Energy Conservation Program: Treatment of “Smart” Appliances in Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures, 47518-47520 [2011-19303]
Download as PDF
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
(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
System.
Human Capital Accountability
(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
Report.
Human Capital Management
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI).
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
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
https://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
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
www.regulations.gov.
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
smart grid functionality. EPA recently
issued a framework document for
residential refrigerators, which began
discussing the possibilities of a 5percent 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47519
• 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
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
47520
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Aug 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 Regional Model
ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
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:
SUMMARY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 19,
2011.
DATES:
You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://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 Regional, 1, Allee
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
https://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.
ADDRESSES:
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
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
E:\FR\FM\05AUP1.SGM
05AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47518-47520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19303]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 SmartApplianceRFI-2011-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
[[Page 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 https://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 energy-using characteristics of ``smart''
appliances?
Should the portion of a given test procedure that verifies
the ``smart'' capabilities of the appliance be an ``add-on'' to the
existing test procedure's structure, which would essentially
[[Page 47520]]
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-
by-product 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