Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16193 

1For commercial products, the applicable test 

procedure is the Air-Conditioning 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)). 

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. 

Issued at Washington, DC on April 6, 2009. 

LaTanya Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–8100 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CAC–017] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Commercial Equipment: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to Sanyo 

Fisher Company From the Department 

of Energy Commercial Package Air 

Conditioner and Heat Pump Test 

Procedure and Denying a Waiver From 

the Residential Central Air Conditioner 

and Heat Pump Test Procedure 

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–017, which 

grants a waiver to Sanyo Fisher 

Company (Sanyo) from the existing 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

commercial package air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedure. The waiver is 

specific to the Sanyo Variable 

Refrigerant Flow (VRF) ECO–i multisplit heat pumps and heat recovery 

systems. As a condition of this waiver, 

Sanyo must test and rate its ECO–i VRF 

multi-split products according to the 

alternate test procedure set forth in this 

notice. DOE is denying as moot Sanyo’s 

request for a waiver from the residential 

central air conditioner and heat pump 

test procedures, because those test 

procedures, as amended and currently 

effective, can be used to test Sanyo’s 

ECO–i VRF multi-split residential 

products. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective April 9, 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 Sanyo ECO–i VRF 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 

Sanyo a waiver from the existing DOE 

commercial package air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedures1 for its VRF 

multi-split products, subject to a 

condition requiring Sanyo to test and 

rate its VRF multi-split products 

pursuant to the alternate test procedure 

provided in this notice. Further, today’s 

Decision and Order requires that Sanyo 

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 of the 

alternate test procedure set forth in the 

Decision and Order below, and unless 

such representations fairly disclose the 

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

6314(d). 

DOE is denying as moot Sanyo’s 

request for a waiver from the DOE 

residential central air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedures for its VRF 

multi-split products. As amended, the 

applicable DOE test procedure for these 

residential products will allow Sanyo to 

test and rate its residential VRF multisplit products. 

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: Sanyo Fisher 

Company (Sanyo) (Case No. CAC–017). 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency, including Part A 3 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–1 4 of Title III 

provides for an energy efficiency 

program titled, ‘‘Certain Industrial 

Equipment,’’ which includes 

commercial air conditioning equipment, 

package boilers, water heaters, and other 

types of commercial equipment. 42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317. 

Today’s notice involves residential 

products under Part A, as well as 

commercial equipment under Part A–1. 

Under both parts, 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. 

6291–6309; 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317. With 

respect to test procedures, both parts 

generally authorize the Secretary to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

which reflect energy efficiency, energy 

use, and estimated annual operating 

costs, and that are not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3), 6314(a)(2). 

Relevant to the current Petition for 

Waiver, the test procedure for 

residential central air conditioning and 

heat pump products is set forth in 10 

CFR Part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. 

On October 22, 2007, DOE amended the 

test procedures for residential central air 

conditioners and central air 

conditioning heat pumps. 72 FR 59906 

(October 22, 2007). That final rule, 

which became effective on April 21, 

2008, addressed issues that led to the 

requesting and granting of test 

procedure waivers for several models of 

residential multi-split systems. All 

waivers concerning residential 

modulating multi-split systems 

terminated on the effective date of that 

final rule. These amendments to the 

DOE test procedures, which are now 

incorporated in 10 CFR Part 430, 

subpart B, Appendix M, allow Sanyo to 

effectively test its ECO–i VRF 

residential multi-split air conditioners 

and heat pumps. Therefore, a waiver is 

no longer necessary for Sanyo’s ECO–i 

VRF residential multi-split air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

Accordingly, the following discussion 

will focus only on Sanyo’s commercial 

ECO–i VRF multi-split products, for 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
16194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 

which its waiver request remains 

pertinent. 

For commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment, 

EPCA provides that ‘‘the test procedures 

shall be those generally accepted 

industry testing procedures or rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute [ARI] or by the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], 

as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A). EPCA further 

directs the Secretary to amend the test 

procedure for a covered commercial 

product if the 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). 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 (December 

8, 2006). DOE adopted ARI Standard 

210/240–2003 for commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

with capacities <65,000 British thermal 

units per hour (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. DOE’s 

regulations incorporate by reference the 

relevant ARI Standards. 10 CFR 

431.95(b)(1) and (2). Table 1 of 10 CFR 

431.96 directs manufacturers of 

commercial package air-cooled air 

conditioning and heating equipment to 

use the appropriate procedure when 

measuring the energy efficiency of those 

products. The cooling capacities of 

Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF commercial multisplit products fall in the range covered 

by ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

DOE’s regulations contain provisions 

allowing a person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered commercial equipment, for 

which the petitioner’s 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 

of its true energy consumption as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). 

Petitioners must include in their 

petitions any alternate test procedures 

known to evaluate 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 remains in effect for a period of 

180 days or until DOE issues its 

determination on the Petition for 

Waiver, whichever occurs first, and may 

be extended by DOE for an additional 

180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 

431.401(e)(4). 

On February 22, 2007, Sanyo filed a 

Petition for Waiver and an Application 

for Interim Waiver from the test 

procedures applicable to residential and 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment. The petition 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 2, 2008. See 73 FR 179. 

Sanyo did not include an alternate test 

procedure in its Petition for Waiver. 

In a similar and relevant case, DOE 

published a Petition for Waiver from 

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics 

USA, Inc. (MEUS) for commercial 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split 

products very similar to Sanyo’s VRF 

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. at 17529. 

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 

Sanyo petition. 

Assertions and Determinations 

Sanyo’s Petition for Waiver 

Sanyo seeks a waiver and interim 

waiver from the test procedures 

applicable to residential and 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment. It seeks a 

waiver on the grounds that it’s ECO–i 

VRF multi-split heat pump and heat 

recovery systems contain design 

characteristics that prevent testing 

according to the current DOE test 

procedures. Specifically, Sanyo asserts 

that the two primary factors that prevent 

testing of multi-split variable speed 

products, regardless of manufacturer, 

are the same factors stated in the waiver 

granted to MEUS for a similar line of 

commercial multi-splits: 

• Testing laboratories cannot test 

products with so many indoor units; 

and 

• There are too many possible 

combinations of indoor and outdoor 

units to test. 69 FR 52660, 52661 

(August 27, 2004); 72 FR 17529. 

Further, Sanyo states that its ECO–i 

product offering is a multi-split system 

incorporating a diverse amount and 

configuration of indoor units for 

connection to a single outdoor unit, and 

that it is impractical to test the 

performance of each system under the 

current DOE test procedure. The 

number of connectable indoor units for 

each outdoor unit ranges from 6 to 28. 

Furthermore, the indoor units are 

designed to operate at many different 

external static pressure values, which 

compounds the difficulty of testing. A 

testing facility could not manage proper 

airflow at several different external 

static pressure values for the many 

indoor units that would be connected to 

an ECO–i outdoor unit. Accordingly, 

Sanyo requests that DOE grant a waiver 

from the applicable test procedure for 

its ECO–i product designs until a 

suitable test procedure can be 

prescribed. 

Previously, in addressing MEUS’s 

R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, 

which are similar to the Sanyo ECO–i 

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 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16195 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Furthermore, DOE stated in the notice 

publishing the MEUS Petition for 

Waiver that if DOE 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 14861. Most of the 

comments received by DOE in response 

to the March 2006 notice favored the 

proposed alternate test procedure. 72 FR 

17529. The comments 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. 

DOE believes that the ECO–i Sanyo 

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 

Sanyo an ECO–i product waiver similar 

to the previous MEUS multi-split 

waivers. 

To enable Sanyo to make energy 

efficiency representations for its 

specified ECO–i multi-split products, 

DOE has decided to require use of the 

alternate test procedure described 

below, as a condition of Sanyo’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. 

Therefore, as discussed below, as a 

condition for granting this Waiver to 

Sanyo, DOE is including an alternate 

test procedure similar to those granted 

to MEUS for its R22 and R410A 

products. That alternate test procedure 

served as the basis for the October 22, 

2007 final rule’s amendments to the test 

procedures for residential central air 

conditioners and central air 

conditioning heat pumps, which 

became effective April 21, 2008. Since 

the residential test procedure is now in 

place for central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps, 

Sanyo is able to make energy efficiency 

representations for its specified VRF 

residential multi-split products. 

Accordingly, a waiver for Sanyo’s 

residential units is no longer necessary. 

However, the same problem described 

above still applies to Sanyo’s 

commercial products. Therefore, DOE is 

issuing today’s Decision and Order 

granting Sanyo a test procedure waiver 

for its commercial VRF multi-split heat 

pumps and heat recovery systems, but is 

requiring the use of the alternate test 

procedure described below as a 

condition of Sanyo’s waiver. This 

alternate test procedure is substantially 

the same as the one that DOE applied to 

the MEUS waiver published on April 9, 

2007. Id. 

Alternate Test Procedure 

The alternate test procedure 

developed in conjunction with the 

MEUS waiver has two basic 

components. First, it permits Sanyo to 

designate a ‘‘tested combination’’ for 

each model of outdoor unit. The indoor 

units designated as part of the tested 

combination must meet specific 

requirements. For example, the tested 

combination must have from two to 

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, the alternate test procedure 

allows Sanyo to represent the energy 

efficiency of that product. The DOE test 

procedure, as modified by the alternate 

test procedure set forth in this Decision 

and Order, provides for testing of a nontested combination in two ways: (1) At 

an energy efficiency level determined 

under a DOE-approved alternative rating 

method; or, if the first method 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. 

As in the case of the MEUS waiver 

and alternate testing procedures, DOE 

believes that allowing Sanyo to make 

energy efficiency representations for 

non-tested combinations by adopting 

this 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. 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 best 

efficiency when operating with less than 

full loads. In fact, these products 

normally operate at part-load 

conditions. 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 meet 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 laboratory must 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. 

Based on the discussion above, DOE 

believes that the testing problems 

described above would prevent testing 

of Sanyo’s ECO–i VRF multi-split basic 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
16196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 

models according to the test procedures 

currently prescribed in 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 alternate 

test procedure for Sanyo’s commercial 

products, with the clarifications 

discussed above. 

Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the FTC staff 

concerning the Sanyo Petition for 

Waiver. The FTC staff did not have any 

objections to the issuance of a waiver to 

Sanyo. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

materials submitted by Sanyo, and 

consultation with the FTC staff, it is 

ordered that: 

(1) The ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ filed by 

Sanyo Fisher Company (Sanyo) (Case 

No. CAC–017) is hereby granted as set 

forth in the paragraphs below. 

(2) Sanyo shall not be required to test 

or rate its commercial ECO–i VRF multisplit air conditioner and heat pump 

models listed below on the basis of the 

current test procedure contained 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). 

Outdoor units: 

ECO–I OUTDOOR MODEL IDENTIFICATION

Model No. 

Nominal Capacity 

Type Phase Voltage Connectable 

indoor units Cooling Heating 

CHDX09053 ...................... 95,500 107,500 Heat Pump ................................................... 3 208–230 16 

CHDZ09053 ....................... 95,500 107,500 Heat Recovery (Simultaneous heating/cooling).3 208–230 16 

CHDX14053 ...................... 153,600 170,600 Heat Pump ................................................... 3 208–230 28 

CHDZ14053 ....................... 153,600 170,600 Heat Recovery (Simultaneous heating/cooling).3 208–230 28 

Indoor units: 

• AHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 1 

Way Air Discharge, 7,500/9,600/12,000 

BTU/hr nominal capacities. 

• DHX**52 Series; Concealed Ducted, 

Medium External Static, 36,000/47,800 

BTU/hr nominal capacities. 

• FHX**52 Series; Exposed Floor 

Standing, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/ 

25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. 

• FMHX**52 Series; Concealed Floor 

Standing, 7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/ 

25,000 BTU/hr nominal capacities. 

• KHX**52 Series; Wall Mounted, 

7,500/9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/ 

hr nominal capacities. 

• LHX**52 Series; Ceiling Mount 

Slim Design 1 Way Air Discharge, 

12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr nominal 

capacities. 

• SHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 2 

Way Air Discharge, 7,500/9,600/12,000/ 

19,000/25,000/36,000/47,800 BTU/hr 

nominal capacities. 

• THX**52 Series; Ceiling 

Suspended, 12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/ 

hr nominal capacities. 

• UHX**52 Series; Concealed 

Ducted, Low External Static, 7,500/ 

9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000/36,000 

BTU/hr nominal capacities. 

• UMHX**52 Series; Concealed Slim 

Ducted, Low External Static, 7,500/ 

9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr 

nominal capacities. 

• XHX**52 Series; Ceiling Cassette, 4 

Way Air Discharge, 12,000/19,000/ 

25,000/36,000 BTU/hr nominal 

capacities. 

• XMHX**52 Series, Mini Ceiling 

Cassette, 4 Way Air Discharge, 7,500/ 

9,600/12,000/19,000/25,000 BTU/hr 

nominal capacities. 

(3) Alternate test procedure. 

(A) Test procedures. Sanyo shall be 

required to test the products listed in 

paragraph (2) according to the test 

procedures for central air conditioners 

and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 

10 CFR 431.96, except that Sanyo 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, Sanyo shall make 

representations concerning the ECO–i 

VRF multi-split 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 to meet 

the requirements of (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 that is 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 ECO–i VRF multi-split 

products, for compliance, marketing, or 

other purposes, Sanyo 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 ECO–i VRF multi-split 

combinations tested in accordance with 

this alternate test procedure, Sanyo may 

make representations based on these test 

results. 

(ii) For ECO–i VRF multi-split 

combinations that have not been tested, 

Sanyo 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 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Notices 16197 

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 Sanyo 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. E9–7942 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. IC09–585–001] 

Commission Information Collection 

Activities (FERC–585); Comment 

Request; Submitted for OMB Review 

April 2, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirements of section 3507 of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

USC 3507, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) has submitted the information 

collection described below to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review of the information collection 

requirements. Any interested person 

may file comments directly with OMB 

and should address a copy of those 

comments to the Commission as 

explained below. The Commission 

received no comments in response to 

the Federal Register notice (74 FR 5150, 

1/29/09) and has made this notation in 

its submission to OMB. 

DATES: Comments on the collection of 

information are due by May 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the 

collection of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Desk Officer. Comments to 

OMB should be filed electronically, c/o 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and 

include OMB Control Number 1902– 

0138 as a point of reference. The Desk 

Officer may be reached by telephone at 

202–395–4638. 

A copy of the comments should also 

be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and should refer to Docket 

No. IC09–585–001. Comments may be 

filed either electronically or in paper 

format. Those persons filing 

electronically do not need to make a 

paper filing. Documents filed 

electronically via the Internet must be 

prepared in an acceptable filing format 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

submission guidelines. Complete filing 

instructions and acceptable filing 

formats are available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/ 

electronic-media.asp. To file the 

document electronically, access the 

Commission’s Web site and click on 

Documents & Filing, E–Filing (http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), 

and then follow the instructions for 

each screen. First time users will have 

to establish a user name and password. 

The Commission will send an automatic 

acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail 

address upon receipt of comments. 

For paper filings, an original and 2 

copies of the comments should be 

submitted to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, and should refer 

to Docket No. IC09–585–001. 

All comments may be viewed, printed 

or downloaded remotely via the Internet 

through FERC’s homepage using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. For user assistance, 

contact fercolinesupport@ferc.gov or 

toll-free at (866) 208–3676 or for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Brown may be reached by 

telephone at (202) 502–8663, by fax at 

(202) 273–0873, and by e-mail at 

ellen.brown@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information collected under the 

requirements of FERC–585 ‘‘Reporting 

of Electric Energy Shortages and 

Contingency Plans under PURPA’’ 

(OMB No. 1902–0138) is used by the 

Commission to implement the statutory 

provisions of section 206 of the Public 

Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 

(PURPA) Public Law 95–617, 92 Stat. 

3117. Section 206 of PURPA amended 

the Federal Power Act (FPA) by adding 

a new subsection (g) to section 202, 

under which the Commission by rule, 

was to require each public utility to (1) 

report to the Commission and 

appropriate state regulatory authorities 

of any anticipated shortages of electric 

energy or capacity which would affect 

the utility’s capability to serve its 

wholesale customers; and (2) report to 

the Commission and any appropriate 

state regulatory authority with a 

contingency plan that would outline 

what circumstances might give rise to 

such occurrences. 

In Order No. 575, the Commission 

modified the reporting requirements in 

18 CFR 294.101(b) to provide that, if a 

public utility includes in its rates 

schedule, provisions that: (a) During 

electric energy and capacity shortages it 

will treat firm power wholesale 

customers without undue 

discrimination or preference; and (b) it 

will report any modifications to its 

contingency plan for accommodating 

shortages within 15 days to the 

appropriate state regulatory agency and 

to the affected wholesale customers, 

then the utility need not file with the 

Commission an additional statement of 

the contingency plan for 

accommodating such shortages. This 

revision merely changed the reporting 

mechanism; the public utility’s 

contingency plan would be located in 

its filed rate rather than in a separate 

document. 

In Order No. 659, the Commission 

modified the reporting requirements in 

18 CFR 294.101(e) to provide that the 

means by which public utilities must 

comply with the requirements to report 

shortages and anticipated shortages is to 

submit this information electronically 

using the Office of Electric Reliability’s 

pager system at emergency@ferc.gov in 

lieu of submitting an original and two 

copies with the Secretary of the 

Commission. 

The Commission uses the information 

to evaluate and formulate an 

appropriate option for action in the 

event an unanticipated shortage is 

reported and/or materializes. Without 

this information, the Commission and 

State agencies would be unable to: (1) 

Examine and approve or modify utility 

actions, (2) prepare a response to 

anticipated disruptions in electric 

energy, and (3) ensure equitable 

treatment of all public utility customers 

under the shortage situations. The 

Commission implements these filing 

requirements in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Part 

294. 

Action: The Commission is requesting 

a three-year extension of the current 

expiration date, with no change to the 

existing requirements. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES