[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21673-21675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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/[email protected]. 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:
[email protected], 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: [email protected].
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