47518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Provide a means to share critical 

knowledge across the organization; and 

(3) Support knowledge management 

by appropriate investment in training 

and technology. 

(c) Results-Oriented Performance 

Culture. A system that fosters a highperforming organizational culture that 

offers challenging work and is 

supported by effective performance 

management systems and awards 

programs. The core standards for the 

Results-Oriented Performance Culture 

system require an agency to have— 

(1) A diverse, results-oriented, highperforming workforce; and 

(2) A performance management 

system that effectively differentiates 

between high and low levels of 

performance and links individual/team/ 

unit performance to organizational goals 

and desired results effectively. 

(d) Talent Management. A system that 

addresses competency gaps, particularly 

in mission-critical occupations, by 

implementing and maintaining 

programs to attract, acquire, develop, 

promote, and retain quality talent. The 

core standards for the Talent 

Management system require an agency 

to— 

(1) Close skills, knowledge, and 

competency gaps/deficiencies in 

mission-critical occupations; and 

(2) Make meaningful progress toward 

closing skills, knowledge, and 

competency gaps/deficiencies in all 

occupations used in the agency. 

(e) Accountability. A system an 

agency is required to establish under 

§ 250.207 of this part that contributes to 

agency performance and mission 

accomplishment by measuring, 

monitoring and evaluating the results of 

its human capital management policies, 

programs, and activities; by analyzing 

compliance with merit system 

principles; and by identifying and 

monitoring necessary improvements. 

The core standards for the 

Accountability system require an agency 

to— 

(1) Guide its human capital 

management decisions by a data-driven, 

results-oriented planning and 

accountability system; 

(2) Inform the development of its 

human capital goals and objectives by 

the results of the agency’s accountability 

system, in conjunction with the 

agency’s strategic planning and 

performance budgets; and 

(3) Effectively apply its accountability 

system to promote effective human 

capital management in accordance with 

the merit system principles and in 

compliance with Federal laws, rules, 

and regulations. 

(f) OPM may augment the core 

standards set forth in this section with 

additional standards that the Director of 

OPM will publish in such form as the 

Director determines appropriate. 

§ 250.206 System metrics. 

(a) The required metrics that an 

agency must address focus on the three 

systems that implement the human 

resources life cycle (Leadership and 

Knowledge Management, ResultsOriented Performance Culture, and 

Talent Management) and include— 

(1) Organization metrics; 

(2) Employee perspective metrics; and 

(3) Merit system compliance metrics. 

(b) OPM will provide instructions on 

the specific metrics an agency must 

include in its Human Capital 

Management Report described in 

§ 250.208. 

(c) OPM may provide additional 

suggested metrics in guidance on 

human capital management activities 

that an agency may use in its reports. 

§ 250.207 Human Capital Accountability 

System. 

(a) Each agency must establish and 

maintain a Human Capital 

Accountability System (HCAS), 

consistent with § 250.205(e), that— 

(1) Is formal and documented; and 

(2) Is approved by OPM. 

(b) For a CHCO agency, the HCAS also 

must provide for an independent audit 

process, subject to full OPM 

participation and evaluation, to review 

periodically the agency’s human 

resources transactions to ensure legal 

and regulatory compliance. 

(c) An agency must— 

(1) Take corrective action to eliminate 

deficiencies identified in the 

independent audit and to improve its 

human capital management programs 

and its human resources processes and 

practices; and 

(2) Report the analysis, HCAS results, 

and corrective actions taken to its 

leadership and OPM. 

§ 250.208 Human Capital Management 

Report. 

(a) An agency must submit a Human 

Capital Management Report (HCMR) to 

OPM that— 

(1) Assesses human capital 

performance in relationship to the 

agency’s mission; 

(2) Addresses agency human capital 

programs and initiatives, including the 

required metrics specified in OPM 

instructions; and 

(3) Informs the development of 

human capital management goals and 

objectives to support the agency’s 

strategic planning and annual 

performance budget formulation 

processes, as well as the treatment of 

human resources results during the 

annual performance and accountability 

reporting process. 

(b) A CHCO agency must submit an 

HCMR annually. 

(c) A non-CHCO agency must submit 

an HCMR in accordance with the 

timeframe established by OPM. 

4. Revise the introductory text to 

§ 250.301 to read as follows: 

§ 250.301 Definitions. 

In this subpart— 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–19844 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–NOA– 

0038] 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Treatment of ‘‘Smart’’ Appliances in 

Energy Conservation Standards and 

Test Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) seeks information and 

comments related to the analytical 

treatment of ‘‘smart’’ appliances in the 

development of DOE’s energy 

conservation standards, as well as in 

test procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with DOE’s standards and 

qualification as an ENERGY STAR 

product. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

September 6, 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–NOA–0038, by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: to SmartApplianceRFI2011-NOA-0038@ee.doe.gov. Include 

EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0038 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Energy Conservations Standards: 

Treatment of Smart Appliances, EERE– 

2011–BT–NOA–0038, 1000 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 47519 

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 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: 

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. 

In the office of the General Counsel, 

contact Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, 1000 Independence 

Ave., SW., Room 6A–179, Washington, 

DC 20585. Telephone: 202–586–7796; 

E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support 

of its Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemakings, DOE conducts in-depth 

technical and economic analyses based 

on publicly reviewed methodologies. 

The results of these analyses determine 

whether new or amended standards are 

appropriate, and if so, which standard 

levels should be adopted. DOE 

continually seeks data and public input 

to improve the methodologies used to 

conduct these important analyses. 

The impact of ‘‘smart’’ appliances in 

the marketplace affects other programs 

as well. On January 6, 2011, several 

interested parties of consumer products, 

including manufacturers and energy 

efficiency advocates, submitted a joint 

petition to the ENERGY STAR program 

regarding smart grid enabled appliances. 

These stakeholders requested the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

consider a five percent credit to the 

ENERGY STAR performance level for 

smart grid enabled appliances that can 

provide demand response. In its 

response to stakeholders, EPA indicated 

it would continue to work closely with 

stakeholders to consider the opportunity 

and appropriate timing for ENERGY 

STAR product specifications to address 

smart grid functionality. EPA recently 

issued a framework document for 

residential refrigerators, which began 

discussing the possibilities of a 5- 

percent credit in the specification. DOE, 

as the lead agency for developing test 

procedures for the ENERGY STAR 

program, will be developing, to the 

extent necessary, test procedures for 

smart grid capable products. This RFI is 

intended to support DOE’s efforts to 

develop such test procedures and solicit 

feedback on general issues regarding 

smart appliances within the Appliance 

Standards Program. 

In this RFI, DOE seeks comment on 

whether and how to consider ‘‘smart 

appliances’’ in the development of 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures for DOE’s Appliance 

Standards Program and the ENERGY 

STAR Program. ‘‘Smart’’ features may 

enable a variety of services, including 

the ability of an appliance to change its 

normal operating behavior in response 

to a signal from a utility or another 

agent. Typical examples of operating 

changes include load shifting and load 

shedding in response to a price signal or 

a grid reliability event. Such capabilities 

could change the energy use profile of 

the appliance in active and/or standby 

mode and may require modifications to 

DOE’s traditional test procedure and 

energy conservation standards 

analytical framework used during 

rulemakings. 

In particular, DOE seeks comment and 

information on the specific topics 

below: 

Definitional Issues 

DOE recognizes that the term ‘‘smart 

appliance’’ may be defined differently 

by different parties and is often used to 

refer to any number of capabilities or 

bundle of capabilities. If DOE were to 

account for the ‘‘smart’’ features of 

appliances in some manner in its test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards analyses, it may be necessary 

to define some of these capabilities. Of 

the potential capabilities under the 

‘‘smart’’ umbrella, some are specific to 

demand response, some to energy 

efficiency, and some to consumer 

control or preferences. Many features do 

more than one of these things. Given the 

foregoing, DOE seeks input on the 

following definitional issues regarding 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. 

In your responses, to the extent 

possible, please specify whether your 

comments apply to all DOE covered 

products or to a specific product and 

whether they are meant for the ENERGY 

STAR Program, the Appliance 

Standards Program, or both. 

• How should ‘‘smart’’ appliances be 

defined for the purposes of the 

Appliance Standards Program and 

ENERGY STAR test procedures? It may 

be useful to subdivide these ‘‘smart’’ 

capabilities into several defined 

categories. Is there a specific subset of 

features or capabilities that should be 

part of a ‘‘smart appliance’’ definition? 

• Should the definition of a ‘‘smart’’ 

appliance vary based on the product 

type or should it be the same for all DOE 

covered products? Should it require 

certain minimum qualifications for all 

products (e.g., the ability to shed or shift 

load) and then have additional 

qualifications on a product-by-product 

basis? 

• Should the definition of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances include requirements for 

communication capabilities? For 

example, should it specify the use of 

one of a set of required communication 

protocols? Should the definition require 

two-way communication capability? If 

so, what data should the appliance be 

capable of sending and receiving, and 

how frequently? 

• Should ‘‘smart’’ appliances be 

required to have any specific technical 

capabilities (maintenance reminders, 

certain energy savings modes, 

programmable operations, etc.)? 

• To what extent is it important that 

the definition of ‘‘smart’’ appliances be 

the same for DOE’s regulatory 

Appliance Standards Program and the 

voluntary ENERGY STAR Program? 

Test Procedures 

DOE test procedures are fundamental 

to the Appliance Standards Program 

because they establish the protocols and 

metrics for measuring the energy use or 

efficiency of products subject to energy 

conservation standards. Incorporating 

the measurement and verification of 

‘‘smart’’ capabilities into DOE test 

procedures may add complexity and 

uncertainty to those test procedures, 

and potentially increase burden on 

manufacturers required to test their 

products. DOE is therefore interested in 

stakeholder feedback concerning if and 

how test procedures should be amended 

to measure and verify the capabilities of 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. Presumably, these 

capabilities would be specified in the 

definition of ‘‘smart’’ appliances. 

• How, if at all, should DOE test 

procedures be amended to 

accommodate the particular energyusing characteristics of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances? 

• Should the portion of a given test 

procedure that verifies the ‘‘smart’’ 

capabilities of the appliance be an ‘‘addon’’ to the existing test procedure’s 

structure, which would essentially 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
47520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

qualify or disqualify the appliance as 

‘‘smart?’’ In the alternative, should the 

portion of a given test procedure that 

verifies the ‘‘smart’’ capabilities of the 

appliance be integrated into the existing 

test procedure and internalized in the 

outputted metric on a product-byproduct basis? 

• The ‘‘smart’’ capabilities of an 

appliance are considered as part of a 

‘‘network mode.’’ IEC 62301 defines 

network mode(s) as: ‘‘Any product 

modes where the energy using product 

is connected to a mains power source 

and at least one network function is 

activated (such as reactivation via 

network command or network integrity 

communication) but where the primary 

function is not active.’’ Does this 

definition apply to all covered products 

and consumer equipment, or would 

other definitions apply more 

appropriately to certain products or 

equipment? 

• EPCA authorizes DOE to set 

standards in active, standby, and off 

mode and to amend the EPCA 

definitions for these modes as 

appropriate for a given product. DOE 

requests comments on which of these 

three modes should be used to capture 

‘‘network’’ mode energy use, or whether 

more than one of these modes should be 

used. 

• How do you expect ‘‘smart’’ 

capabilities to change the energy use of 

an appliance in active and standby 

modes? What is the energy use impact 

of ‘‘network mode’’ and how should it 

be accounted for in test procedures? 

• How should test procedures deal 

with various communication standards 

and protocols? 

Implications for Energy Conservation 

Standards Analyses 

DOE recognizes that ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances, however defined, could 

have implications on the economics and 

energy use of covered products analyzed 

during the energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

• What costs and benefits of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances can and should DOE account 

for within the appliance standards 

analytical framework? DOE seeks 

information and data that would help 

quantify such costs and benefits. 

• DOE requests information and data 

on how, if at all, product and equipment 

energy usage profiles change when they 

are equipped with ‘‘smart’’ capabilities. 

DOE specifically seeks data related to 

covered products and equipment. 

• DOE seeks estimates and 

underlying assumptions for market 

share penetration estimates of ‘‘smart’’ 

appliances, as well as other 

complementary technologies (such as 

smart meters) that may be necessary to 

the realization of ‘‘smart appliance’’ 

benefits. 

• DOE seeks information and data 

from pilot programs or studies involving 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. DOE also requests 

information of international voluntary 

and regulatory programs addressing 

‘‘smart’’ appliances. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 22, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19303 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0721; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–217–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; ATR–GIE 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional Model 

ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

One ATR operator has experienced inflight elevator travel limitations with unusual 

effort being necessary on pitch axis to control 

the aeroplane, while the ‘‘pitch mistrim’’ 

message appeared on the ADU [advisory 

display unit] display. The elevators seemed 

to be jammed. 

During the post-flight inspection, it was 

discovered that the LH [left-hand] elevator 

lower stop assembly was broken at the level 

of the angles, which may have prevented the 

elevator to respond normally to the flight 

control input. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could lead to reduced control of 

the aeroplane. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 19, 

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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–40, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact ATR–GIE 

Avions de Transport Re ́gional, 1, Alle ́e 

Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, 

France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; 

fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; e-mail 

continued.airworthiness@atr.fr; Internet 

http://www.aerochain.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office 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 Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2011–0721; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–217–AD’’ at the beginning of 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1