[Federal Register: April 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17528-17533]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ap07-50]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EERE-2006-WAV-0147]
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and
Order Granting a Waiver From the Department of Energy (DOE) Residential
and Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedures to
Mitsubishi Electric, and Modification of a 2004 Waiver Granted to
Mitsubishi Electric From the Same DOE Test Procedures (Case No. CAC-
012)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Decision and Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a Decision and Order (Case No. CAC-
012) granting a Waiver to Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(``MEUS'') from the existing Department of Energy (DOE) residential and
commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures for
specified R410A CITY MULTI products. MEUS shall be required to test and
rate the R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products according to the alternate test
procedure set forth in this notice. DOE is also amending the waiver
granted to MEUS for its R22 CITY MULTI products in August 2004 to
explicitly prohibit MEUS from making energy efficiency representations
regarding these products unless such representations are consistent
with the alternate test procedure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9611, E-mail:
Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-72, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-
9507; E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 430.27(l) and 431.401(f)(4), notice is hereby given
of the issuance of a Decision and Order granting MEUS a Waiver from the
applicable Department of Energy residential and commercial package air
conditioner and heat pump test procedures for its R410A CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (``VRFZ'') products, subject to a
condition requiring MEUS to test and rate its R410A CITY MULTI products
pursuant to the alternate test procedure described in this notice.
Today's decision requires that any representations concerning the
energy efficiency of these products are made consistent with the
provisions and restrictions in the alternate test procedure.
The waiver granted for MEUS's R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products on
August 27, 2004, is hereby amended to prohibit MEUS from making energy
efficiency representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products unless
such representations are made consistent with the provisions set forth
in the alternate test procedure described in this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Decision and Order
In the Matter of: Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc.
(``MEUS'') (Case No. CAC-012).
Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA'') sets
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part B of
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the ``Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles.'' Part C of Title
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) provides for an energy efficiency program
entitled ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' which is similar to the
program in Part B, and which includes commercial air conditioning
equipment, packaged boilers, water heaters, and other types of
commercial equipment.
Today's notice involves residential products under Part B, and
commercial equipment under Part C. Both parts specifically provide for
definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation
standards, and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers. With respect to test procedures, both parts generally
authorize the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are
reasonably designed to produce results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use and estimated operating costs, and that are not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2))
The test procedure for residential central air conditioning and
heat pump products is contained in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix
M. For commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA
provides that the test procedures shall be those generally accepted
industry testing or rating procedures developed or recognized by the
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (``ARI'') or by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and
in effect on June 30, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) This section also
provides for the Secretary of Energy to amend the test procedure for a
product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary
determines that such a modified test procedure does not meet the
statutory criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test
procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. DOE adopted ARI
Standard 210/240-2003 for commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment with capacities < 65,000 Btu/h and ARI Standard 340/
360-2004 for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
with capacities >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. Id. at 71371.
The[MR1] capacities of MEUS's CITY MULTI VRFZ products fall in the
ranges covered by ARI Standard 340/360-2004 and the DOE test procedure
for residential products referred to above.
DOE's regulations contain provisions allowing a person to seek a
waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered consumer
products. These provisions are set forth in 10 CFR 430.27. The waiver
provisions for commercial equipment are substantively identical to
those for covered consumer products and are found at 10 CFR 431.401.
The waiver provisions allow the Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (``Assistant Secretary'') to
temporarily waive test procedures for a particular basic model when a
petitioner shows that the basic model contains one or more design
[[Page 17529]]
characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test
procedures, or when the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the
basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy
consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10
CFR 430.27(a)(1), 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).
The Assistant Secretary may grant the waiver subject to conditions,
including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27 (l), 10
CFR 431.401 (f)(4). Petitioners are to include in their petition any
alternate test procedures known to evaluate the basic model in a manner
representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii), 10
CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). Waivers generally remain in effect until final
test procedure amendments resolving the problem that is the subject of
the waiver become effective.
The waiver process also allows the Assistant Secretary to grant an
Interim Waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that
have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures. 10
CFR 430.27(a)(2), 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). An Interim Waiver remains in
effect for a period of 180 days or until DOE issues its determination
on the Petition for Waiver, whichever is sooner, and may be extended
for an additional 180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 430.27(h), 10 CFR
431.401(e)(4).
On November 7, 2005, MEUS filed an Application for Interim Waiver
and Petition for Waiver from the test procedures applicable to the
R410A models of its CITY MULTI VRFZ line of residential and commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment. MEUS's petition
requested a waiver from both the residential and commercial test
procedures. In particular, MEUS requested a waiver from the residential
test procedures contained in 10 CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M,
and a waiver from the commercial test procedures contained in ARI
Standard 210/240-2003 and in ARI Standard 340/360-2000.\1\ MEUS seeks a
waiver from the applicable test procedures because the design
characteristics of the R410A systems prevent testing according to the
currently prescribed test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In its petition, MEUS also requested a waiver from ARI
Standard 210/240-2003. Based on a review of the products listed by
MEUS in its petition, DOE has determined that none of the products
have the combined features (i.e., 3-phase power and rated capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h) that would require a waiver from ARI
Standard 210/240-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2006, DOE published MEUS's Petition for Waiver and
granted the Application for Interim Waiver.\2\ DOE also published for
comment an alternate test procedure for MEUS. DOE stated that if it
specified an alternate test procedure for MEUS in the subsequent
Decision and Order, DOE would consider applying the procedure to
similar waivers for residential and commercial central air conditioners
and heat pumps, including such waivers that previously have been
granted.\3\ DOE solicited comments, data, and information respecting
the petition and the proposed alternate test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:
Publication of the Petition for Waiver and Granting of the
Application for Interim Waiver of Mitsubishi Electric From the DOE
Residential and Commercial Package Air Conditioner and Heat Pump
Test Procedures (Case No. CAC-012), 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006)
(hereinafter, March 24th Notice). On April 11, 2006, MEUS submitted
a Corrected Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application
for Interim Waiver (``Corrected Petition'') to DOE. The Corrected
Petition noted five minor errors in the list of model numbers for
which the waiver and the interim waiver had been requested. MEUS
requested that the interim waiver granted apply to the corrected
list of model numbers, and that DOE use the corrected list of model
numbers in any future actions regarding the Petition for Test
Procedure Waiver. In a letter dated June 1, 2006, DOE granted MEUS's
request.
\3\ March 24th Notice, 71 FR 14861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received written comments from seven companies--Rheem Heating
and Cooling, Lennox International Inc., Daikin AC (Americas), Inc,
Samsung and Quietside, Sanyo Fisher Company, United Mechanical and
MEUS--in response to the March 24th Notice. Only one commenter
expressed opposition to the MEUS petition.\4\ Additionally, most of the
commenters responded favorably to DOE's proposed alternate test
procedure.\5\ Commenters generally agreed that an alternate test
procedure is necessary while a final test procedure for these types of
products is being developed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The only commenter that objected to MEUS's Petition was
Lennox International Inc.
\5\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company, Samsung and
Quietside, United Mechanical, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem
Heating and Cooling.
\6\ See Comments submitted by MEUS, Sanyo Fisher Company,
Samsung and Quietside, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem Heating
and Cooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions and Determinations
MEUS's Petition for Waiver
DOE previously granted MEUS a waiver from test procedures in 2004
for similar CITY MULTI VRFZ models which use R22 as a refrigerant.\7\
Given product adjustments to accommodate the new R410A refrigerant,
MEUS requested a waiver from the test procedures for its new CITY MULTI
models. The MEUS petition requested that DOE grant a waiver from
existing test procedures until such time as a representative test
procedure is developed and adopted for this class of products. MEUS did
not include an alternate test procedure in its petition and noted that
it knows of no test procedure that could evaluate its products in a
representative manner. However, MEUS is actively working with ARI to
develop test procedures that accurately reflect the operation and
energy consumption of these types of units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision
and Order Granting a Waiver From the DOE Commercial Package Air
Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure to Mitsubishi Electric
(Case No. CAC-008), 69 FR 52660, at 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004)
(hereinafter, ``2004 Waiver'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEUS's petition presented several arguments in support of its
claim. MEUS stated that the design characteristics of the R410A CITY
MULTI VRFZ systems prevent testing according to the currently
prescribed test procedures for the same reasons that its R22 models
were previously granted a waiver. The R410A CITY MULTI systems, like
the R22 models, can connect more indoor units than the test
laboratories can physically test at one time. Because of the inability
to test products with so many indoor units, testing laboratories will
not be able to test many of the R410A system combinations. Furthermore,
MEUS asserted that the current DOE test procedures do not provide
direction for determining what combinations of outdoor and indoor units
should be tested in the circumstance where a multitude of different
combinations are possible. Also, the test procedures provide no
mechanism for sampling component combinations. In addition, MEUS
asserted that it is not practical to test all of the potentially
available combinations of indoor and outdoor units, which could number
in the billions.
MEUS stated that the R410A CITY MULTI system is designed to be
flexible, with numerous combinations possible. According to MEUS, each
of the 108,000 Btu/h rated outdoor units is designed to be connected
with up to 18 indoor units, while each of the 234,000 Btu/h rated
outdoor units can be configured with up to 32 indoor units. MEUS offers
58 different indoor models that can be used in the different
combinations. Given the above, MEUS asserts the current test procedures
cannot practically be applied to the CITY MULTI VRFZ systems.
MEUS claims that many of the benefits of its systems'
characteristics, including variable refrigerant control and
distribution, zoning diversity, part-load operation and simultaneous
[[Page 17530]]
heating and cooling, are not credited under the current test
procedures. For residential systems, there are some deficiencies in the
current DOE test methods and calculation algorithms when applied to
multi-split systems. With regard to commercial systems, MEUS asserts
that the current test procedure for the energy efficiency ratio
(``EER'') does not capture the energy savings of VRFZ products. The
same issue was raised by MEUS in its petition for waiver for its R22
CITY MULTI products. As DOE stated in the waiver granted in August
2004, ``while this assertion is true, it is irrelevant because the full
load EER energy efficiency descriptor is one mandated by EPCA for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(c)), and the relevant energy performance
is the peak load efficiency, not the seasonal energy savings.'' \8\ A
waiver can only be granted if a test procedure does not fairly
represent the peak load energy consumption characteristics which EER
measures. Therefore, the basis for this waiver, as was the case for the
2004 Waiver, is the problem of being physically unable to test most of
the complete systems in a laboratory, the regulatory requirement to
test the highest-sales-volume combination, and the lack of a method for
predicting the performance of untested combinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 69 FR 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. argued that waivers for VRFZ systems
should not be granted because the existing DOE test procedures are
available to rate these systems. DOE agrees that the existing test
procedures can be used, but only after clarifications are made and
deficiencies are addressed.
In August 2004, DOE granted a Petition for Waiver to MEUS relating
to its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products, finding that ``the basic model
contains one or more design characteristics which * * * prevent testing
of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures.'' \9\
MEUS's November 2005 Petition for Waiver for its R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ
products presents virtually the same issues, and thus we find that
waiver of the test procedures is appropriate. To enable MEUS to make
energy efficiency representations for the specified CITY MULTI
products, DOE adopts the alternate test procedure described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's Alternate Test Procedure
As explained in DOE's March 24th Notice, manufacturers face
restrictions with respect to making representations about the energy
consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c), 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). The ability of a manufacturer
to make representations about the energy efficiency of its products is
important, for instance, to determine compliance with state and local
energy codes and regulatory requirements. Energy efficiency
representations also provide valuable consumer purchasing information.
Therefore, to provide a basis from which manufacturers covered by a
test procedure waiver for VRFZ products can make valid energy
efficiency representations, DOE proposed an alternate test procedure
for MEUS in the March 24th Notice.
The alternate test procedure has two basic components. First, it
permits MEUS to designate a ``tested combination'' for each model of
outdoor unit. The indoor units designated as part of the tested
combination must meet specific requirements. For example, the tested
combination must have from two to five indoor units so that it can be
tested in available test facilities. The tested combination must be
tested according to the applicable DOE test procedure. Second, it
permits MEUS to represent the energy efficiency for a non-tested
combination in two ways. MEUS may represent the energy efficiency of a
non-tested combination: (1) At an energy efficiency level determined
under a DOE-approved alternative rating method; or, if method (1) Is
not available, (2) at the efficiency level of the tested combination
utilizing the same outdoor unit. Until an alternative rating method is
developed, all combinations with a particular outdoor unit may use the
rating of the combination tested with that outdoor unit. DOE believes
that allowing MEUS to make energy efficiency representations for non-
tested combinations as described above is reasonable because the
outdoor unit is the principal efficiency driver. The current test
procedure tends to rate these products conservatively. This is because
the current test procedure does not account for the product's
simultaneous heating and cooling capability, which is more efficient
than requiring all zones to be either heated or cooled. Further, the
multi-zoning feature of these products, which enables them to cool only
those portions of the building that require cooling, can use less
energy than if the unit is operated to cool the entire home or a
comparatively larger area of a commercial building in response to a
single thermostat. Additionally, the current test procedure for
commercial equipment requires full load testing, which disadvantages
these products because they are optimized for best efficiency when
operating with less than full loads. In fact, these products normally
operate at part-load conditions. Therefore, as explained in the March
24th Notice, the alternate test procedure will provide a conservative
basis for assessing the energy efficiency for such products.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 71 FR 14862 (March 24, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternate test procedure applies to both residential and
commercial multi-split products. However, some provisions are specific
to residential or commercial products. Section (A) of the alternate
test procedure has different provisions for residential and commercial
products. Section (B), which defines the combinations of indoor and
outdoor units to test, and section (C), which sets forth the
requirements for making representations, are the same for both
residential and commercial products.
Section (A) distinguishes between residential and commercial
products for two reasons. First, 10 CFR part 430.24, used for
residential products, already has requirements for selecting split-
system combinations based on the highest sales volume. Part 431 of 10
CFR, which applies to commercial products, has no comparable
requirements. Section (A) modifies the residential and commercial CFR
requirements so that both residential and commercial products can use
the same definition of a ``tested combination,'' which definition is
set forth in section (B). Second, section (A) requires several test
procedure revisions to determine the SEER and HSPF for the tested
combination of residential products. No test procedure revisions are
introduced for commercial products. [P3] The changes for residential
products relate to: (1) The requirement that all indoor units operate
during all tests, (2) the restriction on using only one indoor test
room, (3) the selection of the modulation levels (maximum, minimum, and
a specified intermediate speed) used when testing, and (4) the
algorithm for estimating performance over the intermediate speed
operating range. These changes are proposed in a July 20, 2006, DOE
notice of proposed rulemaking. 71 FR 41320. For today's Decision and
Order, the July 20, 2006, proposed changes to test procedure sections
2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4 (including Table
12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 constitute mandatory elements of the
alternate test procedure. These changes allow indoor units to cycle
off, allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor
[[Page 17531]]
speed used during certain tests, and introduce a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption.
With regard to the laboratory testing of both residential and
commercial products, some of the difficulties are avoided by the
requirements for choosing the indoor units to be used in the
manufacturer-specified tested combination. For example, in addition to
limiting the number of indoor units, another requirement is that all of
the indoor units must be subject to meeting the same minimum external
static pressure. This requirement allows the test lab to manifold the
outlets from each indoor unit into a common plenum that supplies air to
a single airflow measuring apparatus. This requirement eliminates
situations in which some of the indoor units are ducted and some are
non-ducted. Without this requirement, the laboratory must evaluate the
capacity of a subgroup of indoor coils separately, and then sum the
separate capacities to obtain the overall system capacity. This would
require that the test lab must be equipped with multiple airflow
measuring apparatuses (which is unlikely), or that the test lab connect
its one airflow measuring apparatus to one or more common indoor units
until the contribution of each indoor unit has been measured.
DOE stated that if it specified an alternate test procedure for
MEUS, it would consider applying the procedure to waivers for similar
residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps
produced by other manufacturers. Most of the comments received by DOE
favored the proposed alternate test procedure. Commenters generally
agreed that an alternate test procedure is appropriate for an interim
period while a final test procedure for these products is being
developed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo, No.
7), Samsung and Quietside (Samsung, No. 8), Daikin AC (Americas),
Inc. (Daikin, No. 3), and Rheem Heating and Cooling (Rheem, No. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanyo and Daikin raised concerns regarding DOE's proposal to allow
manufacturers to represent the energy efficiency of non-tested
combinations at the DOE-prescribed minimum efficiency level for the
product class. They suggested that allowing such ratings without
testing the product may allow low efficiency products to be installed
even though equipment that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements is
available.\12\ DOE believes these commenters misread the proposed
alternate test procedure. As explained in the March 24th Notice, the
alternate test procedure adopts a conservative approach for rating VRFZ
products based on the tested results of a simple system configuration.
In the proposed alternate test procedure, DOE would allow manufacturers
to make efficiency representations for non-tested combinations at the
DOE-prescribed minimum efficiency level for the product class only if
the tested combination with the same outdoor unit met or exceeded the
minimum efficiency level. 71 FR 14862, March 24, 2006. DOE is
eliminating this option because, as explained below, there is no need
for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher Company, (Sanyo,
No.7 at page 1) and Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., (Daikin, No. 3 at
pages 1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem suggested that third party testing, or on-site witness
testing, is the preferred method to verify system performance.\13\
Additionally, Rheem requested that, in order to provide fair and
equitable test methods and ratings to the consumer, the heating test
points and laboratory operating conditions remain consistent.\14\ DOE's
alternate test procedure would specify certain parameters for the
testing of VRFZ products, but would otherwise retain the existing test
procedure protocols on issues such as where products are tested, test
points, and laboratory operating conditions. Thus, in these respects,
VRFZ systems would be tested as other products are tested under the
existing test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating and Cooling,
(Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
\14\ See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating and Cooling,
(Rheem, No. 5 at page 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox suggested that DOE bar sales of non-tested combinations with
an evaporator capacity of less than 95% of the nominal outdoor unit
capacity unless an approved ARM (alternative rating method) simulation
is available to demonstrate conformance to the minimum efficiency
requirement.\15\ No data was provided to justify this proposed indoor-
to-outdoor sizing limitation and so DOE is inclined not to impose such
a regulatory limitation on VRFZ configurations at this time. Moreover,
DOE expects the development of an alternative rating method that is
applicable to multi-split systems like the MEUS CITY MULTI products
will follow, and not precede, the work by ARI members to develop a
multi-split test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Comments submitted by Lennox International Inc.,
(Lennox, No. 6 at page 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the discussion above, DOE believes that the testing
problems described above do prevent testing of the R410A CITY MULTI
basic model according to the test procedures prescribed in 10 CFR Part
430, Subpart B, Appendix M, and[P9] ARI Standard 340/360-2000. After
reviewing and considering all of the comments submitted regarding the
proposed alternate test procedure, DOE believes that the proposed
alternate test procedure, with the clarifications discussed above,
should be adopted. DOE will also consider applying the same alternate
test procedure to similar waivers for residential and commercial
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
MEUS Waiver for R22 Products
In the previous paragraph, DOE stated its intention to consider
applying the alternate test procedure to similar waivers. Such a
similar waiver was granted to MEUS for its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products
on August 27, 2004 (the ``2004 Waiver'', see footnote 7). As discussed
previously, the R22 products are quite similar to the R410A products
that are the subject of this waiver. Therefore, today's notice amends
the 2004 Waiver to prohibit MEUS from making energy efficiency
representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products unless such
representations are made consistent with the provisions of the
alternate test procedure.
DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'')
concerning the MEUS petition. The FTC did not have any objections to
the issuance of the waiver to MEUS. Thus, DOE is granting MEUS's
petition.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted
by MEUS, the comments received, the review by NIST, and consultation
with the FTC, it is ordered that:
(1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Mitsubishi Electric and
Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) (Case No. CAC-012) is hereby granted as
set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) MEUS shall not be required to test or rate its R410A CITY MULTI
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (``VRFZ'') products listed below on
the basis of the currently applicable test procedures, but shall be
required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test
procedure as set forth in Paragraph (3): \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The * denotes engineering differences in the models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System R-2 Series
Outdoor Equipment:
PURY-P72TGMU-*, 72,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
[[Page 17532]]
PURY-P96TGMU-*, 96,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P108TGMU-*, 108,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P126TGMU-*, 126,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P144TGMU-*, 144,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P168TGMU-*, 168,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P192TGMU-*, 192,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P204TGMU-*, 204,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P216TGMU-*, 216,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PURY-P234TGMU-*, 234,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Y-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PUHY-P72TGMU-*, 72,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P96TGMU-*, 96,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P108TGMU-*, 108,000 Btu/h 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P126TGMU-*, 126,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P144TGMU-*, 144,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P168TGMU-*, 168,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P192TGMU-*, 192,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P204TGMU-*, 204,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump
PUHY-P216TGMU-*, 216,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
PUHY-P234TGMU-*, 234,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System S-Series Outdoor
Equipment:
PUMY-P48NHMU-*, 48,000 Btu/h, 208/230-1-60 split-system
variable-speed heat pump
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Indoor
Equipment:
P*FY models, ranging from 6,000 to 96,000 Btu/h, 208/230-
1-60 split-system variable-capacity air conditioner or heat pump.
PCFY Series--Ceiling Suspended--PCFY-P12/18/24/30/36***-*.
PDFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted--PDFY-P06/08/12/15/
18/24/30/36/48***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (Low Profile)--PEFY-
P06/08/12***-*.
PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (Alternate High
Static Option)--PEFY-P15/18/24/27/30/36/48/54/72/96***-*.
PEFY-F Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted (100% OA Option)--
PEFY-P 30/54/72/96***--*.
PFFY Series--Floor Standing (Concealed)--PFFY-P06/08/12/
15/18/24***-*.
PFFY Series--Floor Standing (Exposed)--PFFY-P06/08/12/15/
18/24***-*.
PKFY Series--Wall-Mounted--PKFY-P06/08/12/18/24/30***-*.
PLFY Series--4-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-P12/18/
24/30/36***-*.
PMFY Series--1-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PMFY-P06/08/
12/15[MR12]***-*.
(3) Alternate test procedure.
(A) MEUS shall be required to test the products listed in Paragraph
(2) above according to those test procedures for central air
conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR Parts 430 and
431, except that:
(i) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 430 (consumer products),
MEUS shall not be required to comply with: (1) The first sentence in 10
CFR 430.24(m)(2), which refers to ``that combination manufactured by
the condensing unit manufacturer likely to have the highest volume of
retail sales;'' and (2) the third sentence in 10 CFR 430(m)(2) and the
provisions of 10 CFR 430(m)(2)(i) and (ii). Instead of testing the
combinations likely to have the highest volume of retail sales, MEUS
may test a ``tested combination'' selected in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. Additionally, instead
of following the provisions of 10 CFR 430(m)(2)(i) and (ii) for every
other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the tested
combination, MEUS shall make representations concerning the R410A CITY
MULTI products covered in this waiver according to the provisions of
subparagraph (C) below.
(ii) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 430 (consumer products),
MEUS shall be required to comply with 10 CFR 430 Appendix M as amended
in accordance with designated changes that are listed in the July 20,
2006 Federal Register Notice. 71 FR 41320, July 20, 2006. These
designated changes are with respect to the following test procedure
sections: 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4 (including Table 6), 3.6.4
(including Table 12), 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2.
(iii) For products covered by 10 CFR Part 431 (commercial
products), MEUS shall test a ``tested combination'' selected in
accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
For every other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the
tested combination, MEUS shall make representations concerning the
R410A CITY MULTI products covered in this waiver according to the
provisions of subparagraph (C) below.
(B) Tested combination. The term ``tested combination'' means a
sample basic model comprised of units that are production units, or are
representative of production units, of the basic model being tested.
For the purposes of this waiver, the tested combination shall have the
following features:
(i) The basic model of a variable refrigerant flow system used as a
tested combination shall consist of an outdoor unit that is matched
with between 2 and 5 indoor units.
(ii) The indoor units shall--
(a) Represent the highest sales volume type models;
(b) Together, have a capacity between 95% and 105% of the capacity
of the outdoor unit;
(c) Not, individually, have a capacity greater than 50% of the
capacity of the outdoor unit;
(d) Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's
specifications; and
(e) All have the same external static pressure[MR15].
(C) Representations. MEUS may make representations about the energy
efficiency of CITY MULTI VRFZ products, for compliance, marketing, or
other purposes, only to the extent that such representations are made
consistent with the provisions outlined below:
(i) For CITY MULTI VRFZ combinations tested in accordance with this
alternate test procedure, MEUS may make representations based on these
test results.
(ii) For CITY MULTI VRFZ combinations that are not tested, MEUS may
make representations which are based on the testing results for the
tested combination and which are consistent with either of the two
following methods, except that only method (a) may be used, if
available:
[[Page 17533]]
(a) Representation of non-tested combinations according to an
Alternative Rating Method (``ARM'') approved by DOE.
(b) Representation of non-tested combinations at the same energy
efficiency level as the tested combination with the same outdoor unit.
(4) The waiver granted for MEUS's R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products on
August 27, 2004 \17\ is hereby amended to prohibit MEUS from making
energy efficiency representations regarding its R22 CITY MULTI products
unless such representations are made consistent with the provisions set
forth in Paragraph (3) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of
this Order until DOE prescribes final test procedures appropriate to
the model series manufactured by MEUS and listed above.
(6) This waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of
statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the
petitioner. This waiver may be revoked or modified at any time upon a
determination that the factual basis underlying the petition is
incorrect, or DOE determines that the results from the alternate test
procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy
consumption characteristics.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7-6608 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P