Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices 41845 

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. 

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 http:// 

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 

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– 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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) 

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 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices 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 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 

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, 

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 airVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Jul 16, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
41848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / 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 

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 

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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
41850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 2010 / Notices 

1The NOI identified the title of the document as 

the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah 

River Site. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

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 

http://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. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17559 Filed 7–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

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. 

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 

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, http://

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES