Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, 5446-5454 [2016-31665]

Download as PDF 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 http:// 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: 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 http:// 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