Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo Fisher Company From the Department of Energy Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure and Denying a Waiver From the Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure, 16193-16197 [E9-7942]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices Issued at Washington, DC on April 6, 2009. LaTanya Butler, Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E9–8100 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. CAC–017] Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo Fisher Company From the Department of Energy Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure and Denying a Waiver From the Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Decision and Order. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Department of Energy’s Decision and Order in Case No. CAC–017, which grants a waiver to Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo) from the existing Department of Energy (DOE) commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure. The waiver is specific to the Sanyo Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) ECO–i multisplit heat pumps and heat recovery systems. As a condition of this waiver, Sanyo must test and rate its ECO–i VRF multi-split products according to the alternate test procedure set forth in this notice. DOE is denying as moot Sanyo’s request for a waiver from the residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures, because those test procedures, as amended and currently effective, can be used to test Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF multi-split residential products. DATES: This Decision and Order is effective April 9, 2009 and will remain in effect until the effective date of a DOE final rule prescribing amended test procedures appropriate for the model series of Sanyo ECO–i VRF multi-split central air conditioners and heat pumps covered by this waiver. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9611. E-mail: AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov. 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 In accordance with 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4), DOE gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth below. In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Sanyo a waiver from the existing DOE commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures1 for its VRF multi-split products, subject to a condition requiring Sanyo to test and rate its VRF multi-split products pursuant to the alternate test procedure provided in this notice. Further, today’s Decision and Order requires that Sanyo may not make any representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless such product has been tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure, consistent with the provisions and restrictions of the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and unless such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing.2 42 U.S.C. 6314(d). DOE is denying as moot Sanyo’s request for a waiver from the DOE residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for its VRF multi-split products. As amended, the applicable DOE test procedure for these residential products will allow Sanyo to test and rate its residential VRF multisplit products. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy VerDate Nov<24>2008 Francine Pinto or Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2009. Steven G. Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Decision and Order In the Matter of: Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo) (Case No. CAC–017). Background Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy 1 For commercial products, the applicable test procedure is the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 340/360–2004, ‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment’’ (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)). 2 Consistent with the statute, distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the same standard when making representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16193 efficiency, including Part A 3 of Title III which establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309. Similar to the program in Part A, Part A–1 4 of Title III provides for an energy efficiency program titled, ‘‘Certain Industrial Equipment,’’ which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, package boilers, water heaters, and other types of commercial equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. Today’s notice involves residential products under Part A, as well as commercial equipment under Part A–1. Under both parts, the statute specifically includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and provides the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) with the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. With respect to test procedures, both parts generally authorize the Secretary to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2). Relevant to the current Petition for Waiver, the test procedure for residential central air conditioning and heat pump products is set forth in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. On October 22, 2007, DOE amended the test procedures for residential central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps. 72 FR 59906 (October 22, 2007). That final rule, which became effective on April 21, 2008, addressed issues that led to the requesting and granting of test procedure waivers for several models of residential multi-split systems. All waivers concerning residential modulating multi-split systems terminated on the effective date of that final rule. These amendments to the DOE test procedures, which are now incorporated in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, allow Sanyo to effectively test its ECO–i VRF residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. Therefore, a waiver is no longer necessary for Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. Accordingly, the following discussion will focus only on Sanyo’s commercial ECO–i VRF multi-split products, for 3 Part B of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part A in the United States Code for editorial reasons. 4 Part C of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part A–1 in the United States Code for editorial reasons. E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 16194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices which its waiver request remains pertinent. For commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that ‘‘the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures 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). EPCA further directs the Secretary to amend the test procedure for a covered commercial product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). 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 (December 8, 2006). DOE adopted ARI Standard 210/240–2003 for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment with capacities <65,000 British thermal units per hour (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. DOE’s regulations incorporate by reference the relevant ARI Standards. 10 CFR 431.95(b)(1) and (2). Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air-cooled air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of those products. The cooling capacities of Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF commercial multisplit products fall in the range covered by ARI Standard 340/360–2004. DOE’s regulations contain provisions allowing a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial equipment, for which the petitioner’s basic model contains one or more design characteristics which prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures, or if 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 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petitions any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). In general, a waiver terminates on the effective date of a final rule, published in the Federal Register, which prescribes amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by the petitioner, thereby eliminating any need for the continuation of the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(g). The waiver process also allows any interested person who has submitted a Petition for Waiver to file an Application for Interim Waiver from the applicable test procedure requirements. 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 occurs first, and may be extended by DOE for an additional 180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4). On February 22, 2007, Sanyo filed a Petition for Waiver and an Application for Interim Waiver from the test procedures applicable to residential and commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. The petition was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2008. See 73 FR 179. Sanyo did not include an alternate test procedure in its Petition for Waiver. In a similar and relevant case, DOE published a Petition for Waiver from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) for commercial variable refrigerant flow multi-split products very similar to Sanyo’s VRF multi-split products. 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006). In the March 24, 2006, Federal Register notice, DOE also published and requested comment on an alternate test procedure for the MEUS products at issue. DOE stated that if it specified an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and Order, DOE would consider applying the same procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps, including such products for which waivers had previously been granted. Id. at 14861. Comments were published along with the MEUS Decision and Order in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007. 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007). Most of the comments responded favorably to DOE’s proposed alternate test procedure. Id. at 17529. Also, there was general agreement that an alternate test procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for these types of products is being developed. Id. The MEUS Decision and Order included PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the alternate test procedure adopted by DOE. Id. DOE received no comments on the Sanyo petition. Assertions and Determinations Sanyo’s Petition for Waiver Sanyo seeks a waiver and interim waiver from the test procedures applicable to residential and commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. It seeks a waiver on the grounds that it’s ECO–i VRF multi-split heat pump and heat recovery systems contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Specifically, Sanyo asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing of multi-split variable speed products, regardless of manufacturer, are the same factors stated in the waiver granted to MEUS for a similar line of commercial multi-splits: • Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and • There are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test. 69 FR 52660, 52661 (August 27, 2004); 72 FR 17529. Further, Sanyo states that its ECO–i product offering is a multi-split system incorporating a diverse amount and configuration of indoor units for connection to a single outdoor unit, and that it is impractical to test the performance of each system under the current DOE test procedure. The number of connectable indoor units for each outdoor unit ranges from 6 to 28. Furthermore, the indoor units are designed to operate at many different external static pressure values, which compounds the difficulty of testing. A testing facility could not manage proper airflow at several different external static pressure values for the many indoor units that would be connected to an ECO–i outdoor unit. Accordingly, Sanyo requests that DOE grant a waiver from the applicable test procedure for its ECO–i product designs until a suitable test procedure can be prescribed. Previously, in addressing MEUS’s R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, which are similar to the Sanyo ECO–i products at issue here, DOE stated: To provide a test procedure from which manufacturers can make valid representations, the Department is considering setting an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and Order. Furthermore, if DOE specifies an alternate test procedure for MEUS, DOE is considering applying the alternate test procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial central air E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES conditioners and heat pumps. Such cases include Samsung’s petition for its DVM products (70 FR 9629, February 28, 2005), Fujitsu’s petition for its Airstage variable refrigerant flow (VRF) products (70 FR 5980, February 4, 2005), and MEUS’s petition for its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products. (69 FR 52660, August 27, 2004). 71 FR 14861. In general, DOE understands that existing testing facilities have a limited ability to test multiple indoor units at one time, and the number of possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units for some variable refrigerant flow zoned systems is impractical to test. We further note that subsequent to the waiver that DOE granted for MEUS’s R22 multi-split products, ARI formed a committee to discuss the issue and to work on developing an appropriate testing protocol for variable refrigerant flow systems. Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice publishing the MEUS Petition for Waiver that if DOE decided to specify 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. 71 FR 14861. Most of the comments received by DOE in response to the March 2006 notice favored the proposed alternate test procedure. 72 FR 17529. The comments generally agreed that an alternate test procedure is appropriate for an interim period while a final test procedure for these products is being developed. Id. DOE believes that the ECO–i Sanyo equipment and equipment for which waivers have previously been granted are alike with respect to the factors that make them eligible for test procedure waivers. DOE is therefore granting to Sanyo an ECO–i product waiver similar to the previous MEUS multi-split waivers. To enable Sanyo to make energy efficiency representations for its specified ECO–i multi-split products, DOE has decided to require use of the alternate test procedure described below, as a condition of Sanyo’s waiver. This alternate test procedure is substantially the same as the one that DOE applied to the waiver for MEUS’s R22 and R410A products, which was published at 72 FR 17528. Therefore, as discussed below, as a condition for granting this Waiver to Sanyo, DOE is including an alternate test procedure similar to those granted to MEUS for its R22 and R410A products. That alternate test procedure served as the basis for the October 22, 2007 final rule’s amendments to the test procedures for residential central air VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, which became effective April 21, 2008. Since the residential test procedure is now in place for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, Sanyo is able to make energy efficiency representations for its specified VRF residential multi-split products. Accordingly, a waiver for Sanyo’s residential units is no longer necessary. However, the same problem described above still applies to Sanyo’s commercial products. Therefore, DOE is issuing today’s Decision and Order granting Sanyo a test procedure waiver for its commercial VRF multi-split heat pumps and heat recovery systems, but is requiring the use of the alternate test procedure described below as a condition of Sanyo’s waiver. This alternate test procedure is substantially the same as the one that DOE applied to the MEUS waiver published on April 9, 2007. Id. Alternate Test Procedure The alternate test procedure developed in conjunction with the MEUS waiver has two basic components. First, it permits Sanyo 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 eight 5 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, as modified by the provisions of the alternate test procedure as set forth below. Second, the alternate test procedure allows Sanyo to represent the energy efficiency of that product. The DOE test procedure, as modified by the alternate test procedure set forth in this Decision and Order, provides for testing of a nontested combination in two ways: (1) At an energy efficiency level determined under a DOE-approved alternative rating method; or, if the first method 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. 5 The ‘‘tested combination’’ was originally defined to consist of one outdoor unit matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units. The maximum number of indoor units in a tested combination is here increased from 5 to 8 to account for the fact that these larger-capacity products can accommodate a greater number of indoor units. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16195 As in the case of the MEUS waiver and alternate testing procedures, DOE believes that allowing Sanyo to make energy efficiency representations for non-tested combinations by adopting this alternative test procedure is reasonable because the outdoor unit is the principal efficiency driver. The current DOE test procedure for commercial products tends to rate these products conservatively. The multizoning feature of these products, which enables them to cool only those portions of the building that require cooling, would be expected to 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. This feature would not be captured by the current test procedure, which requires full-load testing. Full load testing, under which the entire building would require cooling, 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, the alternate test procedure will provide a conservative basis for assessing the energy efficiency for such products. With regard to the laboratory testing of commercial products, some of the difficulties associated with the existing test procedure are avoided by the alternate test procedure’s 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 meet 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 laboratory must be equipped with multiple airflow measuring apparatuses (which is unlikely), or that the test laboratory connect its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units until the contribution of each indoor unit has been measured. Based on the discussion above, DOE believes that the testing problems described above would prevent testing of Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF multi-split basic E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 16196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices models according to the test procedures currently prescribed in ARI Standard 340/360–2004 and incorporated by reference in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2). After careful consideration, DOE has decided to adopt the alternate test procedure for Sanyo’s commercial products, with the clarifications discussed above. Consultations With Other Agencies DOE consulted with the FTC staff concerning the Sanyo Petition for Waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to the issuance of a waiver to Sanyo. Conclusion After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by Sanyo, and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that: (1) The ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ filed by Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo) (Case No. CAC–017) is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below. (2) Sanyo shall not be required to test or rate its commercial ECO–i VRF multisplit air conditioner and heat pump models listed below on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR 431.96, specifically, ARI Standard 340/360–2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)), but shall be required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (3). Outdoor units: ECO–I OUTDOOR MODEL IDENTIFICATION Nominal Capacity Model No. Type Cooling 95,500 95,500 107,500 107,500 CHDX14053 ...................... CHDZ14053 ....................... dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES CHDX09053 ...................... CHDZ09053 ....................... 153,600 153,600 170,600 170,600 Indoor units: • AHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 1 Way Air Discharge, 7,500/9,600/12,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • DHX**52 Series; Concealed Ducted, Medium External Static, 36,000/47,800 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • FHX**52 Series; Exposed Floor Standing, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/ 25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • FMHX**52 Series; Concealed Floor Standing, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/ 25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • KHX**52 Series; Wall Mounted, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/ hr nominal capacities. • LHX**52 Series; Ceiling Mount Slim Design 1 Way Air Discharge, 12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • SHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 2 Way Air Discharge, 7,500/9,600/12,000/ 19,000/25,000/36,000/47,800 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • THX**52 Series; Ceiling Suspended, 12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/ hr nominal capacities. • UHX**52 Series; Concealed Ducted, Low External Static, 7,500/ 9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000/36,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • UMHX**52 Series; Concealed Slim Ducted, Low External Static, 7,500/ 9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • XHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 4 Way Air Discharge, 12,000/19,000/ 25,000/36,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. • XMHX**52 Series, Mini Ceiling Cassette, 4 Way Air Discharge, 7,500/ VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 Phase Voltage Heating Heat Pump ................................................... Heat Recovery (Simultaneous heating/cooling). Heat Pump ................................................... Heat Recovery (Simultaneous heating/cooling). 9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. (3) Alternate test procedure. (A) Test procedures. Sanyo shall be required to test the products listed in paragraph (2) according to the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96, except that Sanyo 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, Sanyo shall make representations concerning the ECO–i VRF multi-split 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 two and eight indoor units; for multi-split systems, each of these indoor units shall be designed for individual operation. (ii) The indoor units shall: (a) Represent the highest sales model family, or another indoor model family if the highest sales model family does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of (b); (b) Together, have a nominal cooling capacity that is between 95 percent and PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Connectable indoor units 3 3 208–230 208–230 16 16 3 3 208–230 208–230 28 28 105 percent of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor unit; (c) Not, individually, have a nominal cooling capacity that is greater than 50 percent of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor unit; (d) Operate at fan speeds that are consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications; and (e) All be subject to the same minimum external static pressure requirement. (C) Representations. In making representations about the energy efficiency of its ECO–i VRF multi-split products, for compliance, marketing, or other purposes, Sanyo must fairly disclose the results of testing under the DOE test procedure, doing so in a manner consistent with the provisions outlined below: (i) For ECO–i VRF multi-split combinations tested in accordance with this alternate test procedure, Sanyo may make representations based on these test results. (ii) For ECO–i VRF multi-split combinations that have not been tested, Sanyo may make representations 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: (a) Representation of non-tested combinations according to an alternative rating method approved by DOE; or (b) Representation of non-tested combinations at the same energy efficiency level as the tested E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices combination with the same outdoor unit. (4) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of this Order until the effective date of a DOE final rule prescribing amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by Sanyo listed above. (5) 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 for Waiver 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 March 30, 2009. Steven G. Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E9–7942 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC09–585–001] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC–585); Comment Request; Submitted for OMB Review April 2, 2009. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 USC 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to the Federal Register notice (74 FR 5150, 1/29/09) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 12, 2009. ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Apr 08, 2009 Jkt 217001 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and include OMB Control Number 1902– 0138 as a point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202–395–4638. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC09–585–001. Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at https:// www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/ electronic-media.asp. To file the document electronically, access the Commission’s Web site and click on Documents & Filing, E–Filing (https:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail address upon receipt of comments. For paper filings, an original and 2 copies of the comments should be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC09–585–001. All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC’s homepage using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. For user assistance, contact fercolinesupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208–3676 or for TTY, contact (202) 502–8659 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by telephone at (202) 502–8663, by fax at (202) 273–0873, and by e-mail at ellen.brown@ferc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the requirements of FERC–585 ‘‘Reporting of Electric Energy Shortages and Contingency Plans under PURPA’’ (OMB No. 1902–0138) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 206 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 (PURPA) Public Law 95–617, 92 Stat. 3117. Section 206 of PURPA amended the Federal Power Act (FPA) by adding a new subsection (g) to section 202, PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16197 under which the Commission by rule, was to require each public utility to (1) report to the Commission and appropriate state regulatory authorities of any anticipated shortages of electric energy or capacity which would affect the utility’s capability to serve its wholesale customers; and (2) report to the Commission and any appropriate state regulatory authority with a contingency plan that would outline what circumstances might give rise to such occurrences. In Order No. 575, the Commission modified the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(b) to provide that, if a public utility includes in its rates schedule, provisions that: (a) During electric energy and capacity shortages it will treat firm power wholesale customers without undue discrimination or preference; and (b) it will report any modifications to its contingency plan for accommodating shortages within 15 days to the appropriate state regulatory agency and to the affected wholesale customers, then the utility need not file with the Commission an additional statement of the contingency plan for accommodating such shortages. This revision merely changed the reporting mechanism; the public utility’s contingency plan would be located in its filed rate rather than in a separate document. In Order No. 659, the Commission modified the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(e) to provide that the means by which public utilities must comply with the requirements to report shortages and anticipated shortages is to submit this information electronically using the Office of Electric Reliability’s pager system at emergency@ferc.gov in lieu of submitting an original and two copies with the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission uses the information to evaluate and formulate an appropriate option for action in the event an unanticipated shortage is reported and/or materializes. Without this information, the Commission and State agencies would be unable to: (1) Examine and approve or modify utility actions, (2) prepare a response to anticipated disruptions in electric energy, and (3) ensure equitable treatment of all public utility customers under the shortage situations. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Part 294. Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no change to the existing requirements. E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM 09APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 67 (Thursday, April 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16193-16197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7942]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

[Case No. CAC-017]


Energy Conservation Program for Commercial Equipment: Decision 
and Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo Fisher Company From the Department 
of Energy Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test 
Procedure and Denying a Waiver From the Residential Central Air 
Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Decision and Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Department of Energy's Decision and 
Order in Case No. CAC-017, which grants a waiver to Sanyo Fisher 
Company (Sanyo) from the existing Department of Energy (DOE) commercial 
package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure. The waiver is 
specific to the Sanyo Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) ECO-i multi-split 
heat pumps and heat recovery systems. As a condition of this waiver, 
Sanyo must test and rate its ECO-i VRF multi-split products according 
to the alternate test procedure set forth in this notice. DOE is 
denying as moot Sanyo's request for a waiver from the residential 
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures, because those 
test procedures, as amended and currently effective, can be used to 
test Sanyo's ECO-i VRF multi-split residential products.

DATES: This Decision and Order is effective April 9, 2009 and will 
remain in effect until the effective date of a DOE final rule 
prescribing amended test procedures appropriate for the model series of 
Sanyo ECO-i VRF multi-split central air conditioners and heat pumps 
covered by this waiver.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9611. E-mail: AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov.
    Francine Pinto or Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: 
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4), DOE 
gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth 
below. In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Sanyo a waiver from the 
existing DOE commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test 
procedures\1\ for its VRF multi-split products, subject to a condition 
requiring Sanyo to test and rate its VRF multi-split products pursuant 
to the alternate test procedure provided in this notice. Further, 
today's Decision and Order requires that Sanyo may not make any 
representations concerning the energy efficiency of these products 
unless such product has been tested in accordance with the DOE test 
procedure, consistent with the provisions and restrictions of the 
alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and 
unless such representations fairly disclose the results of such 
testing.\2\ 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For commercial products, the applicable test procedure is 
the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 340/
360-2004, ``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (incorporated by 
reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)).
    \2\ Consistent with the statute, distributors, retailers, and 
private labelers are held to the same standard when making 
representations regarding the energy efficiency of these products. 
42 U.S.C. 6293(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is denying as moot Sanyo's request for a waiver from the DOE 
residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for 
its VRF multi-split products. As amended, the applicable DOE test 
procedure for these residential products will allow Sanyo to test and 
rate its residential VRF multi-split products.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

Decision and Order

    In the Matter of: Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo) (Case No. CAC-017).

Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets 
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency, including 
Part A \3\ of Title III which establishes the ``Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' 42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309. Similar to the program in Part A, Part A-1 \4\ of Title III 
provides for an energy efficiency program titled, ``Certain Industrial 
Equipment,'' which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, 
package boilers, water heaters, and other types of commercial 
equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Part B of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part A in the 
United States Code for editorial reasons.
    \4\ Part C of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part A-1 in the 
United States Code for editorial reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's notice involves residential products under Part A, as well 
as commercial equipment under Part A-1. Under both parts, the statute 
specifically includes definitions, test procedures, labeling 
provisions, energy conservation standards, and provides the Secretary 
of Energy (the Secretary) with the authority to require information and 
reports from manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317. 
With respect to test procedures, both parts generally authorize the 
Secretary to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to 
produce results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and 
estimated annual operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to 
conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2).
    Relevant to the current Petition for Waiver, the test procedure for 
residential central air conditioning and heat pump products is set 
forth in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. On October 22, 2007, 
DOE amended the test procedures for residential central air 
conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps. 72 FR 59906 
(October 22, 2007). That final rule, which became effective on April 
21, 2008, addressed issues that led to the requesting and granting of 
test procedure waivers for several models of residential multi-split 
systems. All waivers concerning residential modulating multi-split 
systems terminated on the effective date of that final rule. These 
amendments to the DOE test procedures, which are now incorporated in 10 
CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, allow Sanyo to effectively test 
its ECO-i VRF residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. 
Therefore, a waiver is no longer necessary for Sanyo's ECO-i VRF 
residential multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps. Accordingly, 
the following discussion will focus only on Sanyo's commercial ECO-i 
VRF multi-split products, for

[[Page 16194]]

which its waiver request remains pertinent.
    For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA 
provides that ``the test procedures shall be those generally accepted 
industry testing procedures 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). EPCA further 
directs the Secretary to amend the test procedure for a covered 
commercial product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless 
the Secretary determines that such a modified test procedure does not 
meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). 
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 (December 8, 2006). 
DOE adopted ARI Standard 210/240-2003 for commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment with capacities <65,000 British 
thermal units per hour (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. DOE's 
regulations incorporate by reference the relevant ARI Standards. 10 CFR 
431.95(b)(1) and (2). Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96 directs manufacturers of 
commercial package air-cooled air conditioning and heating equipment to 
use the appropriate procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of 
those products. The cooling capacities of Sanyo's ECO-i VRF commercial 
multi-split products fall in the range covered by ARI Standard 340/360-
2004.
    DOE's regulations contain provisions allowing a person to seek a 
waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial 
equipment, for which the petitioner's basic model contains one or more 
design characteristics which prevent testing according to the 
prescribed test procedures, or if 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 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petitions 
any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a 
manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 
431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to 
conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 
431.401(f)(4). In general, a waiver terminates on the effective date of 
a final rule, published in the Federal Register, which prescribes 
amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by 
the petitioner, thereby eliminating any need for the continuation of 
the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(g).
    The waiver process also allows any interested person who has 
submitted a Petition for Waiver to file an Application for Interim 
Waiver from the applicable test procedure requirements. 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 occurs first, and may be extended by DOE for an additional 
180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4).
    On February 22, 2007, Sanyo filed a Petition for Waiver and an 
Application for Interim Waiver from the test procedures applicable to 
residential and commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment. The petition was published in the Federal Register on 
January 2, 2008. See 73 FR 179. Sanyo did not include an alternate test 
procedure in its Petition for Waiver.
    In a similar and relevant case, DOE published a Petition for Waiver 
from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) for 
commercial variable refrigerant flow multi-split products very similar 
to Sanyo's VRF multi-split products. 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006). In 
the March 24, 2006, Federal Register notice, DOE also published and 
requested comment on an alternate test procedure for the MEUS products 
at issue. DOE stated that if it specified an alternate test procedure 
for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and Order, DOE would consider 
applying the same procedure to similar waivers for residential and 
commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps, including such 
products for which waivers had previously been granted. Id. at 14861. 
Comments were published along with the MEUS Decision and Order in the 
Federal Register on April 9, 2007. 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007). Most of 
the comments responded favorably to DOE's proposed alternate test 
procedure. Id. at 17529. Also, there was general agreement that an 
alternate test procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for 
these types of products is being developed. Id. The MEUS Decision and 
Order included the alternate test procedure adopted by DOE. Id.
    DOE received no comments on the Sanyo petition.

Assertions and Determinations

Sanyo's Petition for Waiver
    Sanyo seeks a waiver and interim waiver from the test procedures 
applicable to residential and commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment. It seeks a waiver on the grounds that it's ECO-i VRF 
multi-split heat pump and heat recovery systems contain design 
characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test 
procedures. Specifically, Sanyo asserts that the two primary factors 
that prevent testing of multi-split variable speed products, regardless 
of manufacturer, are the same factors stated in the waiver granted to 
MEUS for a similar line of commercial multi-splits:
     Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many 
indoor units; and
     There are too many possible combinations of indoor and 
outdoor units to test. 69 FR 52660, 52661 (August 27, 2004); 72 FR 
17529.
    Further, Sanyo states that its ECO-i product offering is a multi-
split system incorporating a diverse amount and configuration of indoor 
units for connection to a single outdoor unit, and that it is 
impractical to test the performance of each system under the current 
DOE test procedure. The number of connectable indoor units for each 
outdoor unit ranges from 6 to 28. Furthermore, the indoor units are 
designed to operate at many different external static pressure values, 
which compounds the difficulty of testing. A testing facility could not 
manage proper airflow at several different external static pressure 
values for the many indoor units that would be connected to an ECO-i 
outdoor unit. Accordingly, Sanyo requests that DOE grant a waiver from 
the applicable test procedure for its ECO-i product designs until a 
suitable test procedure can be prescribed.
    Previously, in addressing MEUS's R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, 
which are similar to the Sanyo ECO-i products at issue here, DOE 
stated:

    To provide a test procedure from which manufacturers can make 
valid representations, the Department is considering setting an 
alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent Decision and 
Order. Furthermore, if DOE specifies an alternate test procedure for 
MEUS, DOE is considering applying the alternate test procedure to 
similar waivers for residential and commercial central air

[[Page 16195]]

conditioners and heat pumps. Such cases include Samsung's petition 
for its DVM products (70 FR 9629, February 28, 2005), Fujitsu's 
petition for its Airstage variable refrigerant flow (VRF) products 
(70 FR 5980, February 4, 2005), and MEUS's petition for its R22 CITY 
MULTI VRFZ products. (69 FR 52660, August 27, 2004).

71 FR 14861.
    In general, DOE understands that existing testing facilities have a 
limited ability to test multiple indoor units at one time, and the 
number of possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units for some 
variable refrigerant flow zoned systems is impractical to test. We 
further note that subsequent to the waiver that DOE granted for MEUS's 
R22 multi-split products, ARI formed a committee to discuss the issue 
and to work on developing an appropriate testing protocol for variable 
refrigerant flow systems.
    Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice publishing the MEUS Petition 
for Waiver that if DOE decided to specify 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. 71 FR 14861. Most of the 
comments received by DOE in response to the March 2006 notice favored 
the proposed alternate test procedure. 72 FR 17529. The comments 
generally agreed that an alternate test procedure is appropriate for an 
interim period while a final test procedure for these products is being 
developed. Id.
    DOE believes that the ECO-i Sanyo equipment and equipment for which 
waivers have previously been granted are alike with respect to the 
factors that make them eligible for test procedure waivers. DOE is 
therefore granting to Sanyo an ECO-i product waiver similar to the 
previous MEUS multi-split waivers.
    To enable Sanyo to make energy efficiency representations for its 
specified ECO-i multi-split products, DOE has decided to require use of 
the alternate test procedure described below, as a condition of Sanyo's 
waiver. This alternate test procedure is substantially the same as the 
one that DOE applied to the waiver for MEUS's R22 and R410A products, 
which was published at 72 FR 17528.
    Therefore, as discussed below, as a condition for granting this 
Waiver to Sanyo, DOE is including an alternate test procedure similar 
to those granted to MEUS for its R22 and R410A products. That alternate 
test procedure served as the basis for the October 22, 2007 final 
rule's amendments to the test procedures for residential central air 
conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, which became 
effective April 21, 2008. Since the residential test procedure is now 
in place for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps, Sanyo is able to make energy efficiency representations for its 
specified VRF residential multi-split products. Accordingly, a waiver 
for Sanyo's residential units is no longer necessary.
    However, the same problem described above still applies to Sanyo's 
commercial products. Therefore, DOE is issuing today's Decision and 
Order granting Sanyo a test procedure waiver for its commercial VRF 
multi-split heat pumps and heat recovery systems, but is requiring the 
use of the alternate test procedure described below as a condition of 
Sanyo's waiver. This alternate test procedure is substantially the same 
as the one that DOE applied to the MEUS waiver published on April 9, 
2007. Id.
Alternate Test Procedure
    The alternate test procedure developed in conjunction with the MEUS 
waiver has two basic components. First, it permits Sanyo 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 
eight \5\ 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, as modified by the provisions of the 
alternate test procedure as set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``tested combination'' was originally defined to consist 
of one outdoor unit matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units. The 
maximum number of indoor units in a tested combination is here 
increased from 5 to 8 to account for the fact that these larger-
capacity products can accommodate a greater number of indoor units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the alternate test procedure allows Sanyo to represent the 
energy efficiency of that product. The DOE test procedure, as modified 
by the alternate test procedure set forth in this Decision and Order, 
provides for testing of a non-tested combination in two ways: (1) At an 
energy efficiency level determined under a DOE-approved alternative 
rating method; or, if the first method 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.
    As in the case of the MEUS waiver and alternate testing procedures, 
DOE believes that allowing Sanyo to make energy efficiency 
representations for non-tested combinations by adopting this 
alternative test procedure is reasonable because the outdoor unit is 
the principal efficiency driver. The current DOE test procedure for 
commercial products tends to rate these products conservatively. The 
multi-zoning feature of these products, which enables them to cool only 
those portions of the building that require cooling, would be expected 
to 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. This feature would not be captured by the current 
test procedure, which requires full-load testing. Full load testing, 
under which the entire building would require cooling, 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, the alternate test 
procedure will provide a conservative basis for assessing the energy 
efficiency for such products.
    With regard to the laboratory testing of commercial products, some 
of the difficulties associated with the existing test procedure are 
avoided by the alternate test procedure's 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 meet 
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 laboratory must be 
equipped with multiple airflow measuring apparatuses (which is 
unlikely), or that the test laboratory connect its one airflow 
measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units until the 
contribution of each indoor unit has been measured.
    Based on the discussion above, DOE believes that the testing 
problems described above would prevent testing of Sanyo's ECO-i VRF 
multi-split basic

[[Page 16196]]

models according to the test procedures currently prescribed in ARI 
Standard 340/360-2004 and incorporated by reference in DOE's 
regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2). After careful consideration, DOE 
has decided to adopt the alternate test procedure for Sanyo's 
commercial products, with the clarifications discussed above.
Consultations With Other Agencies
    DOE consulted with the FTC staff concerning the Sanyo Petition for 
Waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to the issuance of a 
waiver to Sanyo.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by 
Sanyo, and consultation with the FTC staff, it is ordered that:
    (1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Sanyo Fisher Company 
(Sanyo) (Case No. CAC-017) is hereby granted as set forth in the 
paragraphs below.
    (2) Sanyo shall not be required to test or rate its commercial ECO-
i VRF multi-split air conditioner and heat pump models listed below on 
the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR 431.96, 
specifically, ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference in 
10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)), but shall be required to test and rate such 
products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in 
paragraph (3).
    Outdoor units:

                                       ECO-i Outdoor Model Identification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Nominal Capacity                                                 Connectable
           Model No.           --------------------------        Type          Phase      Voltage       indoor
                                  Cooling      Heating                                                  units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHDX09053.....................       95,500      107,500  Heat Pump........          3      208-230           16
CHDZ09053.....................       95,500      107,500  Heat Recovery              3      208-230           16
                                                           (Simultaneous
                                                           heating/cooling).
CHDX14053.....................      153,600      170,600  Heat Pump........          3      208-230           28
CHDZ14053.....................      153,600      170,600  Heat Recovery              3      208-230           28
                                                           (Simultaneous
                                                           heating/cooling).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indoor units:
     AHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 1 Way Air Discharge, 
7,500/9,600/12,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     DHX**52 Series; Concealed Ducted, Medium External Static, 
36,000/47,800 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     FHX**52 Series; Exposed Floor Standing, 7,500/9,600/
12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     FMHX**52 Series; Concealed Floor Standing, 7,500/9,600/
12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     KHX**52 Series; Wall Mounted, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/
25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     LHX**52 Series; Ceiling Mount Slim Design 1 Way Air 
Discharge, 12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     SHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 2 Way Air Discharge, 
7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000/36,000/47,800 BTU/hr nominal 
capacities.
     THX**52 Series; Ceiling Suspended, 12,000/19,000/25,000 
BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     UHX**52 Series; Concealed Ducted, Low External Static, 
7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000/36,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     UMHX**52 Series; Concealed Slim Ducted, Low External 
Static, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     XHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 4 Way Air Discharge, 
12,000/19,000/25,000/36,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
     XMHX**52 Series, Mini Ceiling Cassette, 4 Way Air 
Discharge, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities.
    (3) Alternate test procedure.
    (A) Test procedures. Sanyo shall be required to test the products 
listed in paragraph (2) according to the test procedures for central 
air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96, 
except that Sanyo 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, Sanyo shall make representations concerning the 
ECO-i VRF multi-split 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 two and eight indoor units; for multi-split systems, each 
of these indoor units shall be designed for individual operation.
    (ii) The indoor units shall:
    (a) Represent the highest sales model family, or another indoor 
model family if the highest sales model family does not provide 
sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of (b);
    (b) Together, have a nominal cooling capacity that is between 95 
percent and 105 percent of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor 
unit;
    (c) Not, individually, have a nominal cooling capacity that is 
greater than 50 percent of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor 
unit;
    (d) Operate at fan speeds that are consistent with the 
manufacturer's specifications; and
    (e) All be subject to the same minimum external static pressure 
requirement.
    (C) Representations. In making representations about the energy 
efficiency of its ECO-i VRF multi-split products, for compliance, 
marketing, or other purposes, Sanyo must fairly disclose the results of 
testing under the DOE test procedure, doing so in a manner consistent 
with the provisions outlined below:
    (i) For ECO-i VRF multi-split combinations tested in accordance 
with this alternate test procedure, Sanyo may make representations 
based on these test results.
    (ii) For ECO-i VRF multi-split combinations that have not been 
tested, Sanyo may make representations 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:
    (a) Representation of non-tested combinations according to an 
alternative rating method approved by DOE; or
    (b) Representation of non-tested combinations at the same energy 
efficiency level as the tested

[[Page 16197]]

combination with the same outdoor unit.
    (4) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of 
this Order until the effective date of a DOE final rule prescribing 
amended test procedures appropriate to the model series manufactured by 
Sanyo listed above.
    (5) 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 for Waiver 
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 March 30, 2009.
Steven G. Chalk,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.
 [FR Doc. E9-7942 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.