17528 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E7–6618 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17529 

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. 

2Energy 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. 

3March 24th Notice, 71 FR 14861. 

4The only commenter that objected to MEUS’s 

Petition was Lennox International Inc. 

5See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher 

Company, Samsung and Quietside, United 

Mechanical, Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem 

Heating and Cooling. 

6See Comments submitted by MEUS, Sanyo 

Fisher Company, Samsung and Quietside, Daikin 

AC (Americas), Inc., and Rheem Heating and 

Cooling. 

7Energy 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’’). 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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, partload operation and simultaneous 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17530 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

8 69 FR 52662 (Aug. 27, 2004). 

9 Ibid. 10 71 FR 14862 (March 24, 2006). 

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. 

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. 

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

The alternate test procedure applies to 

both residential and commercial multisplit 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 splitsystem 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17531 

11See 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). 

12See Comments submitted by Sanyo Fisher 

Company, (Sanyo, No.7 at page 1) and Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc., (Daikin, No. 3 at pages 1–2). 

13See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating 

and Cooling, (Rheem, No. 5 at page 2). 14See Comments submitted by Rheem Heating 

and Cooling, (Rheem, No. 5 at page 2). 15See Comments submitted by Lennox 

International Inc., (Lennox, No. 6 at page 2). 

16The * denotes engineering differences in the 

models. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant 

Flow Zoning System R–2 Series Outdoor 

Equipment: 

• PURY–P72TGMU–*, 72,000 Btu/h 

208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17532 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

• PURY–P96TGMU–*, 96,000 Btu/h 

208/230–3–60 split–system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P108TGMU–*, 108,000 Btu/ 

h 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P126TGMU–*, 126,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P144TGMU–*, 144,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P168TGMU–*, 168,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P192TGMU–*, 192,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P204TGMU–*, 204,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P216TGMU–*, 216,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PURY–P234TGMU–*, 234,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed 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 variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P96TGMU–*, 96,000 Btu/h 

208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P108TGMU–*, 108,000 Btu/ 

h 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P126TGMU–*, 126,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P144TGMU–*, 144,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P168TGMU–*, 168,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P192TGMU–*, 192,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P204TGMU–*, 204,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed heat pump 

• PUHY–P216TGMU–*, 216,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split–system variablespeed heat pump. 

• PUHY–P234TGMU–*, 234,000 Btu/ 

h, 208/230–3–60 split-system variablespeed 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 variablespeed 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 splitsystem 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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17533 

17 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 2006). 

(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. 

(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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

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 

Commercial Water Source Heat Pump 

Test Procedure [Case No. CAC–015] 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of petition for waiver, 

granting of application for interim 

waiver, and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Today’s notice publishes a 

Petition for Waiver from Mitsubishi 

Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. 

(MEUS). This Petition for Waiver 

(hereafter ‘‘MEUS Petition’’) requests a 

waiver of the Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) test procedures applicable to 

commercial package water source heat 

pumps. DOE is soliciting comments, 

data, and information with respect to 

the MEUS Petition. Today’s notice also 

grants an Interim Waiver to MEUS, with 

an alternate test procedure, from the 

existing DOE test procedure applicable 

to commercial package water source 

heat pumps. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this Petition 

for Waiver until, but no later than May 

9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, 

identified by case number [CAC–015], 

by any of the following methods: 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. 

Please submit one signed original paper 

copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Room 1J–018, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

• E-mail: 

Michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. Include 

either the case number [CAC–015], and/ 

or ‘‘MEUS Petition’’ in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and case 

number for this proceeding. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Wherever possible, include the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Absent an electronic signature, 

comments submitted electronically 

must be followed and authenticated by 

submitting the signed original paper 

document. DOE does not accept 

telefacsimiles (faxes). Any person 

submitting written comments must also 

send a copy of such comments to the 

petitioner. 10 CFR 431.401(d)(2). The 

name and address of the petitioner of 

today’s notice is: William Rau, Senior 

Vice President and General Manager, 

HVAC Advanced Products Division, 

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, 

Inc., 4300 Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road, 

Suwanee, GA 30024. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read the background documents 

relevant to this matter, go to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program), 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Available documents include the 

following items: this notice; public 

comments received; the Petition for 

Waiver and Application for Interim 

Waiver; prior Department rulemakings 

regarding commercial central air 

conditioners and heat pumps; the prior 

MEUS Petition for Waiver, DOE’s notice 

of the prior MEUS Petition for Waiver 

and the DOE Decision and Order (D&O) 

regarding the prior MEUS Petition, 

which is being published today. Please 

call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. Please note: DOE’s 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

(formerly Room 1E–190 at the Forrestal 

Building) is no longer housing 

rulemaking materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0121, (202) 586–9611; e-mail: 

Michael.Raymond.ee.doe.gov; or 

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: 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Petition for Waiver 

III. Application for Interim Waiver 

IV. Alternate Test Procedure 

V. Summary and Request for Comments 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES