Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo North America Corporation From the Department of Energy Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures, 41845-41850 [2010-17514]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
Description: Entergy New Orleans,
Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.12: ENOI
OATT Concurrence to be effective 7/9/
2010.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100709–5115.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010.
Docket Numbers: ER10–1748–000.
Applicants: Ormet Power Marketing,
LLC.
Description: Ormet Power Marketing
LLC submits Notice of Cancellation of
FERC Electric Rate Schedule No 1.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100712–0200.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010.
Docket Numbers: ER10–1749–000.
Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
Description: Request of ISO New
England, Inc for limited waiver of
NAESB WEQ Standards.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100712–0201.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010
Docket Numbers: ER10–1750–000.
Applicants: Stream Energy
Pennsylvania, LLC.
Description: Application of Stream
Energy Pennsylvania, LLC for marketbased rate authority and granting of
waivers and blanket authorizations.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100712–0202.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010.
Docket Numbers: ER10–1751–000.
Applicants: SGE Energy Sourcing,
LLC.
Description: SGE Energy Sourcing,
LLC submits Application for MarketBased Rate Authority and Granting of
Waivers and Blanket Authorization.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100712–0203.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010.
Docket Numbers: ER10–1752–000.
Applicants: PacifiCorp.
Description: PacifiCorp submits the
Fifth Revised Agreement 66, a Network
Integration Transmission Service
Agreement.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
Accession Number: 20100712–0204.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010.
Take notice that the Commission
received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
Docket Numbers: OA08–26–004.
Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Description: Compliance Filing of
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Filed Date: 07/09/2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
Accession Number: 20100709–5097.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Friday,
July 30, 2010
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest in any of the above proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211
and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. e.t. on
the specified comment date. It is not
necessary to separately intervene again
in a subdocket related to a compliance
filing if you have previously intervened
in the same docket. Protests will be
considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. In reference
to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on
or before the comment deadline need
not be served on persons other than the
Applicant.
As it relates to any qualifying facility
filings, the notices of self-certification
[or self-recertification] listed above, do
not institute a proceeding regarding
qualifying facility status. A notice of
self-certification [or self-recertification]
simply provides notification that the
entity making the filing has determined
the facility named in the notice meets
the applicable criteria to be a qualifying
facility. Intervention and/or protest do
not lie in dockets that are qualifying
facility self-certifications or selfrecertifications. Any person seeking to
challenge such qualifying facility status
may do so by filing a motion pursuant
to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention
and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets
other than self-certifications and selfrecertifications.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the
FERC Online links at https://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with Internet access
who will eFile a document and/or be
listed as a contact for an intervenor
must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the intervention or protest to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First St. NE., Washington, DC
20426.
The filings in the above proceedings
are accessible in the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41845
eLibrary system by clicking on the
appropriate link in the above list. They
are also available for review in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room in
Washington, DC There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that
enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added
to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or
call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY,
call (202) 502–8659.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–17546 Filed 7–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
[Case No. CAC–027]
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Decision and Order
Granting a Waiver to Sanyo North
America Corporation From the
Department of Energy Commercial
Package Air Conditioner and Heat
Pump Test Procedures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the U.S.
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Decision
and Order in Case No. CAC–027, which
grants Sanyo North America
Corporation (Sanyo) a waiver from the
existing DOE test procedures applicable
to commercial package air-source and
water-source central air conditioners
and heat pumps. The waiver is specific
to the Sanyo variable capacity ECO-i
(commercial) multi-split heat pumps. As
a condition of this waiver, Sanyo must
use the alternate test procedure set forth
in this notice to test and rate its ECOi multi-split products.
DATES: This Decision and Order is
effective July 19, 2010.
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:
Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Mail Stop GC–71, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
41846
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
431.401(f)(4), DOE is providing notice of
the issuance of the Decision and Order
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 for its ECO-i multi-split
products. The waiver requires Sanyo
use the alternate test procedure
provided in this notice to test and rate
the specified models from its ECO-i
multi-split product line (as identified
below). The cooling capacities of
Sanyo’s commercial heat pump
products at issue in the waiver petition
filed by Sanyo range from 72,000 Btu/
h to 288,000 Btu/h. All of the air-source
Sanyo products are covered by this
waiver. The Sanyo water-source
products with capacities greater than or
equal to 135,000 Btu/h are not covered
by this waiver because the DOE test
procedure only covers water-source heat
pumps with capacities less than 135,000
Btu/h.
Today’s decision prohibits Sanyo
from making any representations
concerning the energy efficiency of
these products unless the product has
been tested consistent with the
provisions and restrictions in the
alternate test procedure set forth in the
Decision and Order below, and the
representations fairly disclose the test
results. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Distributors,
retailers, and private labelers are held to
the same standard when making
representations regarding the energy
efficiency of these products. Id.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order; In the Matter of:
Sanyo North America Corp. (Sanyo)
(Case No. CAC–027)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a
variety of provisions concerning energy
efficiency, including Part A of Title III
which establishes the ‘‘Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) Part A–1 of Title III
provides for a similar energy efficiency
program titled ‘‘Certain Industrial
Equipment,’’ which includes large and
small commercial air conditioning
equipment, package boilers, storage
water heaters, and other types of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317)
Today’s notice involves commercial
equipment under Part A–1. The statute
specifically includes definitions (42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313). It also
provides the Secretary of Energy (the
Secretary) with the authority to require
information and reports from
manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316) The
statute authorizes the Secretary of
Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test
procedures that are reasonably designed
to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated annual operating costs, and
that are not unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
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
[Illuminating Engineering Society]
Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30,
1992.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Under
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), the Secretary
must amend the test procedure for a
covered commercial product if the
applicable industry test procedure is
amended, unless the Secretary
determines, by rule and based on clear
and convincing evidence, that such a
modified test procedure does not meet
the statutory criteria set forth in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3).
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 the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) Standard
13256–1–1998, ‘‘Water-source heat
pumps—Testing and rating for
performance—Part 1: Water-to-air and
brine-to-air heat pumps,’’ for small
commercial package water-source heat
pumps with capacities less than 135,000
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h).
Id. at 71371. Pursuant to this
rulemaking, DOE’s regulations at 10
CFR 431.95(b)(3) incorporate by
reference ISO Standard 13256–1–1998.
In addition, Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96
directs manufacturers of commercial
package water-source air conditioning
and heating equipment to use the
appropriate procedure when measuring
the energy efficiency of those products.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For air-source heat pumps with
capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h,
DOE adopted ARI Standard 340/360–
2004.
In addition, DOE’s regulations allow a
person to seek a waiver for a particular
basic model from the test procedure
requirements for covered commercial
equipment if: (1) That basic model
contains one or more design
characteristics which prevent testing
according to the prescribed test
procedures; or (2) the prescribed test
procedures may evaluate the basic
model in a manner so unrepresentative
of its true energy consumption
characteristics as to provide materially
inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR
431.401(a)(1). A waiver petition must
include any alternate test procedures
known to the petitioner to evaluate
characteristics of 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). Waivers remain in
effect pursuant to the provisions of 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 may be
granted if the Assistant Secretary
determines that the applicant will
experience economic hardship if the
application for interim waiver is denied,
if it appears likely that the petition for
waiver will be granted, and/or if the
Assistant Secretary determines that it
would be desirable for public policy
reasons to grant immediate relief
pending a determination on the petition
for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). An
interim waiver remains in effect for 180
days or until DOE issues its
determination on the petition for
waiver, whichever occurs first. The
interim waiver may be extended by DOE
for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR
431.401(e)(4).
On January 4, 2010, Sanyo filed a
petition for waiver from the test
procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 applicable
to commercial package air and watersource central air conditioners and heat
pumps, as well as an application for
interim waiver. The cooling capacities
of Sanyo’s commercial ECO-i multi-split
heat pump products at issue in the
waiver petition range from 72,000 Btu/
h to 288,000 Btu/h. The Sanyo products
with capacities ≥ 135,000 Btu/h are not
covered by this waiver because there is
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
no DOE test procedure for water-source
heat pumps with capacities ≥ 135,000
Btu/hr. The cooling capacities of
Sanyo’s commercial ECO-i air-source
multi-split heat pump products also
range from 72,000 Btu/h to 288,000 Btu/
h. All of these products are covered by
this waiver, as ARI Standard 340/360–
2004 covers products with capacities
greater than 65,000 Btu/h.
Sanyo seeks a waiver from the
applicable test procedures under 10 CFR
431.96 on the grounds that its ECO-i
multi-split heat pumps 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 its multi-split variable speed
products are the same factors stated in
the waivers that DOE granted to
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA,
Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other
manufacturers for similar lines of
commercial multi-split air-conditioning
systems:
• 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 (August 27,
2004) (Mitsubishi waiver); 72 FR 17528
(April 9, 2007) (Mitsubishi waiver); 72
FR 71387 (Dec. 17, 2007) (Samsung
waiver); 72 FR 71383 (Dec. 17, 2007)
(Fujitsu waiver); 73 FR 39680 (July 10,
2008) (Daikin waiver); 74 FR 15955
(April 8, 2009) (Daikin waiver); 74 FR
16193 (April 9, 2009) (Sanyo waiver); 74
FR 16373 (April 10, 2009) (Daikin
waiver).
On March 18, 2010, DOE published
Sanyo’s petition for waiver in the
Federal Register, seeking public
comment pursuant to 10 CFR
431.401(b)(1)(iv), and granted the
application for interim waiver. 75 FR
13114. DOE received no comments on
the Sanyo petition.
In a similar case, DOE published a
petition for waiver from Mitsubishi for
products very similar to Sanyo’s multisplit 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 Mitsubishi Decision and Order in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
the Federal Register on April 9, 2007.
72 FR 17528. Most of the comments
were favorable. One commenter
indicated that a waiver was
unnecessary. However, the commenter
did not present a satisfactory method of
testing the products. Id. at 72 FR 17529.
Generally, commenters agreed that an
alternate test procedure is necessary
while a final test procedure for these
types of products is being developed. Id.
The Mitsubishi Decision and Order
included the alternate test procedure
adopted by DOE. Id. at 72 FR 17530.
Assertions and Determinations
Sanyo’s Petition for Waiver
Sanyo seeks a waiver from the DOE
test procedures for this product class on
the grounds that its ECO-i multi-split
heat pumps contain design
characteristics that prevent them from
being tested using the current DOE test
procedures. As stated above, 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 waivers that DOE granted
to Mitsubishi, Fujitsu General Ltd.
(Fujitsu), Samsung Air Conditioning
(Samsung), Daikin, and LG for similar
lines of commercial multi-split airconditioning systems: (1) Testing
laboratories cannot test products with so
many indoor units; and (2) there are too
many possible combinations of indoor
and outdoor unit to test.
The Sanyo ECO-i systems have
operational characteristics similar to the
commercial multi-split products
manufactured by Mitsubishi, Samsung,
Fujitsu, LG, and Daikin. As indicated
above, DOE has granted waivers for
these products. The ECO-i system
includes 90 unique outdoor models and
54 unique indoor models, and can
connect up to 40 indoor units to a single
outdoor unit. There are over one million
combinations possible with the Sanyo
ECO-i system. Consequently, Sanyo
requested that DOE grant a waiver from
the applicable test procedures for its
ECO-i product designs until a suitable
test method can be prescribed. DOE
believes that the Sanyo ECO-i
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. Therefore, DOE has decided to
grant Sanyo a waiver for its ECO-i multisplit products, similar to the multi-split
product waivers already issued to the
other manufacturers mentioned above.
Previously, in addressing Mitsubishi’s
R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41847
which are similar to the Sanyo products
at issue here, DOE stated:
To provide a test procedure from which
manufacturers can make valid
representations, the Department [DOE] is
considering setting an alternate test
procedure for MEUS [Mitsubishi] 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
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, March 24, 2006).
Sanyo did not include an alternate
test procedure in its petition for waiver.
However, in response to two recent
petitions for waiver from Mitsubishi,
DOE specified an alternate test
procedure that Mitsubishi could use to
test and make valid energy efficiency
representations for its R410A CITY
MULTI products and its R22 multi-split
products. Alternate test procedures
related to the Mitsubishi petitions were
published in the Federal Register on
April 9, 2007 and December 15, 2009.
72 FR 17528; 74 FR 66311. DOE believes
that the same alternate test procedure
specified in the Mitsubishi decision
could be used to test the Sanyo products
at issue here.
DOE understands that existing testing
facilities have a limited ability to test
multiple indoor units simultaneously. It
also understands that it is impractical to
test some variable refrigerant flow zoned
systems because of the number of
possible combinations of indoor and
outdoor units. DOE further notes that
after the waiver granted for Mitsubishi’s
R22 multi-split products, AHRI formed
a committee to develop a testing
protocol for variable refrigerant flow
systems. The committee developed
AHRI Standard 1230–2009:
‘‘Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment.’’ AHRI adopted the standard
in June 2009. AHRI 1230–2009 is
substantially the same as DOE’s
alternate test procedure with respect to
the testing of these Sanyo products. It
has recently been adopted as an
addendum to ASHRAE 90.1, and DOE
plans to consider this industry standard
in a subsequent test procedure
rulemaking.
DOE issues today’s Decision and
Order granting Sanyo a test procedure
waiver for its commercial ECO-i air-
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
41848
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
source and water-source multi-split heat
pumps. As a condition of this waiver,
Sanyo must use the alternate test
procedure described below. This
alternate test procedure is the same in
all relevant particulars as the one that
DOE applied to the Mitsubishi waiver.
Alternate Test Procedure
The alternate test procedure 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 five (for systems with
nominal cooling capacities greater than
150,000 Btu/h, the number of indoor
units may be as high as eight to be able
to test non-ducted indoor unit
combinations) 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.
The alternate DOE test procedure also
allows Sanyo to represent the products’
energy efficiency. These representations
must fairly disclose the test results. The
DOE test procedure, as modified by the
alternate test procedure set forth in this
Decision and Order, provides for
efficiency rating of a non-tested
combination in one of two ways: (1) At
an energy efficiency level determined
using a DOE-approved alternative rating
method; or (2) at the efficiency level of
the tested combination utilizing the
same outdoor unit.
As in the Mitsubishi waiver, DOE
believes that allowing Sanyo to make
energy efficiency representations for
non-tested combinations by adopting
the 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 because it does
not account for their multi-zoning
feature. The multi-zoning feature of
these products enables them to cool
only those portions of the building that
require cooling. Products with a multizoning feature are expected to use less
energy than units controlled by a single
thermostat, which cool the entire home
or commercial building regardless of
whether only portions need cooling.
The multi-zoning feature would not be
properly evaluated by the current test
procedure, which requires full-load
testing. Full-load testing requires the
entire building to be cooled. Products
using a multi-zoning feature and
subjected to full-load testing would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
at a disadvantage because they are
optimized for highest efficiency when
operating with less than full loads. The
alternate test procedure will provide a
conservative basis for assessing the
energy efficiency of 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 the
indoor units must be subjected the same
minimum external static pressure. This
requirement enables 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 eliminates
situations in which some of the indoor
units are ducted and some are nonducted. 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.
Measuring capacity in this way would
require that the test laboratory be
equipped with multiple airflow
measuring apparatuses. It is unlikely
that any test laboratory would be
equipped with the necessary number of
such apparatuses. Alternatively, the test
laboratory could connect its one airflow
measuring apparatus to one or more
common indoor units until the
contribution of each indoor unit had
been measured. However, that approach
would be so time-consuming as to be
impractical.
Furthermore, DOE stated in the March
24, 2006 notice publishing the
Mitsubishi petition for waiver that if it
decided to specify an alternate test
procedure for Mitsubishi, 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. As noted
above, most of the comments received
by DOE in response to the March 2006
notice supported the proposed alternate
test procedure. 72 FR 17528, 17529
(April 9, 2007). Commenters responding
to that prior notice 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.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE
believes Sanyo’s ECO-i multi-split
products cannot be tested using the
procedures prescribed in 10 CFR 431.96
(ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998) and ARI
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Standard 340/360–2004) and
incorporated by reference in DOE’s
regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)–(3).
After careful consideration, DOE has
decided to prescribe the alternate test
procedure first developed for the
Mitsubishi waiver for Sanyo’s
commercial multi-split products. The
alternate test procedure for the Sanyo
products must include the
modifications described above.
Consultations With Other Agencies
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) staff concerning the
Sanyo petition for waiver. The FTC staff
did not have any objections to issuing
a waiver to Sanyo.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the
materials submitted by Sanyo, the
absence of any comments, and
consultation with the FTC staff, it is
ordered that:
(1) The petition for waiver filed by
Sanyo (Case No. CAC–027) is hereby
granted as set forth in the paragraphs
below.
(2) Sanyo shall not be required to test
or rate its ECO-i multi-split air
conditioner and heat pump models
listed below on the basis of the test
procedures cited in 10 CFR 431.96,
specifically, ISO Standard 13256–1
(1998) and ARI Standard 340/360–2004
(incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.95(b)(2–3)). Instead, it shall be
required to test and rate such products
according to the alternate test procedure
as set forth in paragraph (3).
ECO-i Series Outdoor Units
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat
Pump Series (208/230 Volt, 3 Phase, 60
Hz)
• Models CHDX* * *63 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
• Models CHDXR* * *63 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat
Pump Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase, 60 Hz)
• Models CHDX* * *74 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
• Models CHDXR* * *74 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat
Recovery Series (208/230 Volt, 3 Phase,
60 Hz)
• Models CHDZ* * *63 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
• Models CHDZR* * *63 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat
Recovery Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase, 60
Hz)
• Models CHDZ* * *74 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
• Models CHDZR* * *74 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Water Source Heat
Recovery Series (208/230 Volt, 3 Phase,
60 Hz)
• Models CHWDZ* * *63 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to 96,000
Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ECOi Outdoor Unit Water Source Heat
Recovery Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase, 60
Hz)
• Models CHWDZ* * *74 with
capacities ranging from 72,000 to 96,000
Btu/h.
• * * *: 072, 096.
Compatible Indoor Units for Above
Listed Outdoor Units
• UMHX* *62 series low profile
concealed ducted with nominally rated
capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000,
15,000 and 18,000 Btu/h.
• UHX* *62 series low-medium
static concealed ducted with nominally
rated capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000,
15,000, 18,000, 24,000, 36,000, 48,000
and 54,000 Btu/h.
• DHX* *52 series medium-high
static concealed ducted with nominally
rated capacities of 36,000 and 48,000
Btu/h.
• XMHX* *52 series four way
cassette with nominally rated capacities
of 12,000 and 18,000 Btu/h.
• XHX* *52 series four way cassette
with nominally rated capacities of
24,000 and 36,000 Btu/h.
• AHX* *52 series one way
discharge ceiling cassette indoor units
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
with nominally rated capacities of
7,000, 9,000 and 12,000 Btu/h.
• FHX* *62 series floor mounted
with nominally rated capacities of
7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 and
24,000 Btu/h.
• FMHX* *62 series floor mounted
concealed with nominally rated
capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000,
15,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/h.
• KHX* *52 series wall mounted
with nominally rated capacities of
7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 and
24,000 Btu/h.
• KHX* *62 series wall mounted
with nominally rated capacities of
18,000 and 19,000 Btu/h.
• THX* *52 series ceiling suspended
with nominally rated capacities of
12,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/h.
• VHX* *62 series vertical air
handler with nominally rated capacities
of 12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 30,000,
36,000, 42,000, 48,000 and 60,000 Btu/
h.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) Sanyo is required to test the
products listed in paragraph (2) above
according to the test procedure for
commercial package air conditioners
and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at
10 CFR 431.96 (ISO Standard 13256–1
(1998) and ARI Standard 340/360–2004
(incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.95(b)(2)–(3)), except that Sanyo
shall test a tested combination selected
in accordance with the provisions of
subparagraph (3)(B) below. For every
other system combination using the
same outdoor unit as the tested
combination, Sanyo shall make
representations concerning the ECO-i
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 one
outdoor unit, with one or more
compressors, that is matched with
between two and five indoor units. (For
systems with nominal cooling capacities
greater than 150,000 Btu/h, as many as
eight indoor units may be used, so as to
be able to test non-ducted indoor unit
combinations). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41849
if the highest sales model family does
not provide sufficient capacity (see (b)
below);
(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 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) Be subject to the same minimum
external static pressure requirement
while being configurable to produce the
same static pressure at the exit of each
outlet plenum when manifolded as per
section 2.4.1 of 10 CFR Part 430,
Subpart B, Appendix M.
(C) Representations. In making
representations about the energy
efficiency of its ECO-i multi-split
products, for compliance, marketing, or
other purposes, Sanyo must fairly
disclose the results of testing under the
DOE test procedure in a manner
consistent with the provisions outlined
below:
(i) For ECO-i multi-split combinations
tested in accordance with this alternate
test procedure, Sanyo may make
representations based on those test
results.
(ii) For ECO-i multi-split
combinations that are not tested, Sanyo
may make representations based on the
testing results for the tested
combination and that are consistent
with either of the two following
methods:
(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
combination with the same outdoor
unit.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect
from the date this Decision and Order is
issued, consistent with the provisions of
10 CFR 431.401(g).
(5) This waiver is issued on the
condition that the statements,
representations, and documentary
materials provided by the petitioner are
valid. DOE may revoke or modify the
waiver at any time if it determines that
the factual basis underlying the petition
for waiver is incorrect, or the results
from the alternate test procedure are
unrepresentative of the basic models’
true energy consumption characteristics.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
41850
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010–17514 Filed 7–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13565–000–VT]
Charlie Hotchkin and Claire Fay;
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment
July 13, 2010.
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47879), the
Office of Energy Projects has reviewed
the application for a small hydro (5
megawatts or less) exemption from
licensing for the Alder Brook MiniHydro Project, to be located on Alder
Brook, near the town of Richford,
Franklin County, Vermont, and has
prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA). In the EA, Commission staff
analyzes the potential environmental
effects of the project and concludes that
issuing an exemption for the project,
with appropriate environmental
measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the
Commission and is available for public
inspection. The EA may also be viewed
on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’
link. Enter the docket number excluding
the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.
gov or toll-free at 1–866–208–3676, or
for TTY, (202) 502–8659. For further
information, contact Michael Spencer at
(202) 502–6093.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2010–17559 Filed 7–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Amended Notice of Intent to Modify the
Scope of the Surplus Plutonium
Disposition Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement and
Conduct Additional Public Scoping
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy,
National Nuclear Security
Administration.
ACTION: Amended Notice of Intent.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
modify the scope of the Surplus
Plutonium Disposition Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SPD
Supplemental EIS, DOE/EIS–0283–S2)
and to conduct additional public
scoping. DOE issued its Notice of
Intent 1 (NOI) to prepare the SPD
Supplemental EIS on March 28, 2007
(72 FR 14543). DOE now intends to
revise the scope of the SPD
Supplemental EIS to refine the quantity
and types of surplus weapons-usable
plutonium material, evaluate additional
alternatives, and no longer consider in
detail one alternative identified in the
NOI (ceramic can-in-canister
immobilization). Also, DOE had
identified a glass can-in-canister
immobilization approach as its
preferred alternative in the NOI; DOE
will continue to evaluate that alternative
but currently does not have a preferred
alternative.
DOE now proposes to analyze a new
alternative to install the capability in K–
Area at the Savannah River Site (SRS)
to, among other things, disassemble
nuclear weapons pits (a weapons
component) and convert the plutonium
metal to an oxide form for fabrication
into mixed uranium-plutonium oxide
(MOX) reactor fuel in the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF); under
this alternative, DOE would not build
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility (PDCF), which DOE previously
decided to construct. This K–Area
project also would provide capabilities
needed to prepare plutonium for other
disposition alternatives evaluated in the
SPD Supplemental EIS and to support
the ongoing plutonium storage mission
in K–Area. DOE also proposes to
evaluate a new alternative to dispose of
some surplus non-pit plutonium as
transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico,
provided the plutonium would meet the
criteria for such disposal. In addition,
DOE will analyze the potential
1 The NOI identified the title of the document as
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah
River Site.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Jul 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
environmental impacts of using MOX
fuel in up to five reactors owned by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) at
the Sequoyah (near Soddy-Daisy, TN)
and Browns Ferry (near Decatur and
Athens, AL) nuclear stations. TVA will
be a cooperating agency with DOE for
preparation and review of the sections
of the SPD Supplemental EIS that
address operation of TVA reactors.
DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies,
state and local governments, Native
American tribes, industry, other
organizations, and members of the
public to submit comments to assist in
identifying environmental issues and in
determining the scope of the SPD
Supplemental EIS. The public scoping
period will end on September 17, 2010.
DOE will consider all comments
received or postmarked by September
17, 2010. Comments received after that
date will be considered to the extent
practicable. Also, DOE asks that Federal,
state, and local agencies that desire to be
designated cooperating agencies on the
SPD Supplemental EIS contact the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Document Manager at the
addresses listed under ADDRESSES by the
end of the scoping period. DOE will
hold five public scoping meetings:
• August 3, 2010 (5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.)
at Calhoun Community College, Decatur
Campus, Aerospace Building, 6250
Highway 31 North, Tanner, AL 35671
• August 5, 2010 (5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.)
at Chattanooga Convention Center, 1150
Carter Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402
• August 17, 2010 (5:30 p.m. to 8
p.m.) at North Augusta Municipal
Center, 100 Georgia Avenue, North
Augusta, SC 29841
• August 24, 2010 (5:30 p.m. to 8
p.m.) at Best Western Stevens Inn, 1829
S. Canal Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220
• August 26, 2010 (5:30 p.m. to 8
p.m.) at Courtyard by Marriott Santa Fe,
3347 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM
87507
ADDRESSES: Please direct written
comments on the scope of the SPD
Supplemental EIS to Ms. Sachiko
McAlhany, SPD Supplemental EIS
NEPA Document Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, P.O. Box 2324,
Germantown, MD 20874–2324. You may
also send comments on the scope of the
SPD Supplemental EIS via e-mail to spd
supplementaleis@saic.com, or via the
Web site, https://
www.spdsupplementaleis.com; or by
toll-free fax to 877–865–0277. DOE will
give equal weight to written, e-mail, fax,
and oral comments. Questions regarding
the scoping process and requests to be
placed on the distribution list for this
Supplemental EIS should be directed to
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41845-41850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Case No. CAC-027]
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo North America
Corporation From the Department of Energy Commercial Package Air
Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Decision and Order in Case No. CAC-027, which grants Sanyo North
America Corporation (Sanyo) a waiver from the existing DOE test
procedures applicable to commercial package air-source and water-source
central air conditioners and heat pumps. The waiver is specific to the
Sanyo variable capacity ECO-i (commercial) multi-split heat pumps. As a
condition of this waiver, Sanyo must use the alternate test procedure
set forth in this notice to test and rate its ECO-i multi-split
products.
DATES: This Decision and Order is effective July 19, 2010.
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: Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-
[[Page 41846]]
0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.401(f)(4), DOE is providing notice of
the issuance of the Decision and Order 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 for
its ECO-i multi-split products. The waiver requires Sanyo use the
alternate test procedure provided in this notice to test and rate the
specified models from its ECO-i multi-split product line (as identified
below). The cooling capacities of Sanyo's commercial heat pump products
at issue in the waiver petition filed by Sanyo range from 72,000 Btu/h
to 288,000 Btu/h. All of the air-source Sanyo products are covered by
this waiver. The Sanyo water-source products with capacities greater
than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h are not covered by this waiver because
the DOE test procedure only covers water-source heat pumps with
capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h.
Today's decision prohibits Sanyo from making any representations
concerning the energy efficiency of these products unless the product
has been tested consistent with the provisions and restrictions in the
alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision and Order below, and
the representations fairly disclose the test results. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)) Distributors, retailers, and private labelers are held to the
same standard when making representations regarding the energy
efficiency of these products. Id.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order; In the Matter of: Sanyo North America Corp. (Sanyo)
(Case No. CAC-027)
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency, including
Part A of Title III which establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program
for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
Part A-1 of Title III provides for a similar energy efficiency program
titled ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' which includes large and small
commercial air conditioning equipment, package boilers, storage water
heaters, and other types of commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317)
Today's notice involves commercial equipment under Part A-1. The
statute specifically includes definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313). It also provides the
Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) with the authority to require
information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6316) The
statute authorizes the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe
test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results
that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual
operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
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 [Illuminating
Engineering Society] Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.''
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), the Secretary
must amend the test procedure for a covered commercial product if the
applicable industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary
determines, by rule and based on clear and convincing evidence, that
such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set
forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3).
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 the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 13256-1-
1998, ``Water-source heat pumps--Testing and rating for performance--
Part 1: Water-to-air and brine-to-air heat pumps,'' for small
commercial package water-source heat pumps with capacities less than
135,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h). Id. at 71371. Pursuant
to this rulemaking, DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(3)
incorporate by reference ISO Standard 13256-1-1998. In addition, Table
1 of 10 CFR 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package water-
source air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate
procedure when measuring the energy efficiency of those products. For
air-source heat pumps with capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE
adopted ARI Standard 340/360-2004.
In addition, DOE's regulations allow a person to seek a waiver for
a particular basic model from the test procedure requirements for
covered commercial equipment if: (1) That basic model contains one or
more design characteristics which prevent testing according to the
prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may
evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true
energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A waiver petition must include
any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate
characteristics of 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). Waivers remain in effect
pursuant to the provisions of 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 may be granted if the Assistant
Secretary determines that the applicant will experience economic
hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied, if it appears
likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if the
Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public
policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the
petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). An interim waiver remains in
effect for 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the
petition for waiver, whichever occurs first. The interim waiver may be
extended by DOE for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4).
On January 4, 2010, Sanyo filed a petition for waiver from the test
procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 applicable to commercial package air and
water-source central air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as an
application for interim waiver. The cooling capacities of Sanyo's
commercial ECO-i multi-split heat pump products at issue in the waiver
petition range from 72,000 Btu/h to 288,000 Btu/h. The Sanyo products
with capacities >= 135,000 Btu/h are not covered by this waiver because
there is
[[Page 41847]]
no DOE test procedure for water-source heat pumps with capacities >=
135,000 Btu/hr. The cooling capacities of Sanyo's commercial ECO-i air-
source multi-split heat pump products also range from 72,000 Btu/h to
288,000 Btu/h. All of these products are covered by this waiver, as ARI
Standard 340/360-2004 covers products with capacities greater than
65,000 Btu/h.
Sanyo seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10
CFR 431.96 on the grounds that its ECO-i multi-split heat pumps 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 its multi-split variable speed products
are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other
manufacturers for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-
conditioning systems:
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 (August 27, 2004) (Mitsubishi
waiver); 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 2007) (Mitsubishi waiver); 72 FR 71387
(Dec. 17, 2007) (Samsung waiver); 72 FR 71383 (Dec. 17, 2007) (Fujitsu
waiver); 73 FR 39680 (July 10, 2008) (Daikin waiver); 74 FR 15955
(April 8, 2009) (Daikin waiver); 74 FR 16193 (April 9, 2009) (Sanyo
waiver); 74 FR 16373 (April 10, 2009) (Daikin waiver).
On March 18, 2010, DOE published Sanyo's petition for waiver in the
Federal Register, seeking public comment pursuant to 10 CFR
431.401(b)(1)(iv), and granted the application for interim waiver. 75
FR 13114. DOE received no comments on the Sanyo petition.
In a similar case, DOE published a petition for waiver from
Mitsubishi for products very similar to Sanyo's 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 Mitsubishi Decision and Order in the Federal Register on April
9, 2007. 72 FR 17528. Most of the comments were favorable. One
commenter indicated that a waiver was unnecessary. However, the
commenter did not present a satisfactory method of testing the
products. Id. at 72 FR 17529. Generally, commenters agreed that an
alternate test procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for
these types of products is being developed. Id. The Mitsubishi Decision
and Order included the alternate test procedure adopted by DOE. Id. at
72 FR 17530.
Assertions and Determinations
Sanyo's Petition for Waiver
Sanyo seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedures for this product
class on the grounds that its ECO-i multi-split heat pumps contain
design characteristics that prevent them from being tested using the
current DOE test procedures. As stated above, 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 waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi, Fujitsu General Ltd.
(Fujitsu), Samsung Air Conditioning (Samsung), Daikin, and LG for
similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems: (1)
Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units;
and (2) there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor
unit to test.
The Sanyo ECO-i systems have operational characteristics similar to
the commercial multi-split products manufactured by Mitsubishi,
Samsung, Fujitsu, LG, and Daikin. As indicated above, DOE has granted
waivers for these products. The ECO-i system includes 90 unique outdoor
models and 54 unique indoor models, and can connect up to 40 indoor
units to a single outdoor unit. There are over one million combinations
possible with the Sanyo ECO-i system. Consequently, Sanyo requested
that DOE grant a waiver from the applicable test procedures for its
ECO-i product designs until a suitable test method can be prescribed.
DOE believes that the Sanyo ECO-i 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. Therefore,
DOE has decided to grant Sanyo a waiver for its ECO-i multi-split
products, similar to the multi-split product waivers already issued to
the other manufacturers mentioned above.
Previously, in addressing Mitsubishi's R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ
products, which are similar to the Sanyo products at issue here, DOE
stated:
To provide a test procedure from which manufacturers can make
valid representations, the Department [DOE] is considering setting
an alternate test procedure for MEUS [Mitsubishi] 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 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, March 24, 2006).
Sanyo did not include an alternate test procedure in its petition
for waiver. However, in response to two recent petitions for waiver
from Mitsubishi, DOE specified an alternate test procedure that
Mitsubishi could use to test and make valid energy efficiency
representations for its R410A CITY MULTI products and its R22 multi-
split products. Alternate test procedures related to the Mitsubishi
petitions were published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007 and
December 15, 2009. 72 FR 17528; 74 FR 66311. DOE believes that the same
alternate test procedure specified in the Mitsubishi decision could be
used to test the Sanyo products at issue here.
DOE understands that existing testing facilities have a limited
ability to test multiple indoor units simultaneously. It also
understands that it is impractical to test some variable refrigerant
flow zoned systems because of the number of possible combinations of
indoor and outdoor units. DOE further notes that after the waiver
granted for Mitsubishi's R22 multi-split products, AHRI formed a
committee to develop a testing protocol for variable refrigerant flow
systems. The committee developed AHRI Standard 1230-2009: ``Performance
Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning
and Heat Pump Equipment.'' AHRI adopted the standard in June 2009. AHRI
1230-2009 is substantially the same as DOE's alternate test procedure
with respect to the testing of these Sanyo products. It has recently
been adopted as an addendum to ASHRAE 90.1, and DOE plans to consider
this industry standard in a subsequent test procedure rulemaking.
DOE issues today's Decision and Order granting Sanyo a test
procedure waiver for its commercial ECO-i air-
[[Page 41848]]
source and water-source multi-split heat pumps. As a condition of this
waiver, Sanyo must use the alternate test procedure described below.
This alternate test procedure is the same in all relevant particulars
as the one that DOE applied to the Mitsubishi waiver.
Alternate Test Procedure
The alternate test procedure 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
five (for systems with nominal cooling capacities greater than 150,000
Btu/h, the number of indoor units may be as high as eight to be able to
test non-ducted indoor unit combinations) 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.
The alternate DOE test procedure also allows Sanyo to represent the
products' energy efficiency. These representations must fairly disclose
the test results. The DOE test procedure, as modified by the alternate
test procedure set forth in this Decision and Order, provides for
efficiency rating of a non-tested combination in one of two ways: (1)
At an energy efficiency level determined using a DOE-approved
alternative rating method; or (2) at the efficiency level of the tested
combination utilizing the same outdoor unit.
As in the Mitsubishi waiver, DOE believes that allowing Sanyo to
make energy efficiency representations for non-tested combinations by
adopting the 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 because it does not account for their multi-zoning
feature. The multi-zoning feature of these products enables them to
cool only those portions of the building that require cooling. Products
with a multi-zoning feature are expected to use less energy than units
controlled by a single thermostat, which cool the entire home or
commercial building regardless of whether only portions need cooling.
The multi-zoning feature would not be properly evaluated by the current
test procedure, which requires full-load testing. Full-load testing
requires the entire building to be cooled. Products using a multi-
zoning feature and subjected to full-load testing would be at a
disadvantage because they are optimized for highest efficiency when
operating with less than full loads. The alternate test procedure will
provide a conservative basis for assessing the energy efficiency of
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 the indoor units must be
subjected the same minimum external static pressure. This requirement
enables 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 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. Measuring capacity in this way would require that the
test laboratory be equipped with multiple airflow measuring
apparatuses. It is unlikely that any test laboratory would be equipped
with the necessary number of such apparatuses. Alternatively, the test
laboratory could connect its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or
more common indoor units until the contribution of each indoor unit had
been measured. However, that approach would be so time-consuming as to
be impractical.
Furthermore, DOE stated in the March 24, 2006 notice publishing the
Mitsubishi petition for waiver that if it decided to specify an
alternate test procedure for Mitsubishi, 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. As noted above, most of the comments received by DOE in response
to the March 2006 notice supported the proposed alternate test
procedure. 72 FR 17528, 17529 (April 9, 2007). Commenters responding to
that prior notice 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.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE believes Sanyo's ECO-i multi-
split products cannot be tested using the procedures prescribed in 10
CFR 431.96 (ISO Standard 13256-1 (1998) and ARI Standard 340/360-2004)
and incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
431.95(b)(2)-(3). After careful consideration, DOE has decided to
prescribe the alternate test procedure first developed for the
Mitsubishi waiver for Sanyo's commercial multi-split products. The
alternate test procedure for the Sanyo products must include the
modifications described above.
Consultations With Other Agencies
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff
concerning the Sanyo petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have
any objections to issuing a waiver to Sanyo.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by
Sanyo, the absence of any comments, and consultation with the FTC
staff, it is ordered that:
(1) The petition for waiver filed by Sanyo (Case No. CAC-027) is
hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) Sanyo shall not be required to test or rate its ECO-i multi-
split air conditioner and heat pump models listed below on the basis of
the test procedures cited in 10 CFR 431.96, specifically, ISO Standard
13256-1 (1998) and ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by reference
in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2-3)). Instead, it shall be required to test and
rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set
forth in paragraph (3).
ECO-i Series Outdoor Units
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat Pump Series (208/230 Volt, 3 Phase,
60 Hz)
Models CHDX* * *63 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
Models CHDXR* * *63 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat Pump Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase, 60
Hz)
Models CHDX* * *74 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
Models CHDXR* * *74 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216,
[[Page 41849]]
240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat Recovery Series (208/230 Volt, 3
Phase, 60 Hz)
Models CHDZ* * *63 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
Models CHDZR* * *63 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Air Source Heat Recovery Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase,
60 Hz)
Models CHDZ* * *74 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
Models CHDZR* * *74 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
288,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, 288.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Water Source Heat Recovery Series (208/230 Volt, 3
Phase, 60 Hz)
Models CHWDZ* * *63 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
96,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096.
ECOi Outdoor Unit Water Source Heat Recovery Series (460 Volt, 3 Phase,
60 Hz)
Models CHWDZ* * *74 with capacities ranging from 72,000 to
96,000 Btu/h.
* * *: 072, 096.
Compatible Indoor Units for Above Listed Outdoor Units
UMHX* *62 series low profile concealed ducted with
nominally rated capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000 and 18,000
Btu/h.
UHX* *62 series low-medium static concealed ducted with
nominally rated capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000,
24,000, 36,000, 48,000 and 54,000 Btu/h.
DHX* *52 series medium-high static concealed ducted with
nominally rated capacities of 36,000 and 48,000 Btu/h.
XMHX* *52 series four way cassette with nominally rated
capacities of 12,000 and 18,000 Btu/h.
XHX* *52 series four way cassette with nominally rated
capacities of 24,000 and 36,000 Btu/h.
AHX* *52 series one way discharge ceiling cassette indoor
units with nominally rated capacities of 7,000, 9,000 and 12,000 Btu/h.
FHX* *62 series floor mounted with nominally rated
capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/h.
FMHX* *62 series floor mounted concealed with nominally
rated capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 and 24,000
Btu/h.
KHX* *52 series wall mounted with nominally rated
capacities of 7,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/h.
KHX* *62 series wall mounted with nominally rated
capacities of 18,000 and 19,000 Btu/h.
THX* *52 series ceiling suspended with nominally rated
capacities of 12,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/h.
VHX* *62 series vertical air handler with nominally rated
capacities of 12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 30,000, 36,000, 42,000, 48,000
and 60,000 Btu/h.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) Sanyo is required to test the products listed in paragraph (2)
above according to the test procedure for commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96 (ISO
Standard 13256-1 (1998) and ARI Standard 340/360-2004 (incorporated by
reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)-(3)), except that Sanyo shall test a
tested combination selected in accordance with the provisions of
subparagraph (3)(B) below. For every other system combination using the
same outdoor unit as the tested combination, Sanyo shall make
representations concerning the ECO-i 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 one outdoor unit, with one or more
compressors, that is matched with between two and five indoor units.
(For systems with nominal cooling capacities greater than 150,000 Btu/
h, as many as eight indoor units may be used, so as to be able to test
non-ducted indoor unit combinations). 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 (see (b) below);
(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 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) Be subject to the same minimum external static pressure
requirement while being configurable to produce the same static
pressure at the exit of each outlet plenum when manifolded as per
section 2.4.1 of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix M.
(C) Representations. In making representations about the energy
efficiency of its ECO-i multi-split products, for compliance,
marketing, or other purposes, Sanyo must fairly disclose the results of
testing under the DOE test procedure in a manner consistent with the
provisions outlined below:
(i) For ECO-i multi-split combinations tested in accordance with
this alternate test procedure, Sanyo may make representations based on
those test results.
(ii) For ECO-i multi-split combinations that are not tested, Sanyo
may make representations based on the testing results for the tested
combination and that are consistent with either of the two following
methods:
(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 combination with the same outdoor unit.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date this Decision
and Order is issued, consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR
431.401(g).
(5) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements,
representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner
are valid. DOE may revoke or modify the waiver at any time if it
determines that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is
incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are
unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption
characteristics.
[[Page 41850]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-17514 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
