[Federal Register: August 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 52660-52662]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27au04-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver From the DOE Commercial Package Air Conditioner
and Heat Pump Test Procedure to Mitsubishi Electric (Case No. CAC-008)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is given of the Decision and Order (Case No. CAC-008)
granting a Waiver to Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(MEUS) from the existing Department of Energy (DOE or Department)
commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure for its
City Multi products.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, E-mail: Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; or
Thomas DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, E-mail:
Thomas.DePriest@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations Part 431.29(f)(4), notice is hereby given of the issuance
of
[[Page 52661]]
the Decision and Order as set out below. In the Decision and Order,
MEUS is granted a Waiver from the Department of Energy commercial
package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure for its City Multi
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (VFRZ) products.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(MEUS). (Case No. CAC-008)
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part B of
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the AEnergy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles.'' Part C of Title
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) provides for a program entitled ACertain
Industrial Equipment,'' which is similar to the program in Part B, and
which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, packaged boilers,
water heaters, and other types of commercial equipment.
Today's decision and order involves commercial equipment under Part
C, which specifically provides for definitions, test procedures,
labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority
to require information and reports from manufacturers. With respect to
test procedures, Part C generally authorizes the Secretary of Energy 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.
For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA
provides that the test procedures shall be those generally accepted
industry testing 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 (IES is the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America) Standard 90.1 and in effect on
June 30, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) This section also allows the
Secretary of Energy to amend the test procedure for a product if the
industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines
that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)).
The relevant test procedure for the purposes of today's decision
and order and referenced in the version of ASHRAE 90.1 in effect in
1992 is ARI 210/240 (1989), ``Standard for Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment.'' The Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute subsequently modified the 1989 version of the
test procedure. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing to adopt ARI 210/240 (1994) (65 FR 48828, Aug. 9, 2000), but
has not taken final action with respect to that proposal. Thus, the
currently applicable test procedure is contained in ARI Standard 210/
240 (1989).
The Department's regulations contain provisions allowing a person
to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered
consumer products and electric motors. These provisions are set forth
in 10 CFR 430.27 and 10 CFR 431.29. However, there are no waiver
provisions for other covered commercial equipment. The Department
proposed waiver provisions for covered commercial equipment on December
13, 1999 (64 FR 69597), as part of the commercial furnace test
procedure rule. The Department expects to publish a final rule
codifying this process in 10 CFR 431.201. Until that time, DOE will
apply to commercial equipment the waiver provisions for consumer
products and electric motors. These waiver provisions are substantively
identical.
The waiver provisions allow the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy to waive temporarily the test procedure
for a particular basic model when a petitioner shows that the basic
model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing
according to the prescribed test procedures, or when the prescribed
test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so
unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide
materially inaccurate comparative data. (10 CFR 430.27 (l), 10 CFR
431.29 (f)(4)) Waivers generally remain in effect until final test
procedure amendments become effective, thereby resolving the problem
that is the subject of the waiver.
On June 13, 2003, MEUS submitted a Petition for Waiver from the
test procedures applicable to commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment. MEUS requested a waiver from the applicable test
procedures because, MEUS asserts, the current test procedures evaluate
its CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (VRFZ) system products
in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption
characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
In particular, MEUS requested a waiver from the currently
applicable test procedures contained in ARI 210/240 (1989), and from
the test procedures contained in ARI 210/240 (1994), which the
Department has proposed to adopt. On September 16, 2003, the Department
published MEUS's Petition for Waiver, and solicited comments, data, and
information respecting the petition. 68 FR 54212.
The Department received three written comments, from Carrier
Corporation (Carrier), Lennox International Inc. (Lennox), and Samsung
Air Conditioning (Samsung), concerning the Petition for Waiver. One of
the comments (Samsung) supported granting the waiver, and two of the
comments (Carrier and Lennox) were opposed.
Assertions and Determinations
MEUS' petition presented several arguments in support of its claim
that the current test procedures evaluate CITY MULTI VRFZ system
products in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy
consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. One argument concerned the complexity of testing VFRZ
systems. The current test procedure can be used to test all current
commercial systems in the laboratory, but many VFRZ systems cannot be
tested in the laboratory. Each VFRZ outdoor unit can be connected with
up to sixteen separate indoor units in a zoned system. Existing test
laboratories cannot test more than five indoor units at a time, and
even that number is difficult.
A second difficulty is that MEUS offers 58 indoor unit models. Each
of these indoor unit models is designed to be used with up to 15 other
indoor units, which need not be the same models, in combination with a
single outdoor unit. For each of the CITY MULTI VRFZ outdoor coils,
there are well over 1,000,000 combinations of indoor coils that can be
matched up in a system configuration, and it is highly impractical to
test so many combinations.
There are therefore two major testing problems: (1) Test
laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and (2)
there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units--
only a small fraction of the combinations could be tested. These
problems do not support MEUS' claim that the ``current test procedures
[[Page 52662]]
evaluate CITY MULTI VRFZ system products in a manner so
unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to
provide materially inaccurate comparative data.'' However, they do
support the other waiver criterion, that ``the basic model contains one
or more design characteristics which * * * prevent testing of the basic
model according to the prescribed test procedures. * * *''
In its comments on the waiver petition, Carrier addressed the first
problem, stating that testing units with two or three indoor sections
would be a good check on the rating accuracy. Lennox addressed the
second problem, suggesting that the Petitioner present engineering
analysis to establish a method of sampling a range of performance. The
Department does not believe that the solutions embodied in either
comment are a sufficient answer to the difficulties. These solutions
would not provide a rating comparable in accuracy with the current test
procedure as applied to a typical commercial system with one indoor and
one outdoor unit. Furthermore, neither commenter addressed the problem
of the test procedure's not having been designed to cover zoned
systems.
The remainder of MEUS' assertions, and the comments upon them,
relate to the energy efficiency descriptor, the energy efficiency ratio
(EER). MEUS asserts: (1) The test procedure does not accommodate
infinite variability in compressor speeds; (2) full load EER
measurements are not representative of customer usage at part loads;
and (3) the test procedure does not account for simultaneous heating
and cooling. In short, MEUS asserts the test procedure for EER does not
capture the energy savings of VFRZ products. While this assertion is
true, it is irrelevant because the full load EER energy efficiency
descriptor is the one mandated by EPCA for these products (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(c)), and the relevant energy performance is the peak load
efficiency, not the seasonal energy savings. Therefore, a waiver can
only be granted if a test procedure does not fairly represent the peak
load energy consumption characteristics which EER measures. The
Department is not convinced that the test procedures do not fairly
represent the true (peak load) energy consumption characteristics as
measured by EER. However, the two testing problems discussed above,
(test laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units, and
there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to
test), do prevent testing of the basic model according to the
prescribed test procedures.
The Department consulted with The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the MEUS Petition. The FTC did not have any objections to
the issuance of the waiver to MEUS. The Department also consulted with
the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), who agreed
that many VFRZ systems could not be tested in the laboratory.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted
by MEUS, the comments received, the review by NIST, and consultation
with the FTC, it is ordered that:
(1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Mitsubishi Electric and
Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) (Case No. CAC-008) is hereby granted as
set forth in paragraph (2) below.
(2) MEUS shall be not be required to test or rate its CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System (VFRZ) products listed below on
the basis of the currently applicable test procedure:
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System R-2 Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PURY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed
heat pump.
PURY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-
speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Y Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PUHY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed
heat pump.
PUHY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-
speed heat pump.
PUY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed
air conditioner.
PUY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed
air conditioner.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Indoor Equipment
\a\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The * denotes engineering differences in the models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCFY Series--Ceiling Suspended--PCFY-16/24/40/48***-*.
PDFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted--PDFY-08/10/12/16/20/24/28/
32/40/48***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted, Low External Static
Pressure--PEFY-08/10/12***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted, High External Static
Pressure--PEFY-16/20/24/28/32/40/48***-*.
PFFY Series--Floor Standing--PFFY-08/10/12/16/20/24***-*.
PKFY Series--Wall-Mounted--PKFY-08/10/12/16/20/24/32/40***-*.
PLFY Series--4-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-12/16/20/24/32/
40/48***-*.
PLFY Series--2-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-08/10/12/16/20/
24/32/40/48***-*.
PMFY Series--1-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PMFY-08/10/12/16***-*.
(3) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of
this Order until DOE prescribes final test procedures appropriate to
the model series manufactured by MEUS and listed above.
(4) This waiver is based upon the presumed validity of statements,
allegations, and documentary materials submitted by the petitioner.
This waiver may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination
that the factual basis underlying the Petition is incorrect.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 04-19604 Filed 8-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P