Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16373 

1Consistent 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. 

6314(d)) 

2This part was originally titled Part C. However, 

it was redesignated Part A–1 in the United States 

Code for editorial reasons. 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 

1–888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Delegation of Authority: The Secretary 

of Education has delegated authority to 

Joseph C. Conaty, Director, Academic 

Improvement and Teacher Quality 

Programs for the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education to perform the 

functions of the Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Dated: April 7, 2009. 

Joseph C. Conaty, 

Director, Academic Improvement and 

Teacher Quality Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–8251 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Case No. CAC–018] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Decision 

and Order Granting a Waiver to Daikin 

AC (Americas), Inc. From the 

Department of Energy Commercial 

Package Water-Source 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 announces the 

Department of Energy’s Decision and 

Order in Case No. CAC–018, which 

grants a waiver to Daikin AC 

(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) from the 

existing Department of Energy (DOE) 

test procedure applicable to commercial 

package water-source air conditioners 

and heat pumps. The waiver is specific 

to the Daikin Variable Speed and 

Variable Refrigerant Volume VRV–WII 

(commercial) multi-split water-source 

heat pump and heat recovery systems. 

DOE is granting this waiver because of 

the inability of the current test 

procedure to address systems with the 

level of complexity of the VRV–WII. As 

a condition of this waiver, Daikin must 

test and rate the energy efficiency of its 

VRV–WII water-source multi-split 

products according to the alternate test 

procedure set forth in this notice. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective April 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE–2J, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9611. E-mail: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Michael 

Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC–72, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0103. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: 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 water-source air 

conditioner and heat pump test 

procedure under 10 CFR 431.96 and the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) Standard 13256– 

1 (1998) incorporated by reference, for 

its VRV–WII water-source multi-split 

products, subject to a condition 

requiring Daikin to test and rate the 

specified models from its VRV–WII 

product line according to the alternate 

test procedure provided in this notice. 

Today’s Decision and Order requires 

that Daikin may not make any 

representations concerning the energy 

efficiency of these products unless such 

products have been tested in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure, consistent 

with the provisions and restrictions in 

the alternate test procedure as set forth 

in the Decision and Order below, and 

such representations fairly disclose the 

results of such testing.1 (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–018). 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency, including Part A–1 2 of Title 

III, which establishes 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) 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. Further, Part A–1 

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe test 

procedures that are reasonably designed 

to produce results measuring energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating costs, and that are not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

Relevant to the current Petition for 

Waiver, under section 343(a)(4)(A) of 

EPCA, the test procedures shall be those 

generally accepted industry testing 

procedures or rating procedures 

developed or recognized by the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) or by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as 

referenced in ASHRAE/Illuminating 

Engineering Society (IES) Standard 90.1 

and in effect on June 30, 1992. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, under 

section 343(a)(4)(B) of EPCA, if the 

underlying test procedure or rating 

procedure is amended, the Secretary 

must amend the test procedure for the 

covered commercial product as 

necessary to be consistent with the 

amended industry test procedure, 

unless the Secretary determines that the 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the statutory requirements set forth in 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3). (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B)) 

The test procedures for commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

16374 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

equipment are codified in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.96, Table 1, 

which directs manufacturers of 

commercial package water-source airconditioning and heating equipment to 

use the appropriate procedure when 

measuring the energy efficiency of those 

products. Relevant to these products, 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.95(b)(3) incorporate by reference 

ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998), ‘‘Watersource heat pumps—Testing and rating 

for performance: Part 1—Water-to-air 

and brine-to-air heat pumps’’ for 

measuring the energy efficiency of small 

commercial package water-source heat 

pumps with capacities <135,000 British 

thermal units per hour (Btu/hr). (The 

cooling capacities of Daikin’s VRV–WII 

commercial package water-source multisplit heat pump products range from 

60,000 Btu/hr to 252,000 Btu/hr, so 

products with capacities less than 

135,000 Btu/hr are covered under 10 

CFR 431.96, which requires testing with 

ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998).) There is 

no test procedure for water-source 

products above 135,000 Btu/hr, so no 

waiver is required for these products. 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.401(a) set forth procedures under 

which interested persons may submit a 

petition to waive for a particular basic 

model any requirements of the test 

procedures in 10 CFR 431.96 (among 

others) on the grounds that either the 

basic model contains one or more 

design characteristics which prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or 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 

petition 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 (the 

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, 

eliminating the need for the 

continuation of the waiver. 10 CFR 

431.401(g). 

The waiver process also allows any 

person who has submitted a Petition for 

Waiver to file an Application for Interim 

Waiver of the applicable test procedure 

requirements. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). The 

Assistant Secretary will grant an Interim 

Waiver if DOE 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 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, and may 

be extended by DOE for an additional 

180 days, if necessary. 10 CFR 

431.401(e)(4). 

On January 22, 2007, Daikin 

submitted a Petition for Waiver and an 

Application for Interim Waiver from the 

above test procedures applicable to 

commercial package water-source heat 

pumps. Daikin seeks a waiver from the 

applicable test procedures because the 

design characteristics of these models 

prevent testing according to the 

currently prescribed test procedures. 

The company’s rationale seeking this 

waiver is based on complexity—there 

are too many indoor units connected in 

a typical system to test with existing 

facilities, and too many possible 

combinations for practical testing. The 

capacities of the Daikin VRV–WII multisplit heat pumps range from 60,000 Btu/ 

hr to 252,000 Btu/hr. DOE notes that 

although the Daikin 60,000 Btu/hr unit 

is of a size appropriate for residential 

applications, it is considered a 

commercial product and sold for 

commercial use. Accordingly, the 

appropriate test procedure is the same 

for all three outdoor units (Models 

RWEYQ60, RWEYQ72, RWEYQ84) with 

capacities less than 135,000 Btu/hr, ISO 

13256–1 (1998). DOE further notes that 

Daikin also requested a waiver for four 

outdoor units with capacities greater 

than 135,000 Btu/hr, but because DOE 

does not have a test procedure for such 

products, there is no need for a waiver. 

On January 7, 2008, DOE published 

Daikin’s Petition for Waiver in the 

Federal Register and granted the 

Application for Interim Waiver. 73 FR 

1213. 

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 Airstage VRF multisplit products. 71 FR 14858 (March 24, 

2006). In the March 24, 2006 Federal 

Register notice, DOE also published and 

requested comment on an alternate test 

procedure for the MEUS products at 

issue. DOE stated that if it specified an 

alternate test procedure for MEUS in the 

subsequent Decision and Order, DOE 

would consider applying the same 

procedure to similar 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 

Daikin petition. 

Assertions and Determinations 

Daikin’s Petition for Waiver 

On January 22, 2007, Daikin 

submitted a Petition for Waiver and an 

Application for Interim Waiver from the 

test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 that 

apply to commercial package watersource heat pumps. The products 

covered by this petition represent the 

models of Daikin’s multi-split product 

line that use water, instead of air, as a 

heat source and heat sink. However, 

Daikin asserts that the water-source 

VRV–WII systems operate in the same 

configurations as the air-source VRV 

and VRV–S systems which have been 

granted similar waivers, with the only 

relevant difference being the heat 

rejection medium. Specifically, Daikin 

asserts that the two primary factors that 

prevent testing of multi-split variable 

speed products generally are the same 

factors DOE considered when it granted 

waivers to MEUS, Fujitsu General Ltd. 

(Fujitsu), and Samsung Air 

Conditioning (Samsung) for similar 

lines of commercial multi-split airconditioning systems: 

• The large number (over a million) of 

potential combinations with the VRV– 

WII product line make it impractical for 

testing laboratories to test this product. 

• There are too many possible 

combinations (over a million) of indoor 

and outdoor units to test. 

69 FR 52660 (August 27, 2004); 72 FR 

17528 (April 9, 2007); 72 FR 71383 

(December 17, 2007); 72 FR 71387 

(December 17, 2007). 

Accordingly, Daikin requested that 

DOE grant a waiver from existing test 

procedures until such time as a 

representative test procedure is 

developed and adopted for this class of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16375 

products. DOE believes that the VRV– 

WII 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. 

Previously, in addressing MEUS’s 

R410A CITY MULTI VRFZ products, 

which are similar to Daikin’s VRV–WII 

multi-split 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), 

Daikin’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–WII water-source multisplit 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 MEUS waiver. 

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–WII water-source 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. 

DOE’s 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 five 

indoor units so that it can be tested in 

available test facilities. The tested 

combination must be tested according to 

the applicable DOE test procedure, as 

modified by the provisions of the 

alternate test procedure. 

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 alternate test 

procedure set forth in this Decision and 

Order provides for testing of a nontested 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 tends to 

rate these products conservatively. The 

multi-zoning 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 

performance aspect is not captured by 

the current DOE 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, which is how these products 

normally operate. Therefore, the 

alternate test procedure will provide a 

conservative basis for assessing the 

energy efficiency for such products. 

While the alternate test procedure 

applies to both residential and 

commercial multi-split products, some 

provisions within this procedure are 

specific to residential or commercial 

products. For example, section (A) of 

the alternate test procedure has different 

provisions for residential and 

commercial products. In contrast, 

section (B), which defines the 

combinations of indoor and outdoor 

units to test, and section (C), which sets 

forth the requirements for making 

representations, are the same for both 

residential and commercial products. 

Section (A) distinguishes between 

residential and commercial products for 

two reasons. First, 10 CFR 430.24, used 

for residential products, already has 

requirements for selecting split-system 

combinations based on the highest sales 

volume. However, 10 CFR Part 431, 

which applies to commercial products, 

has no comparable requirements. 

Therefore, section (A) of the alternate 

test procedure modifies the existing 

residential and commercial 

requirements so that both residential 

and commercial products can use the 

same definition of a ‘‘tested 

combination,’’ which is set forth in 

section (B). 

Second, section (A) requires several 

test procedure revisions to determine 

the seasonal energy efficiency ratio and 

heating seasonal performance factor for 

the tested combination of residential 

products. No test procedure revisions 

are introduced for commercial products 

because EPCA directs DOE to adopt 

generally accepted industry test 

standards (unless amendments to those 

industry test procedures are determined 

by clear and convincing evidence not to 

meet the requirements of the statute). 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)) 

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 

16376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 

combination. For example, in addition 

to limiting the number of indoor units, 

all indoor units must meet the same 

minimum external static pressure 

requirement. 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 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 DOE decides 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 

commenters to the March 2006 notice 

favored the proposed alternate test 

procedure, generally agreeing that an 

alternate test procedure is appropriate 

for an interim period while a final test 

procedure for these products is being 

developed. 

In light of the discussion above, DOE 

believes that the problems described 

above would prevent testing of Daikin’s 

VRV–WII water-source multi-split 

products according to the test 

procedures currently prescribed in 10 

CFR 431.96. After reviewing and 

considering all of the comments 

submitted in response to the prior 

MEUS petition regarding the proposed 

alternate test procedure, DOE has 

decided to adopt the proposed alternate 

test procedure, with the clarifications 

discussed above for the Daikin products. 

DOE will also consider applying the 

same alternate test procedure to waivers 

for similar central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. 

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 

comments received, 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–018) is hereby granted as 

set forth in the paragraphs below. 

(2) Daikin shall not be required to test 

or rate its VRV–WII water-source multisplit air conditioner and heat pump 

models listed below on the basis of the 

current test procedures contained in 10 

CFR 431.96, specifically, ISO Standard 

13256–1 (1998) (incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(3)), but 

shall be required to test and rate such 

products according to the alternate test 

procedure as set forth in paragraph (3). 

VRV–WII Series Outdoor Units: 

• Models RWEYQ60, RWEYQ72, 

RWEYQ84 

Compatible Indoor Units for AboveListed Outdoor Units: 

• FXAQ Series wall mounted indoor 

units with nominally rated capacities of 

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

Btu/hr. 

• FXLQ Series floor mounted indoor 

units with nominally rated capacities of 

12,000, 18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr. 

• FXNQ Series concealed floor 

mounted indoor units with nominally 

rated capacities of 12,000, 18,000 and 

24,000 Btu/hr. 

• FXDQ Series low static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

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

18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr. 

• FXSQ Series medium static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

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

18,000, 24,000, 30,000, 36,000 and 

48,000 Btu/hr. 

• FXMQ Series high static ducted 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 30,000, 36,000 and 48,000 

Btu/hr. 

• FXZQ Series recessed cassette 

indoor units with nominally rated 

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

18,000 and 24,000 Btu/hr. 

• FXFQ Series recessed cassette 

indoor units with nominally rated 

capacities of 12,000, 18,000, 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 concealed indoor 

units with nominally rated capacities of 

12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 36,000, 42,000, 

36,000 and 48,000 BTU/hr. 

(3) Alternate test procedure. 

(A) Daikin shall be required to test the 

products listed in paragraph (2) above 

according to the test procedures for 

water-source central air conditioners 

and heat pumps (contained in ISO 

Standard 13256–1 (1998) (incorporated 

by reference in 10 CFR 431.95(b)(3)), 

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–WII water-source 

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 five 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 VRV–WII water-source 

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–WII multi-split 

combinations tested in accordance with 

this alternate test procedure, Daikin 

must disclose these test results. 

(ii) For VRV–WII multi-split 

combinations that are not tested, Daikin 

must make a disclosure based on the 

testing results for the tested 

combination and which are consistent 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Notices 16377 

1Applicants have benefited from: (a) Increased 

public participation in pre-filing consultation; (b) 

increased assistance from Commission staff to the 

potential applicant and stakeholders during the 

development of a license application; (c) 

development by the potential applicant of a 

Commission-approved study plan; (d) elimination 

of the need for post-application study requests; (e) 

issuance of public schedules and enforcement of 

deadlines; (f) better coordination between the 

Commission’s processes, including the NEPA 

document preparation, and those of Federal and 

state agencies and Indian Tribes with authority to 

require conditions for Commission-issued licenses. 

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. E9–8216 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. IC09–500–000 and IC09–505– 

000] 

Commission Information Collection 

Activities (FERC–500 and FERC–505); 

Comment Request; Extensions 

April 6, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed information 

collections and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) is soliciting public comment on 

the specific aspects of the information 

collections described below. 

DATES: Comments in consideration of 

the collections of information are due 

June 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Examples of these 

collections of information may be 

obtained from the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Comments may be filed 

either electronically or in paper format, 

and should refer to Docket Nos. IC09– 

500–000 and IC09–505–000. Documents 

must be prepared in an acceptable filing 

format and in compliance with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

submission guidelines at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide.asp. 

Comments may be filed electronically 

via the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. First 

time users will have to establish a user 

name and password (http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

eregistration.asp) before eFiling. The 

Commission will send an automatic 

acknowledgment to the sender’s e-mail 

address upon receipt of comments 

through eFiling. 

Commenters filing electronically 

should not make a paper filing. 

Commenters that are not able to file 

electronically must send the original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Users interested in receiving 

automatic notification of activity in this 

docket may do so through eSubscription 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp. In addition, all 

comments and FERC issuances may be 

viewed, printed or downloaded 

remotely through FERC’s Web site using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and searching on 

Docket Numbers IC09–500 and IC09– 

505. For user assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support at: 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208– 

3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 

(TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Brown may be reached by 

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

(202) 273–0873, or by e-mail at 

ellen.brown@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the 

purpose of publishing this notice and 

seeking public comment, FERC requests 

comments on both FERC–500 

(Application for License/Relicense for 

Water Projects with Capacity Greater 

than 5 MW; OMB Control No. 1902– 

0058), and FERC–505 (Application for 

License/Relicense for Water Projects 

with Capacity 5 MW or Less; OMB 

Control No. 1902–0115). The associated 

regulations, reporting requirements, 

burdens, and OMB clearance numbers 

will continue to remain separate and 

distinct for FERC–500 and FERC–505. 

FERC–500: The information collected 

under the requirements of FERC–500 is 

used by the Commission to determine 

the broad impact of a hydropower 

project (including hydrokinetic projects) 

license application. In deciding whether 

to issue a license, the Commission gives 

equal consideration to a full range of 

licensing purposes related to the 

potential value of a stream, river, or 

other navigable waterway including the 

oceans. Among these purposes are: 

Hydroelectric or hydrokinetic 

development; energy conservation; fish 

and wildlife resources (including their 

spawning grounds and habitat); visual 

resources; cultural resources; 

recreational opportunities; other aspects 

of environmental quality; irrigation; 

flood control and water supply. 

Submittal of the information is 

necessary to fulfill the requirements of 

the Federal Power Act in order for the 

Commission to determine whether the 

proposal is best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for improving or 

developing a waterway(s). 

Under Part I of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA; 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), the 

Commission has the authority to issue 

licenses for hydroelectric projects on the 

waters over which Congress has 

jurisdiction. The Electric Consumers 

Protection Act (ECPA; Pub. L. 99–495, 

100 Stat. 1243) provides the 

Commission with the responsibility of 

issuing licenses for nonfederal 

hydroelectric plants. ECPA also 

amended the language of the FPA 

concerning environmental issues to 

ensure environmental quality. In Order 

No. 2002 (68 FR 51070, August 25, 

2003), the Commission revised its 

regulations to create a new licensing 

process 1 in which a potential license 

applicant’s pre-filing consultation and 

the Commission’s scoping process 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321) are 

conducted concurrently rather than 

sequentially. 

The information collected is needed: 

(1) To evaluate license applications 

pursuant to the comprehensive 

development standard of FPA sections 

4(e) and 10(a)(1), (2) to consider the