25224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

Description: Commonwealth Edison 

Company submits tariff filing per 35.12: 

PSRT Baseline Filing to be effective 

4/29/2010. 

Filed Date: 

04/29/2010. 

Accession Number: 20100429–5134. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, May 20, 2010. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric securities 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ES10–37–000. 

Applicants: Old Dominion Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. 

Description: Application of Old 

Dominion Electric Cooperative for 

Authorization to Issue Long-Term Debt 

and Request for Exemption from 

Competitive Bidding Requirements. 

Filed Date: 04/29/2010. 

Accession Number: 20100429–5024. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, May 20, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ES10–38–000. 

Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri 

Operations Company. 

Description: Application KCP&L 

Greater Missouri Operations Company 

for Authorization of Issuance of LongTerm Debt Securities Under Section 204 

of the Federal Power Act. 

Filed Date: 04/29/2010. 

Accession Number: 20100429–5136. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, May 20, 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. Eastern 

time 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. 

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 dockets(s). For 

assistance with any FERC Online 

service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10804 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CAC–025] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Commercial Equipment: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) From the 

Department of Energy Commercial 

Package Air Conditioner and Heat 

Pump Test Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and order. 

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) decision 

and order in Case No. CAC–025, which 

grants a waiver to Daikin from the 

existing DOE test procedure applicable 

to commercial package central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. The 

waiver is specific to the Daikin variable 

speed and variable refrigerant volume 

VRV–III–C (commercial) multi-split heat 

pumps and heat recovery systems. As a 

condition of this waiver, Daikin must 

use the alternate test procedure set forth 

in this notice to test and rate its VRV– 

III–C multi-split products. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective May 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9611. E-mail: 

Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. 

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0103. Telephone: (202) 586–7796. 

E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4), 

DOE gives notice that it issues the 

decision and order set forth below. In 

this decision and order, DOE grants 

Daikin a waiver from the existing DOE 

commercial package air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedures for its VRV– 

III–C multi-split products. This waiver 

requires Daikin use the alternate test 

procedure provided in this notice to test 

and rate the specified models from its 

VRV–III–C multi-split product line. The 

current test procedure is the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 340/360–2004, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment’’ (incorporated 

by reference at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)). 

Today’s decision prohibits Daikin 

from making 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. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) (Case No. 

CAC–025). 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25225 

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) EPCA specifically includes 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, and energy conservation 

standards for covered equipment. It also 

provides DOE the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) 

With respect to test procedures, the 

statute generally authorizes DOE 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)) 

Today’s notice involves commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment under Part A–1. EPCA 

provides that for such equipment, ‘‘the 

test procedures shall be those generally 

accepted industry testing procedures or 

rating procedures developed or 

recognized by the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute or by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, as referenced in ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 

30, 1992.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), the 

Secretary of Energy (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 Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

210/240–2003 for small commercial 

package air-cooled air-conditioning and 

heating equipment with capacities 

<65,000 British thermal units per hour 

(Btu/h), and ARI Standard 340/360– 

2004 for large and very large 

commercial package air-cooled airconditioning and heating equipment 

with capacities ≥ 65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h, respectively. Id. at 

71371. Pursuant to the final rule, DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(1)–(2) 

incorporate by reference these two ARI 

standards, and 10 CFR 431.96 directs 

manufacturers of commercial package 

air-conditioning and heating equipment 

to use the appropriate procedure when 

measuring the energy efficiency of those 

products. The cooling capacities of 

Daikin’s VRV–III–C commercial multisplit products, which have capacities 

between 72,000 Btu/hr and 192,000 Btu/ 

hr, fall in the range covered by ARI 

Standard 340/360–2004. 

In addition, DOE’s regulations for 

covered equipment permit 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). Petitioner must include in 

its waiver petition 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 (the 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. It may be 

extended by DOE for an additional 180 

days. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4). 

On September 9, 2009, Daikin filed a 

petition for waiver and an application 

for interim waiver from the test 

procedures applicable to small and large 

commercial package air-cooled airconditioning and heating equipment. 

The applicable test procedure is ARI 

340/360–2004, specified in Tables 1 and 

2 of 10 CFR 431.96. Daikin asserted 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 

Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. 

(Mitsubishi) for a similar line 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. Mitsubishi (72 FR 17528, 

April 9, 2007); Samsung (72 FR 71387, 

Dec. 17, 2007); Fujitsu (72 FR 71383, 

Dec. 17, 2007); Daikin (73 FR 39680, 

July 10, 2008); Daikin (74 FR 15955, 

April 8, 2009); Sanyo (74 FR 16193, 

April 9, 2009); Daikin (74 FR 16373, 

April 10, 2009); and LG (74 FR 66330, 

December 15, 2009). 

On December 15, 2009, DOE 

published Daikin’s petition for waiver 

in the Federal Register, seeking public 

comment pursuant to 431.3401(b)(1)(iv), 

and granted the application for an 

interim waiver. 74 FR 66324. DOE 

received one comment on the Daikin 

petition; discussion of and DOE’s 

response to this comment are set forth 

below. 

In a similar case, DOE published a 

petition for waiver from Mitsubishi 

Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. 

(MEUS), for products very similar to 

Daikin’s multi-split products. 71 FR 

14858 (March 24, 2006). In the March 

24, 2006 Federal Register notice, DOE 

also published and requested comment 

on an alternate test procedure for the 

MEUS products at issue. DOE stated 

that if it specified an alternate test 

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 MEUS 

decision and order in the Federal 

Register on April 9, 2007. 72 FR 17528 

(April 9, 2007). Most of the comments 

were favorable. Though one commenter 

indicated that a waiver was 

unnecessary, the commenter did not 

present a satisfactory way to test the 

products. Id. at 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 MEUS 

decision and order included the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

alternate test procedure adopted by 

DOE. Id. 

Assertions and Determinations 

Daikin’s Petition for Waiver 

Daikin seeks a waiver from the DOE 

test procedures for this product class on 

the grounds that its VRV–III–C multisplit heat pump and heat recovery 

systems contain design characteristics 

that prevent them from being tested 

using the current DOE test procedures. 

As stated above, Daikin asserts that 

there are two primary factors that 

prevent testing of multi-split variable 

speed products, regardless of 

manufacturer: Testing laboratories 

cannot test products with so many 

indoor units; there are too many 

possible combinations of indoor and 

outdoor units to test. 

The VRV–III–C systems have 

operational characteristics similar to 

other commercial multi-split products 

manufactured by Mitsubishi, Samsung, 

Sanyo, Fujitsu and LG, all of which 

have been granted waivers. The Daikin 

VRV–III–C system can be connected to 

the complete range of Daikin ceiling 

mounted, concealed, ducted, corner, 

cassette, wall-mounted and floormounted, and other indoor fan coil 

units. Each of these units has nine 

different standard indoor static pressure 

ratings. Additional pressure ratings are 

available. There are over 1,000,000 

possible combinations of the VRV–III–C 

products. Consequently, Daikin requests 

that DOE grant a waiver from the 

applicable test procedures for its VRV– 

III–C product designs until a suitable 

test method can be prescribed. DOE 

believes that the Daikin VRV–III–C 

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. DOE therefore grants Daikin a 

VRV–III–C multi-split product waiver 

similar to the multi-split product 

waivers already issued to other 

manufacturers. 

Previously, in addressing MEUS’s 

R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, 

which are similar to the Daikin products 

at issue here, DOE stated: 

To provide a test procedure from which 

manufacturers can make valid 

representations, the Department is 

considering setting an alternate test 

procedure for MEUS in the subsequent 

decision and order. Furthermore, if DOE 

specifies an alternate test procedure for 

MEUS, DOE is considering applying the 

alternate test procedure to similar waivers for 

residential and commercial central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. Such cases 

include Samsung’s petition for its DVM 

products (70 FR 9629, February 28, 2005), 

Fujitsu’s petition for its Airstage variable 

refrigerant flow (VRF) products (70 FR 5980, 

February 4, 2005), and MEUS’s petition for 

its R22 CITY MULTI VRFZ products. (69 FR 

52660, August 27, 2004). 

71 FR 14861 (March 24, 2006). 

In granting the petitions for waiver 

from MEUS, DOE specified an alternate 

test procedure that MEUS could use to 

test, and make valid energy efficiency 

representations for, its R410A CITY 

MULTI products and its R22 multi-split 

products. This alternate test procedure 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 9, 2007 and on December 15, 

2009. 72 FR 17528; 74 FR 66311. While 

Daikin did not include an alternate test 

procedure in its petition for waiver, 

DOE believes that the same alternate test 

procedure specified in the MEUS 

decision could be used to test the Daikin 

products at issue here. 

DOE understands that existing testing 

facilities have a limited ability to test 

multiple indoor units at one time. It also 

understands 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 MEUS’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 Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment.’’ AHRI has 

adopted the standard. 

Carrier Corporation (Carrier) 

commented that DOE should deny 

Daikin’s petition for waiver and repeal 

all the other commercial multi-split 

waivers because of the availability of 

AHRI 1230–2009. However, AHRI 1230– 

2009, which is substantially the same as 

DOE’s alternate test procedure with 

respect to the testing of these Daikin 

products, is not a part of DOE’s test 

procedure. In addition, AHRI 1230– 

2009 has not yet been adopted by 

ASHRAE 90.1. 

DOE issues today’s decision and order 

granting Daikin a test procedure waiver 

for its commercial VRV–III–C multi-split 

heat pumps. As a condition of this 

waiver, Daikin must use the alternate 

test procedure described below. This 

alternate test procedure is the same in 

all relevant particulars as the procedure 

specified in DOE’s decision and orders 

granting the MEUS waivers. 

Alternate Test Procedure 

The alternate test procedure permits 

Daikin 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 between two to 

eight indoor units so it can be tested in 

available test facilities. The tested 

combination was originally defined in 

the MEUS waivers to consist of one 

outdoor unit matched with between two 

and five indoor units. The maximum 

number of indoor units in a tested 

combination is increased in this Daikin 

waiver from five to eight because these 

larger-capacity products can 

accommodate more indoor units. 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 Daikin to represent the product’s 

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 MEUS waivers, DOE 

believes that allowing Daikin 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 

enables these products to cool only 

those portions of the building that 

require cooling. Products with a multizoning feature would be 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 an 

appropriate 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25227 

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 to 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, which would be so 

time-consuming as to be impractical. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

believes Daikin’s VRV–III–C multi-split 

products cannot be tested using the 

procedure prescribed in 10 CFR 431.96 

(ARI Standard 340/360–2004) and 

incorporated by reference in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2). After 

careful consideration, DOE has decided 

to prescribe the alternate test procedure 

first developed for the MEUS waiver for 

Daikin’s commercial multi-split 

products. The alternate test procedure 

for the Daikin products must include 

the modifications described above. 

Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) staff concerning the 

Daikin petition for waiver. The FTC staff 

did not have any objections to issuing 

a waiver to Daikin. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

materials submitted by Daikin, the 

absence of any comments, and 

consultation with the FTC staff, it is 

ordered that: 

(1) The petition for waiver filed by 

Daikin Electronics, Inc., (Daikin) (Case 

No. CAC–025) is hereby granted as set 

forth in the paragraphs below. 

(2) Daikin shall not be required to test 

or rate its VRV–III–C multi-split air 

conditioner and heat pump models 

listed below on the basis of the test 

procedure cited in 10 CFR 431.96, 

specifically, ARI Standard 340/360– 

2004 (incorporated by reference in 10 

CFR 431.95(b)(2)), but shall be required 

to test and rate such products according 

to the alternate test procedure as set 

forth in paragraph (3). 

Type Size Model number 

Combination 

8–Ton 16–Ton 

Condensing Unit ..................................... 6–Ton ..................................................... RTSQ72PTJU ........................................ ............ 1 

8–Ton ..................................................... RTSQ96PTJU ........................................ 1 ............

10–Ton ................................................... RTSQ120PTJU ...................................... ............ 1 

2nd Stage Function Unit ........................ Up to 16–Ton ......................................... BTSQ192PTJU ...................................... 1 1 

Outdoor Piping Kit .................................. ................................................................ BHFP30A56 ........................................... ............ 1 

(3) Alternate test procedure. 

(A) Daikin is required to test the 

products listed in paragraph (2) above 

according to the test procedure for 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR Part 431 

(ARI 340/360–2004, (incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(2)), 

except that Daikin 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, 

Daikin shall make representations 

concerning the VRV–III–C 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 two 

and eight indoor units. 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); 

(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. 

(C) Representations. In making 

representations about the energy 

efficiency of its VRV–III–C multi-split 

products for compliance, marketing, or 

other purposes, Daikin must fairly 

disclose the results of testing under the 

DOE test procedure in a manner 

consistent with the provisions outlined 

below: 

(i) For VRV–III–C multi-split 

combinations tested in accordance with 

this alternate test procedure, Daikin may 

make representations based on these test 

results. 

(ii) For VRV–III–C multi-split 

combinations that are not tested, Daikin 

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 (ARM) 

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 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 be revoke or modify the 

waiver at any time if it determines the 

factual basis underlying the petition for 

waiver is incorrect, or the results from 

the alternate test procedure are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

1This part was originally titled Part B. It was 

redesignated Part A in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

2This part was originally titled Part C. It was 

redesignated Part A–1 in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

unrepresentative of the basic models’ 

true energy consumption characteristics. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2010. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10813 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number: EERE–BT–2006–WAV– 

0140] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Denying a Waiver to PB Heat, 

LLC From the Department of Energy 

Residential Furnace and Boiler Test 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: This notice publishes DOE’s 

Decision and Order in Case No. WAV– 

0140, which denies a waiver to PB Heat, 

LLC (PB) from the existing DOE 

residential furnace and boiler test 

procedure. This Decision and Order 

pertains to PB’s PO–50, PO–60, PO–63, 

and PO–73 models of oil-fired boilers. 

DOE previously published the PB 

Petition for Waiver and solicited 

comments, data, and information 

regarding the petition, which requested 

permission to publish a Low Water 

Temperature Seasonal Efficiency 

(LWTSE) value, conducted under an 

alternative industry test procedure, in 

addition to the mandatory Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) value 

required under DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. PB’s petition 

suggested that testing and reporting of 

the AFUE value alone is not 

representative of its basic models’ true 

energy consumption characteristics. 

DOE denies PB’s Petition for Waiver for 

the reasons set forth below. Because a 

waiver is not appropriate, DOE cannot 

prescribe an alternative test procedure. 

However, the Decision and Order 

clarifies that it is permissible for a 

manufacturer to conduct LWTSE testing 

and to present such results in product 

literature. It is noted that the Energy 

Guide label used for certification and 

consumer information purposes can 

only present information generated 

under the DOE test procedure, as 

required under applicable Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) regulations. When 

making such supplemental statements 

in the product literature, manufacturers 

must continue to conduct, report, and 

fairly disclose the AFUE test results 

generated under the DOE test 

procedures, and to use those AFUE 

results when making representations as 

to the basic model’s energy efficiency. 

Supplemental statements regarding 

LWTSE must fairly disclose the results 

of such testing and may not mislead the 

consumer about the relevance of the 

required AFUE value. For example, DOE 

suggests any manufacturer that wishes 

to show the LWTSE values in addition 

to the AFUE value should make clear 

the differences between the two tests, 

including the different operating 

characteristics and conditions, for 

consumers. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective May 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. E-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For access to the docket to read this 

notice, the Petition for Waiver, 

background documents, or comments 

received, please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program. The Resource 

Room is accessible at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l), DOE 

gives notice of the issuance of its 

Decision and Order as set forth below. 

In this Decision and Order, DOE denies 

PB’s request for a waiver from the 

existing DOE residential furnace and 

boiler test procedure for its PO–50, PO– 

60, PO–63, and PO–73 models of oilfired boilers. DOE denies the waiver 

because: (1) The PB units can and do 

operate at the higher water temperatures 

specified in the DOE test procedure; (2) 

there is no indication that the existing 

test procedure generates inaccurate 

results at the specified temperatures; 

and (3) the PB units meet the AFUE 

level required under the energy 

conservation standard. Accordingly, 

DOE has determined that the applicable 

test procedure is representative of the 

energy consumption characteristics of 

the PB basic models at the specified 

conditions (i.e., water temperatures) and 

that the DOE test procedures for these 

residential products will allow PB to 

test and rate its above-referenced line of 

oil-fired boilers. 

DOE clarifies that it is permissible for 

a manufacturer to conduct LWTSE 

testing and present the results in 

product literature (other than 

supplementation of the certification 

label, which can only present 

information generated under the DOE 

test procedure, as required under 

applicable FTC regulations). When 

making such supplemental statements 

in product literature, manufacturers 

must continue to conduct, report, and 

fairly disclose the AFUE test results 

generated under the DOE test 

procedures (10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(viii)), 

and to use AFUE results when making 

representations as to the basic model’s 

energy efficiency (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(1)). 

Supplemental statements regarding 

LWTSE must fairly disclose the results 

of such testing and may not mislead the 

consumer about the relevance of the 

required AFUE value. For example, DOE 

suggests any manufacturer that wishes 

to show the LWTSE values in addition 

to the AFUE value should make clear 

the differences between the two tests, 

including the different operating 

characteristics and conditions, for 

consumers. 

Issued in Washington, DC, April 30, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: PB Heat, LLC (PB) 

(Case No. WAV–0140). 

Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, sets forth a variety of 

provisions concerning energy efficiency, 

including Part A 1 of Title III, which 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) Similarly, Part A–1 2 of Title III of 

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, provides 

for an energy efficiency program titled, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES