This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

21673 

Vol. 76, No. 74 

Monday, April 18, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BP–TP–00024] 

RIN 1904–AC46 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods and Alternate Rating Methods 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of request 

for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) seeks information and 

data related to the use of computer 

simulations, mathematical methods, and 

other alternative methods of 

determining the efficiency of certain 

types of consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

DOE intends to use the information and 

data collected in this RFI to better 

inform the proposals for a rulemaking 

addressing alternative efficiency 

determination methods (AEDM) and 

alternate rating methods (ARM) for 

these types of covered products. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

May 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024, by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: to AED/ARM-2011-TP0024@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011– 

BT–TP–0024 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011– 

BT–TP–0024, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Ms. Ashley 

Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. E-mail: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov, and Ms. 

Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, GC–32, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 287–6122. E-mail: 

Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: As part of the testing 

procedures for certain consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment (hereafter referred to 

collectively as covered products), DOE 

allows the use of AEDMs or ARMs, once 

validated, in lieu of actual testing for the 

purposes of determining the certified 

ratings for basic models. AEDMs and 

ARMs are derived from mathematical 

models and engineering principles that 

govern the energy efficiency and energy 

consumption characteristics of a basic 

model. Where authorized by regulation, 

AEDMs and ARMs enable 

manufacturers to rate their basic models 

using estimated energy use or energy 

efficiency results. DOE has authorized 

the use of AEDMs or ARMs for covered 

products that are difficult or expensive 

to test, thereby reducing the testing 

burden for manufacturers of expensive 

or highly custom basic models. 

Currently, DOE allows the use of 

alternative rating procedures, once 

specified development and validation 

criteria are met, for commercial heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) equipment; commercial water 

heaters; electric motors; distribution 

transformers; and residential split 

system central air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

DOE’s existing requirements for the 

use of an AEDM include substantiation 

of the alternative method, as well as 

subsequent verification. Substantiation 

of the AEDM requires a manufacturer to 

test a specified number of basic models 

and then compare those test results with 

values derived by an AEDM. Tested 

values and derived values for each 

individual unit must be within a 

specified percentage of each other. The 

overall averages for the tested and 

AEDM values must also be within a 

specified percentage of each other. The 

number of units tested and the 

percentage correlations are product 

specific (see 10 CFR 429.70). 

Verification of an AEDM requires a 

manufacturer to test a specified number 

of basic models with the substantiated 

AEDM. No prior approval is required 

before the AEDM can be used to certify 

products. With respect to subsequent 

verification, if a manufacturer chooses 

to use an AEDM, it must make 

information available to DOE upon 

request for verification of the AEDM, 

including but not limited to: The 

mathematical model, complete test data, 

and the calculations used to determine 

efficiency. Additionally, if requested by 

DOE, a manufacturer must perform 

simulations, analysis, or unit testing to 

verify the AEDM. 

While serving the same purpose as 

AEDMs, ARMs differ in that they are 

specific to residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps and 

require approval from DOE before they 

can be used to certify products. In order 

to receive approval for an ARM, a 

manufacturer must submit test data for 

four mixed systems of central air 

conditioners and heat pumps along with 

complete documentation of the ARM 

and products as specified in 10 CFR 

429.70(e)(2). Similar to the process for 

AEDM verification, the manufacturer 

may be required to conduct further 

analysis, including additional 

simulations, if requested by DOE. 

DOE is publishing this RFI to seek 

information regarding the current 

procedures being employed by industry 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

to rate low-volume, custom-builtequipment and to better understand 

how DOE’s current AEDM and ARM 

procedures are being applied. At this 

time, DOE is considering expanding the 

application of AEDMs to other types of 

covered commercial equipment, such as 

commercial refrigeration equipment and 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

Additionally, DOE plans to consider 

whether revisions to the procedures 

governing the substantiation and 

subsequent verification of AEDMs and 

ARMs are appropriate based on the data 

and comments received in response to 

this RFI. 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

and Information 

General 

1. What types of covered products 

necessitate or warrant the use of an 

AEDM or ARM? 

2. What are the current methods 

employed by manufacturers to rate 

commercial and certain low-volume, 

built-to-order equipment? 

3. Should DOE have two different 

types of alternative rating procedures? 

Are the distinctions between ARMs and 

AEDMs warranted? 

4. Could an AEDM or ARM be used 

across multiple product classes or 

product types? Additionally, if an 

AEDM is used across product classes or 

types, should the amount of verification 

tests performed on the AEDM be 

dependent on the number of product 

classes/types to which it is applied? 

5. Should DOE disallow the use of 

ARMs or AEDMs for manufacturers who 

have been found in non-compliance 

with an applicable conservation 

standard and/or certification 

requirement? Further, should DOE find 

all models rated using a specific ARM 

or AEDM in noncompliance as a result 

of a determination of noncompliance of 

one basic model rated with that specific 

ARM or AEDM? 

6. What are the advantages and/or 

disadvantages of DOE approval of an 

AEDM or ARM prior to use as opposed 

to maintaining and providing data upon 

request? 

7. Should DOE consider expanding 

the ARM provisions to allow for 

substitution of different system 

components (e.g., condensers) instead of 

just applying to coils for residential split 

system air conditioners and heat 

pumps? Additionally, should 

manufacturers be allowed to use ARMs 

for other residential central air 

conditioner and heat pump product 

classes? 

8. Should voluntary industry 

certification programs (VICP) be 

involved in the development, 

substantiation, and verification of 

AEDMs and ARMs, and, if so, to what 

extent? 

9. What, if any, other changes to 

current AEDM and ARM regulations 

should DOE consider that would reduce 

testing burdens while still ensuring that 

covered products are appropriately 

rated and certified as compliant with 

applicable standards? 

Substantiation 

10. The recently issued certification, 

compliance, and enforcement final rule 

added a requirement for resubstantiation of an AEDM or ARM as 

a result of a change in standard or test 

procedure. 76 FR 12492 (March 7, 

2011). What are the advantages and/or 

disadvantages of periodic resubstantiation of an ARM or AEDM? If 

re-substantiation is not necessary, 

please provide supporting data and 

specify the amount of time the AEDM or 

ARM should continue to be valid 

without further substantiation. 

11. If the current number of units 

(sample size) that must be tested to 

substantiate the AEDM or the ARM is 

either unwarranted or inadequate, on a 

product-specific basis, what would be 

an appropriate sample size? (Please 

provide supporting data.) Should there 

be certain types of basic models that 

must be used in the substantiation 

process (e.g., the highest selling basic 

model)? 

12. DOE seeks product specific 

information on the appropriate 

tolerances for substantiation of AEDMs 

and ARMs. Should these tolerances vary 

by product? Should these tolerances be 

aligned with the certification tolerances 

for a given covered product? 

13. Would it be feasible for DOE to 

create standardized tolerances across all 

products or products with similar 

characteristics to which AEDMs or 

ARMs may apply (e.g., refrigeration 

products)? 

14. Are two sets of comparison testing 

for substantiation of the AEDM for 

commercial HVAC and water heater 

equipment warranted? Would one set of 

testing be sufficient? 

Verification 

15. DOE requests information on the 

feasibility and necessity of approval of 

AEDMs before use by the manufacturer. 

16. What criteria should DOE use to 

select AEDM/ARMs for verification? 

17. When and how frequently should 

DOE verify AEDM/ARMs? 

18. What criteria should be used to 

verify AEDM/ARMs? DOE welcomes 

specific comment on the following as 

well as comment on any other 

applicable criteria: 

• Tolerances; and 

• Number of basic models per 

comparison. 

Purpose: The purpose of this RFI is to 

solicit feedback from industry, 

manufacturers, academia, consumer 

groups, efficiency advocates, 

government agencies, and other 

stakeholders on issues related to AEDMs 

and ARMs. DOE is specifically 

interested in information and sources of 

data related to covered products and 

equipment that could be used in 

formulating a methodology regarding 

creation of a standardized procedure for 

substantiation and verification, where 

applicable. This is solely a request for 

information and not a Funding 

Opportunity Announcement (FOA). 

Disclaimer and Important Notes: This 

RFI does not constitute a formal 

solicitation for proposals or abstracts. 

Your response to this notice will be 

treated as information only. In 

accordance with FAR 15.201(e), 

responses to this notice are not offers 

and cannot be accepted by the 

Government to form a binding contract. 

DOE will not provide reimbursement for 

costs incurred in responding to this RFI. 

Commenters are advised that DOE is 

under no obligation to acknowledge 

receipt of the information received or 

provide feedback to commenters with 

respect to any information submitted 

under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do 

not bind DOE to any further actions 

related to this topic. 

Proprietary Information: Patentable 

ideas, trade secrets, and proprietary or 

confidential commercial or financial 

information, may be included in 

responses to this RFI. The use and 

disclosure of such data may be 

restricted, provided the commenter 

includes the following legend on the 

first page of the comment and specifies 

the pages of the comment which are to 

be restricted: 

‘‘The data contained in pages _____ of this 

comment have been submitted in confidence 

and contain trade secrets or proprietary 

information, and such data shall be used or 

disclosed only for information and program 

planning purposes. This restriction does not 

limit the government’s right to use or 

disclose data obtained without restriction 

from any source, including the commenter, 

consistent with applicable law.’’ 

To protect such data, each line or 

paragraph on the pages containing such 

data must be specifically identified and 

marked with a legend similar to the 

following: 

‘‘The following contains proprietary 

information that (name of commenter) 

requests not be released to persons outside 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21675 

the Government, except for purposes of 

review and evaluation.’’ 

Evaluation and Administration by 

Federal and Non-Federal Personnel: 

Government civil servant employees are 

subject to the non-disclosure obligations 

of a felony criminal statute, the Trade 

Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. The 

Government may seek the advice of 

qualified non-Federal personnel. The 

Government may also use non-Federal 

personnel to conduct routine, 

nondiscretionary administrative 

activities. The commenter, by 

submitting its response, consents to 

DOE providing its response to nonFederal parties. 

Non-Federal parties given access to 

responses must be subject to an 

appropriate obligation of confidentiality 

prior to being given the access. 

Comments may be reviewed by support 

contractors and private consultants. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9274 Filed 4–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1270; 

Directorate Identifier 2001–NE–50–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dowty 

Propellers Type R321/4–82–F/8, R324/ 

4–82–F/9, R333/4–82–F/12, and R334/4– 

82–F/13 Propeller Assemblies 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to the products listed above. 

The existing AD currently requires 

initial and repetitive ultrasonic 

inspections of propeller hubs, part 

number (P/N) 660709201. Since we 

issued that AD, Dowty Propellers 

introduced a new hub assembly P/N. 

This proposed AD would revise that AD 

by introducing as an optional 

terminating action for the initial and 

repetitive ultrasonic inspections of that 

AD, replacement of propeller hub P/N 

660709201 with a new propeller hub, 

P/N 660717226. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent that same propeller hub 

failure due to cracks in the hub, which 

could result in loss of control of the 

airplane, and to introduce an optional 

terminating action. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Dowty Propellers, 

Anson Business Park, Cheltenham Road 

East, Gloucester GL 29QN, UK; 

telephone: 44 (0) 1452 716000; fax: 44 

(0) 1452 716001. You may review copies 

of the referenced service information at 

the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 

238–7761; fax: 781–238–7170; e-mail: 

michael.schwetz@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–1270; Directorate Identifier 

2001–NE–50–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On December 2, 2005, we issued AD 

2005–25–10, Amendment 39–14403 (70 

FR 73364, December 12, 2005), for 

Dowty Propellers type R321/4–82–F/8, 

R324/4–82–F/9, R333/4–82–F/12, and 

R334/4–82–F/13 propeller assemblies. 

That AD requires initial and repetitive 

ultrasonic inspections of propeller hubs, 

P/N 660709201. That AD resulted from 

a report of a hub separation on a CASA 

212 airplane, and mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. We issued that AD to prevent 

propeller hub failure due to cracks in 

the hub, which could result in loss of 

control of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued 

Since we issued AD 2005–25–10, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) has issued AD 2010–0196R1, 

dated November 12, 2010, which 

requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic 

inspections of propeller hubs, and 

introduces a new P/N propeller hub as 

optional terminating action to the 

inspections. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed the technical 

contents of Dowty Propellers Alert 

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 61–1119, 

Revision 5, dated July 1, 2009, Alert SB 

No. 61–1124, Revision 2, dated August 

25, 2010, Alert SB No. 61–1125, 

Revision 2, dated August 25, 2010, and 

Alert SB No. 61–1126, Revision 2, dated 

August 25, 2010. The SBs describe 

procedures for initial and repetitive 

ultrasonic inspections of the rear wall of 

the rear half of the propeller hub for 

cracks on types R334/4–82–F/13, R333/ 

4–82–F/12, R321/4–82–F/8, and R324/ 

4–82–F/9 propeller assemblies, 

respectively. The SBs also introduce 

new hub assembly P/N 660717226, as 

optional terminating action for the 

initial and repetitive inspections. EASA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1