[Federal Register: December 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 71383-71387]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17de07-50]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver to Fujitsu General From the Department of
Energy Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure
[Case No. CAC-010]
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-010, which grants a Waiver to Fujitsu General
Limited (Fujitsu) from the existing Department of Energy (DOE)
residential central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure for
specified Airstage Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) multi-split
products. As a condition of this waiver, Fujitsu must test and rate its
Airstage multi-split products according to the alternate test procedure
set forth in this notice.
DATES: This Decision and Order is effective December 17, 2007.
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.
Francine Pinto or Eric Stas, 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 Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l), notice
is hereby given of the issuance of the Decision and Order set forth
below. In this Decision and Order, DOE grants Fujitsu a Waiver from the
applicable DOE residential central air conditioner and heat pump test
procedure under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, for its
Airstage VRF multi-split products, subject to a condition requiring
Fujitsu to test and rate its Airstage products pursuant to the
alternate test procedure provided in this notice. Today's decision
requires that Fujitsu may not make any representations concerning the
energy efficiency of these products unless such product has been tested
in accordance
[[Page 71384]]
with the DOE test procedure, consistent with the provisions and
restrictions in the alternate test procedure set forth in the Decision
and Order below, and such representation fairly discloses the results
of such testing.\1\ (42 U.S.C. 6293(c))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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))
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Fujitsu General Limited (Fujitsu) (Case No. CAC-
010).
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency, including
Part B 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 B, Part C 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 B, as well
as commercial equipment under Part C. Under both parts, the statute
specifically includes definitions, test procedures, labeling
provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require
information and reports from manufacturers. With respect to test
procedures, both parts generally authorize the Secretary of Energy (the
Secretary) to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to
produce results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2))
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. 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)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B), the statute 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).
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. The test procedures
in that final rule apply to three-phase equipment. However, there is no
prescribed test procedure for single-phase, small commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment.
In addition, DOE's regulations contain provisions allowing a person
to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered
consumer products, when the petitioner's 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(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition
any alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a
manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR
430.27(b)(1)(iii).
The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(the Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions,
including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l). In
general, a waiver terminates on the effective date of a final rule
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 430.27(m).
The waiver process also allows any interested person who has
submitted a Petition for Waiver to file an Application for Interim
Waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR
430.27(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an Interim Waiver
request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic
hardship if the Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the
Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/or 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 430.27(g). 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 180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 430.27(h).
On June 14, 2004, Fujitsu filed a Petition for Waiver from the test
procedures applicable to its Airstage line of residential and
commercial VRF multi-split air conditioning and heating equipment.\2\
Fujitsu's petition requested a waiver from both the residential and
commercial test procedures. The applicable residential test procedures
are contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, and, as
explained above, there is no applicable commercial test procedure for
such products under 10 CFR part 430 or 431. Fujitsu seeks a waiver from
the test procedures for this product class because the design
characteristics of its Airstage VRF multi-split equipment prevent
testing according to the currently prescribed residential test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Fujitsu Airstage VRF multi-split product line at issue
here involves single-phase equipment for both residential and
commercial use. Because there is no DOE test procedure for single-
phase, small commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, no waiver is required for Fujitsu's single-phase
commercial Airstage equipment. Nonetheless, Fujitsu's Airstage VRF
multi-split products are properly classified as ``consumer
products,'' because, to a significant extent, they are for personal
use or consumption by individuals (given their frequent residential
applications). (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) Thus, the Fujitsu Airstage VRF
multi-split products require a waiver from DOE's test procedure for
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, under 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, Appendix M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2005, DOE published Fujitsu's Petition for Waiver in
the Federal Register. 70 FR 5980. On August 8, 2005, Fujitsu separately
filed an Application for Interim Waiver for the same products for which
it petitioned for a waiver on June 14, 2004. DOE granted the
Application for Interim Waiver on January 5, 2006.
In a similar and relevant case, DOE published a Petition for Waiver
from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) for products
of the same type as Fujitsu's Airstage 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
[[Page 71385]]
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. Most of the
comments favored DOE's proposed alternate test procedure. 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. The MEUS Decision and Order, including the alternate test
procedure, was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2007. 72
FR 17528.
DOE received comments on the Fujitsu petition from Carrier
Corporation (Carrier), Trane Division of American Standard Inc.
(Trane), Lennox International Inc. (Lennox), and MEUS. These comments
are discussed in further detail below.
Assertions and Determinations
Fujitsu's Petition for Waiver
On June 14, 2004, Fujitsu submitted a Petition for Waiver from the
test procedures applicable to residential and commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment for its Airstage VRF multi-split
products. Fujitsu's petition asserts that the energy use of its
Airstage systems cannot be accurately measured using the current test
procedure for the following reasons:
1. The test procedure provides for testing of a pair of indoor and
outdoor assemblies making up a typical split system, but it provides no
direction about how Airstage units, with more than ten thousand
combinations of indoor units, could be evaluated with just one outdoor
unit test.
2. The test procedure calls for testing ``matched assemblies,'' but
Airstage systems are designed to be used in zoned systems where the
capacity of the indoor units does not match the capacity of the outdoor
unit.
In summary, the bases for Fujitsu's Petition for Waiver involve:
(1) The problem of being physically unable to test most of the complete
systems in a laboratory; (2) the regulatory requirement to test the
highest-sales-volume combination; and (3) the lack of a method for
predicting the performance of untested combinations. These were the
same bases underlying the MEUS waiver discussed above.
Therefore, the Fujitsu petition requested that DOE grant a waiver
from existing test procedures until such time as a representative test
procedure is developed and adopted for this class of products. Fujitsu
did not include an alternate test procedure in its Petition for Waiver.
However, DOE understands that Fujitsu is actively working with ARI to
develop test procedures that accurately reflect the operation and
energy consumption of these particular product designs.
Of the four comments on the Fujitsu Petition for Waiver, only MEUS
supported the petition. Carrier claimed Fujitsu's Airstage VRF systems
could be tested using the calorimeter air enthalpy test method set
forth in ASHRAE Standard 37, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment.'' Although DOE believes that
use of this test, as Carrier recommends, is theoretically possible and
would likely provide more accurate results in the cooling mode, it is
not a practical solution because existing calorimeter test rooms are
too small to test Fujitsu's VRF Airstage systems with more than three
or four indoor units. Lennox and Trane asserted that without a testing
and rating requirement, Fujitsu could make energy efficiency claims
without the burden of providing standardized ratings. DOE believes that
its alternate test procedure (discussed below) effectively addresses
these objections.
As previously noted, DOE recently addressed a situation regarding
multi-split products that is relevant to the Fujitsu products at issue
here. Specifically, on March 24, 2006, DOE published in the Federal
Register a Petition for Waiver from MEUS concerning its R410A CITY
MULTI VRFZ products, which are very similar to Fujitsu's VRF Airstage
multi-split products. 71 FR 14858. In that publication, 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
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 14858, 14861 (March 24, 2006).
Since that time, DOE has developed such an alternate test
procedure. Therefore, to enable Fujitsu to make energy efficiency
representations for its specified Airstage VRF multi-split products,
DOE has decided to require use of the alternate test procedure
described below, as a condition of Fujitsu's waiver. This alternate
test procedure is substantially the same as the one that DOE applied to
the MEUS waiver.
DOE's Alternate Test Procedure
The alternate test procedure has two basic components. First, it
permits Fujitsu to designate a ``tested combination'' for each model of
outdoor unit. The indoor units designated as part of the tested
combination must meet specific requirements. For example, the tested
combination must have from two to five indoor units so that it can be
tested in available test facilities. The tested combination must be
tested according to the applicable DOE test procedure, as modified by
the provisions of the alternate test procedure as set forth below.
Second, having a DOE test procedure that can be applied to its products
allows Fujitsu to represent the energy efficiency of that product,
because any such representation must fairly disclose the results of
such testing. 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 (2) if
the first method is not available, then at the efficiency level of the
tested combination utilizing the same outdoor unit. Until an
alternative rating method is developed, all combinations with a
particular outdoor unit may use the rating of the combination tested
with that outdoor unit.
DOE believes that adopting this alternative test procedure as
described above (thereby allowing Fujitsu to make energy efficiency
representations for non-tested combinations) is reasonable because the
outdoor unit is the principal efficiency driver. The current DOE test
procedure \3\ tends to rate these products conservatively, because they
are tested under conditions where they operate less efficiently than
found in typical use. The multi-zoning feature of these products, which
enables them to cool only those portions of the building that require
cooling, uses 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. Therefore, the alternate test
procedure will provide a conservative basis for assessing the energy
efficiency for such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71386]]
The alternate test procedure applies to both residential and
commercial multi-split products. However, some provisions are specific
to residential or commercial products. For example, section (A) of the
alternate test procedure has different provisions for residential and
commercial products. In contrast, section (B), which defines the
combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test, and section (C),
which sets forth the requirements for making representations, are the
same for both residential and commercial products.
Section (A) of the alternate test procedure distinguishes between
residential and commercial products for two reasons. First, 10 CFR
430.24, used for residential products, already has requirements for
selecting split-system combinations based on the highest sales volume.
However, part 431 of 10 CFR, which applies to commercial products, has
no comparable requirements. Therefore, section (A) of the alternate
test procedure modifies the existing residential and commercial
requirements so that both residential and commercial products can use
the same definition of a ``tested combination,'' which is set forth in
section (B). Second, section (A) requires several test procedure
revisions to determine the seasonal energy efficiency ratio and heating
seasonal performance factor for the tested combination of residential
products. No test procedure revisions are introduced for commercial
products because EPCA directs DOE to adopt generally accepted industry
test standards (unless amendments to those industry test procedures are
determined by clear and convincing evidence not to meet the
requirements of the statute). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)) The changes for
residential products relate to: (1) The requirement that all indoor
units operate during all tests; (2) the restriction on using only one
indoor test room; (3) the selection of the modulation levels (maximum,
minimum, and a specified intermediate speed) used when testing; and (4)
the algorithm for estimating performance over the intermediate speed
operating range. DOE proposed these changes in its July 20, 2006 notice
of proposed rulemaking. 71 FR 41320.
For today's Decision and Order, the changes made by the final rule
published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59906) to
test procedure sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6),
3.6.4 (including Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 constitute mandatory
elements of the alternate test procedure. These changes allow indoor
units to cycle off, allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor
speed used during certain tests, and introduce a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption.
With regard to the laboratory testing of both residential and
commercial products, some of the difficulties 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 be subject to meeting the same minimum external
static pressure. This requirement allows the test lab to manifold the
outlets from each indoor unit into a common plenum that supplies air to
a single airflow measuring apparatus. This requirement eliminates
situations in which some of the indoor units are ducted and some are
non-ducted. Without this requirement, the laboratory must evaluate the
capacity of a subgroup of indoor coils separately, and then sum the
separate capacities to obtain the overall system capacity. This would
require that the test laboratory 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.
Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice publishing the MEUS Petition
for Waiver that if the Department decides 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 14858, 14861 (March
24, 2006). Most of the comments received by DOE in response to the
March 2006 notice favored the proposed alternate test procedure.
Commenters generally agreed that an alternate test procedure is
appropriate for an interim period while a final test procedure for
these products is being developed.
In light of the discussion above, DOE believes that the problems
described above would prevent testing of Fujitsu's Airstage VRF multi-
split products according to the test procedures currently prescribed in
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. After reviewing and considering
all of the comments submitted regarding the proposed alternate test
procedure, DOE has decided to adopt the proposed alternate test
procedure, with the clarifications discussed above. DOE will also
consider applying the same alternate test procedure to waivers for
similar central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Consultations With Other Agencies
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning
the Fujitsu Petition for Waiver. The FTC did not have any objections to
the issuance of a waiver to Fujitsu.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by
Fujitsu, the comments received, and consultation with the FTC, it is
ordered that:
(1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Fujitsu General Limited
(Fujitsu) (Case No. CAC-010) is hereby granted as set forth in the
paragraphs below.
(2) Fujitsu shall not be required to test or rate its Airstage
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioner and heat pump
models listed below on the basis of the current test procedures
contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M, but shall be
required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test
procedure as set forth in paragraph (3).
Outdoor unit, Heat pump type: AOU54U****
51.9 kBtu/hr cooling/54.4 kBtu/hr heating, single phase, 208-230Vac,
60Hz.
Outdoor unit, Cooling-only type: AOU54F****
51.9 kBtu/hr cooling, single phase, 208-230Vac, 60Hz.
Indoor units:
AR Series, Compact duct type (ceiling/floor standing), ARU 7/9/12/14/
18/20/22****
AR Series, Duct type, ARU25/30/36/45****
AS Series, Wall mounted type, ASU7/9/12/14/18/24/30****
AU Series, Compact ceiling cassette type, AUU7/9/12/14/18****
AU Series, Ceiling cassette type, AUU20/25/30/36/45/54****
The ``****'' denotes engineering differences in the basic models.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) Fujitsu shall be required to test the products listed in
paragraph (2) above according to the test procedures for central air
conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430,
except that:
(i) Fujitsu shall not be required to comply with: (1) The first
sentence in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2), which refers to ``that combination
manufactured by the condensing unit manufacturer likely to have the
largest volume of retail sales;'' and (2) the third sentence in 10 CFR
430(m)(2), including the provisions of 10 CFR 430(m)(2)(i) and (ii).
Instead of
[[Page 71387]]
testing the combinations likely to have the highest volume of retail
sales, Fujitsu may test a ``tested combination'' selected in accordance
with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
Additionally, instead of following the provisions of 10 CFR
430(m)(2)(i) and (ii) for every other system combination using the same
outdoor unit as the tested combination, Fujitsu shall make
representations concerning the Airstage variable refrigerant flow
multi-split products covered in this waiver according to the provisions
of subparagraph (C) below.
(ii) Fujitsu shall be required to comply with 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, Appendix M as amended by the final rule published in the
Federal Register on October 22, 2007. 72 FR 59906. The test procedure
changes applicable to multi-split products are in sections: 2.1, 2.2.3,
2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4 (including Table 12), 4.1.4.2,
and 4.2.4.2.
(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 five indoor units.
(ii) The indoor units shall:
(a) Represent the highest sales volume type models;
(b) Together, have a capacity between 95 percent and 105 percent of
the capacity of the outdoor unit;
(c) Not, individually, have a capacity greater than 50 percent of
the capacity of the outdoor unit;
(d) Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's
specifications; and
(e) All have the same external static pressure.
(C) Representations. In making representations about the energy
efficiency of its Airstage variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioner and heat pump products, for compliance, marketing, or other
purposes, Fujitsu 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 Airstage multi-split combinations tested in accordance with
this alternate test procedure, Fujitsu must disclose these test
results.
(ii) For Airstage multi-split combinations that are not tested,
Fujitsu must make a disclosure 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 combination with the same outdoor unit.
(4) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of
this Order until April 21, 2008, which is the effective date of a DOE
final rule prescribing an amended test procedure appropriate to the
model series manufactured by Fujitsu listed above. This final rule was
published on October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59906).
(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 November 4, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7-24438 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P