[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 166 (Friday, August 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52660-52662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-19604]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and 
Order Granting a Waiver From the DOE Commercial Package Air Conditioner 
and Heat Pump Test Procedure to Mitsubishi Electric (Case No. CAC-008)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Decision and Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the Decision and Order (Case No. CAC-008) 
granting a Waiver to Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. 
(MEUS) from the existing Department of Energy (DOE or Department) 
commercial package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure for its 
City Multi products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, 
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, E-mail: [email protected]; or 
Thomas DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations Part 431.29(f)(4), notice is hereby given of the issuance 
of

[[Page 52661]]

the Decision and Order as set out below. In the Decision and Order, 
MEUS is granted a Waiver from the Department of Energy commercial 
package air conditioner and heat pump test procedure for its City Multi 
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (VFRZ) products.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Decision and Order

    In the Matter of: Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. 
(MEUS). (Case No. CAC-008)

Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets 
forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency. Part B of 
Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the AEnergy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles.'' Part C of Title 
III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) provides for a program entitled ACertain 
Industrial Equipment,'' which is similar to the program in Part B, and 
which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, packaged boilers, 
water heaters, and other types of commercial equipment.
    Today's decision and order involves commercial equipment under Part 
C, which specifically provides for definitions, test procedures, 
labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority 
to require information and reports from manufacturers. With respect to 
test procedures, Part C generally authorizes the Secretary of Energy 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.
    For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA 
provides that the test procedures shall be those generally accepted 
industry testing 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 (IES is the Illuminating 
Engineering Society of North America) Standard 90.1 and in effect on 
June 30, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) This section also allows the 
Secretary of Energy to amend the test procedure for a product if the 
industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines 
that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory 
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)).
    The relevant test procedure for the purposes of today's decision 
and order and referenced in the version of ASHRAE 90.1 in effect in 
1992 is ARI 210/240 (1989), ``Standard for Unitary Air-Conditioning and 
Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment.'' The Air-Conditioning and 
Refrigeration Institute subsequently modified the 1989 version of the 
test procedure. The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
proposing to adopt ARI 210/240 (1994) (65 FR 48828, Aug. 9, 2000), but 
has not taken final action with respect to that proposal. Thus, the 
currently applicable test procedure is contained in ARI Standard 210/
240 (1989).
    The Department's regulations contain provisions allowing a person 
to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered 
consumer products and electric motors. These provisions are set forth 
in 10 CFR 430.27 and 10 CFR 431.29. However, there are no waiver 
provisions for other covered commercial equipment. The Department 
proposed waiver provisions for covered commercial equipment on December 
13, 1999 (64 FR 69597), as part of the commercial furnace test 
procedure rule. The Department expects to publish a final rule 
codifying this process in 10 CFR 431.201. Until that time, DOE will 
apply to commercial equipment the waiver provisions for consumer 
products and electric motors. These waiver provisions are substantively 
identical.
    The waiver provisions allow the Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy to waive temporarily the test procedure 
for a particular basic model when a petitioner shows that the basic 
model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing 
according to the prescribed test procedures, or when the prescribed 
test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so 
unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide 
materially inaccurate comparative data. (10 CFR 430.27 (l), 10 CFR 
431.29 (f)(4)) Waivers generally remain in effect until final test 
procedure amendments become effective, thereby resolving the problem 
that is the subject of the waiver.
    On June 13, 2003, MEUS submitted a Petition for Waiver from the 
test procedures applicable to commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment. MEUS requested a waiver from the applicable test 
procedures because, MEUS asserts, the current test procedures evaluate 
its CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning (VRFZ) system products 
in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption 
characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
    In particular, MEUS requested a waiver from the currently 
applicable test procedures contained in ARI 210/240 (1989), and from 
the test procedures contained in ARI 210/240 (1994), which the 
Department has proposed to adopt. On September 16, 2003, the Department 
published MEUS's Petition for Waiver, and solicited comments, data, and 
information respecting the petition. 68 FR 54212.
    The Department received three written comments, from Carrier 
Corporation (Carrier), Lennox International Inc. (Lennox), and Samsung 
Air Conditioning (Samsung), concerning the Petition for Waiver. One of 
the comments (Samsung) supported granting the waiver, and two of the 
comments (Carrier and Lennox) were opposed.

Assertions and Determinations

    MEUS' petition presented several arguments in support of its claim 
that the current test procedures evaluate CITY MULTI VRFZ system 
products in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy 
consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate 
comparative data. One argument concerned the complexity of testing VFRZ 
systems. The current test procedure can be used to test all current 
commercial systems in the laboratory, but many VFRZ systems cannot be 
tested in the laboratory. Each VFRZ outdoor unit can be connected with 
up to sixteen separate indoor units in a zoned system. Existing test 
laboratories cannot test more than five indoor units at a time, and 
even that number is difficult.
    A second difficulty is that MEUS offers 58 indoor unit models. Each 
of these indoor unit models is designed to be used with up to 15 other 
indoor units, which need not be the same models, in combination with a 
single outdoor unit. For each of the CITY MULTI VRFZ outdoor coils, 
there are well over 1,000,000 combinations of indoor coils that can be 
matched up in a system configuration, and it is highly impractical to 
test so many combinations.
    There are therefore two major testing problems: (1) Test 
laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and (2) 
there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units-- 
only a small fraction of the combinations could be tested. These 
problems do not support MEUS' claim that the ``current test procedures

[[Page 52662]]

evaluate CITY MULTI VRFZ system products in a manner so 
unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to 
provide materially inaccurate comparative data.'' However, they do 
support the other waiver criterion, that ``the basic model contains one 
or more design characteristics which * * * prevent testing of the basic 
model according to the prescribed test procedures. * * *''
    In its comments on the waiver petition, Carrier addressed the first 
problem, stating that testing units with two or three indoor sections 
would be a good check on the rating accuracy. Lennox addressed the 
second problem, suggesting that the Petitioner present engineering 
analysis to establish a method of sampling a range of performance. The 
Department does not believe that the solutions embodied in either 
comment are a sufficient answer to the difficulties. These solutions 
would not provide a rating comparable in accuracy with the current test 
procedure as applied to a typical commercial system with one indoor and 
one outdoor unit. Furthermore, neither commenter addressed the problem 
of the test procedure's not having been designed to cover zoned 
systems.
    The remainder of MEUS' assertions, and the comments upon them, 
relate to the energy efficiency descriptor, the energy efficiency ratio 
(EER). MEUS asserts: (1) The test procedure does not accommodate 
infinite variability in compressor speeds; (2) full load EER 
measurements are not representative of customer usage at part loads; 
and (3) the test procedure does not account for simultaneous heating 
and cooling. In short, MEUS asserts the test procedure for EER does not 
capture the energy savings of VFRZ products. While this assertion is 
true, it is irrelevant because the full load EER energy efficiency 
descriptor is the one mandated by EPCA for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(1)(c)), and the relevant energy performance is the peak load 
efficiency, not the seasonal energy savings. Therefore, a waiver can 
only be granted if a test procedure does not fairly represent the peak 
load energy consumption characteristics which EER measures. The 
Department is not convinced that the test procedures do not fairly 
represent the true (peak load) energy consumption characteristics as 
measured by EER. However, the two testing problems discussed above, 
(test laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units, and 
there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to 
test), do prevent testing of the basic model according to the 
prescribed test procedures.
    The Department consulted with The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
concerning the MEUS Petition. The FTC did not have any objections to 
the issuance of the waiver to MEUS. The Department also consulted with 
the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), who agreed 
that many VFRZ systems could not be tested in the laboratory.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted 
by MEUS, the comments received, the review by NIST, and consultation 
with the FTC, it is ordered that:
    (1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by Mitsubishi Electric and 
Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) (Case No. CAC-008) is hereby granted as 
set forth in paragraph (2) below.
    (2) MEUS shall be not be required to test or rate its CITY MULTI 
Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System (VFRZ) products listed below on 
the basis of the currently applicable test procedure:

CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System R-2 Series Outdoor 
Equipment:
    PURY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed 
heat pump.
    PURY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-
speed heat pump.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Y Series Outdoor 
Equipment:
    PUHY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed 
heat pump.
    PUHY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-
speed heat pump.
    PUY-80TMU, 80,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed 
air conditioner.
    PUY-100TMU, 100,000 Btu/h, 208/230-3-60 split-system variable-speed 
air conditioner.
CITY MULTI Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning System Indoor Equipment 
\a\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \a\ The * denotes engineering differences in the models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PCFY Series--Ceiling Suspended--PCFY-16/24/40/48***-*.
    PDFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted--PDFY-08/10/12/16/20/24/28/
32/40/48***-*.
    PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted, Low External Static 
Pressure--PEFY-08/10/12***-*.
    PEFY Series--Ceiling Concealed Ducted, High External Static 
Pressure--PEFY-16/20/24/28/32/40/48***-*.
    PFFY Series--Floor Standing--PFFY-08/10/12/16/20/24***-*.
    PKFY Series--Wall-Mounted--PKFY-08/10/12/16/20/24/32/40***-*.
    PLFY Series--4-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-12/16/20/24/32/
40/48***-*.
    PLFY Series--2-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PLFY-08/10/12/16/20/
24/32/40/48***-*.
    PMFY Series--1-Way Airflow Ceiling Cassette--PMFY-08/10/12/16***-*.

    (3) This waiver shall remain in effect from the date of issuance of 
this Order until DOE prescribes final test procedures appropriate to 
the model series manufactured by MEUS and listed above.
    (4) This waiver is based upon the presumed validity of statements, 
allegations, and documentary materials submitted by the petitioner. 
This waiver may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination 
that the factual basis underlying the Petition is incorrect.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2004.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 04-19604 Filed 8-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P