Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15955 

1The applicable test procedure is the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

Standard 340/360–2004, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment’’ 

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

2Consistent with the statute, distributors, 

retailers, and private labelers are held to the same 

standard when making representations regarding 

the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) 

3Part B of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part 

A in the United States Code for editorial reasons. 

4Part C of Title III of EPCA was redesignated Part 

A–1 in the United States Code for editorial reasons. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Case No. CAC–019] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Commercial Equipment: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc. 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 

Department of Energy’s Decision and 

Order in Case No. CAC–019, which 

grants a waiver to Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) from the 

existing Department of Energy (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) 

(commercial) multi-split heat pumps 

and heat recovery systems. As a 

condition of this waiver, Daikin must 

test and rate its VRV–III multi-split 

products according to the alternate test 

procedure set forth in this notice. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective April 8, 2009, and will remain 

in effect until the effective date of a DOE 

final rule prescribing amended test 

procedures appropriate for the model 

series of Daikin VRV–III multi-split 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

covered by this waiver. 

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: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov. 

Francine Pinto or Michael Kido, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–72, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

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

DOE gives notice of the issuance of its 

Decision and Order as 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 1 for its 

VRV–III multi-split products, subject to 

a condition requiring Daikin to test and 

rate its VRV–III multi-split products 

pursuant to the alternate test procedure 

provided in this notice. Further, today’s 

decision requires that Daikin may not 

make any representations concerning 

the energy efficiency of these products 

unless such product has been tested in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, consistent with the 

provisions and restrictions in the 

alternate test procedure set forth in the 

Decision and Order below, and such 

representations fairly disclose the 

results of such testing.2 (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Daikin AC 

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

CAC–019). 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency, including Part A3 of Title III 

which establishes the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) Similar to the 

program in Part A, Part A–14 of Title III 

provides for an 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, test 

procedures, labeling provisions, energy 

conservation standards, and provides 

the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) 

with the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. 

With respect to test procedures, the 

statute generally authorizes the 

Secretary to prescribe test procedures 

that are reasonably designed to produce 

test results which 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 or by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning 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 must amend 

the test procedure for a covered 

commercial product if the applicable 

industry test procedure is amended, 

unless the Secretary determines that 

such a modified test procedure does not 

meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). 

On December 8, 2006, DOE published 

a final rule adopting test procedures for 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, effective 

January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. 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 commercial package air-cooled 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

with capacities ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h. Id. at 71371. Pursuant 

to this final rule, DOE’s regulations at 10 

CFR 431.95(b)(1)–(2) incorporate by 

reference the relevant ARI standards, 

and 10 CFR 431.96 directs 

manufacturers of commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

to use the appropriate procedure when 

measuring energy efficiency of those 

products. The cooling capacities of 

Daikin’s VRV–III VRF commercial 

multi-split products, which have 

capacities between 72,000 Btu/hr and 

240,000 Btu/hr, fall in the range covered 

by ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

In addition, DOE’s regulations contain 

provisions allowing a person to seek a 

waiver for a particular basic model from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered commercial equipment if that 

basic model contains one or more 

design characteristics which prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or if the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
15956 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

431.401(a)(1). The waiver provisions for 

commercial equipment are found at 10 

CFR 431.401 and are substantively 

identical to those for covered consumer 

products. A waiver petition must 

include any alternate test procedures 

known 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). In general, a waiver 

terminates on the effective date of a 

final rule, published in the Federal 

Register, which prescribes amended test 

procedures appropriate to the model 

series manufactured by the petitioner, 

thereby eliminating any need for the 

continuation of the waiver. 10 CFR 

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 will terminate 180 days after 

issuance or upon the issuance of DOE’s 

determination on the Petition for 

Waiver, whichever occurs first, which 

may be extended by DOE for an 

additional 180 days. 10 CFR 

431.401(e)(4). 

On August 31, 2007, 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, because, as discussed 

above, this is the test procedure 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 to 10 CFR 

431.96. On January 7, 2008, DOE 

published Daikin’s Petition for Waiver 

in the Federal Register and granted the 

Application for Interim Waiver. 73 FR 

1207. 

In a similar and relevant 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 

responded favorably to DOE’s proposed 

alternate test procedure. Id. at17529. 

Also, there was general agreement that 

an alternate test procedure is necessary 

while a final test procedure for these 

types of products is being developed. Id. 

The MEUS Decision and Order included 

the alternate test procedure adopted by 

DOE. Id 

DOE received no comments on the 

Daikin petition. 

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 multi-split 

heat pump and heat recovery systems 

contain design characteristics that 

prevent testing according to the current 

DOE test procedures. Specifically, 

Daikin 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 MEUS, Fujitsu General Ltd. (Fujitsu), 

and Samsung Air Conditioning 

(Samsung) for similar lines of 

commercial multi-split air-conditioning 

systems: 

• Testing laboratories cannot test 

products with so many indoor units. 

• There are too many possible 

combinations of indoor and outdoor 

unit to test. 69 FR 52661 (August 27, 

2004) (MEUS); 72 FR 17528 (April 9, 

2007) (MEUS); 72 FR 71383 (December 

17, 2007) (Fujitsu); 72 FR 71387 

(December 17, 2007) (Samsung). 

Further, Daikin states that its VRV–III 

indoor units have nine different indoor 

static pressure ratings, and the test 

procedure does not provide for 

operation of indoor units at several 

different static pressure ratings during a 

single test. The indoor units are 

designed to operate at many different 

external static pressure values, which 

compounds the difficulty of testing. The 

number of connectable indoor units for 

each outdoor unit ranges up to 64. A 

testing facility could not manage proper 

airflow at several different external 

static pressure values to the many 

indoor units that would be connected to 

a VRV–III outdoor unit. Daikin further 

states that its VRV–III products’ 

capability to perform simultaneous 

heating and cooling is not captured by 

the DOE test procedure. 

Notwithstanding this fact, DOE is 

required by EPCA to use the full-load 

descriptor Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) 

for these products, and simultaneous 

heating and cooling does not occur 

when operating at full load. 

Accordingly, Daikin requests that 

DOE grant a waiver from the applicable 

test procedures for its VRV–III product 

designs, until a suitable test procedure 

can be prescribed. DOE believes that the 

VRV–III Daikin 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 

is therefore granting to Daikin a VRV– 

III product waiver similar to the 

previous MEUS multi-split waivers. 

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. 

Daikin did not include an alternate 

test procedure in its Petition for Waiver. 

However, in response to two recent 

Petitions for Waiver from MEUS, DOE 

specified an alternate test procedure to 

provide a basis from which MEUS could 

test and make valid energy efficiency 

representations for its R410A CITY 

MULTI products, as well as for its R22 

multi-split products. Alternate test 

procedures related to the MEUS 

petitions were published in the Federal 

Register on April 9, 2007. 72 FR 17528; 

72 FR 17533. 

To enable Daikin to make energy 

efficiency representations for its 

specified VRV–III multi-split products, 

DOE has decided to require use of the 

alternate test procedure described 

below, as a condition of Daikin’s waiver. 

This alternate test procedure is 

substantially the same as the one that 

DOE applied to the waiver for MEUS’s 

R22 and R410A products, which was 

published at 72 FR 17528. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 15957 

5The ‘‘tested combination’’ was originally 

defined to consist of one outdoor unit matched with 

between 2 and 5 indoor units. The maximum 

number of indoor units in a tested combination is 

here increased from 5 to 8 to account for the fact 

that these larger-capacity products can 

accommodate a greater number of indoor units. 

In general, DOE understands that 

existing testing facilities have a limited 

ability to test multiple indoor units at 

one time, and the number of possible 

combinations of indoor and outdoor 

units for some variable refrigerant flow 

zoned systems is impractical to test. We 

further note that subsequent to the 

waiver that DOE granted for MEUS’s 

R22 multi-split products, ARI formed a 

committee to discuss the issue and to 

work on developing an appropriate 

testing protocol for variable refrigerant 

flow systems. However, to date, no 

additional test methodologies have been 

adopted by the committee or submitted 

to DOE. 

Therefore, as discussed below, as a 

condition for granting this Waiver to 

Daikin, DOE is including an alternate 

test procedure similar to those granted 

to MEUS for its R22 and R410A 

products. DOE is issuing today’s 

Decision and Order granting Daikin a 

test procedure waiver for its commercial 

VRV–III multi-split heat pumps, but is 

requiring the use of the alternate test 

procedure described below as a 

condition of Daikin’s waiver. This 

alternate test procedure is substantially 

the same as the one that DOE applied to 

the MEUS waiver. 

Alternate Test Procedure 

The alternate test procedure 

developed in conjunction with the 

MEUS waiver has two basic 

components. First, it 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 from two to 

eight 5 indoor units so that it can be 

tested in available test facilities. The 

tested combination must be tested 

according to the applicable DOE test 

procedure, as modified by the 

provisions of the alternate test 

procedure as set forth below. 

Second, having an alternate DOE test 

procedure that can be applied to its 

products allows Daikin to represent the 

energy efficiency of that product. These 

representations must fairly disclose the 

results of such testing. The DOE test 

procedure, as modified by the alternate 

test procedure set forth in this Decision 

and Order, provides for efficiency rating 

of a non-tested combination in one of 

two ways: (1) At an energy efficiency 

level determined under a DOE-approved 

alternative rating method; or (2) if the 

first method is not available, then at the 

efficiency level of the tested 

combination utilizing the same outdoor 

unit. Until an alternative rating method 

is developed, all combinations with a 

particular outdoor unit may use the 

rating of the combination tested with 

that outdoor unit. 

As in the MEUS matter, DOE believes 

that allowing Daikin to make energy 

efficiency representations for non-tested 

combinations by adopting this 

alternative test procedure as described 

above 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. The multizoning feature of these products, which 

enables them to cool only those portions 

of the building that require cooling, 

would be expected to 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. This 

feature would not be captured by the 

current test procedure, which requires 

full-load testing. Full load testing, under 

which the entire building would require 

cooling, disadvantages these products 

because they are optimized for their 

highest efficiency when operating with 

less than full loads. Therefore, the 

alternate test procedure will provide a 

conservative basis for assessing the 

energy efficiency for 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 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 and 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. This 

would require that the test laboratory be 

equipped with multiple airflow 

measuring apparatuses (which is 

unlikely), or that the test laboratory 

connect its one airflow measuring 

apparatus to one or more common 

indoor units until the contribution of 

each indoor unit has been measured. 

Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice 

publishing the MEUS Petition for 

Waiver that if the Department decided 

to specify an alternate test procedure for 

MEUS, it would consider applying the 

procedure to waivers for similar 

residential and commercial central air 

conditioners and heat pumps produced 

by other manufacturers. 71 FR 14858, 

14861 (March 24, 2006). Most of the 

comments received by DOE in response 

to the March 2006 notice favored the 

proposed alternate test procedure. 72 FR 

17529. 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. 

Based on the discussion above, DOE 

believes that the testing problems 

described above would prevent testing 

of Daikin’s VRV–III multi-split products 

according to the test procedure 

currently 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 adopt the proposed alternate test 

procedure for Daikin’s commercial 

water-source products, with the 

clarifications discussed 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 the 

issuance of 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 AC (Americas), Inc., (Daikin) 

(Case No. CAC–019) is hereby granted as 

set forth in the paragraphs below. 

(2) Daikin shall not be required to test 

or rate its VRV–III VRF multi-split air 

conditioner and heat pump models 

listed below on the basis of the 

currently applicable 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). 

VRV–III Series Outdoor Units 

460V/3-phase/60Hz Models 

• Heat Pump models RXYQ72PYDN, 

RXYQ96PYDN, RXYQ120PYDN, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
15958 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Notices 

RXYQ144PYDN, RXYQ168PYDN, 

RXYQ192PYDN, RXYQ216PYDN, 

RXYQ240PYDN with nominally rated 

cooling capacities of 72,000, 96,000, 

120,000, 144,000, 168,000, 192,000, 

216,000, and 240,000, respectively. 

• Heat Recovery models 

REYQ72PYDN, REYQ96PYDN, 

REYQ120PYDN, REYQ144PYDN (2x 

REMQ72PYDN), REYQ168PYDN (1x 

REMQ96PYDN + 1x REMQ72PYDN), 

REYQ192PYDN (1x REMQ120PYDN + 

1x REMQ72PYDN), REYQ216PYDN (1x 

REMQ120PYDN + 1x REMQ96PYDN), 

REYQ240PYDN (2x REMQ120PYDN) 

with nominally rated cooling capacities 

of 72,000, 96,000, 120,000, 144,000, 

168,000, 192,000, 216,000, and 240,000 

respectively. 

208–230V/3-phase/60Hz Models 

• Heat Pump models RXYQ72PTJU, 

RXYQ96PTJU, RXYQ120PTJU, 

RXYQ144PTJU, RXYQ168PTJU, 

RXYQ192PTJU, RXYQ216PTJU, 

RXYQ240PTJU with nominally rated 

cooling capacities of 72,000, 96,000, 

120,000, 144,000, 168,000, 192,000, 

216,000, and 240,000 respectively. 

• Heat Recovery models 

REYQ72PTJU, REYQ96PTJU, 

REYQ120PTJU, REYQ144PTJU, 

REYQ168PTJU (1x REMQ96PTJU + 1x 

REMQ72PTJU), REYQ192PTJU (1x 

REMQ120PTJU + 1x REMQ72PTJU), 

REYQ216PTJU (1x REMQ120PTJU + 1x 

REMQ96PTJU), REYQ240PTJU (2x 

REMQ120PTJU) with nominally rated 

cooling capacities of 72,000, 96,000, 

120,000, 144,000, 168,000, 192,000, 

216,000, and 240,000 respectively. 

Compatible Indoor Units for AboveListed Outdoor Units: 

• FXAQ Series all mounted indoor 

units with nominally rated capacities of 

7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 18,000 and 24,000 

BTU/Hr. 

• FXLQ Series floor mounted indoor 

units with nominally rated capacities of 

7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 18,000 and 24,000 

BTU/Hr. 

• FXNQ Series concealed floor 

mounted indoor units with nominally 

rated capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 

18,000 and 24,000 BTU/Hr. 

• FXDQ Series low static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 

18,000 and 24,000 BTU/Hr. 

• FXSQ Series medium static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 

18,000, 24,000, 30,000, 36,000, 48,000, 

72,000 and 96,000 BTU/Hr. 

• FXMQ Series high static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 18,000, 24,000, 30,000, 

36,000 48,000, 72,000 and 96,000 BTU/ 

Hr. 

• FXZQ Series recessed cassette 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 7,500, 9,500, 12,000, 

15,000 and 18,000 BTU/Hr. 

• FXFQ Series recessed cassette 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 

30,000 and 36,000 BTU/Hr. 

• FXHQ Series ceiling suspended 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 12,000, 24,000 and 36,000 

BTU/Hr. 

• FXOQ Series ceiling suspended 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 

30,000, 36,000, 42,000 and 48,000 BTU/ 

Hr. 

• FXMQ–MF Series concealed ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 48,000, 72,000, and 96,000 

BTU/Hr. 

(3) Alternate test procedure. 

(A) Daikin shall be 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 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) All be subject to the same 

minimum external static pressure 

requirement. 

(C) Representations. In making 

representations about the energy 

efficiency of its VRV–III multi-split 

products, for compliance, marketing, or 

other purposes, Daikin must fairly 

disclose the results of testing under the 

DOE test procedure, doing so in a 

manner consistent with the provisions 

outlined below: 

(i) For VRV–III multi-split 

combinations tested in accordance with 

this alternate test procedure, Daikin may 

make representations based on these test 

results. 

(ii) For VRV–III multi-split 

combinations that are not tested, Daikin 

may make representations based on the 

testing results for the tested 

combination and which are consistent 

with either of the two following 

methods, except that only method (a) 

may be used, if available: 

(a) Representation of non-tested 

combinations according to an 

alternative rating method approved by 

DOE; or 

(b) Representation of non-tested 

combinations at the same energy 

efficiency level as the tested 

combination with the same outdoor 

unit. 

(4) This waiver shall remain in effect 

from the date of issuance of this Order 

until the effective date of a DOE final 

rule prescribing amended test 

procedures appropriate to the model 

series manufactured by Daikin listed 

above. 

(5) This waiver is conditioned upon 

the presumed validity of statements, 

representations, and documentary 

materials provided by the petitioner. 

This waiver may be revoked or modified 

at any time upon a determination that 

the factual basis underlying the Petition 

for Waiver is incorrect, or DOE 

determines that the results from the 

alternate test procedure are 

unrepresentative of the basic models’ 

true energy consumption characteristics. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–7940 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES