
crosswalk analysis on a high-salesvolume equipment class of VRF multisplit systems and selected a
representative model with EER near the
Federal baseline level (10.8 EER vs 10.6
EER baseline) in developing its VapCyc
and CoilDesigner performance model.
Based on the modeling conducted, the
expected performance of the selected
equipment class of VRF multi-split
systems when tested according to AHRI
1230–2021 would be in the range of 13
to 16 IEER. Because of the wider range
of operation conditions captured in
IEER as well as the various strategies
that manufacturers may employ to
respond to the test procedure changes,
a single EER baseline value inherently
translates to a range of IEER values.
As discussed, the IEER metric
captures performance at additional partload operating conditions not
considered by the EER metric; therefore,
a single EER value translates to a range
of potential IEER values.13 IEER
captures the impacts of design features
and control strategies that may not affect
full-load operation but do affect partload operation. For example, VRF multisplit systems may use different
strategies for reducing capacity at part
loads like reducing the number of
thermally active indoor units or slowing
compressor speeds, which may result in
differential impacts on measured IEER,
but which would not have any impact
13 In a January 2016 energy conservation
standards direct final rule for ACUACs, DOE
discussed a metric translation from EER to IEER in
which a single EER level corresponds to a range of
IEERs. 81 FR 2420, 2452 (Jan. 15, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
on the measured full-load performance
EER. DOE also recognizes that there are
a variety of paths that manufacturers
may take to account for the new test
procedure, and that the crosswalk
analysis approximates how
manufacturers in the aggregate may
respond to test procedure changes. For
example, some manufacturers may elect
to meet the new SHR limitations by
reducing evaporating temperatures,
while other manufacturers may meet the
new SHR limitations by reducing indoor
airflow and decreasing the number of
thermally-active indoor units. Each
strategy may have different tradeoffs in
terms of overall system performance and
measured energy efficiency.
As described in section II.B.3 of this
document, the Working Group
recommended efficiency levels for VRF
multi-split systems that align with the
efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE
90.1–2016 in terms of IEER and COP.
While DOE’s crosswalk analysis showed
that a single EER baseline could result
in a range of IEER values (as discussed,
due to the wider range of operation
conditions captured in IEER, as well as
the various strategies that manufacturers
may employ to respond to the test
procedure changes), the IEER levels
included in the VRF ECS Term Sheet
(which the Working Group
recommended as an appropriate
crosswalk of current Federal EER
standards) are within the range of DOE’s
crosswalked results. As explained
previously, DOE has tentatively
determined that the recommended IEER
levels are at least equivalent in
stringency to the current EER levels.
Further, given that IEER is a more
comprehensive metric (reflecting energy
efficiency across a range of operating
conditions, as opposed to the efficiency
at a single condition), DOE has
tentatively determined that the
recommended IEER levels would not
decrease the minimum required energy
efficiency of a VRF multi-split system,
thereby avoiding statutorily
impermissible backsliding with respect
to the current Federal standards in
terms of EER. DOE has also tentatively
determined that no changes to heating
mode ratings in terms of COP are
expected from the changes to the test
procedure for VRF multi-split systems
included in AHRI 1230–2021.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its
crosswalk analysis methodology and
crosswalk results.
B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF
In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE
discussed two areas where the
equipment class structure for VRF
multi-split systems differs between
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal
standards. 84 FR 32328, 32334 (July 8,
2019). First, DOE noted that in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 (as in previous
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1),
two water-source VRF multi-split heat
pump equipment classes (greater than or
equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than
65,000 Btu/h; and greater than or equal
to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000
Btu/h) are disaggregated into equipment
with heat recovery and equipment
without heat recovery, with each
ASHRAE equipment class having a
separate minimum cooling efficiency.
The current Federal standards do not
disaggregate water-source VRF multisplit heat pumps in these capacity
ranges based on the presence of heat
recovery. (See Table 13 to 10 CFR
431.97.) However, as DOE pointed out
in the NODA/RFI, the cooling efficiency
EER standard in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 for these units with heat
recovery is below the current Federal
standard. Consequently, under EPCA,
the Secretary cannot prescribe those
levels due to anti-backsliding concerns,
so those classes were not subdivided
further. Id.
Second, DOE identified that ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 disaggregates and
sets distinct standards for VRF watersource heat pumps by cooling capacity
above and below 240,000 Btu/h (i.e.,
separate equipment classes with cooling
capacities greater than or equal to
135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000
Btu/h and greater than or equal to
240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000
Btu/h). The DOE standards provide for
VRF water-source heat pumps with a
cooling capacity of greater than or equal
to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000
Btu/h. (See table 13 to 10 CFR 431.97.)
DOE sought feedback from stakeholders
on whether to consider additional
equipment classes for VRF water-source
heat pumps between 135,000 and
760,000 Btu/h, which would align with
the ASHRAE 90.1–2016 structure for
those classes of equipment. Id.
In response to the July 2019 NODA/
RFI, AHRI and the CA IOUs both
commented that DOE should align its
equipment class structure for all classes
of VRF multi-split systems with the
equipment structure found in ASHRAE
90.1–2016 (i.e., not just for the specific
equipment classes on which DOE
requested comment). (AHRI, No. 42 at p.
3; CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3) AHRI
commented that aligning with ASHRAE
90.1 would reflect the structure of other
VRF classes, such as air-cooled heat
pumps and air conditioners. (AHRI, No.
42 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that
aligning with the equipment structure in
ASHRAE 90.1–2016 would provide
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11345
additional clarity regarding which
standards apply to heat pumps versus
units with heat recovery. (CA IOUs, No.
41 at pp. 3–4) The CA IOUs further
commented that for air-source VRF
multi-split heat pumps, in order to be
more easily understood by the market,
DOE should align with the convention
from ASHRAE Standard 90.1 by adding
a new column titled ‘‘subcategory’’ that
specifies ‘‘heat pump’’ or ‘‘heat pump
with heat recovery’’ and should remove
its existing designation of ‘‘no heating or
electric resistance heating’’ and ‘‘all
other types of heating,’’ which is
terminology more applicable to
commercial unitary air conditioners
than to VRF multi-split systems. (CA
IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also
recommended that DOE should follow
ASHRAE regarding breaking out the
135,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/h
categorization into two size categories,
and that DOE should eliminate the
17,000 Btu/h cutoff for water-source
equipment so as to align with ASHRAE.
Id.
As stated, EPCA generally directs
DOE to establish amended uniform
national standards for the VRF multisplit systems at the minimum levels
specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) Consistent
with EPCA, and in consideration of the
comments received, DOE proposes to
adopt the ASHRAE 90.1–2016
equipment class structure for VRF
multi-split systems in its regulations at
10 CFR 431.97. By adopting the
equipment class structure from
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, DOE
would fulfill requests by stakeholders,
utilize terminology that is more
representative of distinctive features in
the VRF market, and would better align
the cooling capacity break points with
those for other equipment categories
(e.g., the standards for commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, which are subdivided by the
same capacity boundaries. See Table 3
to 10 CFR 431.97). As noted previously,
DOE has identified two areas for which
the equipment class structure differs
between the existing DOE standards and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(1) Capacity break points. For water-source
VRF multi-split heat pumps, the current
Federal standards include VRF multi-split
systems with cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000
Btu/h in a single category. ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 splits this grouping at 240,000
Btu/h to create capacity categories of greater
than or equal to 135,000 and less than
240,000 btu/h and greater than or equal to
240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h. Also for
water-source VRF multi-split systems, the
current Federal standards include separate
classes for systems with cooling capacity less
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11346
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
than 17,000 Btu/h and for systems with
cooling capacity between 17,000 Btu/h and
65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
groups these classes together into a single
equipment class with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h.
(2) Heating type. The current Federal
standards are disaggregated for certain
classes of VRF multi-split systems based on
heating type. For all air-cooled VRF multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps with
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h, the Federal cooling standards
differ by 0.2 EER points depending on
whether a system is equipped with ‘‘no
heating or electric resistance heating’’ or ‘‘all
other types of heating.’’ For water-source VRF
multi-split heat pumps, some capacity
classes disaggregate instead by systems with
heat recovery versus without heat recovery
(also with a 0.2 EER difference in the
applicable standards classes). Other watersource VRF multi-split heat pump standards
are not disaggregated beyond the specified
capacity range. ASHRAE 90.1–2016
disaggregates standards for air-cooled and
water-source VRF multi-split heat pumps
based on the presence of heat recovery,
instead of ‘‘heating type.’’ Air-cooled VRF
multi-split air conditioners do not have
subdivided cooling efficiency levels based on
heating type in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016.
These differences are presented in
Table III–1:
TABLE III–1—COMPARISON OF CURRENT DOE EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH ASHRAE 90.1
Equipment type
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).
ASHRAE 90.1–2016/
2019 efficiency level
Electric Resistance
11.2 EER ........................
of Heating ..............
Electric Resistance
11.0 EER ........................
11.0 EER ........................
of Heating ..............
Electric Resistance
10.8 EER ........................
10.0 EER ........................
of Heating ..............
Electric Resistance
9.8 EER ..........................
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........
of Heating 1 2 ..........
10.8 EER, 3.3 COP ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating 1.
All Other Types of Heating 1 2 ..........
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating 1.
All Other Types of Heating1 2 ...........
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
Without heat recovery ......................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
With heat recovery ...........................
11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........
Without heat recovery ......................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
11.2 EER, 15.5
IEER.
No Standard.3
11.0 EER, 14.9
IEER.
No Standard.3
10.0 EER, 13.9
IEER.
No Standard.3
11.0 EER, 14.6
IEER, 3.3 COP.
10.8 EER, 14.4
IEER, 3.3 COP.
10.6 EER, 13.9
IEER, 3.2 COP.
10.4 EER, 13.7
IEER, 3.2 COP.
9.5 EER, 12.7 IEER,
3.2 COP.
9.3 EER, 12.5 IEER,
3.2 COP.
12.0 EER, 16.0
IEER, 4.3 COP.
11.8 EER, 15.8
IEER, 4.3 COP.
12.0 EER, 16.0
IEER, 4.3 COP.
11.8 EER, 15.8
IEER, 4.3 COP.
12.0 EER, 16.0
IEER, 4.3 COP.
11.8 EER, 15.8
IEER, 4.3 COP.
10.0 EER, 14.0
IEER, 4.0 COP.
9.8 EER, 13.8 IEER,
4.0 COP.
10.0 EER, 12.0
IEER, 3.9 COP.
9.8 EER, 11.8 IEER,
3.9 COP.
Heating type
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).
DOE efficiency level
Cooling capacity
<17,000 Btu/h ..................................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ...
No Heating or
Heating.
All Other Types
No Heating or
Heating.
All Other Types
No Heating or
Heating.
All Other Types
No Heating or
Heating1.
All Other Types
10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........
9.3 EER, 3.2 COP ..........
With heat recovery ...........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h
Without heat recovery ......................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........
With heat recovery ...........................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
Without heat recovery ......................
With heat recovery ...........................
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ..........
≥ 240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h
Without heat recovery ......................
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........
With heat recovery ...........................
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ..........
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 In terms of current Federal standards, VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the heating type ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless
they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’
2 In ASHRAE Standard 90.1, this equipment class is referred to as units with heat recovery rather than all other types of heating.
3 ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only includes standards for VRF air conditioners with ‘‘electric resistance or none’’ heating type. Because stakeholders have expressed
that it is unlikely that VRF air conditioners would ever be paired with other forms of supplemental heating, DOE’s proposed equipment classes for VRF air conditioners are condensed using ‘‘all types of heating’’ to ensure no change in coverage or backsliding.
In this document, DOE proposes to
amend 10 CFR 431.97 to adopt the
equipment class structure found in
ASHRAE 90.1–2016 for VRF multi-split
systems (which is identical to the most
current version, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2019). This proposal would amend
the existing DOE class structure by
expanding the number of VRF watersource heat pump classes, reducing the
number of air-cooled VRF air
conditioner classes, and amending the
convention for heating type for heat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
pump systems with and without heat
recovery. Additionally, DOE is
proposing a minor clarification in the
language used to describe the heating
type for VRF multi-split system heat
pumps—ASHRAE 90.1–2016 currently
includes separate classes for systems
with and without heat recovery,
designated as ‘‘VRF multisplit systems’’
or ‘‘VRF multisplit system with heat
recovery.’’ However, DOE proposes a
minor clarification to revise these
descriptions to explicitly state either
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘heat pump without heat recovery’’ or
‘‘heat pump with heat recovery.’’
For VRF multi-split system air
conditioners, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 only
includes classes with the heating type
designation of ‘‘Electric resistance (or
none),’’ thus excluding any VRF multisplit air conditioners with ‘‘other’’ kinds
of heating. As previously described,
DOE received comment from
stakeholders requesting that DOE align
its equipment class structure with the
structure from ASHRAE 90.1–2016.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 41
at p. 3) However, because the current
Federal standards include separate
efficiency levels for VRF multi-split air
conditioners having electric resistance
(or no) heat vs. those having ‘‘all other
types of heating,’’ DOE is proposing to
label the condensed equipment classes
for VRF multi-split air conditioners as
having ‘‘All’’ types of heating, and to set
IEER standards for the proposed
condensed classes that are equivalent in
stringency to the EER standards for the
class with ‘‘electric resistance or none’’
heating type. DOE does not have any
knowledge of VRF multi-split air
conditioners on the market that have
‘‘all other types of heating’’ (e.g., a
furnace), and, thus, has tentatively
concluded that setting IEER standards to
cover ‘‘all’’ kinds of heating would not
constitute an increase of stringency for
any models currently in existence.
The ASRAC Working Group
recommended IEER levels for VRF
multi-split systems that utilized the
equipment class structure of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 (with limited
exceptions as previously described). As
discussed in section III.A of this
document, DOE evaluated the IEER
levels recommended by the ASRAC
Working Group using a crosswalk
analysis and determined that there is
limited precision in translating the
current EER levels to IEER according to
the updated test procedure. In cases
where DOE is proposing to subdivide or
condense equipment classes relative to
the existing DOE equipment class
structure, the IEER levels recommended
by the Working Group are within the
limits of precision determined by DOE’s
crosswalk translation. For example, in
cases where the current DOE equipment
class only includes a single EER
standard but ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016 includes separate IEER standards
for classes with and without heat
recovery, both of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 IEER levels fall within the
crosswalk range determined by DOE to
represent equivalent stringency to
existing EER standard. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively concluded that adopting
the proposed class structure and
efficiency levels would not result in a
change in stringency for any classes.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its
proposal to align equipment classes for
VRF multi-split systems with the
structure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016, with additional clarification of
heating type.
IV. Estimates of Potential Energy
Savings
As required under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), for VRF multi-split
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
system equipment classes for which
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 set levels
more stringent than the current Federal
standards, DOE performed an
assessment to determine the energysavings potential of amending Federal
standard levels to reflect the efficiency
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI,
DOE presented the findings of the
energy savings potential for the six
considered equipment classes for which
the Department was triggered. 84 FR
32328, 32335 (July 8, 2019). DOE
tentatively determined, based on a
report by Cadeo Group,14 that four of the
six affected classes—those with cooling
capacities that are less than 17,000 Btu/
h or greater than or equal to 135,000
Btu/h (with or without heat recovery),
do not have any market share and, thus,
no energy savings potential from
amended standards. The Cadeo report
showed that the remaining two affected
classes, with cooling capacities greater
than 17,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000
Btu/h, represented under 3 percent of
the VRF multi-split system market. DOE
tentatively concluded that potential
energy savings for these equipment
classes were de minimis. Id. DOE notes
that in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016,
the COP was raised by 0.1 on both of
these equipment classes, and that most
commercial buildings are cooling
dominant. Given this information, and
the small market share, in this NOPR
DOE maintains its tentative conclusion
that energy savings for these equipment
classes are de minimis. Consideration of
more-stringent efficiency levels than
those specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 are discussed in section V.A of this
document.
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent
Efficiency Levels
When triggered by an update to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA requires
DOE to establish an amended uniform
national standard for equipment classes
at the minimum level specified in the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless
DOE determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a uniform national standard
more stringent than the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the
14 Cadeo Report, Variable Refrigerant Flow: A
Preliminary Market Assessment. See:
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BTTP-0018-0002. The report presents market share by
VRF multi-split system equipment class, based on
confidential sales data given in interviews with
several major manufacturers of VRF multi-split
equipment and DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11347
equipment class would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)–(II)). In the July 2019
NODA/RFI, DOE requested feedback on
its proposal to adopt the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 as the
Federal standards for the six VRF watersource classes for which DOE was
triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016. 84 FR 32328, 32335 (July 8, 2019).
DOE also requested data and
information that could help it determine
whether standards levels more stringent
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 for VRFs would result in
significant additional energy savings for
classes for the 14 classes where DOE
was not triggered (i.e., classes reviewed
under the six-year-lookback provision).
Id. at 84 FR 32335–32336.
AHRI supported DOE’s proposal to
adopt the energy efficiency levels for the
six equipment classes triggered by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. (AHRI,
No. 42 at p. 3) AHRI added that the
adoption of a more-stringent standard of
the non-triggered classes is not
economically justified at this time and
that the stringency of any new standards
need to account for all of the changes in
the test procedure as a result of the
Working Group negotiations (especially
the CVP and SHR limits). (AHRI, No. 42
at p. 4) AHRI also provided information
regarding the building types that are
common applications for VRF. (AHRI,
No. 42 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs recommended that the
Working Group and DOE analyze a
range of efficiency levels (including
max-tech) for both water-source and airsource VRF systems. The CA IOUs also
stressed that any changes to the energy
conservation standards should account
for the test procedure changes being
discussed by the Working Group. The
CA IOUs acknowledged that while
DOE’s data show limited sales on watersource VRF multi-split systems, they
still believe that the Working Group
should analyze trial standard levels for
these classes. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs provided a set of historical
VRF incentive program data to assist in
the energy use analysis and
recommended that DOE use Energy
Plus 15 to analyze the energy use of VRF
multi-split systems. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at
pp. 6–12)
HIA–C commented that DOE should
first ensure that VRF multi-split systems
15 Energy Plus is a whole-building energy
simulation program that engineers, architects, and
researchers use to model both energy consumption
for heating cooling, ventilation, lighting, plug and
process loads, and water use in buildings.
(Available at https://energyplus.net/)
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11348
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
can actually meet the current ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels before
attempting to adopt new efficiency
levels. (HIA–C, No. 40 at p. 4)
Policy Integrity commented on the
emissions analysis, suggesting that DOE
should monetize the full benefits of
emissions reductions and use the global
estimate of the social cost of greenhouse
gases. (Policy Integrity, No. 39 at p. 2)
In response, DOE considers the
monetary benefits likely to result from
the reduced emissions of greenhouse
gases when analyzing efficiency levels
more stringent than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels. DOE uses the
social cost of greenhouse gases from the
most recent update of the Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, United States
Government (IWG) working group,
which are available in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990.16 The IWG recommended
global values be used for regulatory
analysis. Because DOE is not conducting
an economic analysis of levels more
stringent than the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 levels in this notice, there is no
corresponding consideration of
emission reductions or the associated
monetary benefits. As DOE is required
by EPCA to adopt the levels set forth in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE did not
conduct an economic analysis or
corresponding emissions analysis for
the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2019.
As discussed in section II.B.3 of this
NOPR, following publication of the July
2019 NODA/RFI, the Working Group
(which included AHRI and the CA
IOUs) reached consensus on two term
sheets containing recommendations
regarding the test procedure and energy
conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems. As discussed in section
III.A of this document, the
recommended standards are consistent
with the crosswalk conducted by DOE
to translate the existing Federal
standards in terms of EER to equivalent
levels in terms of IEER, measured per
AHRI 1230–2021. These recommended
efficiency levels also align with the
IEER and COP levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016. The Working
Group did not consider more-stringent
efficiency levels.
16 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gasses, United States Government,
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (2021)
(Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_
SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
DOE considered but did not estimate
potential energy savings that would
occur from more-stringent standards. To
assess the magnitude of potential energy
savings from amended standards and
determine which level, if any, of morestringent standards would be
economically justified, DOE must be
able to properly represent the no-newstandards case—the case without
amended standards—and must be able
to properly characterize the technology
options and costs associated with
specific levels of efficiency. With
regards to VRF multi-split systems, this
would require developing efficiency
data for the entire market in terms of
IEER measured per AHRI 1230–2021.
DOE considered two approaches for
developing market-wide performance
data in terms of IEER measured per
AHRI 1230–2021: (1) DOE examined
whether any such data exist in publiclyavailable sources, and (2) DOE
considered whether existing
performance data (in terms of EER,
measured per the current Federal test
procedure) could be effectively
translated to IEER, measured per AHRI
1230–2021.
On the first approach, DOE found that
public data in terms of IEER measured
per AHRI 1230–2021 are not available,
as the rating of VRF multi-split systems
using the updated metric and test
procedure is not currently required.17
While DOE acknowledges that IEER
performance data are widely
represented by VRF manufacturers, all
such data are measured per an earlier
version of the industry test standard
(AHRI 1230–2014) and, thus, not
directly comparable. DOE also found
that the AHRI Directory does not yet
require IEER representations measured
per AHRI 1230–2021.
On the second approach, DOE
considered the results of its crosswalk
analysis to determine whether a marketwide translation of existing EER data to
IEER data (measured per AHRI 1230–
2021) was possible. As discussed in
section III.A of this document, the
combined effect of translating the
Federal cooling efficiency metric from
EER to IEER and the effect of test
procedure changes between the current
DOE test procedure (which references
AHRI 1230–2010) and the proposed
DOE test procedure (which would
reference AHRI 1230–2021) is likely to
produce different impacts on measured
efficiency across different
manufacturers and different models. As
17 The VRF TP Term Sheet recommended an
effective date for the amended test procedure to
coincide with the compliance date of amended
standards in terms of IEER, if adopted by DOE.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DOE’s crosswalk analysis has shown, a
minimally-compliant VRF multi-split
system with 10.8 EER can result in a
range of crosswalked IEER levels from
13 to 16, depending on control inputs
selected by the manufacturer.
Additionally, an estimation of energy
savings potentials of more-stringent
energy efficiency levels would require
developing efficiency data for the entire
VRF multi-split system market, which
would be a much broader analysis than
that conducted for the crosswalk. The
crosswalk analysis conducted to support
the Working Group recommendations
and presented in this NOPR only
translated the baseline efficiency level
between the metrics for a single class of
VRF multi-split system, and did not
translate all efficiency levels currently
represented in the market. As noted,
there are insufficient market data
regarding the performance of VRF multisplit systems measured in terms of IEER
per AHRI 1230–2021. As such, DOE has
preliminarily determined that it lacks
clear and convincing evidence to adopt
more-stringent standard levels.
Regardless of whether DOE
preliminarily determined that morestringent standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, DOE would be
unable to adopt such standards absent a
determination, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that morestringent standards would result in
significant additional energy savings.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
Therefore, having preliminarily
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence as to the energy
savings that would result from morestringent standards, DOE has not
conducted analysis as to the
technological feasibility or economic
justification of such standards for VRF
multi-split systems.
B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback
Provision
As discussed, DOE is required to
conduct an evaluation of each class of
covered equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, DOE is
evaluating 12 of the Federal VRF
equipment classes for which ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 did not increase the
stringency of the standards. Energy
conservation standards for the two
remaining classes of VRF multi-split
systems (i.e., three-phase, air-cooled
VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) are not
addressed in this NOPR and instead will
be addressed in a separate energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE may only adopt more-stringent
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
standards pursuant to the six-year lookback review if the Secretary determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that the adoption
of more-stringent standards would
result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
For the reasons presented in the prior
section, DOE has preliminarily
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that more-stringent
standards for these 12 equipment
classes would result in significant
additional energy savings. Because DOE
does not have sufficient data to meet the
‘‘clear and convincing’’ threshold for
these 12 classes, DOE did not conduct
an analysis of standard levels more
stringent than the current Federal
standard levels for VRF multi-split
systems that were not amended in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. See
section V.A of this document for further
discussion of the consideration of
energy efficiency levels more stringent
than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016
levels.
C. Proposed Energy Conservation
Standards
Based on the foregoing, DOE proposes
amended energy conservation standards
for VRF multi-split systems in terms of
IEER and COP equivalent to those
specified for VRF multi-split systems in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016, which
align with the levels recommended in
the VRF ECS Term Sheet. The proposed
standards are presented in Table I–1.
Compliance with the proposed
standards, if adopted, would be required
for VRF multi-split systems
manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting January 1, 2024.
which aligns with the Working Group’s
recommendation in the VRF ECS Term
Sheet.
As discussed, ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 includes more-stringent COP
standards for six water-source VRF
multi-split heat pump classes. If DOE
were to prescribe COP standards at the
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2016 for these classes,
EPCA provides that the compliance date
shall be on or after a date that is two or
three years (depending on the
equipment type or size) after the
effective date of the applicable
minimum energy efficiency requirement
in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). The effective date
for amended COP standards in ASHRAE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
Standard 90.1–2016 was January 1,
2017. DOE acknowledges that the
statute originally tied calculation of a
compliance date to either two or three
years after the effective date of amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. However,
because these dates have passed, DOE is
proposing the date recommended in the
VRF ECS Term Sheet (i.e., January 1,
2024) as a reasonable amount of lead
time supported by a broad array of
interested stakeholders. If DOE receives
comments in response to this notice that
recommend alternative compliance
date(s) later than January 1, 2024, DOE
will consider adopting alternative
compliance date(s) in the final rule.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993),
requires each agency to identify the
problem that it intends to address,
including, where applicable, the failures
of private markets or public institutions
that warrant new agency action, as well
as to assess the significance of that
problem. The problems that the
proposed standards for VRF multi-split
systems set forth in this NOPR are
intended to address are as follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the
high costs of gathering and analyzing
relevant information leads some
consumers to miss opportunities to
make cost-effective investments in
energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases, the benefits of
more-efficient equipment are not
realized due to misaligned incentives
between purchasers and users. An
example of such a case is when the
equipment purchase decision is made
by a building contractor or building
owner who does not pay the energy
costs.
(3) There are external benefits
resulting from improved energy
efficiency of appliances and equipment
that are not captured by the users of
such products. These benefits include
externalities related to public health,
environmental protection, and national
energy security that are not reflected in
energy prices, such as reduced
emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases that impact human
health and global warming. DOE
attempts to quantify some of the
external benefits through use of social
cost of carbon values.
The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11349
Budget (OMB) has determined that this
regulatory action is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a regulatory impact analysis
for this rule, and OIRA in the OMB has
not reviewed this proposed rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation
pursuant to E.O. 13563, issued on
January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21,
2011). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to
and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in E.O.
12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by E.O. 13563 to:
(1) Propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that E.O.
13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits
and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, OIRA has emphasized that
such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this NOPR is
consistent with these principles,
including the requirement that, to the
extent permitted by law, benefits justify
costs and that net benefits are
maximized.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11350
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule,
if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to
amend the Federal energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. DOE certifies that the proposed
rule, if adopted, would not have
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis of this certification is
set forth in the following paragraphs.
DOE is proposing to amend the
existing Federal minimum energy
conservation standards for VRF multisplit systems under EPCA’s ASHRAE
trigger requirement and the six-year
lookback provision. Under the trigger,
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
adopt uniform national amended
standards at the new ASHRAE
efficiency level, unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that adoption of a
more-stringent level would produce
significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Under the sixyear-lookback, DOE must also review
energy efficiency standards for VRF
multi-split systems every six years and
either: (1) Issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not
need to be amended based upon the
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) (i.e.,
that there is clear and convincing
evidence to show that adoption of a
more-stringent level would save
significant additional energy and would
be technologically feasible and
economically justified); or (2) issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures
in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C))
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
update the standards for VRF multi-split
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
systems at 10 CFR 431.97 to align with
the most recent version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, including the updated
COP levels for the six classes of VRF
multi-split water-source heat pumps on
which DOE was triggered. DOE is also
proposing to express cooling efficiency
standards in terms of the IEER metric,
as measured according to the amended
industry test procedure AHRI 1230–
2021, and to remove standard levels in
terms of the EER metric, as measured
according to the current DOE test
procedure. Finally, DOE is proposing to
amend the equipment class structure for
VRF multi-split systems to align with
the equipment class structure present in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, with regards to
capacity break points, supplementary
heating type, and presence of heat
recovery. The proposed standard levels,
if adopted, would have a compliance
date applying to all VRF multi-split
systems manufactured on or after
January 1, 2024. The proposed Table 14
to 10 CFR 431.97 accounts for all
changes between the previous Federal
VRF multi-split system standards and
those outlined in ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016 (as reaffirmed in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019).
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether
manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS).18 The SBA considers a
business entity to be a small business,
if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers
specified in 13 CFR part 121.
VRF multi-split system manufacturers
are classified under NAICS code
333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial
and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. This
employee threshold includes all
employees in a business’s parent
company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE has recently conducted a focused
inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the equipment covered
by this rulemaking. DOE used available
public information to identify potential
small manufacturers that manufacture
domestically. DOE identified
manufacturers using DOE’s Compliance
18 The size standards are listed by NAICS code
and industry description and are available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards (Last accessed on July 16, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Certification Database 19 and the AHRI
Directory database.20 DOE used this
publicly-available information to
identify ten distinct original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) of the covered
VRF multi-split system equipment. In
reviewing the ten OEMs, DOE did not
identify any companies that met the
SBA criteria for a small entity.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its
tentative conclusions that no small
business OEMs of VRF multi-split
systems, that adoption of the prevailing
industry standard levels would not
result in any significant economic
impact, and, accordingly, that the
proposed rule would not have
significant impacts on a substantial
number of small manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes
that this proposed rule, if finalized,
would not have ‘‘a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities’’
and that preparation of an IRFA is not
warranted. Additional information
about this proposal is addressed
elsewhere in this document. DOE will
transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of VRF multi-split
systems must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their products according to the
DOE test procedures for VRF multi-split
systems, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE
has established regulations for the
certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer
products and commercial equipment,
including VRF multi-split systems. See
generally 10 CFR part 429. The
collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping
is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
19 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (Last
accessed May 10, 2021).
20 The AHRI Directory Database is available at:
www.ahridirectory.org (Last accessed on May 10,
2021).
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
This NOPR is not proposing changes
to the certification and reporting
requirements for VRF multi-split system
manufacturers.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed
regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for rulemakings
that establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes amended energy
conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none
of the exceptions identified in
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before
issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
rule and has tentatively determined that
it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to
the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather
than a general standard, and (4) promote
simplification and burden reduction.
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O.
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11351
section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely
to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_
97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that this
proposed rule contains neither a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed rule would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11352
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
‘‘Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act’’ (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2019/12/f70/DOE%20
Final%20Updated%20
IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%20
2019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this NOPR
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ‘‘significant energy
action’’ is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or
any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
this regulatory action, which proposes
amended energy conservation standards
for VRF multi-split systems, is not a
significant energy action because the
proposed standards are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy,
nor has it been designated as such by
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued
its Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review (‘‘the Bulletin’’). 70 FR
2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667
(Jan. 14, 2005).
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.21
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed
analytical process continues to reflect
current practice, and the Department
followed that process for developing
energy conservation standards in the
case of the present rulemaking.
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation at the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
21 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: https://energy.gov/eere/
buildings/downloads/energy-conservationstandards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this proposed rule,
or who is representative of a group or
class of persons that has an interest in
these issues, may request an
opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the public meeting
webinar. Such persons may submit
requests to speak via email to the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program at:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
that briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
Persons requesting to speak should
briefly describe the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and provide
a telephone number for contact. DOE
requests persons selected to make an
oral presentation to submit an advance
copy of their statements at least two
weeks before the public meeting
webinar. At its discretion, DOE may
permit persons who cannot supply an
advance copy of their statement to
participate, if those persons have made
advance alternative arrangements with
the Building Technologies Office. As
necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such
alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar/public meeting
and may also use a professional
facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or
evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with
section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record
the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and
to establish the procedures governing
the conduct of the webinar/public
meeting. There shall not be discussion
of proprietary information, costs or
prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public
meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may
submit further comments on the
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
proceedings and any aspect of the
proposed rulemaking.
The public meeting webinar will be
conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present a general
overview of the topics addressed in this
proposed rulemaking, allow time for
prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this proposed
rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement
(within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly and
comment on statements made by others.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
public meeting webinar will accept
additional comments or questions from
those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
public meeting webinar.
A transcript of the webinar/public
meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the
Docket section at the beginning of this
NOPR. In addition, any person may buy
a copy of the transcript from the
transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting
webinar, but no later than the date
provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule.
Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment. If
this instruction is followed, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11353
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption,
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its
crosswalk analysis methodology and
crosswalk results.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its
proposal to align equipment classes for
VRF multi-split systems with the
structure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2016, with additional clarification for
heating type.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its
tentative conclusions that there are no
small businesses that are OEMs of VRF
multi-split systems, that adoption of the
prevailing industry standard levels
would not result in any significant
economic impact, and accordingly, that
the proposed rule would not have
significant impacts on a substantial
number of small manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11354
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
not specifically be identified in this
document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 9, 2022,
by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 17,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and
their compliance dates.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
2. Section 431.97 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (f) and Table 13;
and
■ b. Adding Table 14.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
*
*
*
*
*
(f)(1) Each variable refrigerant flow air
conditioner or heat pump manufactured
on or after the compliance date listed in
Table 13 of this section and prior to
January 1, 2024, must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in Table 13 of
this section.
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
TABLE 13 TO PARAGRAPH (F)(1)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Heating type 1
Efficiency level
Compliance date:
Products
manufactured
on and after . . .
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners
(Air-Cooled).
<65,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
All .................................................
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
All .................................................
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ..........
Without Heat Recovery ................
13.0 SEER ...................................
11.2 EER .....................................
June 16, 2008.
January 1, 2010.
11.0 EER .....................................
11.0 EER .....................................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER .....................................
10.0 EER .....................................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
9.8 EER .......................................
13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .................
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP .....................
January 1, 2010.
June 16, 2008.
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER, 3.3 COP .....................
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP .....................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.4 EER, 3.2 COP .....................
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP .......................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
9.3 EER, 3.2 COP .......................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP .....................
With Heat Recovery .....................
11.8 EER, 4.2 COP .....................
All .................................................
All .................................................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP .....................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP .....................
January 1, 2010.
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2012.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003.
October 29, 2003.
Without Heat Recovery ................
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP .....................
October 29, 2013.
With Heat Recovery .....................
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP .......................
October 29, 2013.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).
<65,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat
(Water-Source).
Pumps
<17,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
1 VRF
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
multi-split heat pumps (air-cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’
(2) Each variable refrigerant flow air
conditioner or heat pump (except aircooled systems with cooling capacity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
less than 65,000 Btu/h) manufactured
on or after January 1, 2024, must meet
the applicable minimum energy
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
Table 14 of this section.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
11355
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14 TO PARAGRAPH (F)(2)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTISPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Equipment type
Size category
Heating type
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ..............
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ..............
All ........................................................
All ........................................................
All ........................................................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery ....
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .........
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 btu/h ...
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).
<65,000 Btu/h .....................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ..............
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
[FR Doc. 2022–03836 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2022–0150; Project
Identifier MCAI–2021–00839–E]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type
Certificate Previously Held by RollsRoyce plc) Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG
(RRD) Trent 7000–72 and Trent 7000–
72C model turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by inservice experience showing that certain
high-pressure turbine (HPT) blades may
prematurely deteriorate to an
unacceptable condition when managed
in accordance with the inspection
intervals in the Time Limits Manual
(TLM). This proposed AD would require
initial and repetitive on-wing borescope
inspections (BSIs) of the HPT blades to
detect axial cracking and, depending on
the results of the inspections,
replacement of the HPT blade set, as
specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
proposed for incorporation by reference
(IBR). This proposed AD would also
require replacement of the HPT blade
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:06 Feb 28, 2022
Jkt 256001
set before exceeding a specified number
of flight cycles. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by April 15, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For material that is proposed for IBR
in this AD, contact EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000;
email: ADs@easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For RollsRoyce service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce plc,
Corporate Communications, P.O. Box
31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom;
phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44
(0)1332 249936; website: https://
www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx.
You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222–
5110. It is also available at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2022–
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum efficiency
15.5
14.9
13.9
14.6
14.4
13.9
13.7
12.7
12.5
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
14.0
13.8
12.0
11.8
IEER.
IEER.
IEER.
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
0150. For the material identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by
reference, contact Rolls-Royce plc,
Corporate Communications, P.O. Box
31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom;
phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44
(0)1332 249936; website: https://
www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket at
https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2022–0150; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this
NPRM, the EASA AD, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone: (781) 238–7116; email:
nicholas.j.paine@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2022–0150; Project Identifier
MCAI–2021–00839–E’’ at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of
the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this proposal
because of those comments.
E:\FR\FM\01MRP1.SGM
01MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11335-11355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003]
RIN 1904-AE42
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or
the ``Department'') is proposing amended energy conservation standards
for variable refrigerant flow (VRF) multi-split air conditioners and
VRF multi-split system heat pumps (collectively referred to as ``VRF
multi-split systems'') that rely on a new cooling efficiency metric and
are equivalent to those levels specified in the industry standard. DOE
has preliminarily determined that it lacks the clear and convincing
evidence required by the statute to adopt standards more stringent than
the levels specified in the industry standard. This document also
announces a public meeting webinar to receive comment on these proposed
standards and associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than May 2, 2022.
See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' of this document for
details.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before March 31, 2022.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday,
March 23, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003,
by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: to [email protected]. Include docket
number EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VII (Public Participation) for information
on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy following the instructions at www.RegInfo.gov.
EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants and other interested persons
with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard.
Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting
webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at
(202) 287-
[[Page 11336]]
1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
3. ASRAC Negotiations
III. General Discussion
A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk Analysis
1. Crosswalk Background
2. Crosswalk Details
3. Crosswalk Results
B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF
IV. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels
B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback Provision
C. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation at the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (EPCA),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment
includes small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, of which VRF multi-split systems,
the subject of this rulemaking, are a category. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-
(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to consider amending the energy
efficiency standards for certain types of covered commercial and
industrial equipment, including the equipment at issue in this
document, whenever the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) amends the standard levels or
design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,'' (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1), and at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)-(B)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy
conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination
that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii); referred to
as the ``ASHRAE trigger'') If DOE adopts as a uniform national standard
the efficiency level specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication
of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If
DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i))
Under EPCA, DOE must also review its energy conservation standards
for VRF multi-split systems every six years and either: (1) Issue a
notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended,
as adoption of a more-stringent level under the relevant statutory
criteria is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or (2)
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B).\3\ (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In
making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider,
to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an
amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2)
DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or
decreases the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and (3) DOE
may not prescribe an amended standard that interested persons have
established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability,
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes) that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 on October 26,
2016, thereby triggering DOE's previously referenced obligations
pursuant to EPCA to determine for certain classes of VRF multi-split
systems, whether: (1) The amended industry standard should be adopted;
or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent
standard levels. For any class where DOE was not triggered, the
Department routinely considers those classes under the statute's 6-
year-lookback provision at the same time, so as to address the subject
equipment in a comprehensive fashion.
The current Federal energy conservation standards for air-cooled
VRF multi-split systems with cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and water-source VRF multi-split heat pumps are codified
in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. These standards are specified in
terms of Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) for cooling mode and Coefficient
of Performance (COP) for heating mode based on the Federal test
procedure at 10 CFR 431.96, which references American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) Standard 1230-2010, ``2010 Standard for Performance
Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning
and Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved August 2, 2010 and updated by
Addendum 1 in March 2011 (ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010).
The current Federal energy conservation standards for air-cooled,
three-phase VRF multi-split systems with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h are also codified in 10 CFR 431.97. These standards are
specified in terms of Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) for
cooling mode and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) for heating
mode based on the rating conditions in ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010. Although
the current standards levels are based on the same test procedure as
used for all other categories of VRF systems (i.e., air-cooled VRF
multi-split systems with cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and water-source VRF multi-split systems), the
organizations that maintain the industry consensus test procedures have
recently updated their scope such that air-cooled, three-phase VRF
multi-split systems with
[[Page 11337]]
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are now covered under AHRI 210/
240-2023 instead of AHRI 1230-2021. Consequently, DOE is addressing
test procedures for air-cooled, three-phase VRF multi-split systems
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in a separate test
procedure rulemaking for air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h (86 FR 70316 (Dec. 9, 2021)) instead of in the
test procedure rulemaking for VRF multi-split systems (86 FR 70644
(Dec. 10, 2021)). Accordingly, DOE is not evaluating the Federal energy
conservation standards for such equipment in this notice and is instead
addressing energy conservation standards for air-cooled, three-phase
VRF multi-split systems with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in
a separate energy conservation standards rulemaking for air-cooled,
three-phase, small commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h.
The efficiency levels set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for
VRF multi-split systems with cooling capacity 65,000 Btu/h or greater
are specified in terms of both EER and Integrated Energy Efficiency
Ratio (IEER) for cooling mode and COP for heating mode. These
efficiency levels are based on the rating conditions of ANSI/AHRI
Standard 1230-2014 with addendum 1 (ANSI/AHRI 1230-2014), which are
identical rating conditions to those found in AHRI 1230-2010. The EER
levels found in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 are unchanged from the current Federal
EER requirements; however, for certain classes of water-source VRF
multi-split heat pumps, the COP levels specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2016 are more stringent. See additional discussion in section
II.B.2 of this document.
On April 11, 2018, DOE published in the Federal Register a Notice
of Intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group (Working
Group) under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (ASRAC) to negotiate a proposed test procedure and amended
energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems. 83 FR 15514.
The Working Group reached consensus on an energy conservation standards
term sheet (VRF ECS Term Sheet) on November 5, 2019, outlining
recommended amended energy conservation standards for all equipment
classes of VRF multi-split systems. The standard levels recommended by
the Working Group in the VRF ECS Term Sheet are in terms of the IEER
and COP metrics and equivalent to the levels specified in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016.\4\ However, the levels recommended by the working
group are measured according to an amended industry test standard for
VRF multi-split systems \5\--AHRI Standard 1230, ``2021 Standard for
Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (AHRI 1230-2021). See additional
discussion in section II.B.3 of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The VRF ECS Term Sheet can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003-0055.
\5\ The VRF ASRAC Working Group recommended a 2019 draft version
of AHRI 1230 with additional recommendations for further development
of the test standard outside of the Working Group. The 2019 draft of
AHRI 1230 was later released as AHRI 1230-2021, which included the
Working Group's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in detail in section III.A of this document, DOE
conducted a crosswalk analysis during the ASRAC negotiation meetings to
validate the translation of the EER levels currently required by the
DOE standards to IEER, as well as the IEER efficiency levels as
recommended by the Working Group. DOE notes that IEER is a more
comprehensive metric because it reflects the energy efficiency across a
range of operating conditions, as opposed to the efficiency at a single
condition. The crosswalk translates the current Federal EER standards
(measured per the current DOE test procedure) to IEER levels of
equivalent stringency (measured per the September 20, 2019 draft
version of the AHRI 1230 standard). As described in section II.B.3 of
this document, the recommended 2019 draft test procedure was later
published as AHRI 1230-2021, and no substantive changes were made that
impact crosswalk results. Differences in the metrics and test
procedures cause the crosswalk analysis to yield a range of IEER values
corresponding to a given EER value. DOE's translation of the current
EER levels to IEER according to the updated test procedure shows that
each value recommended by the Working Group is within the range
resulting from DOE's evaluation. Given that the metric takes into
account a wider breadth of energy consumption across a variety of
operating conditions, DOE has tentatively determined that the
recommended IEER values are at least equivalent in stringency to the
current EER values. Further, given that IEER is a more comprehensive
metric, DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended IEER values
would not decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of VRF basic
models.
Because the updates in AHRI 1230-2021 do not affect the measurement
of COP, no crosswalk was required to evaluate the stringency of the COP
levels proposed in the VRF ECS Term Sheet as compared to the existing
Federal COP levels.
In this document, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation
standard levels and the equipment class structure from ASHRAE 90.1-2016
for air-cooled VRF multi-split systems with cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and for all water-source VRF multi-split
heat pumps. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of
IEER and COP, are presented in Table I-1. These proposed standards, if
adopted, would apply to all VRF multi-split systems listed in Table I-1
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on
January 1, 2024. The proposed standard levels are equivalent to the
standard levels recommended by the Working Group in the VRF ECS Term
Sheet. The proposed equipment class structure differs from the existing
DOE equipment class structure regarding capacity break points and
designations based on heating type; however, DOE has tentatively
concluded that none of the changes to the equipment class structure for
VRF multi-split systems would constitute backsliding--see section III.B
of this document for additional discussion.
For the reasons described in section IV of this document, DOE has
tentatively determined that the potential energy savings associated
with adopting the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 standard levels for the triggered
classes are de minimis. Also, as described in section V of this
document, DOE has tentatively determined that insufficient data are
available to determine, based on clear and convincing evidence, that
more-stringent standards would result in significant additional energy
savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. As
such DOE has not conducted further analysis of more-stringent standard
levels for this rulemaking. Consequently, DOE is proposing to adopt the
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, as required by EPCA.
[[Page 11338]]
Table I-1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for VRF Multi-Split Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Size category Heating type Minimum efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners >=65,000 and <135,000 All................. 15.5 IEER.
(Air-Cooled). Btu/h.
>=135,000 and All................. 14.9 IEER.
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and All................. 13.9 IEER.
<760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air- >=65,000 and <135,000 Heat Pump without 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Cooled). Btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Recovery.
>=135,000 and Heat Pump without 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Recovery.
>=240,000 Btu/h and Heat Pump without 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<760,000 btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Recovery.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water- <65,000 Btu/h........ Heat Pump without 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Source). Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Recovery.
>=65,000 and <135,000 Heat Pump without 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Recovery.
>=135,000 and Heat Pump without 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP.
Recovery.
>=240,000 Btu/h and Heat Pump without 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP.
<760,000 Btu/h. Heat Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP.
Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for VRF
multi-split systems.
A. Authority
EPCA, among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law
94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) added by Public Law 95-619,
Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program
for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This covered
equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, which includes the VRF multi-split
systems that are the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-
(D)) Additionally, as discussed in further detail subsequently, the
statute requires DOE to consider amending the energy efficiency
standards for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment,
including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE
amends the efficiency levels or design requirements prescribed in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and even in the absence of an ASHRAE trigger
event, a separate provision of EPCA requires DOE to consider amended
standards for such equipment, at a minimum, every six 6 years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures
(42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Subject to certain statutory criteria and conditions, DOE is
required to develop test procedures that are reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must
use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE
that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to
determine whether the equipment complies with the relevant energy
conservation standards promulgated under EPCA. The DOE test procedures
for VRF multi-split systems appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively referred to as ``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type
of listed covered equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 with respect to the standard levels or design
requirements applicable under that standard, DOE must adopt amended
standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency levels, unless DOE determines,
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more-
stringent level would produce significant additional conservation of
energy and would be technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7,
2007). If the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the energy efficiency
level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency level), as compared to
the energy efficiency level specified by the uniform national standard
adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the other amendments made to
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an
additional metric), DOE has stated that it does not have the authority
to conduct
[[Page 11339]]
a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and
77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an amendment to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 changes the metric for the standard on which the Federal
requirement was based, DOE would perform a crosswalk analysis to
determine whether the amended metric under ASHRAE Standard 90.1
resulted in an energy efficiency level that was more stringent than the
current DOE standard.
Under EPCA, DOE must also review its energy conservation standards
for VRF multi-split systems every six years and either: (1) Issue a
notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended,
as adoption of a more-stringent level under the relevant statutory
criteria is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or (2)
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards
based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B).\6\ (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In
making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider,
to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an
amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2)
DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or
decreases the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and (3) DOE
may not prescribe an amended standard that interested persons have
established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability,
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes) that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United
States. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or
water-source (not including ground water source) electrically operated,
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92)
EPCA further classifies ``commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment'' into categories based on cooling capacity (i.e.,
small, large, and very large categories). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10
CFR 431.92) ``Small commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment'' means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling
capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated:
(i) At or above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu per
hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Very
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means
equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below
760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR
431.92)
Pursuant to its authority under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and
in response to updates to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE has established the
category of VRF multi-split systems, which meets the EPCA definition of
``commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,'' but
which EPCA did not expressly identify. See 10 CFR 431.92 and 10 CFR
431.97.
DOE defines ``variable refrigerant flow air conditioner'' as a unit
of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is
configured as a split system air conditioner incorporating a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one
variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for
varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and multiple
indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually metered and
individually controlled by an integral control device and common
communications network and which can operate independently in response
to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies three
or more steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping.
10 CFR 431.92.
DOE defines ``variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump'' as
a unit of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment
that is configured as a split system heat pump that uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heating source and which may include
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a single
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one
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 a control device and common communications
network and which can operate independently in response to multiple
indoor thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies three or more
steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping. 10 CFR
431.92.
DOE adopted energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split
systems in a final rule published on May 16, 2012 (May 2012 Final
Rule). 77 FR 28928, 28995. DOE's initial standards for VRF multi-split
systems were prompted by ASHRAE's decision to include minimum
efficiency levels for VRF multi-split systems for the first time in the
2010 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010). For
four of the VRF water-source heat pump classes (including VRF water-
source heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h and VRF
water-
[[Page 11340]]
source heat pumps with cooling capacity greater than or equal to
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), DOE adopted the standard
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, having determined that the updates
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 either raised the energy efficiency levels
above the existing Federal energy conservation standards or set
standards for equipment for which DOE did not previously have
standards. 77 FR 28928, 28938 (May 16, 2012). For all other equipment
classes of VRF multi-split systems, DOE maintained the standards from
the equipment class under which the corresponding VRF multi-split
system equipment class was previously regulated (i.e., air-cooled VRF
multi-split systems had previously been covered as small, large, and
very large air-cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with electric
resistance heating, while water-source VRF multi-split heat pumps had
previously been covered as water-source heat pumps).
For the equipment addressed in this NOPR, DOE's current equipment
classes for VRF multi-split systems are differentiated by refrigeration
cycle (air conditioners or heat pumps), condenser heat rejection medium
(air-cooled or water-source), cooling capacity, and heating type (for
air-cooled: ``No heating or electric resistance heating'' or ``all
other types of heating''; for water-source: ``Without heat recovery,''
``with heat recovery,'' or ``all''). DOE's current standards for VRF
multi-split systems are set forth at Table 13 to 10 CFR 431.97 and
repeated in Table II-1 of this document.
Table II-1--Current DOE Standards for VRF Multi-Split Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: Products
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type \1\ Efficiency level manufactured on and after . .
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h.......... All.................... 13.0 SEER........................ June 16, 2008.
(Air-Cooled). >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.2 EER......................... January 1, 2010.
<135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 11.0 EER......................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.0 EER......................... January 1, 2010.
<240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER......................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 10.0 EER......................... January 1, 2010.
<760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 9.8 EER.......................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air- <65,000 Btu/h.......... All.................... 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF.............. June 16, 2008.
Cooled).
>=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP................ January 1, 2010.
<135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP................ January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP................ January 1, 2010.
<240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP................ January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP................. January 1, 2010.
<760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP................. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water- <17,000 Btu/h.......... Without heat recovery.. 12.0 EER 4.2 COP................. October 29, 2012. October 29,
Source). 2003.
With heat recovery..... 11.8 EER 4.2 COP................. October 29, 2012. October 29,
2003.
>=17,000 Btu/h and All.................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................ October 29, 2003.
<65,000 Btu/h.
>=65,000 Btu/h and All.................... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................ October 29, 2003.
<135,000 Btu/h.
>=135,000 Btu/h and Without heat recovery.. 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP................ October 29, 2013.
<760,000 Btu/h.
With heat recovery..... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP................. October 29, 2013.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ``All Other Types of Heating'' unless they also have electric
resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ``No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.''
2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016
ASHRAE released the 2016 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016) on October 26, 2016, which increased the heating
mode efficiency level (in terms of COP) for six of the current DOE VRF
multi-split system equipment classes:
(1) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, Without
Heat Recovery;
(2) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source <17,000 Btu/h, With
Heat Recovery;
(3) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source >=17,000 Btu/h and
<65,000 Btu/h;
(4) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps. Water-source >=65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h;
(5) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source >=135,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery; and
(6) VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source >=135,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h, With Heat Recovery.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 left unchanged the heating mode
efficiency level for the remaining six DOE equipment classes of VRF
multi-split heat pump systems with cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and left unchanged the cooling mode efficiency
levels in terms of EER for all DOE equipment classes.
DOE published a notice of data availability and request for
information (NODA/RFI) in response to the amendments to ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2016 in the Federal Register on July 8, 2019 (July 2019 NODA/RFI).
84 FR 32328. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE compared the current
Federal standards for VRF multi-split systems (in terms of EER and COP)
to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and requested comment on its
preliminary findings. 84 FR 32328, 32333-32334 (July 8, 2019). In
addition to evaluating amended energy conservation standards for the
six equipment classes triggered by the updated levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016, DOE also examined the other 14 equipment classes of
VRF multi-split systems under its 6-year lookback authority (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) and solicited data from stakeholders. 84 FR 32328, 32334
(July 8, 2019). DOE received comments in response to the July 2019
NODA/RFI
[[Page 11341]]
from the interested parties listed in Table II-2.
Table II-2--July 2019 NODA/RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, & AHRI.............. Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Hydronic Industry Alliance-- HIA--C............ Trade Association.
Commercial.
Institute for Policy Integrity Policy Integrity.. Academic
at NYU School of Law. Institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discusses comments received in response to the July 2019 NODA/
RFI in the following sections of this document. A parenthetical
reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the
location of the item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems. (Docket
No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially released for distribution
and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
maintained the equipment class structure for VRF multi-split systems
from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and did not update efficiency levels for
any VRF equipment classes.
3. ASRAC Negotiations
On April 11, 2018, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice
of its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group
(Working Group) under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (ASRAC), in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act \8\ and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act,\9\ to negotiate an
amended test procedure and amended energy conservation standards for
VRF multi-split systems. 83 FR 15514. The purpose of the Working Group
was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule
regarding the test procedure and energy conservation standards for VRF
multi-split systems, as authorized by EPCA. Id. The Working Group
comprised 21 voting members including manufacturers, energy efficiency
advocates, utilities, and trade organizations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92-463.
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Public Law 101-648.
\10\ A complete list of the ASRAC VRF Working Group members is
available by clicking on the ``Working Group'' tab at:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee#Variable%20Refrigerant%20Flow%20Multi-Split%20Air%20Conditioners%20and%20Heat%20Pumps%20Working%20Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2019, the Working Group reached consensus on a test
procedure term sheet (VRF TP Term Sheet; Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-
0003-0044) that includes several recommendations. The following list
includes the most substantial recommendations:
(1) VRF multi-split systems should be rated with the Integrated
Energy Efficiency Ratio (IEER) metric to allow consumers to make
consistent comparisons with other equipment using the IEER metric
(e.g., rooftop air conditioner ratings).
(2) Use of the amended test procedure should not be required until
the compliance date of amended energy conservation standards.
(3) The Federal test procedure for VRF multi-split systems should
be consistent with the September 20, 2019 draft version of AHRI 1230,
with additional recommended amendments to be implemented after the
conclusion of ASRAC negotiations.
Following completion of the VRF TP Term Sheet, the Working Group
proceeded to negotiate recommended revised energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems that accounted for the
translation from the EER metric to the IEER metric, as well as the
changes between the Federal test procedure that references AHRI 1230-
2010 and the recommended 2019 draft test procedure AHRI 1230 (which was
later published as AHRI 1230-2021). As described in greater detail in
section III.A of this document, DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis to
inform the development of standard levels for VRF multi-split systems
in terms of the new test procedure and metric. DOE presented the
results of its crosswalk analysis on November 5, 2019 (Docket No. EERE-
2018-BT-STD-0003-0061 at p. 45), and subsequently, the Working Group
reached consensus on an energy conservation standards term sheet (VRF
ECS Term Sheet; Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003-0055) recommending:
(1) Amendments to the Federal minimum efficiency standards for VRF
multi-split systems (as presented in Table II-3 of this NOPR) and per
the test procedure recommended in the VRF TP Term Sheet.
(2) The compliance date of the recommended energy conservation
standards should be January 1, 2024 for all VRF multi-split system
equipment classes included in this proposed rulemaking.
Table II-3--Recommended Efficiency Levels From VRF ECS Term Sheet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy efficiency levels
Equipment class recommended \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 15.5 IEER.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 14.9 IEER.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 13.9 IEER.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/ 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP.
h and <135,000 Btu/h, No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/ 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP.
h and <135,000 Btu/h, All Other Types
of Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=135,000 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=135,000 13.7 IEER; 3.2 COP.
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, All Other
Types of Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=240,000 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, No Heating or
Electric Resistance Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, >=240,000 12.5 IEER; 3.2 COP.
Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, All Other
Types of Heating.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h, Without Heat Recovery.
[[Page 11342]]
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h, With Heat Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=17,000 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, Without Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=17,000 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h, With Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=65,000 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, Without Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=65,000 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, With Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=135,000 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP.
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, Without Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=135,000 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP.
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, With Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=240,000 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP.
Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Without Heat
Recovery.
VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, >=240,000 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP.
Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, With Heat
Recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The VRF ECS Term Sheet includes the notation ``COPH'' which
indicates coefficient of performance in heating mode at 47 [deg]F
outdoor ambient temperature (for air-cooled VRF multi-split heat
pumps) and at 68 [deg]F entering water temperature (for water-source
VRF multi-split heat pumps).
DOE notes that there are minor differences in equipment class
structure (related to cooling capacity, supplementary heating type, and
presence of heat recovery) between the VRF ECS Term Sheet, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, and the current Federal energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems. This topic is discussed in
greater detail in section III.B of this document.
On May 18, 2021, AHRI published an updated industry test standard
for VRF multi-split systems AHRI 1230-2021. Subsequently, on December
10, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register the VRF TP NOPR
(December 2021 VRF TP NOPR), in which DOE proposed an amended test
procedure for VRF multi-split systems that incorporates by reference
AHRI 1230-2021 and proposed to adopt IEER as the test metric for VRF
multi-split systems. 86 FR 70644, 70652. In the December 2021 VRF TP
NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the
test procedure, if made final, would alter the measured efficiency of
VRF multi-split systems, as compared to ratings using the current
Federal regulated metric, EER (see 10 CFR 431.97). In that document,
DOE stated that were the proposed test procedure to be made final
(i.e., were DOE to adopt IEER as the metric for VRF multi-split
systems), testing pursuant to the amended test procedure would not be
required until such time as manufacturers were required to comply with
amended energy conservation standards that are denominated in terms of
IEER, should such standards be adopted. 86 FR 70644, 70652 (Dec. 10,
2021).
III. General Discussion
A. Methodology for Efficiency Crosswalk Analysis
1. Crosswalk Background and Overview
Consistent with the recommendation of the Working Group, DOE is
proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for VRF multi-
split systems to rely on the IEER metric for cooling efficiency. DOE is
not proposing to amend the metric for heating efficiency (i.e., COP).
The Department has tentatively concluded that a change of metrics would
be beneficial for a number of reasons. The current Federal metric for
cooling efficiency, EER, captures the system performance at a single,
full-load operating point (i.e., single outdoor air temperatures for
air-cooled systems and single entering water temperatures for water-
source systems). EER does not provide a seasonal or load-weighted
measure of energy efficiency. In contrast, the IEER metric factors in
the efficiency of operating at full-load conditions as well as part-
load conditions of 75-percent, 50-percent, and 25-percent of full-load
capacity. Under part-load conditions, air conditioning and heating
equipment may cycle off/on or may modulate down the capacity in order
to match the imposed load. DOE has tentatively determined that the IEER
metric provides a more representative measure of field performance of
VRF multi-split systems by weighting the full-load and part-load
efficiencies by the average amount of time equipment spends operating
at each load.
As stated, EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)); commonly referred to as EPCA's ``anti-
backsliding provision'') In consideration of the IEER metric and to
ensure any potential amendment would not violate EPCA's ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis to validate
the translation of the EER levels currently required by the DOE
standards to IEER, as well as the IEER efficiency levels as recommended
by the Working Group. The crosswalk analysis translates the current
Federal EER standards (measured per the current DOE test procedure) to
IEER levels of equivalent stringency (measured per the updated AHRI
Standard 1230). (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003-0056).
The proposed energy conservation standards presented in this
document were developed based on an update to the relevant industry
test standard (i.e., the 2019 draft test procedure AHRI 1230 that was
finalized as ASHRAE 1230-2021). Compared to the current Federal test
procedure (which references ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010), AHRI 1230-2021
included two substantive changes that impact the translation of
standards in EER to standards using IEER. Specifically, DOE considered
in its crosswalk analysis in addition to the metric change from EER to
IEER:
(1) Maximum sensible heat ratio (SHR) limits of 0.82 and 0.85 were
added for full-load and 75-percent, part-load conditions, respectively.
SHR represents the ratio of sensible cooling capacity (i.e., the
ability to change the temperature of indoor air) to the total cooling
capacity, which also includes latent cooling capacity (i.e., the
ability to remove moisture from indoor air). For example, an SHR of
0.80 indicates that 80 percent of the capacity of a system reduces the
temperature of the air and the remaining 20 percent dehumidifies the
air.
(2) A controls verification procedure (CVP) was added that verifies
that the values provided by manufacturers in the supplemental test
instruction (STI) for setting critical parameters during steady-state
testing are within the range of critical parameters that would be
[[Page 11343]]
used by the system's native controls at the same conditions.
On November 5, 2019, DOE presented its crosswalk findings to the
Working Group to inform the development of recommended standards levels
for VRF multi-split systems in terms of the new test procedure and
cooling metric. (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003-0056). To validate
the relative equivalency of the IEER standard levels as recommended by
the Working Group and the current Federal EER standards, DOE analyzed a
minimally-compliant model from a high-sales-volume equipment class
(with a current Federal standard of 10.6 EER) to ensure that
translation of the current EER standards to the recommended IEER values
would not decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of VRF multi-
split systems. As discussed, because of the change in metric and
changes in the test procedure, DOE cannot translate the current EER to
a single IEER value (further discussed in section III.A.3 of this
NOPR). DOE identified the resulting crosswalked efficiency of the
minimally-compliant model from the selected class ranged from 13 to 16
IEER.
DOE also presented to the Working Group anonymized and aggregated
data provided by VRF multi-split system manufacturers. These data
showed a preliminary translation of ratings to the IEER metric in terms
of the updated test procedure for a collection of VRF multi-split
systems spanning four equipment classes. The sample data were mostly
composed of systems above the current Federal baseline efficiency
levels in terms of EER and, thus, were not instructive as to a
crosswalk of minimum energy efficiency levels. (Docket No. EERE-2018-
BT-STD-0003-0056). The IEER efficiency level specified in the VRF ECS
Term Sheet for the selected class was 13.9 IEER, which was within the
range of crosswalked results.
Given that translating the current EER levels to IEER according to
the updated test procedure does not provide for a single point answer
(as would thereby allow for a direct comparison), DOE believes it is
reasonable to ensure that the recommended value lies within the range
resulting from DOE's evaluation as a proxy for understanding whether
there is a potential for backsliding. Consequently, DOE has tentatively
determined that the recommended IEER levels are at least equivalent in
stringency to the current EER levels. Further, given that IEER is a
more comprehensive metric (reflecting energy efficiency across a range
of operating conditions, as opposed to the efficiency at a single
condition), DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended IEER
levels would not decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of a
VRF multi-split system.
2. Crosswalk Details
In its analysis to crosswalk the current DOE energy conservation
standards for VRF cooling efficiency, DOE sought to account for the
translation from EER to IEER, as well as changes in the updated
industry test standard--namely the addition of SHR limits and the
introduction of the CVP. Because these three factors have interacting
effects on the measured cooling performance of VRF multi-split systems,
DOE modeled their interaction holistically and did not examine
incremental changes in performance due to any one factor.
As discussed, DOE is not proposing to change the heating efficiency
metric (i.e., COP), because both ASHRAE 90.1-2016 and the Working Group
VRF ECS Term Sheet define heating mode efficiency in terms of COP.
Additionally, the changes to the test procedure for VRF multi-split
systems did not impact measured efficiency in heating mode. Therefore,
DOE did not conduct a crosswalk analysis for VRF heating mode
efficiency.
The following paragraphs describe DOE's crosswalk methodology to
translate the current cooling efficiency standards for VRF multi-split
systems that rely on the EER metric to standards using IEER that are of
equivalent efficiency. DOE also identifies the various factors that
limit the ability to strictly translate standards that rely on EER to
standards that standards that rely on IEER.
In order to develop a crosswalk approach that is applicable to all
equipment classes of VRF multi-split systems, DOE analyzed a basic
model representative of equipment classes with high sales volume.\11\
Specifically, DOE selected an air-cooled VRF multi-split heat pump
system in the cooling capacity range greater than 135,000 Btu/h and
less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h without heat recovery. The selected
basic model had an EER rating within 0.2 points of the Federal standard
for the applicable equipment class (i.e., a 10.8 rating vs 10.6 EER
minimum required), and 0.4 points above the Federal standard for the
corresponding equipment class equipped with heat recovery (i.e., a 10.8
rating vs 10.4 EER minimum required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ According to a report from Cadeo group, air-cooled VRF
multi-split heat pump systems in the cooling capacity range greater
than 135,000 Btu/h and less than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h without
heat recovery account for 12.4 percent of the VRF multi-split system
market. Air-cooled VRF multi-split systems in the same capacity
range equipped with heat recovery account for an additional 32.6
percent of the VRF multi-split system market. (EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of the Working Group DOE, along with several
manufacturers, DOE conducted investigative testing on VRF multi-split
systems operating under native controls. Included in this testing was
the basic model selected to serve as the basis for the crosswalk
analysis. DOE created a performance model using VapCyc and CoilDesigner
software \12\ to evaluate capacity and efficiency of the selected
system per the updated industry test standard. DOE first modeled the
system's behavior at the full-load cooling condition by selecting
compressor speed, outdoor fan speed, indoor airflow rate, and superheat
condition to match information that was available in STI and provided
confidentially by the manufacturer to DOE contractors under a
nondisclosure agreement (NDA). DOE then calibrated the system as
modeled in VapCyc and CoilDesigner so that the predicted capacity and
EER matched the rated capacity and efficiency for the system (at full-
load conditions) as certified by the manufacturer. Specifically, in its
investigative testing, DOE observed typical control strategies for
unloading at part-load conditions, including turning individual indoor
units off, modulating compressor and fan speeds, and increasing
evaporating temperature. DOE also observed patterns in which compressor
speed and outdoor fan speed tended to scale together at reduced load
conditions. DOE used this information to adjust the model so as to
project the performance of the selected VRF multi-split system at
partial loads by decreasing the operating state of components according
to load level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ VapCyc and CoilDesigner are HVAC energy modeling software
programs. CoilDesigner is a detailed heat exchanger modeling
program. VapCyc integrates CoilDesigner heat exchanger simulations
with compressor and expansion models to complete a refrigeration
cycle model to simulate performance of an air conditioning or heat
pump system at specific operating conditions. Available at:
www.optimizedthermalsystems.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, the capacity and EER rating for the basic model used
in DOE's analysis were measured according to the current DOE test
procedure, but DOE is seeking to translate the current EER standards to
equivalent IEER standards when tested according to the updated industry
test standard. As such, DOE also considered in its crosswalk analysis
the maximum SHR limits that were added in the industry test procedure
AHRI 1230-2021. By establishing upper limits on SHR, DOE understands
AHRI 1230-2021 to create test conditions that
[[Page 11344]]
are more representative of field applications for VRF multi-split
systems, as compared to the current DOE test procedure. AHRI 1230-2021
sets SHR limits of 0.82 and 0.85 at the full-load cooling condition and
the 75-percent part-load cooling condition, respectively, but does not
include SHR limits for the 50-percent or 25-percent part-load cooling
conditions. AHRI 1230-2021 also establishes a calculation method for
the efficiency rating reduction for systems that exceed the SHR limits
at the full-load and/or 75-percent part-load cooling conditions in the
IEER test.
Because manufacturers do not currently certify or publicize any
information about SHR at the full-load EER test condition, DOE was
unable to precisely determine SHR values representative of a baseline
EER VRF multi-split system. Also, because the current DOE test
procedure does not include any part-load cooling test points, no
information was available about SHR values that VRF multi-split systems
would produce at the 75-percent part-load IEER test condition. Because
SHR data was not publicly available, DOE instead examined data from its
investigative testing to identify the typical range of SHR values for
VRF multi-split systems when operating under native controls at the
full-load and 75-percent part-load conditions. DOE observed several
cases of basic models with native controls test data indicating SHR
values above the AHRI 1230-2021 limits at the full-load and 75-percent
part-load condition, and also observed some basic models testing below
the SHR limits. The precision of the crosswalk from existing EER levels
to IEER levels in terms of the updated industry test standard was
limited by the lack of available data about representative SHR values
at the full-load EER test condition and by the variation in SHR values
observed in the native controls test data.
To account for the effect of the SHR limits in the updated industry
test standard in its crosswalk analysis, DOE relied on the native
controls test data to establish a range of potential initial SHR values
observed at the full-load and 75-percent part-load IEER test
conditions. DOE then adapted the VapCyc and CoilDesigner performance
model to examine the effect of changing indoor airflow and evaporating
temperature on SHR and the associated impacts on energy efficiency.
Reducing the evaporating temperature increased the rate of
dehumidification (thus reducing SHR), but also required more power
input from the compressor, which reduced the measured efficiency. DOE
also observed that at reduced airflow rates, the dehumidification
capacity was higher, but the overall system capacity and efficiency
were lower.
Ultimately, the crosswalked IEER values varied depending on
modeling input assumptions, such as whether the initial SHR was below
or above the new SHR limits (and by how much), as well as the different
control strategies employed to reduce SHR. The crosswalked IEER values
also depended on overlapping input assumptions related to the EER-to-
IEER translation, such as the number of thermally-active indoor units
at part-load conditions. Reducing the number of indoor units at partial
loads (while keeping all else constant) increased the amount of
refrigerant flow to each remaining indoor fan coil, which provided
better dehumidification performance and, thus, reduced SHR at the 75-
percent load condition.
As discussed, the updates in AHRI 1230-2021 include a CVP for
verifying that the certified operational settings for critical
parameters are representative of values that would be observed with the
VRF multi-split system operating under its own native controls. As
described in AHRI 1230-2021, critical parameters include compressor
speed(s), outdoor fan speed(s) and outdoor variable valve position(s).
As proposed in the December 2021 VRF TP NOPR, manufacturers would
specify operational settings for each of these components in their STI
to implement during steady-state tests for IEER and COP. 86 FR 70644,
70666 (Dec. 10, 2021). The CVP is not a part of rating tests for IEER,
but rather, it serves as a validation method for cooling mode only.
DOE's ability to fully account for the potential changes to the
measured performance of VRF multi-split systems as a result of the CVP
was limited by the lack of available information regarding the control
strategies employed by VRF system manufacturers--particularly at part-
load conditions where manufacturers do not currently certify or make
public any information about control settings. DOE was also limited by
uncertainty about how these control strategies may change or how
manufacturers may certify their critical parameter settings in response
to the CVP.
As discussed, the CVP is intended to validate that the certified
operational settings (i.e., those used during IEER testing) for
critical parameters are representative of controls behavior exhibited
under the system's own controls at the same conditions. DOE used
information about the ranges of operational settings observed during
native controls testing to represent a future system that would pass
the CVP (i.e., a system for which the certified critical parameter
settings would be validated by a CVP conducted with the system
operating under native controls). Specifically, DOE selected inputs
used in its VapCyc and CoilDesigner performance model for simulating
IEER that were consistent with native controls testing observations,
including the number of thermally-active indoor units at part-load
conditions, compressor and fan speeds, expansion valve control
strategy, and other refrigeration cycle parameters. DOE tentatively
concluded that modelling IEER results using control settings observed
during native controls testing was the most accurate approach for
estimating how manufacturers would certify critical parameter control
settings as part of testing to IEER as measured by AHRI 1230-2021.
3. Crosswalk Results
As discussed, DOE conducted its crosswalk analysis on a high-sales-
volume equipment class of VRF multi-split systems and selected a
representative model with EER near the Federal baseline level (10.8 EER
vs 10.6 EER baseline) in developing its VapCyc and CoilDesigner
performance model. Based on the modeling conducted, the expected
performance of the selected equipment class of VRF multi-split systems
when tested according to AHRI 1230-2021 would be in the range of 13 to
16 IEER. Because of the wider range of operation conditions captured in
IEER as well as the various strategies that manufacturers may employ to
respond to the test procedure changes, a single EER baseline value
inherently translates to a range of IEER values.
As discussed, the IEER metric captures performance at additional
part-load operating conditions not considered by the EER metric;
therefore, a single EER value translates to a range of potential IEER
values.\13\ IEER captures the impacts of design features and control
strategies that may not affect full-load operation but do affect part-
load operation. For example, VRF multi-split systems may use different
strategies for reducing capacity at part loads like reducing the number
of thermally active indoor units or slowing compressor speeds, which
may result in differential impacts on measured IEER, but which would
not have any impact
[[Page 11345]]
on the measured full-load performance EER. DOE also recognizes that
there are a variety of paths that manufacturers may take to account for
the new test procedure, and that the crosswalk analysis approximates
how manufacturers in the aggregate may respond to test procedure
changes. For example, some manufacturers may elect to meet the new SHR
limitations by reducing evaporating temperatures, while other
manufacturers may meet the new SHR limitations by reducing indoor
airflow and decreasing the number of thermally-active indoor units.
Each strategy may have different tradeoffs in terms of overall system
performance and measured energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In a January 2016 energy conservation standards direct
final rule for ACUACs, DOE discussed a metric translation from EER
to IEER in which a single EER level corresponds to a range of IEERs.
81 FR 2420, 2452 (Jan. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section II.B.3 of this document, the Working Group
recommended efficiency levels for VRF multi-split systems that align
with the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 in terms of
IEER and COP. While DOE's crosswalk analysis showed that a single EER
baseline could result in a range of IEER values (as discussed, due to
the wider range of operation conditions captured in IEER, as well as
the various strategies that manufacturers may employ to respond to the
test procedure changes), the IEER levels included in the VRF ECS Term
Sheet (which the Working Group recommended as an appropriate crosswalk
of current Federal EER standards) are within the range of DOE's
crosswalked results. As explained previously, DOE has tentatively
determined that the recommended IEER levels are at least equivalent in
stringency to the current EER levels. Further, given that IEER is a
more comprehensive metric (reflecting energy efficiency across a range
of operating conditions, as opposed to the efficiency at a single
condition), DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended IEER
levels would not decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of a
VRF multi-split system, thereby avoiding statutorily impermissible
backsliding with respect to the current Federal standards in terms of
EER. DOE has also tentatively determined that no changes to heating
mode ratings in terms of COP are expected from the changes to the test
procedure for VRF multi-split systems included in AHRI 1230-2021.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its crosswalk analysis methodology
and crosswalk results.
B. Equipment Class Structure for VRF
In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE discussed two areas where the
equipment class structure for VRF multi-split systems differs between
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal standards. 84 FR 32328, 32334
(July 8, 2019). First, DOE noted that in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 (as
in previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1), two water-source VRF
multi-split heat pump equipment classes (greater than or equal to
17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h; and greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h) are disaggregated into
equipment with heat recovery and equipment without heat recovery, with
each ASHRAE equipment class having a separate minimum cooling
efficiency. The current Federal standards do not disaggregate water-
source VRF multi-split heat pumps in these capacity ranges based on the
presence of heat recovery. (See Table 13 to 10 CFR 431.97.) However, as
DOE pointed out in the NODA/RFI, the cooling efficiency EER standard in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for these units with heat recovery is below
the current Federal standard. Consequently, under EPCA, the Secretary
cannot prescribe those levels due to anti-backsliding concerns, so
those classes were not subdivided further. Id.
Second, DOE identified that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 disaggregates
and sets distinct standards for VRF water-source heat pumps by cooling
capacity above and below 240,000 Btu/h (i.e., separate equipment
classes with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h
and less than 240,000 Btu/h and greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h
and less than 760,000 Btu/h). The DOE standards provide for VRF water-
source heat pumps with a cooling capacity of greater than or equal to
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h. (See table 13 to 10 CFR
431.97.) DOE sought feedback from stakeholders on whether to consider
additional equipment classes for VRF water-source heat pumps between
135,000 and 760,000 Btu/h, which would align with the ASHRAE 90.1-2016
structure for those classes of equipment. Id.
In response to the July 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI and the CA IOUs both
commented that DOE should align its equipment class structure for all
classes of VRF multi-split systems with the equipment structure found
in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 (i.e., not just for the specific equipment classes
on which DOE requested comment). (AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 41
at p. 3) AHRI commented that aligning with ASHRAE 90.1 would reflect
the structure of other VRF classes, such as air-cooled heat pumps and
air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that
aligning with the equipment structure in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 would provide
additional clarity regarding which standards apply to heat pumps versus
units with heat recovery. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs
further commented that for air-source VRF multi-split heat pumps, in
order to be more easily understood by the market, DOE should align with
the convention from ASHRAE Standard 90.1 by adding a new column titled
``subcategory'' that specifies ``heat pump'' or ``heat pump with heat
recovery'' and should remove its existing designation of ``no heating
or electric resistance heating'' and ``all other types of heating,''
which is terminology more applicable to commercial unitary air
conditioners than to VRF multi-split systems. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE should follow ASHRAE regarding
breaking out the 135,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/h categorization into two
size categories, and that DOE should eliminate the 17,000 Btu/h cutoff
for water-source equipment so as to align with ASHRAE. Id.
As stated, EPCA generally directs DOE to establish amended uniform
national standards for the VRF multi-split systems at the minimum
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) Consistent with EPCA, and in consideration of the
comments received, DOE proposes to adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-2016 equipment
class structure for VRF multi-split systems in its regulations at 10
CFR 431.97. By adopting the equipment class structure from ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016, DOE would fulfill requests by stakeholders, utilize
terminology that is more representative of distinctive features in the
VRF market, and would better align the cooling capacity break points
with those for other equipment categories (e.g., the standards for
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which are
subdivided by the same capacity boundaries. See Table 3 to 10 CFR
431.97). As noted previously, DOE has identified two areas for which
the equipment class structure differs between the existing DOE
standards and ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(1) Capacity break points. For water-source VRF multi-split heat
pumps, the current Federal standards include VRF multi-split systems
with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and
less than 760,000 Btu/h in a single category. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2016 splits this grouping at 240,000 Btu/h to create capacity
categories of greater than or equal to 135,000 and less than 240,000
btu/h and greater than or equal to 240,000 and less than 760,000
Btu/h. Also for water-source VRF multi-split systems, the current
Federal standards include separate classes for systems with cooling
capacity less
[[Page 11346]]
than 17,000 Btu/h and for systems with cooling capacity between
17,000 Btu/h and 65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 groups
these classes together into a single equipment class with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
(2) Heating type. The current Federal standards are
disaggregated for certain classes of VRF multi-split systems based
on heating type. For all air-cooled VRF multi-split air conditioners
and heat pumps with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h, the Federal cooling standards differ by 0.2 EER points
depending on whether a system is equipped with ``no heating or
electric resistance heating'' or ``all other types of heating.'' For
water-source VRF multi-split heat pumps, some capacity classes
disaggregate instead by systems with heat recovery versus without
heat recovery (also with a 0.2 EER difference in the applicable
standards classes). Other water-source VRF multi-split heat pump
standards are not disaggregated beyond the specified capacity range.
ASHRAE 90.1-2016 disaggregates standards for air-cooled and water-
source VRF multi-split heat pumps based on the presence of heat
recovery, instead of ``heating type.'' Air-cooled VRF multi-split
air conditioners do not have subdivided cooling efficiency levels
based on heating type in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.
These differences are presented in Table III-1:
Table III-1--Comparison of Current DOE Efficiency Levels With ASHRAE 90.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE 90.1-2016/2019
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type DOE efficiency level efficiency level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.2 EER......................... 11.2 EER, 15.5 IEER.
(Air-Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 11.0 EER......................... No Standard.\3\
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.0 EER......................... 11.0 EER, 14.9 IEER.
<240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER......................... No Standard.\3\
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 10.0 EER......................... 10.0 EER, 13.9 IEER.
<760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of 9.8 EER.......................... No Standard.\3\
Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP................ 11.0 EER, 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating\1\.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP................ 10.8 EER, 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Heating 1 2.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP................ 10.6 EER, 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating \1\.
All Other Types of 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP................ 10.4 EER, 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Heating 1 2.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or Electric 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP................. 9.5 EER, 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<760,000 Btu/h. Resistance Heating \1\.
All Other Types of 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP................. 9.3 EER, 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Heating1 2.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water- <17,000 Btu/h.......... Without heat recovery.. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................ 12.0 EER, 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Source).
With heat recovery..... 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP................ 11.8 EER, 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
>=17,000 Btu/h and Without heat recovery.. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................ 12.0 EER, 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
<65,000 Btu/h.
With heat recovery..... 11.8 EER, 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
>=65,000 Btu/h and Without heat recovery.. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................ 12.0 EER, 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
<135,000 Btu/h.
With heat recovery..... 11.8 EER, 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
>=135,000 Btu/h and Without heat recovery.. 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP................ 10.0 EER, 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. With heat recovery..... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP................. 9.8 EER, 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP.
>= 240,000 Btu/h and Without heat recovery.. 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP................ 10.0 EER, 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP.
<760,000 Btu/h.
With heat recovery..... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP................. 9.8 EER, 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In terms of current Federal standards, VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the heating type ``All Other Types of
Heating'' unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ``No Heating or Electric Resistance
Heating.''
\2\ In ASHRAE Standard 90.1, this equipment class is referred to as units with heat recovery rather than all other types of heating.
\3\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only includes standards for VRF air conditioners with ``electric resistance or none'' heating type. Because stakeholders have
expressed that it is unlikely that VRF air conditioners would ever be paired with other forms of supplemental heating, DOE's proposed equipment
classes for VRF air conditioners are condensed using ``all types of heating'' to ensure no change in coverage or backsliding.
In this document, DOE proposes to amend 10 CFR 431.97 to adopt the
equipment class structure found in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 for VRF multi-split
systems (which is identical to the most current version, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019). This proposal would amend the existing DOE class
structure by expanding the number of VRF water-source heat pump
classes, reducing the number of air-cooled VRF air conditioner classes,
and amending the convention for heating type for heat pump systems with
and without heat recovery. Additionally, DOE is proposing a minor
clarification in the language used to describe the heating type for VRF
multi-split system heat pumps--ASHRAE 90.1-2016 currently includes
separate classes for systems with and without heat recovery, designated
as ``VRF multisplit systems'' or ``VRF multisplit system with heat
recovery.'' However, DOE proposes a minor clarification to revise these
descriptions to explicitly state either ``heat pump without heat
recovery'' or ``heat pump with heat recovery.''
For VRF multi-split system air conditioners, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 only
includes classes with the heating type designation of ``Electric
resistance (or none),'' thus excluding any VRF multi-split air
conditioners with ``other'' kinds of heating. As previously described,
DOE received comment from stakeholders requesting that DOE align its
equipment class structure with the structure from ASHRAE 90.1-2016.
[[Page 11347]]
(AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 41 at p. 3) However, because the
current Federal standards include separate efficiency levels for VRF
multi-split air conditioners having electric resistance (or no) heat
vs. those having ``all other types of heating,'' DOE is proposing to
label the condensed equipment classes for VRF multi-split air
conditioners as having ``All'' types of heating, and to set IEER
standards for the proposed condensed classes that are equivalent in
stringency to the EER standards for the class with ``electric
resistance or none'' heating type. DOE does not have any knowledge of
VRF multi-split air conditioners on the market that have ``all other
types of heating'' (e.g., a furnace), and, thus, has tentatively
concluded that setting IEER standards to cover ``all'' kinds of heating
would not constitute an increase of stringency for any models currently
in existence.
The ASRAC Working Group recommended IEER levels for VRF multi-split
systems that utilized the equipment class structure of ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2016 (with limited exceptions as previously described). As
discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE evaluated the IEER
levels recommended by the ASRAC Working Group using a crosswalk
analysis and determined that there is limited precision in translating
the current EER levels to IEER according to the updated test procedure.
In cases where DOE is proposing to subdivide or condense equipment
classes relative to the existing DOE equipment class structure, the
IEER levels recommended by the Working Group are within the limits of
precision determined by DOE's crosswalk translation. For example, in
cases where the current DOE equipment class only includes a single EER
standard but ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 includes separate IEER standards
for classes with and without heat recovery, both of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 IEER levels fall within the crosswalk range determined by DOE to
represent equivalent stringency to existing EER standard. Therefore,
DOE has tentatively concluded that adopting the proposed class
structure and efficiency levels would not result in a change in
stringency for any classes.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to align equipment
classes for VRF multi-split systems with the structure in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016, with additional clarification of heating type.
IV. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
As required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), for VRF multi-split
system equipment classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 set levels
more stringent than the current Federal standards, DOE performed an
assessment to determine the energy-savings potential of amending
Federal standard levels to reflect the efficiency levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. In the July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE presented the
findings of the energy savings potential for the six considered
equipment classes for which the Department was triggered. 84 FR 32328,
32335 (July 8, 2019). DOE tentatively determined, based on a report by
Cadeo Group,\14\ that four of the six affected classes--those with
cooling capacities that are less than 17,000 Btu/h or greater than or
equal to 135,000 Btu/h (with or without heat recovery), do not have any
market share and, thus, no energy savings potential from amended
standards. The Cadeo report showed that the remaining two affected
classes, with cooling capacities greater than 17,000 Btu/h and less
than 135,000 Btu/h, represented under 3 percent of the VRF multi-split
system market. DOE tentatively concluded that potential energy savings
for these equipment classes were de minimis. Id. DOE notes that in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, the COP was raised by 0.1 on both of these
equipment classes, and that most commercial buildings are cooling
dominant. Given this information, and the small market share, in this
NOPR DOE maintains its tentative conclusion that energy savings for
these equipment classes are de minimis. Consideration of more-stringent
efficiency levels than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are
discussed in section V.A of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Cadeo Report, Variable Refrigerant Flow: A Preliminary
Market Assessment. See: www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0002. The report presents market share by VRF multi-split
system equipment class, based on confidential sales data given in
interviews with several major manufacturers of VRF multi-split
equipment and DOE's Compliance Certification Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusions
A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels
When triggered by an update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA requires
DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard for equipment
classes at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1 unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register
and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a
uniform national standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 for the equipment class would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-(II)). In the
July 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE requested feedback on its proposal to adopt the
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 as the Federal standards for the
six VRF water-source classes for which DOE was triggered by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016. 84 FR 32328, 32335 (July 8, 2019). DOE also
requested data and information that could help it determine whether
standards levels more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2016 for VRFs would result in significant additional energy
savings for classes for the 14 classes where DOE was not triggered
(i.e., classes reviewed under the six-year-lookback provision). Id. at
84 FR 32335-32336.
AHRI supported DOE's proposal to adopt the energy efficiency levels
for the six equipment classes triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.
(AHRI, No. 42 at p. 3) AHRI added that the adoption of a more-stringent
standard of the non-triggered classes is not economically justified at
this time and that the stringency of any new standards need to account
for all of the changes in the test procedure as a result of the Working
Group negotiations (especially the CVP and SHR limits). (AHRI, No. 42
at p. 4) AHRI also provided information regarding the building types
that are common applications for VRF. (AHRI, No. 42 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs recommended that the Working Group and DOE analyze a
range of efficiency levels (including max-tech) for both water-source
and air-source VRF systems. The CA IOUs also stressed that any changes
to the energy conservation standards should account for the test
procedure changes being discussed by the Working Group. The CA IOUs
acknowledged that while DOE's data show limited sales on water-source
VRF multi-split systems, they still believe that the Working Group
should analyze trial standard levels for these classes. (CA IOUs, No.
41 at p. 4) The CA IOUs provided a set of historical VRF incentive
program data to assist in the energy use analysis and recommended that
DOE use Energy Plus \15\ to analyze the energy use of VRF multi-split
systems. (CA IOUs, No. 41 at pp. 6-12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Energy Plus is a whole-building energy simulation program
that engineers, architects, and researchers use to model both energy
consumption for heating cooling, ventilation, lighting, plug and
process loads, and water use in buildings. (Available at https://energyplus.net/)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIA-C commented that DOE should first ensure that VRF multi-split
systems
[[Page 11348]]
can actually meet the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels
before attempting to adopt new efficiency levels. (HIA-C, No. 40 at p.
4)
Policy Integrity commented on the emissions analysis, suggesting
that DOE should monetize the full benefits of emissions reductions and
use the global estimate of the social cost of greenhouse gases. (Policy
Integrity, No. 39 at p. 2) In response, DOE considers the monetary
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of greenhouse
gases when analyzing efficiency levels more stringent than the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 levels. DOE uses the social cost of greenhouse gases from
the most recent update of the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost
of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government (IWG) working group,
which are available in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990.\16\ The IWG recommended global values be used for
regulatory analysis. Because DOE is not conducting an economic analysis
of levels more stringent than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels in this
notice, there is no corresponding consideration of emission reductions
or the associated monetary benefits. As DOE is required by EPCA to
adopt the levels set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE did not conduct
an economic analysis or corresponding emissions analysis for the levels
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gasses, United States Government, Technical Support Document: Social
Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under
Executive Order 13990 (2021) (Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section II.B.3 of this NOPR, following publication
of the July 2019 NODA/RFI, the Working Group (which included AHRI and
the CA IOUs) reached consensus on two term sheets containing
recommendations regarding the test procedure and energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems. As discussed in section III.A of
this document, the recommended standards are consistent with the
crosswalk conducted by DOE to translate the existing Federal standards
in terms of EER to equivalent levels in terms of IEER, measured per
AHRI 1230-2021. These recommended efficiency levels also align with the
IEER and COP levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. The Working Group did
not consider more-stringent efficiency levels.
DOE considered but did not estimate potential energy savings that
would occur from more-stringent standards. To assess the magnitude of
potential energy savings from amended standards and determine which
level, if any, of more-stringent standards would be economically
justified, DOE must be able to properly represent the no-new-standards
case--the case without amended standards--and must be able to properly
characterize the technology options and costs associated with specific
levels of efficiency. With regards to VRF multi-split systems, this
would require developing efficiency data for the entire market in terms
of IEER measured per AHRI 1230-2021.
DOE considered two approaches for developing market-wide
performance data in terms of IEER measured per AHRI 1230-2021: (1) DOE
examined whether any such data exist in publicly-available sources, and
(2) DOE considered whether existing performance data (in terms of EER,
measured per the current Federal test procedure) could be effectively
translated to IEER, measured per AHRI 1230-2021.
On the first approach, DOE found that public data in terms of IEER
measured per AHRI 1230-2021 are not available, as the rating of VRF
multi-split systems using the updated metric and test procedure is not
currently required.\17\ While DOE acknowledges that IEER performance
data are widely represented by VRF manufacturers, all such data are
measured per an earlier version of the industry test standard (AHRI
1230-2014) and, thus, not directly comparable. DOE also found that the
AHRI Directory does not yet require IEER representations measured per
AHRI 1230-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The VRF TP Term Sheet recommended an effective date for the
amended test procedure to coincide with the compliance date of
amended standards in terms of IEER, if adopted by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the second approach, DOE considered the results of its crosswalk
analysis to determine whether a market-wide translation of existing EER
data to IEER data (measured per AHRI 1230-2021) was possible. As
discussed in section III.A of this document, the combined effect of
translating the Federal cooling efficiency metric from EER to IEER and
the effect of test procedure changes between the current DOE test
procedure (which references AHRI 1230-2010) and the proposed DOE test
procedure (which would reference AHRI 1230-2021) is likely to produce
different impacts on measured efficiency across different manufacturers
and different models. As DOE's crosswalk analysis has shown, a
minimally-compliant VRF multi-split system with 10.8 EER can result in
a range of crosswalked IEER levels from 13 to 16, depending on control
inputs selected by the manufacturer. Additionally, an estimation of
energy savings potentials of more-stringent energy efficiency levels
would require developing efficiency data for the entire VRF multi-split
system market, which would be a much broader analysis than that
conducted for the crosswalk. The crosswalk analysis conducted to
support the Working Group recommendations and presented in this NOPR
only translated the baseline efficiency level between the metrics for a
single class of VRF multi-split system, and did not translate all
efficiency levels currently represented in the market. As noted, there
are insufficient market data regarding the performance of VRF multi-
split systems measured in terms of IEER per AHRI 1230-2021. As such,
DOE has preliminarily determined that it lacks clear and convincing
evidence to adopt more-stringent standard levels.
Regardless of whether DOE preliminarily determined that more-
stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically
justified, DOE would be unable to adopt such standards absent a
determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that more-
stringent standards would result in significant additional energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Therefore, having
preliminarily determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence as
to the energy savings that would result from more-stringent standards,
DOE has not conducted analysis as to the technological feasibility or
economic justification of such standards for VRF multi-split systems.
B. Review Under the Six-Year Lookback Provision
As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Accordingly, DOE is evaluating 12 of the
Federal VRF equipment classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 did
not increase the stringency of the standards. Energy conservation
standards for the two remaining classes of VRF multi-split systems
(i.e., three-phase, air-cooled VRF multi-split systems with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) are not addressed in this NOPR and
instead will be addressed in a separate energy conservation standards
rulemaking. DOE may only adopt more-stringent
[[Page 11349]]
standards pursuant to the six-year look-back review if the Secretary
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that the adoption of more-stringent
standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
For the reasons presented in the prior section, DOE has
preliminarily determined that it lacks clear and convincing evidence
that more-stringent standards for these 12 equipment classes would
result in significant additional energy savings. Because DOE does not
have sufficient data to meet the ``clear and convincing'' threshold for
these 12 classes, DOE did not conduct an analysis of standard levels
more stringent than the current Federal standard levels for VRF multi-
split systems that were not amended in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. See
section V.A of this document for further discussion of the
consideration of energy efficiency levels more stringent than the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 levels.
C. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
Based on the foregoing, DOE proposes amended energy conservation
standards for VRF multi-split systems in terms of IEER and COP
equivalent to those specified for VRF multi-split systems in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016, which align with the levels recommended in the VRF
ECS Term Sheet. The proposed standards are presented in Table I-1.
Compliance with the proposed standards, if adopted, would be required
for VRF multi-split systems manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting January 1, 2024. which aligns with the Working
Group's recommendation in the VRF ECS Term Sheet.
As discussed, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 includes more-stringent COP
standards for six water-source VRF multi-split heat pump classes. If
DOE were to prescribe COP standards at the efficiency levels contained
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for these classes, EPCA provides that the
compliance date shall be on or after a date that is two or three years
(depending on the equipment type or size) after the effective date of
the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended
ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). The effective date for
amended COP standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 was January 1, 2017.
DOE acknowledges that the statute originally tied calculation of a
compliance date to either two or three years after the effective date
of amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. However, because these dates have
passed, DOE is proposing the date recommended in the VRF ECS Term Sheet
(i.e., January 1, 2024) as a reasonable amount of lead time supported
by a broad array of interested stakeholders. If DOE receives comments
in response to this notice that recommend alternative compliance
date(s) later than January 1, 2024, DOE will consider adopting
alternative compliance date(s) in the final rule.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency
to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that
warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of
that problem. The problems that the proposed standards for VRF multi-
split systems set forth in this NOPR are intended to address are as
follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases, the benefits of more-efficient equipment are not
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An
example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy
costs.
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy
efficiency of appliances and equipment that are not captured by the
users of such products. These benefits include externalities related to
public health, environmental protection, and national energy security
that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of
air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global
warming. DOE attempts to quantify some of the external benefits through
use of social cost of carbon values.
The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a regulatory impact analysis for this rule, and OIRA in the
OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to E.O. 13563,
issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is
supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures,
and definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866.
To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by E.O. 13563 to:
(1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the
best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the
requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify
costs and that net benefits are maximized.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law
[[Page 11350]]
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to amend the Federal energy
conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems under the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies
published on February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule,
if adopted, would not have significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual basis of this certification is
set forth in the following paragraphs.
DOE is proposing to amend the existing Federal minimum energy
conservation standards for VRF multi-split systems under EPCA's ASHRAE
trigger requirement and the six-year lookback provision. Under the
trigger, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
must adopt uniform national amended standards at the new ASHRAE
efficiency level, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that
adoption of a more-stringent level would produce significant additional
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Under the six-
year-lookback, DOE must also review energy efficiency standards for VRF
multi-split systems every six years and either: (1) Issue a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended based upon
the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) (i.e., that there is clear and
convincing evidence to show that adoption of a more-stringent level
would save significant additional energy and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified); or (2) issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking including new proposed standards based on certain criteria
and procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update the standards for VRF multi-
split systems at 10 CFR 431.97 to align with the most recent version of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including the updated COP levels for the six
classes of VRF multi-split water-source heat pumps on which DOE was
triggered. DOE is also proposing to express cooling efficiency
standards in terms of the IEER metric, as measured according to the
amended industry test procedure AHRI 1230-2021, and to remove standard
levels in terms of the EER metric, as measured according to the current
DOE test procedure. Finally, DOE is proposing to amend the equipment
class structure for VRF multi-split systems to align with the equipment
class structure present in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, with regards to
capacity break points, supplementary heating type, and presence of heat
recovery. The proposed standard levels, if adopted, would have a
compliance date applying to all VRF multi-split systems manufactured on
or after January 1, 2024. The proposed Table 14 to 10 CFR 431.97
accounts for all changes between the previous Federal VRF multi-split
system standards and those outlined in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 (as
reaffirmed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019).
DOE uses the Small Business Administration (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\18\ The SBA considers a business entity
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry
description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (Last accessed on July 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF multi-split system manufacturers are classified under NAICS
code 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category. This employee
threshold includes all employees in a business's parent company and any
other subsidiaries.
DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business
manufacturers of the equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE used
available public information to identify potential small manufacturers
that manufacture domestically. DOE identified manufacturers using DOE's
Compliance Certification Database \19\ and the AHRI Directory
database.\20\ DOE used this publicly-available information to identify
ten distinct original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of the covered VRF
multi-split system equipment. In reviewing the ten OEMs, DOE did not
identify any companies that met the SBA criteria for a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (Last accessed May 10, 2021).
\20\ The AHRI Directory Database is available at:
www.ahridirectory.org (Last accessed on May 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusions that no
small business OEMs of VRF multi-split systems, that adoption of the
prevailing industry standard levels would not result in any significant
economic impact, and, accordingly, that the proposed rule would not
have significant impacts on a substantial number of small
manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that this proposed rule, if
finalized, would not have ``a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities'' and that preparation of an IRFA is not
warranted. Additional information about this proposal is addressed
elsewhere in this document. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of VRF multi-split systems must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
products according to the DOE test procedures for VRF multi-split
systems, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including VRF multi-split systems. See generally 10 CFR part
429. The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the
[[Page 11351]]
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.
This NOPR is not proposing changes to the certification and
reporting requirements for VRF multi-split system manufacturers.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment.
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a
rulemaking that establishes amended energy conservation standards for
consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions
identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary
circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review
before issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the
general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and
burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement
of policy and determined that this proposed rule contains neither a
Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. As a result, the
analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result
in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[[Page 11352]]
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, ``Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act'' (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%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 regulatory action, which
proposes amended energy conservation standards for VRF multi-split
systems, is not a significant energy action because the proposed
standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\21\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation at the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the public meeting webinar. Such persons
may submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program at: [email protected]. Persons
who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that
briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and
the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a
daytime telephone number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the public meeting webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if
those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the
Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the
[[Page 11353]]
proceedings and any aspect of the proposed rulemaking.
The public meeting webinar will be conducted in an informal,
conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this proposed rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time
limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly
on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting webinar will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting webinar.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting webinar, but no later
than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this
proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its crosswalk analysis methodology
and crosswalk results.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to align equipment
classes for VRF multi-split systems with the structure in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2016, with additional clarification for heating type.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusions that
there are no small businesses that are OEMs of VRF multi-split systems,
that adoption of the prevailing industry standard levels would not
result in any significant economic impact, and accordingly, that the
proposed rule would not have significant impacts on a substantial
number of small manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may
[[Page 11354]]
not specifically be identified in this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 9,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
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.
0
2. Section 431.97 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (f) and Table 13; and
0
b. Adding Table 14.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
* * * * *
(f)(1) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump
manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in Table 13 of this
section and prior to January 1, 2024, must meet the applicable minimum
energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 13 of this
section.
Table 13 to Paragraph (F)(1)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type \1\ Efficiency level Products manufactured
on and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air <65,000 Btu/h.... All.............. 13.0 SEER........ June 16, 2008.
Conditioners (Air-Cooled). >=65,000 Btu/h No Heating or 11.2 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <135,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h No Heating or 11.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <240,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.8 EER......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h No Heating or 10.0 EER......... January 1, 2010.
and <760,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 9.8 EER.......... January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h.... All.............. 13.0 SEER, 7.7 June 16, 2008.
(Air-Cooled). >=65,000 Btu/h No Heating or HSPF. January 1, 2010.
and <135,000 Btu/ Electric 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h No Heating or 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP January 1, 2010.
and <240,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h No Heating or 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP. January 1, 2010.
and <760,000 Btu/ Electric
h. Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP. January 1, 2010.
of Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h.... Without Heat 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP October 29, 2012.
(Water-Source). Recovery. October 29, 2003.
With Heat 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP October 29, 2012.
Recovery. October 29, 2003.
>=17,000 Btu/h All.............. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP October 29, 2003.
and <65,000 Btu/
h.
>=65,000 Btu/h All.............. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP October 29, 2003.
and <135,000 Btu/
h.
>=135,000 Btu/h Without Heat 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP October 29, 2013.
and <760,000 Btu/ Recovery.
h.
With Heat 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP. October 29, 2013.
Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VRF multi-split heat pumps (air-cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ``All Other Types of
Heating'' unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for
``No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.''
(2) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump
(except air-cooled systems with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/
h) manufactured on or after January 1, 2024, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 14 of
this section.
[[Page 11355]]
Table 14 to Paragraph (F)(2)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Size category Heating type Minimum efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air- >=65,000 and <135,000 All.................... 15.5 IEER.
Cooled). Btu/h. All.................... 14.9 IEER.
>=135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h and All.................... 13.9 IEER.
<760,000 Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air- >=65,000 and <135,000 Heat Pump without Heat 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Cooled). Btu/h. Recovery. 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP.
Heat Pump with Heat
Recovery.
>=135,000 and <240,000 Heat Pump without Heat 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Btu/h. Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Recovery.
>=240,000 Btu/h and Heat Pump without Heat 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<760,000 btu/h. Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Recovery.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water- <65,000 Btu/h.......... Heat Pump without Heat 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Source). Recovery. 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Heat Pump with Heat
Recovery.
>=65,000 and <135,000 Heat Pump without Heat 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Btu/h. Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
Recovery.
>=135,000 and <240,000 Heat Pump without Heat 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP.
Btu/h. Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP.
Recovery.
>=240,000 Btu/h and Heat Pump without Heat 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP.
<760,000 Btu/h. Recovery.
Heat Pump with Heat 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP.
Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-03836 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
