Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver From the Department of Energy (DOE) Residential and Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures to Mitsubishi Electric, and Modification of a 2004 Waiver Granted to Mitsubishi Electric From the Same DOE Test Procedures (Case No. CAC-012), 17528-17533 [E7-6608]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17528
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
should be electronically mailed to
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.
[FR Doc. E7–6618 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EERE–2006–WAV–0147]
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver From the
Department of Energy (DOE)
Residential and Commercial Package
Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test
Procedures to Mitsubishi Electric, and
Modification of a 2004 Waiver Granted
to Mitsubishi Electric From the Same
DOE Test Procedures (Case No. CAC–
012)
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Today’s notice publishes a
Decision and Order (Case No. CAC–012)
granting a Waiver to Mitsubishi Electric
and Electronics USA, Inc. (‘‘MEUS’’)
from the existing Department of Energy
(DOE) residential and commercial
package air conditioner and heat pump
test procedures for specified R410A
CITY MULTI products. MEUS shall be
required to test and rate the R410A
CITY MULTI VRFZ products according
to the alternate test procedure set forth
in this notice. DOE is also amending the
waiver granted to MEUS for its R22
CITY MULTI products in August 2004
to explicitly prohibit MEUS from
making energy efficiency
representations regarding these products
unless such representations are
consistent with the alternate test
procedure.
Dr.
Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies
Program, Mailstop EE–2J, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9611, E-mail:
Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; or
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail
Stop GC–72, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
9507; E-mail:
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
In
accordance with Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations Parts 430.27(l) and
431.401(f)(4), notice is hereby given of
the issuance of a Decision and Order
granting MEUS a Waiver from the
applicable Department of Energy
residential and commercial package air
conditioner and heat pump test
procedures for its R410A CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning
(‘‘VRFZ’’) products, subject to a
condition requiring MEUS to test and
rate its R410A CITY MULTI products
pursuant to the alternate test procedure
described in this notice. Today’s
decision requires that any
representations concerning the energy
efficiency of these products are made
consistent with the provisions and
restrictions in the alternate test
procedure.
The waiver granted for MEUS’s R22
CITY MULTI VRFZ products on August
27, 2004, is hereby amended to prohibit
MEUS from making energy efficiency
representations regarding its R22 CITY
MULTI products unless such
representations are made consistent
with the provisions set forth in the
alternate test procedure described in
this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2,
2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Mitsubishi Electric
and Electronics USA, Inc. (‘‘MEUS’’)
(Case No. CAC–012).
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’) sets forth a
variety of provisions concerning energy
efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C.
6291–6309) provides for the ‘‘Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products other than Automobiles.’’ Part
C of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317)
provides for an energy efficiency
program entitled ‘‘Certain Industrial
Equipment,’’ which is similar to the
program in Part B, and which includes
commercial air conditioning equipment,
packaged boilers, water heaters, and
other types of commercial equipment.
Today’s notice involves residential
products under Part B, and commercial
equipment under Part C. Both parts
specifically provide for definitions, test
procedures, labeling provisions, energy
conservation standards, and the
authority to require information and
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reports from manufacturers. With
respect to test procedures, both parts
generally authorize the Secretary of
Energy to prescribe test procedures that
are reasonably designed to produce
results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use and estimated operating
costs, and that are not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2))
The test procedure for residential
central air conditioning and heat pump
products is contained in 10 CFR Part
430, Subpart B, Appendix M. For
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, EPCA provides
that the test procedures shall be those
generally accepted industry testing or
rating procedures developed or
recognized by the Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (‘‘ARI’’) or by the
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’), as referenced in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in
effect on June 30, 1992. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) This section also provides
for the Secretary of Energy to amend the
test procedure for a product if the
industry test procedure is amended,
unless the Secretary determines that
such a modified test procedure does not
meet the statutory criteria. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B))
On December 8, 2006, DOE published
a final rule adopting test procedures for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, effective
January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. DOE
adopted ARI Standard 210/240–2003 for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment with capacities
<65,000 Btu/h and ARI Standard 340/
360–2004 for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
with capacities ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h. Id. at 71371. The[MR1]
capacities of MEUS’s CITY MULTI
VRFZ products fall in the ranges
covered by ARI Standard 340/360–2004
and the DOE test procedure for
residential products referred to above.
DOE’s regulations contain provisions
allowing a person to seek a waiver from
the test procedure requirements for
covered consumer products. These
provisions are set forth in 10 CFR
430.27. The waiver provisions for
commercial equipment are substantively
identical to those for covered consumer
products and are found at 10 CFR
431.401.
The waiver provisions allow the
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (‘‘Assistant
Secretary’’) to temporarily waive test
procedures for a particular basic model
when a petitioner shows that the basic
model contains one or more design
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
characteristics that prevent testing
according to the prescribed test
procedures, or when the prescribed test
procedures may evaluate the basic
model in a manner so unrepresentative
of its true energy consumption as to
provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1),
10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).
The Assistant Secretary may grant the
waiver subject to conditions, including
adherence to alternate test procedures.
10 CFR 430.27 (l), 10 CFR 431.401 (f)(4).
Petitioners are to include in their
petition any alternate test procedures
known to evaluate the basic model in a
manner representative of its energy
consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii),
10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). Waivers
generally remain in effect until final test
procedure amendments resolving the
problem that is the subject of the waiver
become effective.
The waiver process also allows the
Assistant Secretary to grant an Interim
Waiver from test procedure
requirements to manufacturers that have
petitioned DOE for a waiver of such
prescribed test procedures. 10 CFR
430.27(a)(2), 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). An
Interim Waiver remains in effect for a
period of 180 days or until DOE issues
its determination on the Petition for
Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may
be extended for an additional 180 days,
if necessary. 10 CFR 430.27(h), 10 CFR
431.401(e)(4).
On November 7, 2005, MEUS filed an
Application for Interim Waiver and
Petition for Waiver from the test
procedures applicable to the R410A
models of its CITY MULTI VRFZ line of
residential and commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment.
MEUS’s petition requested a waiver
from both the residential and
commercial test procedures. In
particular, MEUS requested a waiver
from the residential test procedures
contained in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart
B, Appendix M, and a waiver from the
commercial test procedures contained
in ARI Standard 210/240–2003 and in
ARI Standard 340/360–2000.1 MEUS
seeks a waiver from the applicable test
procedures because the design
characteristics of the R410A systems
prevent testing according to the
currently prescribed test procedures.
On March 24, 2006, DOE published
MEUS’s Petition for Waiver and granted
1 In its petition, MEUS also requested a waiver
from ARI Standard 210/240–2003. Based on a
review of the products listed by MEUS in its
petition, DOE has determined that none of the
products have the combined features (i.e., 3-phase
power and rated capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h)
that would require a waiver from ARI Standard 210/
240–2003.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
the Application for Interim Waiver.2
DOE also published for comment an
alternate test procedure for MEUS. DOE
stated that if it specified an alternate test
procedure for MEUS in the subsequent
Decision and Order, DOE would
consider applying the procedure to
similar waivers for residential and
commercial central air conditioners and
heat pumps, including such waivers
that previously have been granted.3 DOE
solicited comments, data, and
information respecting the petition and
the proposed alternate test procedure.
DOE received written comments from
seven companies—Rheem Heating and
Cooling, Lennox International Inc.,
Daikin AC (Americas), Inc, Samsung
and Quietside, Sanyo Fisher Company,
United Mechanical and MEUS—in
response to the March 24th Notice. Only
one commenter expressed opposition to
the MEUS petition.4 Additionally, most
of the commenters responded favorably
to DOE’s proposed alternate test
procedure.5 Commenters generally
agreed that an alternate test procedure is
necessary while a final test procedure
for these types of products is being
developed.6
Assertions and Determinations
MEUS’s Petition for Waiver
DOE previously granted MEUS a
waiver from test procedures in 2004 for
similar CITY MULTI VRFZ models
which use R22 as a refrigerant.7 Given
product adjustments to accommodate
2 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products: Publication of the Petition for Waiver and
Granting of the Application for Interim Waiver of
Mitsubishi Electric From the DOE Residential and
Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat
Pump Test Procedures (Case No. CAC–012), 71 FR
14858 (March 24, 2006) (hereinafter, March 24th
Notice). On April 11, 2006, MEUS submitted a
Corrected Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and
Application for Interim Waiver (‘‘Corrected
Petition’’) to DOE. The Corrected Petition noted five
minor errors in the list of model numbers for which
the waiver and the interim waiver had been
requested. MEUS requested that the interim waiver
granted apply to the corrected list of model
numbers, and that DOE use the corrected list of
model numbers in any future actions regarding the
Petition for Test Procedure Waiver. In a letter dated
June 1, 2006, DOE granted MEUS’s request.
3 March 24th Notice, 71 FR 14861.
4 The only commenter that objected to MEUS’s
Petition was Lennox International Inc.
5 See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher
Company, Samsung and Quietside, United
Mechanical, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem
Heating and Cooling.
6 See Comments submitted by MEUS, Sanyo
Fisher Company, Samsung and Quietside, Daikin
AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem Heating and
Cooling.
7 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver
From the DOE Commercial Package Air Conditioner
and Heat Pump Test Procedure to Mitsubishi
Electric (Case No. CAC–008), 69 FR 52660, at 52662
(Aug. 27, 2004) (hereinafter, ‘‘2004 Waiver’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17529
the new R410A refrigerant, MEUS
requested a waiver from the test
procedures for its new CITY MULTI
models. The MEUS petition requested
that DOE grant a waiver from existing
test procedures until such time as a
representative test procedure is
developed and adopted for this class of
products. MEUS did not include an
alternate test procedure in its petition
and noted that it knows of no test
procedure that could evaluate its
products in a representative manner.
However, MEUS is actively working
with ARI to develop test procedures that
accurately reflect the operation and
energy consumption of these types of
units.
MEUS’s petition presented several
arguments in support of its claim.
MEUS stated that the design
characteristics of the R410A CITY
MULTI VRFZ systems prevent testing
according to the currently prescribed
test procedures for the same reasons that
its R22 models were previously granted
a waiver. The R410A CITY MULTI
systems, like the R22 models, can
connect more indoor units than the test
laboratories can physically test at one
time. Because of the inability to test
products with so many indoor units,
testing laboratories will not be able to
test many of the R410A system
combinations. Furthermore, MEUS
asserted that the current DOE test
procedures do not provide direction for
determining what combinations of
outdoor and indoor units should be
tested in the circumstance where a
multitude of different combinations are
possible. Also, the test procedures
provide no mechanism for sampling
component combinations. In addition,
MEUS asserted that it is not practical to
test all of the potentially available
combinations of indoor and outdoor
units, which could number in the
billions.
MEUS stated that the R410A CITY
MULTI system is designed to be
flexible, with numerous combinations
possible. According to MEUS, each of
the 108,000 Btu/h rated outdoor units is
designed to be connected with up to 18
indoor units, while each of the 234,000
Btu/h rated outdoor units can be
configured with up to 32 indoor units.
MEUS offers 58 different indoor models
that can be used in the different
combinations. Given the above, MEUS
asserts the current test procedures
cannot practically be applied to the
CITY MULTI VRFZ systems.
MEUS claims that many of the
benefits of its systems’ characteristics,
including variable refrigerant control
and distribution, zoning diversity, partload operation and simultaneous
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
17530
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
heating and cooling, are not credited
under the current test procedures. For
residential systems, there are some
deficiencies in the current DOE test
methods and calculation algorithms
when applied to multi-split systems.
With regard to commercial systems,
MEUS asserts that the current test
procedure for the energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘EER’’) does not capture the energy
savings of VRFZ products. The same
issue was raised by MEUS in its petition
for waiver for its R22 CITY MULTI
products. As DOE stated in the waiver
granted in August 2004, ‘‘while this
assertion is true, it is irrelevant because
the full load EER energy efficiency
descriptor is one mandated by EPCA for
these products (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(c)),
and the relevant energy performance is
the peak load efficiency, not the
seasonal energy savings.’’ 8 A waiver can
only be granted if a test procedure does
not fairly represent the peak load energy
consumption characteristics which EER
measures. Therefore, the basis for this
waiver, as was the case for the 2004
Waiver, is the problem of being
physically unable to test most of the
complete systems in a laboratory, the
regulatory requirement to test the
highest-sales-volume combination, and
the lack of a method for predicting the
performance of untested combinations.
Lennox International Inc. argued that
waivers for VRFZ systems should not be
granted because the existing DOE test
procedures are available to rate these
systems. DOE agrees that the existing
test procedures can be used, but only
after clarifications are made and
deficiencies are addressed.
In August 2004, DOE granted a
Petition for Waiver to MEUS relating to
its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products,
finding that ‘‘the basic model contains
one or more design characteristics
which * * * prevent testing of the basic
model according to the prescribed test
procedures.’’ 9 MEUS’s November 2005
Petition for Waiver for its R410A CITY
MULTI VRFZ products presents
virtually the same issues, and thus we
find that waiver of the test procedures
is appropriate. To enable MEUS to make
energy efficiency representations for the
specified CITY MULTI products, DOE
adopts the alternate test procedure
described below.
DOE’s Alternate Test Procedure
As explained in DOE’s March 24th
Notice, manufacturers face restrictions
with respect to making representations
about the energy consumption and
energy consumption costs of products
8 69
FR 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004).
9 Ibid.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
covered by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c), 42
U.S.C. 6314(d)). The ability of a
manufacturer to make representations
about the energy efficiency of its
products is important, for instance, to
determine compliance with state and
local energy codes and regulatory
requirements. Energy efficiency
representations also provide valuable
consumer purchasing information.
Therefore, to provide a basis from which
manufacturers covered by a test
procedure waiver for VRFZ products
can make valid energy efficiency
representations, DOE proposed an
alternate test procedure for MEUS in the
March 24th Notice.
The alternate test procedure has two
basic components. First, it permits
MEUS to designate a ‘‘tested
combination’’ for each model of outdoor
unit. The indoor units designated as
part of the tested combination must
meet specific requirements. For
example, the tested combination must
have from two to five indoor units so
that it can be tested in available test
facilities. The tested combination must
be tested according to the applicable
DOE test procedure. Second, it permits
MEUS to represent the energy efficiency
for a non-tested combination in two
ways. MEUS may represent the energy
efficiency of a non-tested combination:
(1) At an energy efficiency level
determined under a DOE-approved
alternative rating method; or, if method
(1) Is not available, (2) at the efficiency
level of the tested combination utilizing
the same outdoor unit. Until an
alternative rating method is developed,
all combinations with a particular
outdoor unit may use the rating of the
combination tested with that outdoor
unit. DOE believes that allowing MEUS
to make energy efficiency
representations for non-tested
combinations as described above is
reasonable because the outdoor unit is
the principal efficiency driver. The
current test procedure tends to rate
these products conservatively. This is
because the current test procedure does
not account for the product’s
simultaneous heating and cooling
capability, which is more efficient than
requiring all zones to be either heated or
cooled. Further, the multi-zoning
feature of these products, which enables
them to cool only those portions of the
building that require cooling, can use
less energy than if the unit is operated
to cool the entire home or a
comparatively larger area of a
commercial building in response to a
single thermostat. Additionally, the
current test procedure for commercial
equipment requires full load testing,
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
which disadvantages these products
because they are optimized for best
efficiency when operating with less than
full loads. In fact, these products
normally operate at part-load
conditions. Therefore, as explained in
the March 24th Notice, the alternate test
procedure will provide a conservative
basis for assessing the energy efficiency
for such products.10
The alternate test procedure applies to
both residential and commercial multisplit products. However, some
provisions are specific to residential or
commercial products. Section (A) of the
alternate test procedure has different
provisions for residential and
commercial products. Section (B),
which defines the combinations of
indoor and outdoor units to test, and
section (C), which sets forth the
requirements for making
representations, are the same for both
residential and commercial products.
Section (A) distinguishes between
residential and commercial products for
two reasons. First, 10 CFR part 430.24,
used for residential products, already
has requirements for selecting splitsystem combinations based on the
highest sales volume. Part 431 of 10
CFR, which applies to commercial
products, has no comparable
requirements. Section (A) modifies the
residential and commercial CFR
requirements so that both residential
and commercial products can use the
same definition of a ‘‘tested
combination,’’ which definition is set
forth in section (B). Second, section (A)
requires several test procedure revisions
to determine the SEER and HSPF for the
tested combination of residential
products. No test procedure revisions
are introduced for commercial products.
[P3] The changes for residential
products relate to: (1) The requirement
that all indoor units operate during all
tests, (2) the restriction on using only
one indoor test room, (3) the selection
of the modulation levels (maximum,
minimum, and a specified intermediate
speed) used when testing, and (4) the
algorithm for estimating performance
over the intermediate speed operating
range. These changes are proposed in a
July 20, 2006, DOE notice of proposed
rulemaking. 71 FR 41320. For today’s
Decision and Order, the July 20, 2006,
proposed changes to test procedure
sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4
(including Table 6), 3.6.4 (including
Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 constitute
mandatory elements of the alternate test
procedure. These changes allow indoor
units to cycle off, allow the
manufacturer to specify the compressor
10 71
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
FR 14862 (March 24, 2006).
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
speed used during certain tests, and
introduce a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption.
With regard to the laboratory testing
of both residential and commercial
products, some of the difficulties are
avoided by the requirements for
choosing the indoor units to be used in
the manufacturer-specified tested
combination. For example, in addition
to limiting the number of indoor units,
another requirement is that all of the
indoor units must be subject to meeting
the same minimum external static
pressure. This requirement allows the
test lab to manifold the outlets from
each indoor unit into a common plenum
that supplies air to a single airflow
measuring apparatus. This requirement
eliminates situations in which some of
the indoor units are ducted and some
are non-ducted. Without this
requirement, the laboratory must
evaluate the capacity of a subgroup of
indoor coils separately, and then sum
the separate capacities to obtain the
overall system capacity. This would
require that the test lab must be
equipped with multiple airflow
measuring apparatuses (which is
unlikely), or that the test lab connect its
one airflow measuring apparatus to one
or more common indoor units until the
contribution of each indoor unit has
been measured.
DOE stated that if it specified an
alternate test procedure for MEUS, it
would consider applying the procedure
to waivers for similar residential and
commercial central air conditioners and
heat pumps produced by other
manufacturers. Most of the comments
received by DOE favored the proposed
alternate test procedure. Commenters
generally agreed that an alternate test
procedure is appropriate for an interim
period while a final test procedure for
these products is being developed.11
Sanyo and Daikin raised concerns
regarding DOE’s proposal to allow
manufacturers to represent the energy
efficiency of non-tested combinations at
the DOE-prescribed minimum efficiency
level for the product class. They
suggested that allowing such ratings
without testing the product may allow
low efficiency products to be installed
even though equipment that meets or
exceeds the minimum requirements is
available.12 DOE believes these
commenters misread the proposed
11 See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher
Company (Sanyo, No. 7), Samsung and Quietside
(Samsung, No. 8), Daikin AC (Americas), Inc.
(Daikin, No. 3), and Rheem Heating and Cooling
(Rheem, No. 5).
12 See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher
Company, (Sanyo, No.7 at page 1) and Daikin AC
(Americas), Inc., (Daikin, No. 3 at pages 1–2).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
alternate test procedure. As explained in
the March 24th Notice, the alternate test
procedure adopts a conservative
approach for rating VRFZ products
based on the tested results of a simple
system configuration. In the proposed
alternate test procedure, DOE would
allow manufacturers to make efficiency
representations for non-tested
combinations at the DOE-prescribed
minimum efficiency level for the
product class only if the tested
combination with the same outdoor unit
met or exceeded the minimum
efficiency level. 71 FR 14862, March 24,
2006. DOE is eliminating this option
because, as explained below, there is no
need for it.
Rheem suggested that third party
testing, or on-site witness testing, is the
preferred method to verify system
performance.13 Additionally, Rheem
requested that, in order to provide fair
and equitable test methods and ratings
to the consumer, the heating test points
and laboratory operating conditions
remain consistent.14 DOE’s alternate test
procedure would specify certain
parameters for the testing of VRFZ
products, but would otherwise retain
the existing test procedure protocols on
issues such as where products are
tested, test points, and laboratory
operating conditions. Thus, in these
respects, VRFZ systems would be tested
as other products are tested under the
existing test procedures.
Lennox suggested that DOE bar sales
of non-tested combinations with an
evaporator capacity of less than 95% of
the nominal outdoor unit capacity
unless an approved ARM (alternative
rating method) simulation is available to
demonstrate conformance to the
minimum efficiency requirement.15 No
data was provided to justify this
proposed indoor-to-outdoor sizing
limitation and so DOE is inclined not to
impose such a regulatory limitation on
VRFZ configurations at this time.
Moreover, DOE expects the
development of an alternative rating
method that is applicable to multi-split
systems like the MEUS CITY MULTI
products will follow, and not precede,
the work by ARI members to develop a
multi-split test procedure.
Based on the discussion above, DOE
believes that the testing problems
described above do prevent testing of
the R410A CITY MULTI basic model
according to the test procedures
prescribed in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart
13 See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating
and Cooling, (Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
14 See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating
and Cooling, (Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
15 See Comments submitted by Lennox
International Inc., (Lennox, No. 6 at page 2).
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17531
B, Appendix M, and[P9] ARI Standard
340/360–2000. After reviewing and
considering all of the comments
submitted regarding the proposed
alternate test procedure, DOE believes
that the proposed alternate test
procedure, with the clarifications
discussed above, should be adopted.
DOE will also consider applying the
same alternate test procedure to similar
waivers for residential and commercial
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
MEUS Waiver for R22 Products
In the previous paragraph, DOE stated
its intention to consider applying the
alternate test procedure to similar
waivers. Such a similar waiver was
granted to MEUS for its R22 CITY
MULTI VRFZ products on August 27,
2004 (the ‘‘2004 Waiver’’, see footnote
7). As discussed previously, the R22
products are quite similar to the R410A
products that are the subject of this
waiver. Therefore, today’s notice
amends the 2004 Waiver to prohibit
MEUS from making energy efficiency
representations regarding its R22 CITY
MULTI products unless such
representations are made consistent
with the provisions of the alternate test
procedure.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’) concerning the
MEUS petition. The FTC did not have
any objections to the issuance of the
waiver to MEUS. Thus, DOE is granting
MEUS’s petition.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the
material that was submitted by MEUS,
the comments received, the review by
NIST, and consultation with the FTC, it
is ordered that:
(1) The ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ filed by
Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics
USA, Inc. (MEUS) (Case No. CAC–012)
is hereby granted as set forth in the
paragraphs below.
(2) MEUS shall not be required to test
or rate its R410A CITY MULTI Variable
Refrigerant Flow Zoning (‘‘VRFZ’’)
products listed below on the basis of the
currently applicable test procedures, but
shall be required to test and rate such
products according to the alternate test
procedure as set forth in Paragraph
(3): 16
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant
Flow Zoning System R–2 Series Outdoor
Equipment:
• PURY–P72TGMU–*, 72,000 Btu/h
208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
16 The * denotes engineering differences in the
models.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17532
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
• PURY–P96TGMU–*, 96,000 Btu/h
208/230–3–60 split–system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P108TGMU–*, 108,000 Btu/
h 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P126TGMU–*, 126,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P144TGMU–*, 144,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P168TGMU–*, 168,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P192TGMU–*, 192,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P204TGMU–*, 204,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P216TGMU–*, 216,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PURY–P234TGMU–*, 234,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant
Flow Zoning System Y-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
• PUHY–P72TGMU–*, 72,000 Btu/h
208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P96TGMU–*, 96,000 Btu/h
208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P108TGMU–*, 108,000 Btu/
h 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P126TGMU–*, 126,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P144TGMU–*, 144,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P168TGMU–*, 168,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P192TGMU–*, 192,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P204TGMU–*, 204,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump
• PUHY–P216TGMU–*, 216,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split–system variablespeed heat pump.
• PUHY–P234TGMU–*, 234,000 Btu/
h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant
Flow Zoning System S-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
• PUMY–P48NHMU–*, 48,000 Btu/h,
208/230–1–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant
Flow Zoning System Indoor Equipment:
• P*FY models, ranging from 6,000 to
96,000 Btu/h, 208/230–1–60 split-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
system variable-capacity air conditioner
or heat pump.
• PCFY Series—Ceiling Suspended—
PCFY–P12/18/24/30/36***–*.
• PDFY Series—Ceiling Concealed
Ducted—PDFY–P06/08/12/15/18/24/30/
36/48***–*.
• PEFY Series—Ceiling Concealed
Ducted (Low Profile)—PEFY–P06/08/
12***–*.
• PEFY Series—Ceiling Concealed
Ducted (Alternate High Static Option)—
PEFY–P15/18/24/27/30/36/48/54/72/
96***–*.
• PEFY–F Series—Ceiling Concealed
Ducted (100% OA Option)—PEFY–P
30/54/72/96***––*.
• PFFY Series—Floor Standing
(Concealed)—PFFY–P06/08/12/15/18/
24***–*.
• PFFY Series—Floor Standing
(Exposed)—PFFY–P06/08/12/15/18/
24***–*.
• PKFY Series—Wall-Mounted—
PKFY–P06/08/12/18/24/30***–*.
• PLFY Series—4-Way Airflow
Ceiling Cassette—PLFY–P12/18/24/30/
36***–*.
• PMFY Series—1-Way Airflow
Ceiling Cassette—PMFY–P06/08/12/
15[MR12]***–*.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) MEUS shall be required to test the
products listed in Paragraph (2) above
according to those test procedures for
central air conditioners and heat pumps
prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR Parts 430
and 431, except that:
(i) For products covered by 10 CFR
Part 430 (consumer products), MEUS
shall not be required to comply with: (1)
The first sentence in 10 CFR
430.24(m)(2), which refers to ‘‘that
combination manufactured by the
condensing unit manufacturer likely to
have the highest volume of retail sales;’’
and (2) the third sentence in 10 CFR
430(m)(2) and the provisions of 10 CFR
430(m)(2)(i) and (ii). Instead of testing
the combinations likely to have the
highest volume of retail sales, MEUS
may test a ‘‘tested combination’’
selected in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph. Additionally, instead of
following the provisions of 10 CFR
430(m)(2)(i) and (ii) for every other
system combination using the same
outdoor unit as the tested combination,
MEUS shall make representations
concerning the R410A CITY MULTI
products covered in this waiver
according to the provisions of
subparagraph (C) below.
(ii) For products covered by 10 CFR
Part 430 (consumer products), MEUS
shall be required to comply with 10 CFR
430 Appendix M as amended in
accordance with designated changes
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that are listed in the July 20, 2006
Federal Register Notice. 71 FR 41320,
July 20, 2006. These designated changes
are with respect to the following test
procedure sections: 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1,
3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4
(including Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and
4.2.4.2.
(iii) For products covered by 10 CFR
Part 431 (commercial products), MEUS
shall test a ‘‘tested combination’’
selected in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph. For every other system
combination using the same outdoor
unit as the tested combination, MEUS
shall make representations concerning
the R410A CITY MULTI products
covered in this waiver according to the
provisions of subparagraph (C) below.
(B) Tested combination. The term
‘‘tested combination’’ means a sample
basic model comprised of units that are
production units, or are representative
of production units, of the basic model
being tested. For the purposes of this
waiver, the tested combination shall
have the following features:
(i) The basic model of a variable
refrigerant flow system used as a tested
combination shall consist of an outdoor
unit that is matched with between 2 and
5 indoor units.
(ii) The indoor units shall—
(a) Represent the highest sales volume
type models;
(b) Together, have a capacity between
95% and 105% of the capacity of the
outdoor unit;
(c) Not, individually, have a capacity
greater than 50% of the capacity of the
outdoor unit;
(d) Have a fan speed that is consistent
with the manufacturer’s specifications;
and
(e) All have the same external static
pressure[MR15].
(C) Representations. MEUS may make
representations about the energy
efficiency of CITY MULTI VRFZ
products, for compliance, marketing, or
other purposes, only to the extent that
such representations are made
consistent with the provisions outlined
below:
(i) For CITY MULTI VRFZ
combinations tested in accordance with
this alternate test procedure, MEUS may
make representations based on these test
results.
(ii) For CITY MULTI VRFZ
combinations that are not tested, MEUS
may make representations which are
based on the testing results for the
tested combination and which are
consistent with either of the two
following methods, except that only
method (a) may be used, if available:
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
(a) Representation of non-tested
combinations according to an
Alternative Rating Method (‘‘ARM’’)
approved by DOE.
(b) Representation of non-tested
combinations at the same energy
efficiency level as the tested
combination with the same outdoor
unit.
(4) The waiver granted for MEUS’s
R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products on
August 27, 2004 17 is hereby amended to
prohibit MEUS from making energy
efficiency representations regarding its
R22 CITY MULTI products unless such
representations are made consistent
with the provisions set forth in
Paragraph (3) above.
(5) This waiver shall remain in effect
from the date of issuance of this Order
until DOE prescribes final test
procedures appropriate to the model
series manufactured by MEUS and
listed above.
(6) This waiver is conditioned upon
the presumed validity of statements,
representations, and documentary
materials provided by the petitioner.
This waiver may be revoked or modified
at any time upon a determination that
the factual basis underlying the petition
is incorrect, or DOE determines that the
results from the alternate test procedure
are unrepresentative of the basic
models’ true energy consumption
characteristics.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2,
2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7–6608 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Publication of the
Petition for Waiver and Granting of the
Application for Interim Waiver of
Mitsubishi Electric From the DOE
Commercial Water Source Heat Pump
Test Procedure [Case No. CAC–015]
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of petition for waiver,
granting of application for interim
waiver, and request for comments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Today’s notice publishes a
Petition for Waiver from Mitsubishi
17 71
FR 14858 (March 24, 2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(MEUS). This Petition for Waiver
(hereafter ‘‘MEUS Petition’’) requests a
waiver of the Department of Energy
(‘‘DOE’’) test procedures applicable to
commercial package water source heat
pumps. DOE is soliciting comments,
data, and information with respect to
the MEUS Petition. Today’s notice also
grants an Interim Waiver to MEUS, with
an alternate test procedure, from the
existing DOE test procedure applicable
to commercial package water source
heat pumps.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this Petition
for Waiver until, but no later than May
9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments,
identified by case number [CAC–015],
by any of the following methods:
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945.
Please submit one signed original paper
copy.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Room 1J–018, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
• E-mail:
Michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. Include
either the case number [CAC–015], and/
or ‘‘MEUS Petition’’ in the subject line
of the message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and case
number for this proceeding. Submit
electronic comments in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file
format and avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption.
Wherever possible, include the
electronic signature of the author.
Absent an electronic signature,
comments submitted electronically
must be followed and authenticated by
submitting the signed original paper
document. DOE does not accept
telefacsimiles (faxes). Any person
submitting written comments must also
send a copy of such comments to the
petitioner. 10 CFR 431.401(d)(2). The
name and address of the petitioner of
today’s notice is: William Rau, Senior
Vice President and General Manager,
HVAC Advanced Products Division,
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA,
Inc., 4300 Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road,
Suwanee, GA 30024.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17533
According 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 two copies: one copy of
the document including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document 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.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read the background documents
relevant to this matter, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program),
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Available documents include the
following items: this notice; public
comments received; the Petition for
Waiver and Application for Interim
Waiver; prior Department rulemakings
regarding commercial central air
conditioners and heat pumps; the prior
MEUS Petition for Waiver, DOE’s notice
of the prior MEUS Petition for Waiver
and the DOE Decision and Order (D&O)
regarding the prior MEUS Petition,
which is being published today. Please
call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the
above telephone number for additional
information regarding visiting the
Resource Room. Please note: DOE’s
Freedom of Information Reading Room
(formerly Room 1E–190 at the Forrestal
Building) is no longer housing
rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121, (202) 586–9611; e-mail:
Michael.Raymond.ee.doe.gov; or
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail
Stop GC–72, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–
9507; e-mail:
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Authority
II. Petition for Waiver
III. Application for Interim Waiver
IV. Alternate Test Procedure
V. Summary and Request for Comments
I. Background and Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17528-17533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6608]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EERE-2006-WAV-0147]
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver From the Department of Energy (DOE) Residential
and Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures to
Mitsubishi Electric, and Modification of a 2004 Waiver Granted to
Mitsubishi Electric From the Same DOE Test Procedures (Case No. CAC-
012)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a Decision and Order (Case No. CAC-
012) granting a Waiver to Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(``MEUS'') from the existing Department of Energy (DOE) residential and
commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for
specified R410A CITY MULTI products. MEUS shall be required to test and
rate the R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products according to the alternate test
procedure set forth in this notice. DOE is also amending the waiver
granted to MEUS for its R22 CITY MULTI products in August 2004 to
explicitly prohibit MEUS from making energy efficiency representations
regarding these products unless such representations are consistent
with the alternate test procedure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9611, E-mail:
Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-72, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-
9507; E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 430.27(l) and 431.401(f)(4), notice is hereby given
of the issuance of a Decision and Order granting MEUS a Waiver from the
applicable Department of Energy residential and commercial package air
conditioner and heat pump test procedures for its R410A CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (``VRFZ'') products, subject to a
condition requiring MEUS to test and rate its R410A CITY MULTI products
pursuant to the alternate test procedure described in this notice.
Today's decision requires that any representations concerning the
energy efficiency of these products are made consistent with the
provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure.
The waiver granted for MEUS's R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products on
August 27, 2004, is hereby amended to prohibit MEUS from making energy
efficiency representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products unless
such representations are made consistent with the provisions set forth
in the alternate test procedure described in this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(``MEUS'') (Case No. CAC-012).
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA'') sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part B of
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the ``Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles.'' Part C of Title
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) provides for an energy efficiency program
entitled ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' which is similar to the
program in Part B, and which includes commercial air conditioning
equipment, packaged boilers, water heaters, and other types of
commercial equipment.
Today's notice involves residential products under Part B, and
commercial equipment under Part C. Both parts specifically provide for
definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation
standards, and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers. With respect to test procedures, both parts generally
authorize the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are
reasonably designed to produce results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use and estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2))
The test procedure for residential central air conditioning and
heat pump products is contained in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix
M. For commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA
provides that the test procedures shall be those generally accepted
industry testing or rating procedures developed or recognized by the
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (``ARI'') or by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and
in effect on June 30, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) This section also
provides for the Secretary of Energy to amend the test procedure for a
product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary
determines that such a modified test procedure does not meet the
statutory criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test
procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. DOE adopted ARI
Standard 210/240-2003 for commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment with capacities <65,000 Btu/h and ARI Standard 340/
360-2004 for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
with capacities >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. Id. at 71371.
The[MR1] capacities of MEUS's CITY MULTI VRFZ products fall in the
ranges covered by ARI Standard 340/360-2004 and the DOE test procedure
for residential products referred to above.
DOE's regulations contain provisions allowing a person to seek a
waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer
products. These provisions are set forth in 10 CFR 430.27. The waiver
provisions for commercial equipment are substantively identical to
those for covered consumer products and are found at 10 CFR 431.401.
The waiver provisions allow the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (``Assistant Secretary'') to
temporarily waive test procedures for a particular basic model when a
petitioner shows that the basic model contains one or more design
[[Page 17529]]
characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test
procedures, or when the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the
basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy
consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10
CFR 430.27(a)(1), 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).
The Assistant Secretary may grant the waiver subject to conditions,
including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27 (l), 10
CFR 431.401 (f)(4). Petitioners are to include in their petition any
alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a manner
representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii), 10
CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). Waivers generally remain in effect until final
test procedure amendments resolving the problem that is the subject of
the waiver become effective.
The waiver process also allows the Assistant Secretary to grant an
Interim Waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that
have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures. 10
CFR 430.27(a)(2), 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). An Interim Waiver remains in
effect for a period of 180 days or until DOE issues its determination
on the Petition for Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may be extended
for an additional 180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 430.27(h), 10 CFR
431.401(e)(4).
On November 7, 2005, MEUS filed an Application for Interim Waiver
and Petition for Waiver from the test procedures applicable to the
R410A models of its CITY MULTI VRFZ line of residential and commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment. MEUS's petition
requested a waiver from both the residential and commercial test
procedures. In particular, MEUS requested a waiver from the residential
test procedures contained in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M,
and a waiver from the commercial test procedures contained in ARI
Standard 210/240-2003 and in ARI Standard 340/360-2000.\1\ MEUS seeks a
waiver from the applicable test procedures because the design
characteristics of the R410A systems prevent testing according to the
currently prescribed test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its petition, MEUS also requested a waiver from ARI
Standard 210/240-2003. Based on a review of the products listed by
MEUS in its petition, DOE has determined that none of the products
have the combined features (i.e., 3-phase power and rated capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h) that would require a waiver from ARI
Standard 210/240-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2006, DOE published MEUS's Petition for Waiver and
granted the Application for Interim Waiver.\2\ DOE also published for
comment an alternate test procedure for MEUS. DOE stated that if it
specified an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent
Decision and Order, DOE would consider applying the procedure to
similar waivers for residential and commercial central air conditioners
and heat pumps, including such waivers that previously have been
granted.\3\ DOE solicited comments, data, and information respecting
the petition and the proposed alternate test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:
Publication of the Petition for Waiver and Granting of the
Application for Interim Waiver of Mitsubishi Electric From the DOE
Residential and Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump
Test Procedures (Case No. CAC-012), 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006)
(hereinafter, March 24th Notice). On April 11, 2006, MEUS submitted
a Corrected Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application
for Interim Waiver (``Corrected Petition'') to DOE. The Corrected
Petition noted five minor errors in the list of model numbers for
which the waiver and the interim waiver had been requested. MEUS
requested that the interim waiver granted apply to the corrected
list of model numbers, and that DOE use the corrected list of model
numbers in any future actions regarding the Petition for Test
Procedure Waiver. In a letter dated June 1, 2006, DOE granted MEUS's
request.
\3\ March 24th Notice, 71 FR 14861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received written comments from seven companies--Rheem Heating
and Cooling, Lennox International Inc., Daikin AC (Americas), Inc,
Samsung and Quietside, Sanyo Fisher Company, United Mechanical and
MEUS--in response to the March 24th Notice. Only one commenter
expressed opposition to the MEUS petition.\4\ Additionally, most of the
commenters responded favorably to DOE's proposed alternate test
procedure.\5\ Commenters generally agreed that an alternate test
procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for these types of
products is being developed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The only commenter that objected to MEUS's Petition was
Lennox International Inc.
\5\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company, Samsung and
Quietside, United Mechanical, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem
Heating and Cooling.
\6\ See Comments submitted by MEUS, Sanyo Fisher Company,
Samsung and Quietside, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem Heating
and Cooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions and Determinations
MEUS's Petition for Waiver
DOE previously granted MEUS a waiver from test procedures in 2004
for similar CITY MULTI VRFZ models which use R22 as a refrigerant.\7\
Given product adjustments to accommodate the new R410A refrigerant,
MEUS requested a waiver from the test procedures for its new CITY MULTI
models. The MEUS petition requested that DOE grant a waiver from
existing test procedures until such time as a representative test
procedure is developed and adopted for this class of products. MEUS did
not include an alternate test procedure in its petition and noted that
it knows of no test procedure that could evaluate its products in a
representative manner. However, MEUS is actively working with ARI to
develop test procedures that accurately reflect the operation and
energy consumption of these types of units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision
and Order Granting a Waiver From the DOE Commercial Package Air
Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure to Mitsubishi Electric
(Case No. CAC-008), 69 FR 52660, at 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004)
(hereinafter, ``2004 Waiver'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEUS's petition presented several arguments in support of its
claim. MEUS stated that the design characteristics of the R410A CITY
MULTI VRFZ systems prevent testing according to the currently
prescribed test procedures for the same reasons that its R22 models
were previously granted a waiver. The R410A CITY MULTI systems, like
the R22 models, can connect more indoor units than the test
laboratories can physically test at one time. Because of the inability
to test products with so many indoor units, testing laboratories will
not be able to test many of the R410A system combinations. Furthermore,
MEUS asserted that the current DOE test procedures do not provide
direction for determining what combinations of outdoor and indoor units
should be tested in the circumstance where a multitude of different
combinations are possible. Also, the test procedures provide no
mechanism for sampling component combinations. In addition, MEUS
asserted that it is not practical to test all of the potentially
available combinations of indoor and outdoor units, which could number
in the billions.
MEUS stated that the R410A CITY MULTI system is designed to be
flexible, with numerous combinations possible. According to MEUS, each
of the 108,000 Btu/h rated outdoor units is designed to be connected
with up to 18 indoor units, while each of the 234,000 Btu/h rated
outdoor units can be configured with up to 32 indoor units. MEUS offers
58 different indoor models that can be used in the different
combinations. Given the above, MEUS asserts the current test procedures
cannot practically be applied to the CITY MULTI VRFZ systems.
MEUS claims that many of the benefits of its systems'
characteristics, including variable refrigerant control and
distribution, zoning diversity, part-load operation and simultaneous
[[Page 17530]]
heating and cooling, are not credited under the current test
procedures. For residential systems, there are some deficiencies in the
current DOE test methods and calculation algorithms when applied to
multi-split systems. With regard to commercial systems, MEUS asserts
that the current test procedure for the energy efficiency ratio
(``EER'') does not capture the energy savings of VRFZ products. The
same issue was raised by MEUS in its petition for waiver for its R22
CITY MULTI products. As DOE stated in the waiver granted in August
2004, ``while this assertion is true, it is irrelevant because the full
load EER energy efficiency descriptor is one mandated by EPCA for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(c)), and the relevant energy performance
is the peak load efficiency, not the seasonal energy savings.'' \8\ A
waiver can only be granted if a test procedure does not fairly
represent the peak load energy consumption characteristics which EER
measures. Therefore, the basis for this waiver, as was the case for the
2004 Waiver, is the problem of being physically unable to test most of
the complete systems in a laboratory, the regulatory requirement to
test the highest-sales-volume combination, and the lack of a method for
predicting the performance of untested combinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 69 FR 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. argued that waivers for VRFZ systems
should not be granted because the existing DOE test procedures are
available to rate these systems. DOE agrees that the existing test
procedures can be used, but only after clarifications are made and
deficiencies are addressed.
In August 2004, DOE granted a Petition for Waiver to MEUS relating
to its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products, finding that ``the basic model
contains one or more design characteristics which * * * prevent testing
of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures.'' \9\
MEUS's November 2005 Petition for Waiver for its R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ
products presents virtually the same issues, and thus we find that
waiver of the test procedures is appropriate. To enable MEUS to make
energy efficiency representations for the specified CITY MULTI
products, DOE adopts the alternate test procedure described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's Alternate Test Procedure
As explained in DOE's March 24th Notice, manufacturers face
restrictions with respect to making representations about the energy
consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c), 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). The ability of a manufacturer
to make representations about the energy efficiency of its products is
important, for instance, to determine compliance with state and local
energy codes and regulatory requirements. Energy efficiency
representations also provide valuable consumer purchasing information.
Therefore, to provide a basis from which manufacturers covered by a
test procedure waiver for VRFZ products can make valid energy
efficiency representations, DOE proposed an alternate test procedure
for MEUS in the March 24th Notice.
The alternate test procedure has two basic components. First, it
permits MEUS to designate a ``tested combination'' for each model of
outdoor unit. The indoor units designated as part of the tested
combination must meet specific requirements. For example, the tested
combination must have from two to five indoor units so that it can be
tested in available test facilities. The tested combination must be
tested according to the applicable DOE test procedure. Second, it
permits MEUS to represent the energy efficiency for a non-tested
combination in two ways. MEUS may represent the energy efficiency of a
non-tested combination: (1) At an energy efficiency level determined
under a DOE-approved alternative rating method; or, if method (1) Is
not available, (2) at the efficiency level of the tested combination
utilizing the same outdoor unit. Until an alternative rating method is
developed, all combinations with a particular outdoor unit may use the
rating of the combination tested with that outdoor unit. DOE believes
that allowing MEUS to make energy efficiency representations for non-
tested combinations as described above is reasonable because the
outdoor unit is the principal efficiency driver. The current test
procedure tends to rate these products conservatively. This is because
the current test procedure does not account for the product's
simultaneous heating and cooling capability, which is more efficient
than requiring all zones to be either heated or cooled. Further, the
multi-zoning feature of these products, which enables them to cool only
those portions of the building that require cooling, can use less
energy than if the unit is operated to cool the entire home or a
comparatively larger area of a commercial building in response to a
single thermostat. Additionally, the current test procedure for
commercial equipment requires full load testing, which disadvantages
these products because they are optimized for best efficiency when
operating with less than full loads. In fact, these products normally
operate at part-load conditions. Therefore, as explained in the March
24th Notice, the alternate test procedure will provide a conservative
basis for assessing the energy efficiency for such products.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 71 FR 14862 (March 24, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternate test procedure applies to both residential and
commercial multi-split products. However, some provisions are specific
to residential or commercial products. Section (A) of the alternate
test procedure has different provisions for residential and commercial
products. Section (B), which defines the combinations of indoor and
outdoor units to test, and section (C), which sets forth the
requirements for making representations, are the same for both
residential and commercial products.
Section (A) distinguishes between residential and commercial
products for two reasons. First, 10 CFR part 430.24, used for
residential products, already has requirements for selecting split-
system combinations based on the highest sales volume. Part 431 of 10
CFR, which applies to commercial products, has no comparable
requirements. Section (A) modifies the residential and commercial CFR
requirements so that both residential and commercial products can use
the same definition of a ``tested combination,'' which definition is
set forth in section (B). Second, section (A) requires several test
procedure revisions to determine the SEER and HSPF for the tested
combination of residential products. No test procedure revisions are
introduced for commercial products. [P3] The changes for residential
products relate to: (1) The requirement that all indoor units operate
during all tests, (2) the restriction on using only one indoor test
room, (3) the selection of the modulation levels (maximum, minimum, and
a specified intermediate speed) used when testing, and (4) the
algorithm for estimating performance over the intermediate speed
operating range. These changes are proposed in a July 20, 2006, DOE
notice of proposed rulemaking. 71 FR 41320. For today's Decision and
Order, the July 20, 2006, proposed changes to test procedure sections
2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4 (including Table
12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 constitute mandatory elements of the
alternate test procedure. These changes allow indoor units to cycle
off, allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor
[[Page 17531]]
speed used during certain tests, and introduce a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption.
With regard to the laboratory testing of both residential and
commercial products, some of the difficulties are avoided by the
requirements for choosing the indoor units to be used in the
manufacturer-specified tested combination. For example, in addition to
limiting the number of indoor units, another requirement is that all of
the indoor units must be subject to meeting the same minimum external
static pressure. This requirement allows the test lab to manifold the
outlets from each indoor unit into a common plenum that supplies air to
a single airflow measuring apparatus. This requirement eliminates
situations in which some of the indoor units are ducted and some are
non-ducted. Without this requirement, the laboratory must evaluate the
capacity of a subgroup of indoor coils separately, and then sum the
separate capacities to obtain the overall system capacity. This would
require that the test lab must be equipped with multiple airflow
measuring apparatuses (which is unlikely), or that the test lab connect
its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units
until the contribution of each indoor unit has been measured.
DOE stated that if it specified an alternate test procedure for
MEUS, it would consider applying the procedure to waivers for similar
residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps
produced by other manufacturers. Most of the comments received by DOE
favored the proposed alternate test procedure. Commenters generally
agreed that an alternate test procedure is appropriate for an interim
period while a final test procedure for these products is being
developed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo, No.
7), Samsung and Quietside (Samsung, No. 8), Daikin AC (Americas),
Inc. (Daikin, No. 3), and Rheem Heating and Cooling (Rheem, No. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanyo and Daikin raised concerns regarding DOE's proposal to allow
manufacturers to represent the energy efficiency of non-tested
combinations at the DOE-prescribed minimum efficiency level for the
product class. They suggested that allowing such ratings without
testing the product may allow low efficiency products to be installed
even though equipment that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements is
available.\12\ DOE believes these commenters misread the proposed
alternate test procedure. As explained in the March 24th Notice, the
alternate test procedure adopts a conservative approach for rating VRFZ
products based on the tested results of a simple system configuration.
In the proposed alternate test procedure, DOE would allow manufacturers
to make efficiency representations for non-tested combinations at the
DOE-prescribed minimum efficiency level for the product class only if
the tested combination with the same outdoor unit met or exceeded the
minimum efficiency level. 71 FR 14862, March 24, 2006. DOE is
eliminating this option because, as explained below, there is no need
for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company, (Sanyo,
No.7 at page 1) and Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., (Daikin, No. 3 at
pages 1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem suggested that third party testing, or on-site witness
testing, is the preferred method to verify system performance.\13\
Additionally, Rheem requested that, in order to provide fair and
equitable test methods and ratings to the consumer, the heating test
points and laboratory operating conditions remain consistent.\14\ DOE's
alternate test procedure would specify certain parameters for the
testing of VRFZ products, but would otherwise retain the existing test
procedure protocols on issues such as where products are tested, test
points, and laboratory operating conditions. Thus, in these respects,
VRFZ systems would be tested as other products are tested under the
existing test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating and Cooling,
(Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
\14\ See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating and Cooling,
(Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox suggested that DOE bar sales of non-tested combinations with
an evaporator capacity of less than 95% of the nominal outdoor unit
capacity unless an approved ARM (alternative rating method) simulation
is available to demonstrate conformance to the minimum efficiency
requirement.\15\ No data was provided to justify this proposed indoor-
to-outdoor sizing limitation and so DOE is inclined not to impose such
a regulatory limitation on VRFZ configurations at this time. Moreover,
DOE expects the development of an alternative rating method that is
applicable to multi-split systems like the MEUS CITY MULTI products
will follow, and not precede, the work by ARI members to develop a
multi-split test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Comments submitted by Lennox International Inc.,
(Lennox, No. 6 at page 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the discussion above, DOE believes that the testing
problems described above do prevent testing of the R410A CITY MULTI
basic model according to the test procedures prescribed in 10 CFR Part
430, Subpart B, Appendix M, and[P9] ARI Standard 340/360-2000. After
reviewing and considering all of the comments submitted regarding the
proposed alternate test procedure, DOE believes that the proposed
alternate test procedure, with the clarifications discussed above,
should be adopted. DOE will also consider applying the same alternate
test procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
MEUS Waiver for R22 Products
In the previous paragraph, DOE stated its intention to consider
applying the alternate test procedure to similar waivers. Such a
similar waiver was granted to MEUS for its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products
on August 27, 2004 (the ``2004 Waiver'', see footnote 7). As discussed
previously, the R22 products are quite similar to the R410A products
that are the subject of this waiver. Therefore, today's notice amends
the 2004 Waiver to prohibit MEUS from making energy efficiency
representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products unless such
representations are made consistent with the provisions of the
alternate test procedure.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'')
concerning the MEUS petition. The FTC did not have any objections to
the issuance of the waiver to MEUS. Thus, DOE is granting MEUS's
petition.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted
by MEUS, the comments received, the review by NIST, and consultation
with the FTC, it is ordered that:
(1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Mitsubishi Electric and
Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) (Case No. CAC-012) is hereby granted as
set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) MEUS shall not be required to test or rate its R410A CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (``VRFZ'') products listed below on
the basis of the currently applicable test procedures, but shall be
required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test
procedure as set forth in Paragraph (3): \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The * denotes engineering differences in the models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System R-2 Series
Outdoor Equipment:
PURY-P72TGMU-*, 72,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
[[Page 17532]]
PURY-P96TGMU-*, 96,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P108TGMU-*, 108,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P126TGMU-*, 126,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P144TGMU-*, 144,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P168TGMU-*, 168,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P192TGMU-*, 192,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P204TGMU-*, 204,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P216TGMU-*, 216,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P234TGMU-*, 234,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Y-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PUHY-P72TGMU-*, 72,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P96TGMU-*, 96,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P108TGMU-*, 108,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P126TGMU-*, 126,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P144TGMU-*, 144,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P168TGMU-*, 168,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P192TGMU-*, 192,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P204TGMU-*, 204,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump
PUHY-P216TGMU-*, 216,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P234TGMU-*, 234,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System S-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PUMY-P48NHMU-*, 48,000 Btu/h, 208/230-1-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Indoor
Equipment:
P*FY models, ranging from 6,000 to 96,000 Btu/h, 208/230-
1-60 split-system variable-capacity air conditioner or heat pump.
PCFY Series--Ceiling Suspended--PCFY-P12/18/24/30/36***-*.
PDFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted--PDFY-P06/08/12/15/
18/24/30/36/48***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (Low Profile)--PEFY-
P06/08/12***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (Alternate High
Static Option)--PEFY-P15/18/24/27/30/36/48/54/72/96***-*.
PEFY-F Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (100% OA Option)--
PEFY-P 30/54/72/96***--*.
PFFY Series--Floor Standing (Concealed)--PFFY-P06/08/12/
15/18/24***-*.
PFFY Series--Floor Standing (Exposed)--PFFY-P06/08/12/15/
18/24***-*.
PKFY Series--Wall-Mounted--PKFY-P06/08/12/18/24/30***-*.
PLFY Series--4-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-P12/18/
24/30/36***-*.
PMFY Series--1-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PMFY-P06/08/
12/15[MR12]***-*.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) MEUS shall be required to test the products listed in Paragraph
(2) above according to those test procedures for central air
conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR Parts 430 and
431, except that:
(i) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 430 (consumer products),
MEUS shall not be required to comply with: (1) The first sentence in 10
CFR 430.24(m)(2), which refers to ``that combination manufactured by
the condensing unit manufacturer likely to have the highest volume of
retail sales;'' and (2) the third sentence in 10 CFR 430(m)(2) and the
provisions of 10 CFR 430(m)(2)(i) and (ii). Instead of testing the
combinations likely to have the highest volume of retail sales, MEUS
may test a ``tested combination'' selected in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. Additionally, instead
of following the provisions of 10 CFR 430(m)(2)(i) and (ii) for every
other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the tested
combination, MEUS shall make representations concerning the R410A CITY
MULTI products covered in this waiver according to the provisions of
subparagraph (C) below.
(ii) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 430 (consumer products),
MEUS shall be required to comply with 10 CFR 430 Appendix M as amended
in accordance with designated changes that are listed in the July 20,
2006 Federal Register Notice. 71 FR 41320, July 20, 2006. These
designated changes are with respect to the following test procedure
sections: 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4
(including Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2.
(iii) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 431 (commercial
products), MEUS shall test a ``tested combination'' selected in
accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
For every other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the
tested combination, MEUS shall make representations concerning the
R410A CITY MULTI products covered in this waiver according to the
provisions of subparagraph (C) below.
(B) Tested combination. The term ``tested combination'' means a
sample basic model comprised of units that are production units, or are
representative of production units, of the basic model being tested.
For the purposes of this waiver, the tested combination shall have the
following features:
(i) The basic model of a variable refrigerant flow system used as a
tested combination shall consist of an outdoor unit that is matched
with between 2 and 5 indoor units.
(ii) The indoor units shall--
(a) Represent the highest sales volume type models;
(b) Together, have a capacity between 95% and 105% of the capacity
of the outdoor unit;
(c) Not, individually, have a capacity greater than 50% of the
capacity of the outdoor unit;
(d) Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's
specifications; and
(e) All have the same external static pressure[MR15].
(C) Representations. MEUS may make representations about the energy
efficiency of CITY MULTI VRFZ products, for compliance, marketing, or
other purposes, only to the extent that such representations are made
consistent with the provisions outlined below:
(i) For CITY MULTI VRFZ combinations tested in accordance with this
alternate test procedure, MEUS may make representations based on these
test results.
(ii) For CITY MULTI VRFZ combinations that are not tested, MEUS may
make representations which are based on the testing results for the
tested combination and which are consistent with either of the two
following methods, except that only method (a) may be used, if
available:
[[Page 17533]]
(a) Representation of non-tested combinations according to an
Alternative Rating Method (``ARM'') approved by DOE.
(b) Representation of non-tested combinations at the same energy
efficiency level as the tested combination with the same outdoor unit.
(4) The waiver granted for MEUS's R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products on
August 27, 2004 \17\ is hereby amended to prohibit MEUS from making
energy efficiency representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products
unless such representations are made consistent with the provisions set
forth in Paragraph (3) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of
this Order until DOE prescribes final test procedures appropriate to
the model series manufactured by MEUS and listed above.
(6) This waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of
statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the
petitioner. This waiver may be revoked or modified at any time upon a
determination that the factual basis underlying the petition is
incorrect, or DOE determines that the results from the alternate test
procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy
consumption characteristics.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7-6608 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
