```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21673-21675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9274]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 21673]]

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-TP-0024@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

[[Page 21674]]

to rate low-volume, custom-built-equipment 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 re-substantiation 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 re-substantiation 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

[[Page 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 non-Federal 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
```