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

79135 

Vol. 76, No. 245 

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0004] 

RIN 1904–AB94 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Test Procedures for Residential 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

reopening of the comment period for 

interested parties to submit comments 

on the October 24, 2011 supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking for 

residential central air conditioner and 

heat test procedures. The comment 

period is extended until January 20, 

2012. 

DATES: The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking for 

residential central air conditioner and 

heat test procedures received no later 

than January 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking for Test 

Procedures for Residential Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps and 

provide docket number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0004 and/or RIN number 1904– 

AB94. Comments may be submitted 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2009–BT– 

TP–0004 and/or RIN 1904–AB94 in the 

subject line of the message. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=

FR%252BPR%252BN

%252BO%252BSR;

rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE-2009-BT-TP0004. This web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a public comment, review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Wes Anderson, 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) 586–7335. Email: 

Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General 

Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6111. 

Email: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 24, 2011, the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) published a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 65616) which proposed 

amendments to the laboratory test steps 

and calculation algorithm that would be 

used to determine off-mode power 

consumption for residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

Specifically, the SNOPR proposed to 

measure a system’s off-mode power 

consumption at two temperatures, 82 °F 

and 57 °F, and then average the two 

measurements to determine the system’s 

off-mode rating. The SNOPR required 

that interested parties submit any 

written comments by November 23, 

2011. In response to the SNOPR, the 

California State Investor Owned 

Utilities (CA IOUs), which is appended 

to this notice, expressed concern about 

a potential loophole regarding the 57 °F 

test point in DOE’s proposal. With the 

lower test point at 57 °F, it is possible 

for a system to be controlled in such a 

manner that the crankcase heater is not 

on at either test point, but comes on just 

below 57 °F. The result would be an 

underestimation of a system’s energy 

consumption because the energy 

consumption of the crankcase heater 

would not be included in either 

measurement. 

Consequently, the CA IOUs 

recommended an alternative approach 

to the test procedure proposed in the 

SNOPR. According to this approach, 

manufacturers would be required to 

specify the temperatures at which a 

crankcase heater turns on and off, and 

then to run one off-mode test 3–5 °F 

below the point at which the crankcase 

heater turns on and the other off-mode 

test 3–5 °F above the temperature at 

which the crankcase heater turns off. 

(CA IOUs, No. 33 at p. 2) American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE), the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(NEEA) and Northwest Power 

Conservation Council (NPCC) all 

supported this approach. (ACEEE & 

ASAP, No. 34 at p. 2; NEEA & NPCC, 

No. 35 at p. 3) 

DOE believes that this proposed 

approach is advantageous for multiple 

reasons. It will prevent the potential 

inaccuracies involved with requiring 

57 °F as the only test point in the DOE 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

procedure. If DOE requires just one 

temperature set point for all tested 

equipment, a potential exists that 

manufacturers may choose to change the 

temperature at which the crankcase 

heater turns on solely for testing 

purposes, resulting in an inaccurate 

power consumption measurement. 

Further, different crankcase heater 

manufacturers may employ different 

control strategies, which vary with 

temperature. The approach 

recommended by CA IOUs provides 

additional flexibility by allowing 

manufacturers to design controls 

schemes for the crankcase heaters at 

whatever temperature they feel is 

necessary to avoid damage to the 

compressor in cold outdoor 

temperatures. 

While this approach will not change 

the tested results in the SNOPR, it will 

help to reduce the complexity of test 

procedure because the crankcase heater 

will be on for one temperature test point 

and off for the other. Further, depending 

on the manufacturer’s specified 

crankcase heater on and off 

temperatures, the testing burden may be 

reduced under this recommended test 

method as compared to the method 

proposed in the SNOPR. Consequently, 

DOE is strongly considering the 

adoption of this approach and 

specifically seeks comment on any 

aspect of this approach. 

In order to provide interested parties 

with adequate time to review and 

respond to this alternative test method 

as outlined by the CA IOUs in section 

1 of their comment, DOE has 

determined that a re-opening of the 

public comment period is appropriate 

and has printed the CA IOUs comment 

concurrently with this notice in the 

Federal Register. DOE will consider any 

comments received on January 20, 2012, 

and deems any comments received 

between November 23, 2011 and 

January 20, 2012 to be timely submitted. 

Further Information on Submitting 

Comments 

Under 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit two copies: One copy of the 

document including all the information 

believed to be confidential, and one 

copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) 

A description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

14, 2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

November 22, 2011 

Ms. Brenda Edwards, EE–41, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121 

Docket Number: EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0004 

RIN: 1904–AB94 

Dear Ms. Edwards: This letter 

comprises the comments of the Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and 

Southern California Edison (SCE) in 

response to the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Supplementary Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) for the 

Off Mode Test Procedure for Residential 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps. 

The signatories of this letter represent 

some of the largest utility companies in 

the Western United States, serving over 

29 million customers. As energy 

companies, we understand the potential 

of appliance efficiency standards to cut 

costs and reduce consumption while 

maintaining or increasing consumer 

utility of the products. We have a 

responsibility to our customers to 

advocate for standards that accurately 

reflect the climate and conditions of our 

respective service areas, so as to 

maximize these positive effects. 

We acknowledge the difficulty faced 

by the Department to finalize test 

method procedures for Residential 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps given the lack of available data 

and engineering analysis applied to the 

development of these test methods. We 

are concerned that the test procedure 

revisions presented in this SNOPR 

would not encourage innovative design 

of the heating system in off-mode and 

are misleading to consumers since 

reported values are not indicative of 

actual off-mode energy use. 

Therefore, we ask DOE to postpone 

finalizing the test procedure so that 

more engineering analysis and data can 

be provided by the PG&E, SCE, the 

efficiency advocates, and other 

stakeholders to inform DOE on accurate 

updates to the test procedure. 

The current test procedures focus on 

wattage and simple work-arounds to 

account for potentially more efficient 

designs, such as those with multiple 

compressors. We believe that the test 

procedure should calculate energy use, 

as opposed to power consumption 

associated with off-mode since the run 

time in off-mode for these units is 

substantial. It is possible that units with 

slightly more power consumption levels 

in off mode consume less overall energy 

since some of those controls serve to 

reduce run-time; design strategies like 

these are not only overlooked, but not 

encouraged with this type of 

measurement of off-mode power. 

Moreover, we believe that these test 

method procedures may be substantially 

improved upon with more data 

gathering and engineering analysis, 

supported by the CA IOUs, other energy 

efficiency advocates, ASHRAE, and 

AHRI. We suggest that DOE conduct 

market analysis to provide a better 

understanding across a range of 

products the temperature set points for 

which the crankcase heater turns on and 

off. We also suggest DOE collect actual 

test data using the test procedures on an 

array of products to understand 

anticipated outputs. 

If DOE plans to move forward with 

the proposal in the SNOPR, we urge 

DOE to consider the following 

recommendations: 

1) Manufacturers should report 

ambient air temperature points for 

which the crankcase heater is on and 

off, and use those points when 

calculating off-mode. 

We are concerned that manufacturers 

could game the test procedures for offmode power consumption by designing 

crank case heaters that operate outside 

the assumed bound for the crank-case 

heater being on at an ambient air 

temperature of 57 degrees Fahrenheit 

(F). Moreover, we think the test 

procedure would be more accurate if 

manufacturers tested their products at 

the points at which the crankcase heater 

is certain to be on (P2) and off (P1). 

Thus we recommend that DOE require 

that manufacturers report these values, 

and then establish the test temperature 

to be 3–5 degrees F below the point at 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79137 

1http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762183.html, 

Date Accessed: 11/14/11. 

which it turns on, and 3–5 degrees 

above the point at which it turns off. 

2) Instead of applying a simple 

average to P1 & P2 to calculate off-mode 

power draw, DOE should apply a 

weighted average reflective of the 

amount of time the crankcase heater is 

on and off. 

We are concerned that a simple 

average of P1 & P2 could drastically 

under represent off-mode power draw. 

Using National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1

data on temperature averages between 

1971–2000 for 100 U.S. cities, we found 

that 54% of the tested sample had 

average annual temperatures below 57 

degrees F for the months of January, 

April, and October, or simplifying the 

matter, 3 out of 4 seasons or 75% of the 

year. If we assume that the majority of 

these units are located in uncooled and 

unheated spaces then we may also 

assume that 75% of the time the unit 

will operate under P2 (on) conditions, 

and 25% of the time it will operate 

under P1 (off) conditions. We 

recommend that DOE adopt this 

weighted average or conduct further 

testing to determine how often a 

crankcase heater is on versus off at 

different ambient temperature ranges 

and apply national average temperatures 

across the seasons to determine an 

appropriate weighted average. 

3) DOE should not adjust the offmode power draw for systems with 

multiple compressors or apply a scaling 

factor for extra-large systems since this 

would not represent actual off-mode 

power consumption. 

We strongly recommend against the 

use of a scaling factor for extra-large 

units and for systems with multiple 

compressors since this would under 

represent the actual power associated 

with off-mode. While we understand 

that DOE does not want to penalize 

units that may have more energy 

efficient designs, we do not think that 

it is appropriate to apply this workaround to the measurement of off-mode. 

The merits of the potentially increased 

efficiency during run-mode ought to be 

captured in the run-mode test method, 

and not in the off-mode calculation. 

Moreover, we are concerned that these 

changes will make it easy for almost any 

unit on the market to meet the standard, 

thereby negating the point of a standard 

in the first place. Finally, the test 

procedure should be designed to report 

the actual value of off-mode. These 

values should be evaluated in a future 

standards rulemaking. 

For these reasons, we strongly 

encourage DOE to revisit this test 

method with the help from stakeholders 

in the rulemaking to develop more 

appropriate test procedures. For 

instance, there has been discussion at 

utilities to conduct indepth testing of 

heat pumps and central air conditioning 

units in the coming months. We ask that 

DOE seriously consider postponing this 

final rule to assess stakeholder interest 

in improving the test method. 

In conclusion, we would like to 

reiterate our support to DOE for 

updating the test procedures for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. We thank DOE for the 

opportunity to be involved in this 

process and encourage DOE to carefully 

consider the recommendations outlined 

in this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Rajiv Dabir, 

Manager, Customer Energy Solutions, 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Ramin Faramarzi, PE, 

Manager, Technology Test Centers, 

Southern California Edison, Design & 

Engineering Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32620 Filed 12–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1358; Airspace 

Docket No. 11–ANM–19] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Establishment of Area 

Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Seattle, WA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish nine new RNAV routes 

originating within Seattle Air Route 

Traffic Control Center’s (ARTCC) 

airspace. The routes would extend 

generally east-west providing 

connection between the Seattle, WA, 

terminal area and destinations east and 

southeast of Seattle and would enhance 

en route navigation within the National 

Airspace System (NAS). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2011–1358 and 

Airspace Docket No. 11–ANM–19 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1358 and Airspace Docket No. 11– 

ANM–19) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2011–1358 and 

Airspace Docket No. 11–ANM–19.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS