Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, 5446-5454 [2016-31665]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5446
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
part 72 Certificate of Compliance
Corrections and Revisions’’ is available
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14107A510.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
0255 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background.
The NRC is issuing this RIS to inform
addressees of the processes to revise an
initial CoC and subsequent amendments
(hereafter referred to as CoCs, whether
initial CoCs or subsequent amendments)
to make administrative corrections and
technical changes using the existing
regulatory framework in 10 CFR part 72.
The NRC issues RISs to communicate
with stakeholders on a broad range of
matters.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Action
The NRC is requesting public
comments on the draft RIS. All
comments that are to receive
consideration in the final RIS must still
be submitted electronically or in writing
as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. The NRC staff will make
a final determination regarding issuance
of the RIS after it considers any public
comments received in response to this
request.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of December 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John McKirgan,
Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division
of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016–31986 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE–2015–BT–STD–
0008]
RIN 1904–AD52
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for DedicatedPurpose Pool Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR).
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. Part C of Title III establishes
the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment.’’ The
covered equipment includes pumps. In
this document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps identical
to those set forth in a direct final rule
published elsewhere in the Federal
Register. If DOE receives an adverse
comment and determines that such
comment may provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawing the direct final
rule, DOE will publish a notice
withdrawing the direct final rule and
will proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding the proposed
standards no later than May 8, 2017.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section before February
17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: If DOE withdraws the direct
final rule published elsewhere in the
Federal Register, DOE will hold a
public meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE
will publish notice of any public
meeting in the Federal Register.
Instructions: Any comments
submitted must identify the NOPR on
Energy Conservation Standards for
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, and
provide docket number EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0008 and/or regulatory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information number (RIN) 1904–AD52.
Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2) Email: PoolPumps2015STD0008@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
and/or RIN 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.
3) Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza,
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024.
Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section III of this document (‘‘Public
Participation’’).
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy through the methods listed
above and by email to Chad_S_
Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov before
February 17, 2017. Please indicate in the
‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title
and Docket Number of this rulemaking
notice.
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket Web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=
EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008. The docket
Web page contains simple instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket. See section III, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for further information
on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
Mr.
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email:
Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Proposed Standards
1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards
Considered for Dedicated-Purpose Pool
Pumps
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and
Costs of the Proposed Standards
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Authority
Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified)
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, a program covering certain
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
industrial equipment.2 ‘‘Pumps’’ are
listed as a type of covered industrial
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
While pumps are listed as a type of
covered equipment, EPCA does not
define the term ‘‘pump.’’ To address
this, in January 2016, DOE published a
test procedure final rule (January 2016
general pumps test procedure final rule)
that established a definition for the term
‘‘pump.’’ 81 FR 4086, 4147 (January 25,
2016). In the December, 2016 test
procedure final rule (‘‘test procedure
final rule’’),3 DOE noted the
applicability of the definition of
‘‘pump’’ and associated terms to
dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program for covered
equipment consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Subject to certain criteria
and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of
covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment
must use the prescribed DOE test
procedure as the basis for certifying to
DOE that their equipment complies with
the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA, and
when making representations to the
public regarding their energy use or
efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the equipment
complies with standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test
procedures for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps appear at title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431,
subpart Y, appendix B.
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment,
including dedicated-purpose pool
pumps. Any new or amended standard
for covered equipment must be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C), 6295(o), and 6316(a))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) and 6316(a))
2 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as
amended through the Energy Efficiency
Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11
(April 30, 2015).
3 See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5447
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard (1) for certain equipment,
including dedicated-purpose pool
pumps, if no test procedure has been
established for the product, or (2) if DOE
determines by rule that the standard is
not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o) and 6316(a)) In deciding
whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must
make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
1. The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to
the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the standard;
3. The total projected amount of
energy (or as applicable, water) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
6. The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
and 6316(a))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
and 6316(a))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) and
6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
5448
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
if interested persons have established by
a preponderance of the evidence that
the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
any covered product type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and
6316(a))
Additionally, EPCA specifies
requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a
different standard level for a type or
class of products that has the same
function or intended use if DOE
determines that equipment within such
group (a) consumes a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered equipment within such type (or
class); or (b) has a capacity or other
performance-related feature that other
equipment within such type (or class)
do not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group
of equipment, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
such a feature and other factors DOE
deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must
include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and
6316(a))
Federal energy conservation
requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and
6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under 42
U.S.C. 6297(d).
With particular regard to direct final
rules, the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub.
Law 110–140 (December 19, 2007),
amended EPCA, in relevant part, to
grant DOE authority to issue a type of
final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final rule’’)
establishing an energy conservation
standard for a product or equipment
(including dedicated-purpose pool
pumps) on receipt of a statement
submitted jointly by interested persons
that are fairly representative of relevant
points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of
covered equipment, States, and
efficiency advocates), as determined by
the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
and 6316(a)) That statement must
contain recommendations with respect
to an energy or water conservation
standard that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) A notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that
proposes an identical energy efficiency
standard must be published
simultaneously with the direct final rule
and a public comment period of at least
110 days provided. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Not later than 120
days after issuance of the direct final
rule, if DOE receives one or more
adverse comments or an alternative joint
recommendation relating to the direct
final rule, the Secretary must determine
whether the comments or alternative
joint recommendation may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable
law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) If the
Secretary makes such a determination,
DOE must withdraw the direct final rule
and proceed with the simultaneously
published NOPR, and publish in the
Federal Register the reason why the
direct final rule was withdrawn. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(ii))
B. Background
DOE began the separate rulemaking
for dedicated-purpose pool pumps on
May 8, 2015, when it issued a Request
for Information (RFI) (May 2015 DPPP
RFI). 80 FR 26475. Consistent with
feedback from these interested parties,
DOE began a process through the
ASRAC to charter a working group to
recommend energy conservation
standards and a test procedure for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps rather
than continuing down the traditional
notice and comment route that DOE had
already begun. (Docket No. EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0008) On August 25, 2015,
DOE published a notice of intent to
establish a working group for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps (the DPPP Working
Group). 80 FR 51483. DOE selected the
members of the DPPP Working Group to
ensure a broad and balanced array of
interested parties and expertise,
including representatives from
efficiency advocacy organizations and
manufacturers, as well as one
representative from a state government
organization. Additionally, one member
from ASRAC and one DOE
representative were part of the group.
The DPPP Working Group completed
its initial charter on December 8, 2015,
with a consensus vote to approve a term
sheet containing recommendations to
DOE on scope, metric, and the basis of
test procedure (‘‘December 2015 DPPP
Working Group recommendations’’).
ASRAC subsequently voted
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
unanimously to approve the December
2015 DPPP Working Group
recommendations during its January 20,
2016 meeting. (Docket No. EERE–2015–
BT–STD–0008, No. 0052) At the January
20, 2016 ASRAC meeting, the DPPP
Working Group also requested more
time to discuss potential energy
conservation standards for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps. In response,
ASRAC recommended that the DPPP
Working Group continue its work in a
second phase of negotiations to
recommend potential energy
conservation standards for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps. (Docket No.
EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005, No. 71 at
pp. 20–52)
The second phase of meetings
commenced on March 21, 2016 and
concluded on June 23, 2016, with
approval of a second term sheet (June
2016 DPPP Working Group
recommendations). This term sheet
contained DPPP Working Group
recommendations on performance-based
energy conservation standard levels,
scope of such standards, certain
prescriptive requirements, certain
labeling requirements, certain
definitions, and certain amendments to
its previous test procedure
recommendations. (Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0008, No. 82) ASRAC
subsequently voted unanimously to
approve the June 2016 DPPP Working
Group recommendations during the July
29, 2016 meeting.
After carefully considering the
consensus recommendations submitted
by the DPPP Working Group and
adopted by ASRAC, DOE has
determined that these recommendations
comprised a statement submitted by
interested persons who are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
on this matter. In reaching this
determination, DOE took into
consideration the fact that the Working
Group, in conjunction with ASRAC
members who approved the
recommendations, consisted of
representatives of manufacturers of
covered products, States, and efficiency
advocates—all of which are groups
specifically identified by Congress as
relevant parties to any consensus
recommendation. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)
DOE has considered the
recommended energy conservation
standards and believes that they meet
the EPCA requirements for issuance of
a direct final rule. As a result, DOE
published a direct final rule establishing
energy conservation standards for pool
pumps elsewhere in Federal Register. If
DOE receives adverse comments that
may provide a reasonable basis for
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5449
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
withdrawal and withdraws the direct
final rule, DOE will consider those
comments and any other comments
received in determining how to proceed
with this proposed rule.
For further background information
on these proposed standards and the
supporting analyses, please see the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
Federal Register. That document
includes additional discussion of the
EPCA requirements for promulgation of
energy conservation standards; the
history of the standards rulemaking for
pool pumps; and information on the test
procedures used to measure the energy
efficiency of pool pumps. The document
also contains an in-depth discussion of
the analyses conducted in support of
this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE
used in conducting those analyses, and
the analytical results.
II. Proposed Standards
1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards
Considered for Dedicated-Purpose Pool
Pumps
Table II.1 and Table II.2 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each trial standard level (TSL) for pool
pumps. The national impacts are
measured over the lifetime of dedicatedpurpose pool pumps purchased in the
30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with
new standards (2021–2050). The energy
savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to
full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency
levels contained in each TSL are
described in section V.A of the direct
final rule.
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR POOL PUMPS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
0.79 ..............
3.0 ................
3.8 ................
4.1 ................
4.6
5.1 ................
2.5 ................
17 .................
8.1 ................
24 .................
11 .................
21 .................
10 .................
25
12
42 .................
31 .................
53 .................
0.10 ..............
200 ...............
0.62 ..............
160 ...............
116 ...............
203 ...............
0.39 ..............
765 ...............
2.3 ................
202 ...............
147 ...............
257 ...............
0.50 ..............
968 ...............
3.0 ................
216 ...............
156 ...............
275 ...............
0.53 ..............
1,035 ............
3.2 ................
246
178
313
0.60
1,179
3.6
0.327 to
4.388.
0.069 to
0.549.
0.002 to
0.019.
0.103 to
0.231.
0.047 to
0.106.
1.207 to
16.402.
0.256 to
2.082.
0.007 to
0.072.
0.378 to
0.851.
0.167 to
0.377.
1.524 to
20.724.
0.324 to
2.632.
0.008 to
0.091.
0.477 to
1.075.
0.210 to
0.475.
1.624 to
22.104.
0.346 to
2.812.
0.009 to
0.097.
0.508 to
1.144.
0.222 to
0.503.
1.841 to
25.113
0.393 to
3.202
0.010 to
0.110
0.575 to
1.297
0.25 to 0.566
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings quads
NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits billion 2015$
3% discount rate ..................................................................
7% discount rate ..................................................................
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction.
CO2 million metric tons ........................................................
SO2 thousand tons ...............................................................
NOX thousand tons ..............................................................
Hg tons .................................................................................
CH4 thousand tons ...............................................................
N2O thousand tons ...............................................................
Value of Emissions Reduction
CO2 billion 2015$* ................................................................
CH4 billion 2015$ .................................................................
N2O billion 2015$ .................................................................
NOX—3% discount rate billion 2015$ ..................................
NOX—7% discount rate billion 2015$ ..................................
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
TABLE II.2—MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS TSLS
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Category
TSL 1*
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV million 2015$ (No-standards case INPV =
$212.8).
Industry NPV % change .......................................................
Consumer Average LCC Savings 2015$.
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ......................
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...........................
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..............
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..................
Waterfall Pump .....................................................................
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump .........................................
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump ..............................................
Integral Sand Filter Pump ....................................................
Consumer Simple PBP years
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ......................
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...........................
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..............
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..................
Waterfall Pumps ...................................................................
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps .......................................
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump ..............................................
Integral Sand Filter Pump ....................................................
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost %
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ......................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
TSL 2*
TSL 3*
TSL 4*
TSL 5*
201.0–210.9
178.8–200.2
166.5–219.8
126.2–195.9
36.8–110.5
(5.5)–(0.9) ....
(16.0)–(5.9) ..
(21.8)–3.3 .....
(40.7)–(7.9) ..
(82.7)–(48.1)
669 ...............
295 ...............
191 ...............
36 .................
(3) .................
111 ...............
n/a ................
n/a ................
1,779 ............
322 ...............
35 .................
36 .................
(3) .................
111 ...............
n/a ................
n/a ................
2,140 ............
295 ...............
191 ...............
36 .................
n/a ................
111 ...............
128 ...............
73 .................
2,140 ............
360 ...............
10 .................
10 .................
(20) ...............
(372) .............
n/a ................
n/a ................
2,085
414
93
10
13
(313)
n/a
n/a
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.9
4.5
0.6
n/a
n/a
0.7
2.0
2.3
0.9
4.5
0.6
n/a
n/a
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.9
n/a
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
2.1
2.3
1.6
5.4
6.0
n/a
n/a
0.6
1.9
2.1
1.6
3.7
5.1
n/a
n/a
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1 ...................
Fmt 4702
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5 ...................
Sfmt 4702
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10 .................
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10 .................
8
5450
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.2—MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS TSLS—Continued
Category
TSL 1*
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...........................
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..............
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..................
Waterfall Pumps ...................................................................
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps .......................................
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump ..............................................
Integral Sand Filter Pump ....................................................
TSL 2*
TSL 3*
TSL 4*
4 ...................
0 ...................
4 ...................
50 .................
0 ...................
n/a ................
n/a ................
27 .................
58 .................
4 ...................
50 .................
0 ...................
n/a ................
n/a ................
4 ...................
0 ...................
4 ...................
n/a ................
0 ...................
3 ...................
3 ...................
29 .................
51 .................
39 .................
70 .................
69 .................
n/a ................
n/a ................
TSL 5*
26
47
39
55
68
n/a
n/a
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
DOE first considered TSL 5, which
represents the max-tech efficiency
levels. TSL 5 would save an estimated
4.6 quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 5, the
NPV of consumer benefit would be $12
billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $25 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 5 are 246 Mt of CO2; 178
thousand tons of SO2; 313 thousand
tons of NOX´ 0.60 tons of Hg; 1,179
thousand tons of CH4´ and 3.6 thousand
tons of N2O. The estimated monetary
value of the GHG emissions reduction at
TSL 5 ranges from $1.8 billion to $25
billion for CO2, from $393 million to
3,202 million for CH4, and from $10
million to $110 million for N2O. The
estimated monetary value of the NOX
emissions reduction at TSL 5 is $250
million using a 7-percent discount rate
and $575 million using a 3-percent
discount rate.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is
a savings that ranges from $10 for extrasmall non-self-priming pumps, to
$2,085 for standard-size self-priming
pump, except for pressure cleaner
booster pumps, which have a savings of
negative $313. The simple payback
period ranges from 0.6 years for
standard-size self-priming pumps to 5.1
years for pressure cleaner booster
pumps. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from
eight percent for standard-size selfpriming pumps to 68 percent for
pressure cleaner booster pumps.
At TSL 5, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $176.0
million to a decrease of $102.3 million,
which correspond to decreases of 82.7
percent and 48.1 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$199.5 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 5. Manufacturers
would need to redesign a significant
portion of the equipment they offer,
including hydraulic redesigns to convert
the vast majority of their standard-size
self-priming pool filter pumps.
The Secretary tentatively concludes
that at TSL 5 for dedicated-purpose pool
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
pumps, the benefits of energy savings,
positive NPV of consumer benefits,
emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the
economic burden on some consumers,
and the significant impacts on
manufacturers, including the large
conversion costs and profit margin
impacts that could result in a large
reduction in INPV. Consequently, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which
represents efficiency levels based on
variable speed technology for most
equipment classes. TSL 4 would save an
estimated 4.1 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $10 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $21
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 216 Mt of CO2, 156
thousand tons of SO2, 275 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.53 tons of Hg,
1,035thousand tons of CH4, and 3.2
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the GHG emissions
reduction at TSL 4 ranges from $1.6
billion to $22 billion for CO2, from $346
million to $2,812 million for CH4, and
from $8.8 million to $97 million for
N2O. The estimated monetary value of
the NOX emissions reduction at TSL 4
is $222 million using a 7-percent
discount rate and $508 million using a
3-percent discount rate.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is
a savings that ranges from $10 for extrasmall non-self-priming pumps, to
$2,140 for standard-size self-priming
pumps, except for pressure cleaner
booster pumps, which have a savings of
negative $372, and waterfall pumps,
which have a savings of negative $20.
The simple payback period ranges from
0.7 years for standard-size self-priming
pumps to 6.0 years for pressure cleaner
booster pumps. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
ranges from 10 percent for standard-size
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
self-priming pumps to 70 percent for
waterfall pumps.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.6
million to a decrease of $16.9 million,
which correspond to decreases of 40.7
percent and 7.9 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest
$68.4 million to comply with standards
set at TSL 4.
The Secretary tentatively concludes
that at TSL 4 for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps, the benefits of energy savings,
positive NPV of consumer benefits,
emission reductions, and the estimated
monetary value of the emissions
reductions, would be outweighed by the
economic burden on some consumers,
and the significant impacts on
manufacturers, including the large
conversion costs and profit margin
impacts that could result in a large
reduction in INPV. Consequently, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, the
recommended TSL, which would save
an estimated 3.8 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $11 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $24
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 3 are 202 Mt of CO2, 147
thousand tons of SO2; 257 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.50 tons of Hg, 968
thousand tons of CH4; and 3.0 thousand
tons of N2O. The estimated monetary
value of the GHG emissions reduction at
TSL 3 ranges from $1.5 billion to $21
billion for CO2, from $324 million to
$2,632 million for CH4, and from $8.3
million to $91 million for N2O. The
estimated monetary value of the NOX
emissions reduction at TSL 3 is $210
million using a 7-percent discount rate
and $477 million using a 3-percent
discount rate.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is
a savings that ranges from $36 for extrasmall non-self-priming pool filter
pumps to $2,140 for standard-size selfpriming pumps. The simple payback
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
period ranges from 0.2 years for
standard-size non-self-priming pool
filter pumps to 0.8 years for extra-small
non-self-priming pool filter pumps. The
fraction of consumers experiencing a net
LCC cost ranges from zero percent for
standard-size non-self-priming pumps
and pressure cleaner booster pumps to
10 percent for standard-size self-priming
pumps.
At TSL 3, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $46.3
million to an increase of $7.0 million,
which represents a decrease of 21.8
percent to an increase of 3.3 percent,
respectively. DOE estimates that
industry must invest $35.6 million to
comply with standards set at TSL 3.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded
that, at TSL 3 for dedicated-purpose
pool pumps, the benefits of energy
savings, positive NPV of consumer
benefits, emission reductions, the
estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions, and positive
average LCC savings, would outweigh
the potential negative impacts on
manufacturers. Accordingly, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
TSL 3 would offer the maximum
5451
improvement in efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in the significant conservation of
energy.
Therefore, based on the above
considerations, DOE proposes the
energy conservation standards for pool
pumps at TSL 3. The proposed
performance-based energy conservation
standards for pool pumps, which are
expressed as kgal/kWh, are shown in
Table II.3. The proposed prescriptive
energy conservation standards for pool
pumps are shown in Table II.4.
TABLE II.3—PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL
PUMPS
Equipment class
Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety
hhp Applicability*
Self-priming pool filter pumps ...........................
Self-priming pool filter pumps ...........................
0.711 hp ≤ hhp < 2.5 hp .....
hhp < 0.711 hp ....................
Single .............
Single .............
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps** .................
hhp < 2.5 hp ........................
Any .................
Pressure cleaner booster pumps ......................
Any ......................................
Any .................
Minimum allowable WEF score
[kgal/kwh]
Motor phase
¥2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59.
5.55, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp
¥ 1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90, for hhp > 0.13 hp.
4.60, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp
¥ 0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87, for hhp > 0.13 hp.
0.42.
* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and
applicable sampling plans.
** Because DOE selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small and standard-size non-self-priming pool filter pumps, the two equipment classes were ultimately merged into one.
TABLE II.4—PROPOSED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS
Equipment class
Prescriptive standard
hhp
Applicability
Motor phase
Integral sand filter pool pump ..........
Any .................
Any .................
Integral cartridge filter pool pump ....
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Dedicated-purpose pool pump
variety
Any .................
Any .................
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and
Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is (1) the annualized national
economic value (expressed in 2015$) of
the benefits from operating equipment
that meet the adopted standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in product purchase costs, and
(2) the annualized monetary value of the
benefits of GHG and NOX emission
reductions.
Must be distributed in commerce with
integral to the pump or a separate
the pump.
Must be distributed in commerce with
integral to the pump or a separate
the pump.
Table II.5 shows the annualized
values for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps under TSL 3, expressed in
2015$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
benefits and costs other than GHG
reduction (for which DOE used average
social costs with a 3-percent discount
rate),4 the estimated cost of the
standards in this rule is $138 million
per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are
$1.3 billion in reduced equipment
operating costs, $449 million in GHG
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a pool pump timer that is either
component that is shipped with
reductions, and $22 million in reduced
NOX emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $1.7 billion per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the adopted standards for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps is $149 million per
year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are
$1.5 billion in reduced operating costs,
$449 million in CO2 reductions, and $27
million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to
$1.8 billion per year.
4 DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent
discount rate these values are considered as the
‘‘central’’ estimates by the interagency group.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
a pool pump timer that is either
component that is shipped with
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5452
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.5—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL
PUMPS
Million 2015$/year
Discount rate
%
Primary
estimate
Low-net-benefits estimate
High-net-benefits estimate
7 ................................
3 ................................
5 ................................
3 ................................
2.5 .............................
3 ................................
1,340 ..............
1,516 ..............
147 .................
449 .................
642 .................
1,346 ..............
1,221 ..............
1,367 ..............
129 .................
392 .................
560 .................
1,175 ..............
1,467
1,678
164
504
721
1,510
7% .............................
3% .............................
22 ...................
27 ...................
20 ...................
24 ...................
55
70
7%
7%
3%
3%
1,509
1,811
1,690
1,993
1,369
1,633
1,520
1,783
1,686 to 3,032
2,026
1,912 to 3,258
2,252
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ....................................................
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate)** .......
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate)** .......
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate)** ....
GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount
rate)**.
NOX Reduction † .................................................................................
Total Benefits ‡ ....................................................................................
plus GHG range ..
.............................
plus GHG range ..
.............................
to 2,708
..............
to 2,890
..............
to 2,416
..............
to 2,566
..............
Costs
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ...........................................
Manufacturer Conversion Costs †† .....................................................
7%
3%
7%
3%
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
138 .................
149 .................
3 .....................
2 .....................
124 .................
133 .................
3 .....................
2 .....................
151
164
3
2
1,371
1,673
1,542
1,844
1,245
1,509
1,387
1,651
1,535 to 2,881
1,875
1,748 to 3,094
2,088
Net Benefits
Total ‡ ...........................................................................................
7%
7%
3%
3%
plus GHG range ..
.............................
plus GHG range ..
.............................
to 2,570
..............
to 2,741
..............
to 2,292
..............
to 2,433
..............
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pool pumps shipped in 2021–2050. These results include benefits to
consumers which accrue after 2050 from the pool pumps purchased from 2021–2050. The incremental equipment costs include incremental
equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the
proposed standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates
utilize projections of energy prices and real GDP from the AEO2016 No–CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth
case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect the default price trend in the Primary Estimate, a high price trend in the Low
Benefits Estimate, and a low price trend in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of the DFR. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC–CO2 SC–CH4, and SC–N2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are
based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth
set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year
specific. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. See section IV.L of the DFR for more details.
† DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.3 for further discussion.
For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NOX emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than
those from the ACS study.
‡ Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the
rows labeled ‘‘7% plus GHG range’’ and ‘‘3% plus GHG range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount
rate, and those values are added to the full range of social cost values.
†† Manufacturers are estimated to incur $35.6 million in conversion costs between 2017 and 2020.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements
As part of the DPPP Working Group’s
extended charter, the DPPP Working
Group considered requirements for
pumps distributed in commerce with
freeze protections controls. (Docket No.
EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005, No. 71 at
pp. 20–52) Freeze protection controls, as
defined in the test procedure final rule,
are controls that, at certain ambient
temperature, turn on the dedicatedpurpose pool pump to circulate water
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
for a period of time to prevent the pool
and water in plumbing from freezing. As
the control schemes for freeze
protection vary widely between
manufacturers, the resultant energy
consumption associated with such
control can also vary depending on
control settings and climate. To ensure
freeze protection controls on dedicatedpurpose pool pumps only operate when
necessary and do not result in
unnecessary energy use, the DPPP
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Working Group recommended
establishing prescriptive requirements
for dedicated-purpose pool pumps that
are distributed in commerce with freeze
protection controls. Specifically, the
DPPP Working Group made the
following recommendation, which it
purports to maintain end-user utility
while also reducing energy
consumption:
All dedicated-purpose pool pumps
distributed in commerce with freeze
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
protection controls must be shipped
either with freeze protection disabled,
or with the following default, useradjustable settings: (1) The default drybulb air temperature setting is no greater
than 40 °F; and (2) the default run time
setting shall be no greater than 1 hour
(before the temperature is rechecked);
and (3) the default motor speed shall not
be more than half of the maximum
available speed. Id. (Docket No. EERE–
2015–BT–STD–0008, No. 82,
Recommendation #6A at p. 4). DOE
agrees with the DPPP Working Group’s
reasoning, and given the considerations
discussed in section III.A of the Direct
Final Rule, DOE proposes to adopt the
recommended prescriptive standard for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps
distributed in commerce with freeze
protection controls.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for
this proposed rule are identical to those
conducted for the direct final rule
published elsewhere in Federal
Register. Please see the direct final rule
for further details.
V. Public Participation
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail also will be
posted to www.regulations.gov. If you
do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a
cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone
number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include
any comments
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5453
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 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 via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. 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 that 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.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE
withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in the Federal
Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public
meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE
will publish notice of any meeting in
the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5454
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Small businesses.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Section 431.462 is amended by
adding the definition for ‘‘pool pump
timer’’ in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
■
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
23, 2016.
David J. Friedman,
Acting Assistant SecretaryEnergy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
§ 431.462
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Pool pump timer means a pool pump
control that automatically turns off a
dedicated-purpose pool pump after a
run-time of no longer than 10 hours.
*
*
*
*
*
Equipment class
Minimum
allowable
WEF score
[kgal/kWh]
hhp
Applicability
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Variety
3. Section 431.465 is amended by
adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
■
§ 431.465 Pumps energy conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) For the purposes of paragraph (f)
of this section, ‘‘WEF’’ means the
weighted energy factor and ‘‘hhp’’
means the rated hydraulic horsepower,
as determined in accordance with the
test procedure in § 431.464(b) and
applicable sampling plans in § 429.59 of
this chapter.
(f) Each dedicated-purpose pool pump
that is not a submersible pump and is
manufactured starting on July 19, 2021
must have a WEF rating that is not less
than the value calculated from the
following table:
Minimum allowable WEF score [kgal/kWh]
Motor phase
0.711 hp ≤ hhp < 2.5 hp
hhp < 0.711 hp .............
Single .............
Single .............
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps ........................
hhp < 2.5 hp .................
Any .................
Pressure cleaner booster pumps .........................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Self-priming pool filter pumps ...............................
Self-priming pool filter pumps ...............................
Any ................................
Any .................
(g) Each integral cartridge filter pool
pump and integral sand filter pool
pump that is manufactured starting on
July 19, 2021 must be distributed in
commerce with a pool pump timer that
is either integral to the pump or a
separate component that is shipped
with the pump.
(h) For all dedicated-purpose pool
pumps distributed in commerce with
freeze protection controls, the pump
must be shipped with freeze protection
disabled or with the following default,
user-adjustable settings:
(1) The default dry-bulb air
temperature setting is no greater than
40 °F;
(2) The default run time setting shall
be no greater than 1 hour (before the
temperature is rechecked); and
(3) The default motor speed shall not
be more than 1⁄2 of the maximum
available speed.
[FR Doc. 2016–31665 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0755; Directorate
Identifier 2010–NE–12–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce
plc Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to supersede
airworthiness directive (AD) 2012–04–
01 that applies to all Rolls-Royce plc
(RR) RB211–Trent 800 model turbofan
engines. AD 2012–04–01 requires
removal from service of certain critical
engine rotating parts based on reduced
life limits. Since we issued AD 2012–
04–01, RR has further revised the life
limits of certain critical engine rotating
parts. This proposed AD would make
additional revisions to the life limits of
certain critical engine rotating parts. We
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
WEF = ¥2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59.
WEF = 5.55, for hhp ≤ 1.30. hp
¥ 1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90, for hhp > 0.13 hp.
WEF = 4.60, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp
¥0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87, for hhp > 0.13 hp.
WEF = 0.42
are proposing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2010–
0755; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5446-5454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31665]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AD52
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. Part C of Title III establishes the ``Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.'' The covered equipment
includes pumps. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy
conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps identical to
those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in the
Federal Register. If DOE receives an adverse comment and determines
that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the
direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the direct
final rule and will proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposed standards no later than May 8, 2017.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section before February 17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere
in the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of
any public meeting in the Federal Register.
Instructions: Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR on
Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, and
provide docket number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008 and/or regulatory
information number (RIN) 1904-AD52. Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2) Email: PoolPumps2015STD0008@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number and/or RIN 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.
3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202)
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section III of this document (``Public
Participation'').
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to
Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at energy.standards@usdoj.gov before
February 17, 2017. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your
email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in
[[Page 5447]]
the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index may not be publicly available, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008. The docket Web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for further
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC,
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
586-6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Proposed Standards
1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards Considered for Dedicated-
Purpose Pool Pumps
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed
Standards
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA), (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program
covering certain industrial equipment.\2\ ``Pumps'' are listed as a
type of covered industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended
through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law
114-11 (April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pumps are listed as a type of covered equipment, EPCA does
not define the term ``pump.'' To address this, in January 2016, DOE
published a test procedure final rule (January 2016 general pumps test
procedure final rule) that established a definition for the term
``pump.'' 81 FR 4086, 4147 (January 25, 2016). In the December, 2016
test procedure final rule (``test procedure final rule''),\3\ DOE noted
the applicability of the definition of ``pump'' and associated terms to
dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered
equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to
certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test
procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)
and 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed
DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their
equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards
adopted under EPCA, and when making representations to the public
regarding their energy use or efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE
test procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps appear at title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart Y, appendix B.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including dedicated-purpose
pool pumps. Any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C), 6295(o), and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any
standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not
prescribe a standard (1) for certain equipment, including dedicated-
purpose pool pumps, if no test procedure has been established for the
product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically
justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard
exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) and 6316(a))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) and 6316(a))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) and 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard
[[Page 5448]]
if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in
the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally
available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE
determines that equipment within such group (a) consumes a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within
such type (or class); or (b) has a capacity or other performance-
related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not
have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related
feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE
must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)
and 6316(a))
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
With particular regard to direct final rules, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. Law 110-140
(December 19, 2007), amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE
authority to issue a type of final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'')
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product or equipment
(including dedicated-purpose pool pumps) on receipt of a statement
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers
of covered equipment, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined
by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) and 6316(a)) That statement
must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water
conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) A notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard
must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a
public comment period of at least 110 days provided. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct
final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an
alternative joint recommendation relating to the direct final rule, the
Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative joint
recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) If
the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct
final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR, and
publish in the Federal Register the reason why the direct final rule
was withdrawn. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(ii))
B. Background
DOE began the separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps
on May 8, 2015, when it issued a Request for Information (RFI) (May
2015 DPPP RFI). 80 FR 26475. Consistent with feedback from these
interested parties, DOE began a process through the ASRAC to charter a
working group to recommend energy conservation standards and a test
procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps rather than continuing down
the traditional notice and comment route that DOE had already begun.
(Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008) On August 25, 2015, DOE published a
notice of intent to establish a working group for dedicated-purpose
pool pumps (the DPPP Working Group). 80 FR 51483. DOE selected the
members of the DPPP Working Group to ensure a broad and balanced array
of interested parties and expertise, including representatives from
efficiency advocacy organizations and manufacturers, as well as one
representative from a state government organization. Additionally, one
member from ASRAC and one DOE representative were part of the group.
The DPPP Working Group completed its initial charter on December 8,
2015, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing
recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and the basis of test
procedure (``December 2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations''). ASRAC
subsequently voted unanimously to approve the December 2015 DPPP
Working Group recommendations during its January 20, 2016 meeting.
(Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 0052) At the January 20, 2016
ASRAC meeting, the DPPP Working Group also requested more time to
discuss potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose
pool pumps. In response, ASRAC recommended that the DPPP Working Group
continue its work in a second phase of negotiations to recommend
potential energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 71 at pp. 20-52)
The second phase of meetings commenced on March 21, 2016 and
concluded on June 23, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet (June
2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations). This term sheet contained
DPPP Working Group recommendations on performance-based energy
conservation standard levels, scope of such standards, certain
prescriptive requirements, certain labeling requirements, certain
definitions, and certain amendments to its previous test procedure
recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82) ASRAC
subsequently voted unanimously to approve the June 2016 DPPP Working
Group recommendations during the July 29, 2016 meeting.
After carefully considering the consensus recommendations submitted
by the DPPP Working Group and adopted by ASRAC, DOE has determined that
these recommendations comprised a statement submitted by interested
persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on
this matter. In reaching this determination, DOE took into
consideration the fact that the Working Group, in conjunction with
ASRAC members who approved the recommendations, consisted of
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates--all of which are groups specifically identified
by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)
DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a
direct final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule
establishing energy conservation standards for pool pumps elsewhere in
Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a
reasonable basis for
[[Page 5449]]
withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those
comments and any other comments received in determining how to proceed
with this proposed rule.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in Federal Register. That document includes additional
discussion of the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy
conservation standards; the history of the standards rulemaking for
pool pumps; and information on the test procedures used to measure the
energy efficiency of pool pumps. The document also contains an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the
methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical
results.
II. Proposed Standards
1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards Considered for Dedicated-Purpose
Pool Pumps
Table II.1 and Table II.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each trial standard level (TSL) for pool pumps. The
national impacts are measured over the lifetime of dedicated-purpose
pool pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with new standards (2021-2050). The
energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions
refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in
each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule.
Table II.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Pool Pumps TSLs: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy
Savings quads
0.79.................. 3.0................... 3.8................... 4.1.................. 4.6
NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits
billion 2015$
3% discount rate.............. 5.1................... 17.................... 24.................... 21................... 25
7% discount rate.............. 2.5................... 8.1................... 11.................... 10................... 12
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 million metric tons....... 42.................... 160................... 202................... 216.................. 246
SO2 thousand tons............. 31.................... 116................... 147................... 156.................. 178
NOX thousand tons............. 53.................... 203................... 257................... 275.................. 313
Hg tons....................... 0.10.................. 0.39.................. 0.50.................. 0.53................. 0.60
CH4 thousand tons............. 200................... 765................... 968................... 1,035................ 1,179
N2O thousand tons............. 0.62.................. 2.3................... 3.0................... 3.2.................. 3.6
Value of Emissions Reduction
CO2 billion 2015$\*\.......... 0.327 to 4.388........ 1.207 to 16.402....... 1.524 to 20.724....... 1.624 to 22.104...... 1.841 to 25.113
CH4 billion 2015$............. 0.069 to 0.549........ 0.256 to 2.082........ 0.324 to 2.632........ 0.346 to 2.812....... 0.393 to 3.202
N2O billion 2015$............. 0.002 to 0.019........ 0.007 to 0.072........ 0.008 to 0.091........ 0.009 to 0.097....... 0.010 to 0.110
NOX--3% discount rate billion 0.103 to 0.231........ 0.378 to 0.851........ 0.477 to 1.075........ 0.508 to 1.144....... 0.575 to 1.297
2015$.
NOX--7% discount rate billion 0.047 to 0.106........ 0.167 to 0.377........ 0.210 to 0.475........ 0.222 to 0.503....... 0.25 to 0.566
2015$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
Table II.2--Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps TSLs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4* TSL 5*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV million 2015$ (No- 201.0-210.9........... 178.8-200.2........... 166.5-219.8........... 126.2-195.9.......... 36.8-110.5
standards case INPV = $212.8).
Industry NPV % change......... (5.5)-(0.9)........... (16.0)-(5.9).......... (21.8)-3.3............ (40.7)-(7.9)......... (82.7)-(48.1)
Consumer Average LCC Savings 2015$
Standard-Size Self-Priming 669................... 1,779................. 2,140................. 2,140................ 2,085
Pool Filter Pump.
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool 295................... 322................... 295................... 360.................. 414
Filter Pump.
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming 191................... 35.................... 191................... 10................... 93
Pool Filter Pump.
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming 36.................... 36.................... 36.................... 10................... 10
Pool Filter Pump.
Waterfall Pump................ (3)................... (3)................... n/a................... (20)................. 13
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump. 111................... 111................... 111................... (372)................ (313)
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump n/a................... n/a................... 128................... n/a.................. n/a
Integral Sand Filter Pump..... n/a................... n/a................... 73.................... n/a.................. n/a
Consumer Simple PBP years
Standard-Size Self-Priming 0.6................... 0.7................... 0.7................... 0.7.................. 0.6
Pool Filter Pump.
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool 0.8................... 2.0................... 0.8................... 2.1.................. 1.9
Filter Pump.
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming 0.2................... 2.3................... 0.2................... 2.3.................. 2.1
Pool Filter Pump.
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming 0.9................... 0.9................... 0.9................... 1.6.................. 1.6
Pool Filter Pump.
Waterfall Pumps............... 4.5................... 4.5................... n/a................... 5.4.................. 3.7
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps 0.6................... 0.6................... 0.6................... 6.0.................. 5.1
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump n/a................... n/a................... 0.4................... n/a.................. n/a
Integral Sand Filter Pump..... n/a................... n/a................... 0.5................... n/a.................. n/a
Percent of Consumers that
Experience a Net Cost %
Standard-Size Self-Priming 1..................... 5..................... 10.................... 10................... 8
Pool Filter Pump.
[[Page 5450]]
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool 4..................... 27.................... 4..................... 29................... 26
Filter Pump.
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming 0..................... 58.................... 0..................... 51................... 47
Pool Filter Pump.
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming 4..................... 4..................... 4..................... 39................... 39
Pool Filter Pump.
Waterfall Pumps............... 50.................... 50.................... n/a................... 70................... 55
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps 0..................... 0..................... 0..................... 69................... 68
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump n/a................... n/a................... 3..................... n/a.................. n/a
Integral Sand Filter Pump..... n/a................... n/a................... 3..................... n/a.................. n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 5 would save an estimated 4.6 quads of energy,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $12 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$25 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 246 Mt of
CO2; 178 thousand tons of SO2; 313 thousand tons
of NOX; 0.60 tons of Hg; 1,179 thousand tons of
CH4; and 3.6 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 5 ranges from $1.8
billion to $25 billion for CO2, from $393 million to 3,202
million for CH4, and from $10 million to $110 million for
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX
emissions reduction at TSL 5 is $250 million using a 7-percent discount
rate and $575 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings that ranges from $10
for extra-small non-self-priming pumps, to $2,085 for standard-size
self-priming pump, except for pressure cleaner booster pumps, which
have a savings of negative $313. The simple payback period ranges from
0.6 years for standard-size self-priming pumps to 5.1 years for
pressure cleaner booster pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing
a net LCC cost ranges from eight percent for standard-size self-priming
pumps to 68 percent for pressure cleaner booster pumps.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$176.0 million to a decrease of $102.3 million, which correspond to
decreases of 82.7 percent and 48.1 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $199.5 million to comply with standards set
at TSL 5. Manufacturers would need to redesign a significant portion of
the equipment they offer, including hydraulic redesigns to convert the
vast majority of their standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for dedicated-
purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic
burden on some consumers, and the significant impacts on manufacturers,
including the large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that
could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary
has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents efficiency levels based
on variable speed technology for most equipment classes. TSL 4 would
save an estimated 4.1 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $10
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 216 Mt of
CO2, 156 thousand tons of SO2, 275 thousand tons
of NOX, 0.53 tons of Hg, 1,035thousand tons of
CH4, and 3.2 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 4 ranges from $1.6
billion to $22 billion for CO2, from $346 million to $2,812
million for CH4, and from $8.8 million to $97 million for
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX
emissions reduction at TSL 4 is $222 million using a 7-percent discount
rate and $508 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings that ranges from $10
for extra-small non-self-priming pumps, to $2,140 for standard-size
self-priming pumps, except for pressure cleaner booster pumps, which
have a savings of negative $372, and waterfall pumps, which have a
savings of negative $20. The simple payback period ranges from 0.7
years for standard-size self-priming pumps to 6.0 years for pressure
cleaner booster pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC
cost ranges from 10 percent for standard-size self-priming pumps to 70
percent for waterfall pumps.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$86.6 million to a decrease of $16.9 million, which correspond to
decreases of 40.7 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry must invest $68.4 million to comply with standards set at
TSL 4.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for dedicated-
purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions, would be outweighed by the economic
burden on some consumers, and the significant impacts on manufacturers,
including the large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that
could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary
has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3, the recommended TSL, which would save an
estimated 3.8 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $11 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $24 billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 202 Mt of
CO2, 147 thousand tons of SO2; 257 thousand tons
of NOX, 0.50 tons of Hg, 968 thousand tons of
CH4; and 3.0 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $1.5
billion to $21 billion for CO2, from $324 million to $2,632
million for CH4, and from $8.3 million to $91 million for
N2O. The estimated monetary value of the NOX
emissions reduction at TSL 3 is $210 million using a 7-percent discount
rate and $477 million using a 3-percent discount rate.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings that ranges from $36
for extra-small non-self-priming pool filter pumps to $2,140 for
standard-size self-priming pumps. The simple payback
[[Page 5451]]
period ranges from 0.2 years for standard-size non-self-priming pool
filter pumps to 0.8 years for extra-small non-self-priming pool filter
pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges
from zero percent for standard-size non-self-priming pumps and pressure
cleaner booster pumps to 10 percent for standard-size self-priming
pumps.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$46.3 million to an increase of $7.0 million, which represents a
decrease of 21.8 percent to an increase of 3.3 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest $35.6 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 3.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that, at TSL 3 for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive
NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary
value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings,
would outweigh the potential negative impacts on manufacturers.
Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 would
offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes the
energy conservation standards for pool pumps at TSL 3. The proposed
performance-based energy conservation standards for pool pumps, which
are expressed as kgal/kWh, are shown in Table II.3. The proposed
prescriptive energy conservation standards for pool pumps are shown in
Table II.4.
Table II.3--Proposed Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum allowable WEF
Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety hhp Applicability* Motor phase score [kgal/kwh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-priming pool filter pumps...... 0.711 hp <= hhp < 2.5 Single................... -2.30 * ln (hhp) +
hp. 6.59.
Self-priming pool filter pumps...... hhp < 0.711 hp......... Single................... 5.55, for hhp <= 0.13
hp
- 1.30 * ln (hhp) +
2.90, for hhp > 0.13
hp.
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps** hhp < 2.5 hp........... Any...................... 4.60, for hhp <= 0.13
hp
- 0.85 * ln (hhp) +
2.87, for hhp > 0.13
hp.
Pressure cleaner booster pumps...... Any.................... Any...................... 0.42.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower as determined in accordance with the DOE test
procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and applicable sampling plans.
** Because DOE selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small and standard-size non-self-priming pool
filter pumps, the two equipment classes were ultimately merged into one.
Table II.4--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated-purpose pool pump Prescriptive standard
variety hhp Applicability Motor phase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integral sand filter pool pump.... Any..................... Any.................... Must be distributed in
commerce with a pool
pump timer that is
either integral to the
pump or a separate
component that is
shipped with the pump.
Integral cartridge filter pool Any..................... Any.................... Must be distributed in
pump. commerce with a pool
pump timer that is
either integral to the
pump or a separate
component that is
shipped with the pump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2015$) of the
benefits from operating equipment that meet the adopted standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the benefits of GHG and NOX emission
reductions.
Table II.5 shows the annualized values for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps under TSL 3, expressed in 2015$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than
GHG reduction (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent
discount rate),\4\ the estimated cost of the standards in this rule is
$138 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated
annual benefits are $1.3 billion in reduced equipment operating costs,
$449 million in GHG reductions, and $22 million in reduced
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.7
billion per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate
these values are considered as the ``central'' estimates by the
interagency group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the adopted standards for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps is $149 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1.5 billion in reduced operating costs,
$449 million in CO2 reductions, and $27 million in reduced
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.8
billion per year.
[[Page 5452]]
Table II.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 3) for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2015$/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate % High-net-benefits
Primary estimate Low-net-benefits estimate estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings..... 7................................ 1,340.................... 1,221.................... 1,467
3................................ 1,516.................... 1,367.................... 1,678
GHG Reduction (using avg. social 5................................ 147...................... 129...................... 164
costs at 5% discount rate)**.
GHG Reduction (using avg. social 3................................ 449...................... 392...................... 504
costs at 3% discount rate)**.
GHG Reduction (using avg. social 2.5.............................. 642...................... 560...................... 721
costs at 2.5% discount rate)**.
GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile 3................................ 1,346.................... 1,175.................... 1,510
social costs at 3% discount rate)**.
NOX Reduction [dagger].............. 7%............................... 22....................... 20....................... 55
3%............................... 27....................... 24....................... 70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [Dagger]............. 7% plus GHG range................ 1,509 to 2,708........... 1,369 to 2,416........... 1,686 to 3,032
7%............................... 1,811.................... 1,633.................... 2,026
3% plus GHG range................ 1,690 to 2,890........... 1,520 to 2,566........... 1,912 to 3,258
3%............................... 1,993.................... 1,783.................... 2,252
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs 7%............................... 138...................... 124...................... 151
3%............................... 149...................... 133...................... 164
Manufacturer Conversion Costs 7%............................... 3........................ 3........................ 3
[dagger][dagger]. 3%............................... 2........................ 2........................ 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [Dagger].................. 7% plus GHG range................ 1,371 to 2,570........... 1,245 to 2,292........... 1,535 to 2,881
7%............................... 1,673.................... 1,509.................... 1,875
3% plus GHG range................ 1,542 to 2,741........... 1,387 to 2,433........... 1,748 to 3,094
3%............................... 1,844.................... 1,651.................... 2,088
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pool pumps shipped in 2021-2050. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2050 from the pool pumps purchased from 2021-2050. The incremental equipment costs include incremental equipment cost as well as
installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the proposed standards, some of
which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
and real GDP from the AEO2016 No-CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect the default price trend in the Primary Estimate, a high price trend in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a low price trend in the
High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of the DFR. Note that the Benefits and Costs
may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC-CO2 SC-CH4, and SC-N2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the
average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which
represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-
expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. The
GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. See section IV.L of the DFR for more details.
[dagger] DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
(Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. For the
Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NOX emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector
based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). For the High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton
estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study.
[Dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the
rows labeled ``7% plus GHG range'' and ``3% plus GHG range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and
those values are added to the full range of social cost values.
[dagger][dagger] Manufacturers are estimated to incur $35.6 million in conversion costs between 2017 and 2020.
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements
As part of the DPPP Working Group's extended charter, the DPPP
Working Group considered requirements for pumps distributed in commerce
with freeze protections controls. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005,
No. 71 at pp. 20-52) Freeze protection controls, as defined in the test
procedure final rule, are controls that, at certain ambient
temperature, turn on the dedicated-purpose pool pump to circulate water
for a period of time to prevent the pool and water in plumbing from
freezing. As the control schemes for freeze protection vary widely
between manufacturers, the resultant energy consumption associated with
such control can also vary depending on control settings and climate.
To ensure freeze protection controls on dedicated-purpose pool pumps
only operate when necessary and do not result in unnecessary energy
use, the DPPP Working Group recommended establishing prescriptive
requirements for dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are distributed in
commerce with freeze protection controls. Specifically, the DPPP
Working Group made the following recommendation, which it purports to
maintain end-user utility while also reducing energy consumption:
All dedicated-purpose pool pumps distributed in commerce with
freeze
[[Page 5453]]
protection controls must be shipped either with freeze protection
disabled, or with the following default, user-adjustable settings: (1)
The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than
40[emsp14][deg]F; and (2) the default run time setting shall be no
greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (3) the
default motor speed shall not be more than half of the maximum
available speed. Id. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82,
Recommendation #6A at p. 4). DOE agrees with the DPPP Working Group's
reasoning, and given the considerations discussed in section III.A of
the Direct Final Rule, DOE proposes to adopt the recommended
prescriptive standard for dedicated-purpose pool pumps distributed in
commerce with freeze protection controls.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published
elsewhere in Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule for
further details.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this proposed rule.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or
mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 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 via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. 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 that 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.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in the Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional
comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting
in the Federal Register.
[[Page 5454]]
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Small businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 23, 2016.
David J. Friedman,
Acting Assistant SecretaryEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 431.462 is amended by adding the definition for ``pool pump
timer'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 431.462 Definitions.
* * * * *
Pool pump timer means a pool pump control that automatically turns
off a dedicated-purpose pool pump after a run-time of no longer than 10
hours.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 431.465 is amended by adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and
(h) to read as follows:
Sec. 431.465 Pumps energy conservation standards and their compliance
dates.
* * * * *
(e) For the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section, ``WEF''
means the weighted energy factor and ``hhp'' means the rated hydraulic
horsepower, as determined in accordance with the test procedure in
Sec. 431.464(b) and applicable sampling plans in Sec. 429.59 of this
chapter.
(f) Each dedicated-purpose pool pump that is not a submersible pump
and is manufactured starting on July 19, 2021 must have a WEF rating
that is not less than the value calculated from the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Minimum allowable WEF
-------------------------------------------------------------- score [kgal/kWh] Minimum allowable WEF
--------------------------- score [kgal/kWh]
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Variety hhp Applicability Motor phase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-priming pool filter pumps...... 0.711 hp <= hhp < 2.5 Single................... WEF = -2.30 * ln (hhp)
hp. + 6.59.
Self-priming pool filter pumps...... hhp < 0.711 hp......... Single................... WEF = 5.55, for hhp <=
1.30. hp
- 1.30 * ln (hhp) +
2.90, for hhp > 0.13
hp.
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps.. hhp < 2.5 hp........... Any...................... WEF = 4.60, for hhp <=
0.13 hp
-0.85 * ln (hhp) +
2.87, for hhp > 0.13
hp.
Pressure cleaner booster pumps...... Any.................... Any...................... WEF = 0.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Each integral cartridge filter pool pump and integral sand
filter pool pump that is manufactured starting on July 19, 2021 must be
distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral
to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump.
(h) For all dedicated-purpose pool pumps distributed in commerce
with freeze protection controls, the pump must be shipped with freeze
protection disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable
settings:
(1) The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than
40[emsp14][deg]F;
(2) The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour
(before the temperature is rechecked); and
(3) The default motor speed shall not be more than \1/2\ of the
maximum available speed.
[FR Doc. 2016-31665 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
