Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, 24218-24221 [2017-10868]
Download as PDF
24218
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
with an analysis of the nature and
extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the
direct final rule discussed in this
document, DOE published a NOPR
containing energy conservation
standards identical to those set forth the
direct final rule and transmitted a copy
of the direct final rule and the
accompanying technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’) to the Attorney
General, requesting that the U.S.
Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) provide
its determination on this issue. DOE has
published DOJ’s comments at the end of
this document.
DOJ reviewed the new standards in
the direct final rule and the direct final
rule TSD discussed in this document.
As a result of its analysis, DOJ
concluded that the new standards
issued in the direct final rule are
unlikely to have a significant adverse
impact on competition. DOJ further
noted that the standards established in
the direct final rule were the same as
recommended standards submitted in
the consensus recommendations signed
by industry participants who believed
they could meet the standards (as well
as other interested parties).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
IV. Social Cost of Carbon
DOE notes that the direct final rule
discussed in this document preceded
Executive Order 16093’s requirement to
revise future analyses involving carbon
monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March
31, 2017). The direct final rule included
an analysis that examined the impacts
associated with the social cost of
carbon. These values, which were
ancillary to the primary analyses that
DOE conducted to determine whether
the standards adopted in the rule were
justified under the statutory criteria
prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did
not change the results of DOE’s
analyses. Accordingly, while the
inclusion of these values helped in
providing additional detail regarding
the impacts from the rule, those details
played no role in determining the
outcome of DOE’s decision under EPCA.
V. National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has determined that this
direct final rule fits within the category
of actions included in Categorical
Exclusion (‘‘CX’’) B5.1 and otherwise
meets the requirements for application
of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B,
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B,
B(1)–(5). This rule fits within the
category of actions because it is a
rulemaking establishing energy
conservation standards for consumer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
products or industrial equipment, and
for which none of the exceptions
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply.
Therefore, DOE has made a CX
determination for this rulemaking, and
DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement for it.
DOE’s CX determination applying to
this direct final rule is available at
https://energy.gov/nepa/categoricalexclusion-cx-determinations-cx.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the discussion
above, DOE has determined that the
comments received in response to the
direct final rule for new energy
conservation standards for MREFs do
not provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule. As
a result, the energy conservation
standards set forth in that direct final
rule became effective on February 27,
2017. Compliance with the standards
articulated in that direct final rule is
required on October 28, 2019.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22,
2017.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
to the Assistant Attorney General for the
Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust
Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
choice or increasing industry concentration.
A lessening of competition could result in
higher prices to manufacturers and
consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standards
contained in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and the Direct Final Rule (81
Fed. Reg. 74950 and 75194, Oct. 28, 2016),
and the related Technical Support Document.
We have also reviewed the transcript of the
public meeting held on the proposed
standards on January 9, 2015, and public
comments filed with the Department of
Energy, and conducted interviews with
industry representatives.
Based on the information currently
available, we do not believe that the
proposed energy conservation standards for
MREFs are likely to have a significant
adverse impact on competition.
Very truly yours,
Renata B. Hesse.
[FR Doc. 2017–10867 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
Appendix
[EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008]
[The following letter from the Department of
Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Renata B. Hesse
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530–0001
(202)514–2401/(202)616–2645 (Fax)
December 27, 2016
Daniel Cohen
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation,
Regulation and Energy Efficiency
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Re: Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0043
Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:
I am responding to your letter of October
28, 2016 seeking the views of the Attorney
General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation
standards for miscellaneous refrigeration
products (MREFs).
Your request was submitted under Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42
U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires
the Attorney General to make a
determination of the impact of any lessening
of competition that is likely to result from the
imposition of proposed energy conservation
standards. The Attorney General’s
responsibility for responding to requests from
other departments about the effect of a
program on competition has been delegated
RIN 1904–AD52
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for DedicatedPurpose Pool Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Confirmation of effective date
and compliance date for direct final
rule.
AGENCY:
On January 18, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published in the Federal Register a
direct final rule to establish new energy
conservation standards for dedicated
purpose pool pumps. DOE has
determined that the comments received
in response to that direct final rule do
not provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is
providing notice confirming the
adoption of the energy conservation
standards established in that direct final
rule and announces the effective date of
those standards.
DATES: The direct final rule for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps
published on January 18, 2017 (82 FR
5650) became effective on May 18, 2017.
Compliance with the dedicated-purpose
pool pumps standards in the direct final
rule will be required on July 19, 2021.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
The docket for this
rulemaking, 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
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as 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.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
I. Authority
As amended by the Energy Efficiency
Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law
114–11 (April 30, 2015), the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’
or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law
94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as
codified), authorizes DOE to issue a
direct final rule establishing an energy
conservation standard for a product 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 products,
States, and efficiency advocates) as
determined by the Secretary of Energy
(‘‘Secretary’’). 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) or 42
U.S.C. 6316, as applicable. 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).
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 is
received relating to the direct final rule,
the Secretary must determine whether
the comments or alternative
recommendation may provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable
law.
When making a determination
whether to withdraw a direct final rule,
DOE considers the substance, rather
than the quantity, of comments. To this
end, DOE weighs the substance of any
adverse comment(s) received against the
anticipated benefits of the consensus
recommendations and the likelihood
that further consideration of the
comment(s) would change the results of
the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the
extent an adverse comment had been
previously raised and addressed in the
rulemaking proceeding, such a
submission will not typically provide a
basis for withdrawal of a direct final
rule. If the Secretary makes such a
determination, DOE must withdraw the
direct final rule and proceed with the
simultaneously published NOPR. DOE
must publish in the Federal Register the
reasons why the direct final rule was
withdrawn.
DOE determined that it did not
receive any adverse comments
providing a basis for withdrawal as
described above for the direct final rule
that is the subject of this document—
dedicated purpose pool pumps
(‘‘DPPPs’’). As such, DOE did not
withdraw this direct final rule and
allowed it to become effective. Although
not required under EPCA, DOE
customarily publishes a summary of the
comments received during the 110-day
comment period and its responses to
those comments.1 This document
contains such a summary, as well as
DOE’s responses, for DPPPs.
II. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
Direct Final Rule
A. Background
Prior to May 18, 2017, no Federal
energy conservation standards existed
for DPPPs. DOE excluded this category
of pumps from its recent consensusbased energy conservation standard
final rule for general pumps. 81 FR 4368
(January 26, 2016).
On July 29, 2016, DOE received a
statement submitted by ASRAC that a
consensus had been reached by a
negotiated rulemaking working group
for DPPPs (the ‘‘the DPPP Working
Group’’ or, in context, the ‘‘Working
Group’’). The DPPP Working Group
consisted of 13 members, including one
member from ASRAC and one DOE
representative, with the balance
comprising representatives of
manufacturers of the DPPPs, efficiency
advocates, and a State representative.
The DPPP Working Group submitted to
ASRAC a Term Sheet, that, in the view
of the Working Group, would satisfy the
EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o),
and ASRAC voted unanimously to
adopt these consensus
recommendations. (DPPP Term Sheet,
Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008,
No. 82)
After careful consideration of the
DPPP Term Sheet related to amended
energy conservation standards for
DPPPs, the Secretary has determined
that the recommendations contained
therein are compliant with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o), and were submitted by
interested persons who are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
on this matter, as required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a
direct final rule.
DOE found that the standard levels
recommended in the DPPP Term Sheet
would result in significant energy
savings and are technologically feasible
and economically justified. Thus,
energy conservation standards,
definitions, and prescriptive
requirements established in the DPPP
direct final rule and articulated below in
this notice directly reflect the June 2016
DPPP Working Group
recommendations.
Tables II–1 and I–2 document the new
standards for DPPPs established as a
result of the direct final rule and the
June 2016 DPPP Working Group
recommendations. Standards for
equipment classes in Table II–1 are
performance-based, expressed in terms
of weighted energy factor (‘‘WEF’’);
standards in Table II–2 are prescriptive.
These standards apply to all equipment
listed in Tables II–1 and II–2 and
manufactured in or imported into the
United States starting on July 19, 2021.
1 See, e.g., Notice of effective date and
compliance dates for direct final rule, 76 FR 67037
(Oct. 31, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24219
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
24220
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—PERFORMANCE-BASED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS
Equipment class
Minimum allowable WEF ** score
Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety
Hydraulic horsepower
applicability *
Motor phase
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pumps ...
Small-Size 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 ...............
WEF =¥2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59.
WEF = 5.55 for hhp ≤ 0.13 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.
* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and applicable sampling plans.
*** WEF is measured by kgal/kWh.
TABLE II.2—PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED-PURPOSE POOL PUMPS
Equipment class
Prescriptive standard
Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety
Hydraulic horsepower
applicability
Motor phase
Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump ..........................
Any .....................................
Any ...............
Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump ....................
Any .....................................
Any ...............
All Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Distributed Any .....................................
in Commerce with Freeze Protection Controls.
Any ...............
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
B. Comments on the DPPP Direct Final
Rule
Of the 11 substantive comments
received in response to the direct final
rule, 9 were from parties that expressed
support for the direct final rule and its
outcome. (All comments are available
for public viewing at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2014-BT-STD-0048.) Among these
commenters, five manufacturers and
one trade group all commented
positively on finalizing the rule based
on manufacturing certainty. In addition,
they highlighted the significant
economic benefits to consumers and
ratepayers that the direct final rule
would provide.
Other parties submitted comments
that either expressed tentative support
or no support for the DPPP direct final
rule. The following sections discuss
these specific comments and DOE’s
determination that the comments do not
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
1. Replacement Motors
Four parties commented that they
hesitated to support or stated they did
not support the direct final rule, despite
their participation in the DPPP Working
Group and unanimous consensus to the
DPPP Term Sheet, because the direct
final rule did not address replacement
motors. Two parties further encouraged
DOE to initiate a working group to
address specifically replacement pool
motors.
In response, DOE notes that its direct
final rule and Working Group only
supported the development of energy
conservation standards for DPPPs. DPPP
replacement motors are not the subject
of in this direct final rule. DOE
appreciates that stakeholders have
expressed support for adoption of the
direct final rule as currently drafted,
and notes that affected stakeholders
have four-and-a-half years to take steps
toward compliance with the DPPP
standards, including forming a
replacement pool pump motors working
group. Thus, DOE plans to hold a public
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
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.
The pump must be shipped with freeze protection disabled or with the following default,
user-adjustable settings:
• The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is
no greater than 40 °F;
• The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and
• The default motor speed shall not be more
than 1⁄2 of the maximum available speed.
meeting in the near future with the
interested parties to gather data and
information that could lead to the
consideration of energy conservation
standards for replacement pool pump
motors.
2. Cost/Benefit Analysis
DOE received one substantive
comment that alleged that the costs
(regulatory and consumer) published in
the DPPP direct final rule were too high.
In particular, the commenter noted that
the installation cost of a typical selfpriming pool pump would increase by
77 percent, and that other pump
categories will see price increases of
anywhere between $9 and $66.
In response, DOE notes that all of
these issues were discussed in detail
during the Working Group negotiations.
DOE’s analysis accounted for the lower
energy costs that the consumers would
receive, which would add up to a
lifetime cost saving of over $2,000 and
an eight-month payback period. DOE
also received a comment from a
manufacturer that stated that 50 percent
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
of the self-priming pool pumps on the
market are already compliant, which
suggests that the direct final rule’s
standards are technologically feasible
and economically justified.
DOE notes that EPCA does not require
it to choose the standard level with the
least consumer cost, or the least cost to
manufacturers, but only to assess those,
among other, costs and benefits (using
the 7 factors articulated at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)) and determine whether the
burdens outweigh the benefits. In this
case, the recommended TSL met that
standard, and DOE’s analysis and
conclusions would not change based on
the comments received. Thus, DOE does
not consider these comments to provide
a basis to justify a withdrawal of this
direct final rule under EPCA.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
3. Independent Control as Interested
Parties
DOE received a comment from an
independent control manufacturer who
commented that the views of
independent control manufacturers
were not represented in the Working
Group, and thus the Working Group
Term Sheet did not represent a
consensus agreement. The Working
Group meetings were conducted
transparently, and the commenter’s
concerns were raised by multiple
Working Group members, discussed at
length, and resolved.
III. Department of Justice Analysis of
Competitive Impacts
EPCA directs DOE to consider any
lessening of competition that is likely to
result from new or amended standards.
It also directs the Attorney General of
the United States (‘‘Attorney General’’)
to determine the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to
transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together
with an analysis of the nature and
extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the
direct final rule discussed in this
document, DOE published a NOPR
containing energy conservation
standards identical to those set forth the
direct final rule and transmitted a copy
of the direct final rule and the
accompanying technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’) to the Attorney
General, requesting that the U.S.
Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) provide
its determination on this issue. DOE has
published DOJ’s comments at the end of
this document.
DOJ reviewed the new standards in
the direct final rule and the direct final
rule TSD discussed in this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:49 May 25, 2017
Jkt 241001
As a result of its analysis, DOJ
concluded that the new standards
issued in the direct final rule are
unlikely to have a significant adverse
impact on competition. DOJ further
noted that the standards established in
the direct final rule were the same as
recommended standards submitted in
the consensus recommendations signed
by industry participants who believed
they could meet the standards (as well
as other interested parties).
IV. Social Cost of Carbon
DOE notes that the direct final rule
discussed in this document preceded
Executive Order 13783’s requirement to
revise future analyses involving carbon
monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March
31, 2017). The direct final rule included
an analysis that examined the impacts
associated with the social cost of
carbon. These values, which were
ancillary to the primary analyses that
DOE conducted to determine whether
the standards adopted in the rule were
justified under the statutory criteria
prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did
not change the results of DOE’s
analyses. Accordingly, while the
inclusion of these values helped in
providing additional detail regarding
the impacts from the rule, those details
played no role in determining the
outcome of DOE’s decision under EPCA.
V. National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has determined that this
direct final rule fits within the category
of actions included in Categorical
Exclusion (‘‘CX’’) B5.1 and otherwise
meets the requirements for application
of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B,
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B,
B(1)–(5). This rule fits within the
category of actions because they are
rulemakings establishing energy
conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, and
for which none of the exceptions
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply.
Therefore, DOE has made a CX
determination for this rulemaking, and
DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement for it.
DOE’s CX determination applying to
this direct final rule is available at
https://energy.gov/nepa/categoricalexclusion-cx-determinations-cx.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the discussion
above, DOE has determined that the
comments received in response to the
direct final rule establishing new energy
conservation standards for DPPPs do not
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
24221
provide a reasonable basis for its
withdrawal. As a result, the energy
conservation standards set forth in that
direct final rule became effective on
May 18, 2017. Compliance with the
standards articulated in that direct final
rule is required on July 19, 2021.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22,
2017.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
Appendix
[The following letter will not appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
ANDREW C. FINCH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20530–0001
(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax)
April 21, 2017
Daniel Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:
I am responding to your February 21, 2017,
letter seeking the views of the Attorney
General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation
standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps
(EERE–2015–BT–STD–0008). Your request
was submitted under Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 43 U.S.C.
6316(a), which requires the Attorney General
to make a determination of the impact of any
lessening of competition that is likely to
result from the imposition of proposed
energy conservation standards. The Attorney
General’s responsibility for responding to
requests from other departments about the
effect of a program on competition has been
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General
for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust
Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
choice or increasing industry concentration.
A lessening of competition could result in
higher prices to manufacturers and
consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standards
contained in the Direct Final Rule (82 FR
5650, Jan. 18, 2017). We have also reviewed
supplementary infounation submitted to the
Attorney General by the Department of
Energy and spoken with industry
representatives. Based on this review, our
conclusion is that the proposed energy
conservation standards for dedicated-purpose
pool pumps are unlikely to have a significant
adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Finch
[FR Doc. 2017–10868 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM
26MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24218-24221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[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: Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct
final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new
energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pumps. DOE has
determined that the comments received in response to that direct final
rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. Therefore,
DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the energy
conservation standards established in that direct final rule and
announces the effective date of those standards.
DATES: The direct final rule for dedicated-purpose pool pumps published
on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5650) became effective on May 18, 2017.
Compliance with the dedicated-purpose pool pumps standards in the
direct final rule will be required on July 19, 2021.
[[Page 24219]]
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, 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 the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as 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.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public
Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C.
6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product 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 products, States, and efficiency advocates) as
determined by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary''). 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) or 42 U.S.C. 6316, as applicable. 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). 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 is received relating to the direct final rule, the
Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative
recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final
rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of
comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse
comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus
recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the
comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that
to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and
addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not
typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. If the
Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct
final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule
was withdrawn.
DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments
providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct
final rule that is the subject of this document--dedicated purpose pool
pumps (``DPPPs''). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule
and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA,
DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the
110-day comment period and its responses to those comments.\1\ This
document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses, for
DPPPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for
direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Direct Final Rule
A. Background
Prior to May 18, 2017, no Federal energy conservation standards
existed for DPPPs. DOE excluded this category of pumps from its recent
consensus-based energy conservation standard final rule for general
pumps. 81 FR 4368 (January 26, 2016).
On July 29, 2016, DOE received a statement submitted by ASRAC that
a consensus had been reached by a negotiated rulemaking working group
for DPPPs (the ``the DPPP Working Group'' or, in context, the ``Working
Group''). The DPPP Working Group consisted of 13 members, including one
member from ASRAC and one DOE representative, with the balance
comprising representatives of manufacturers of the DPPPs, efficiency
advocates, and a State representative. The DPPP Working Group submitted
to ASRAC a Term Sheet, that, in the view of the Working Group, would
satisfy the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC voted
unanimously to adopt these consensus recommendations. (DPPP Term Sheet,
Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 82)
After careful consideration of the DPPP Term Sheet related to
amended energy conservation standards for DPPPs, the Secretary has
determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and were submitted by interested persons who
are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter, as
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct
final rule.
DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the DPPP Term
Sheet would result in significant energy savings and are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Thus, energy
conservation standards, definitions, and prescriptive requirements
established in the DPPP direct final rule and articulated below in this
notice directly reflect the June 2016 DPPP Working Group
recommendations.
Tables II-1 and I-2 document the new standards for DPPPs
established as a result of the direct final rule and the June 2016 DPPP
Working Group recommendations. Standards for equipment classes in Table
II-1 are performance-based, expressed in terms of weighted energy
factor (``WEF''); standards in Table II-2 are prescriptive. These
standards apply to all equipment listed in Tables II-1 and II-2 and
manufactured in or imported into the United States starting on July 19,
2021.
[[Page 24220]]
Table II.1--Performance-Based Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum allowable WEF
Dedicated-purpose pool pump Hydraulic horsepower applicability ** score
variety * Motor phase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool 0.711 hp <= hhp < 2.5 hp........... Single............ WEF =-2.30 * ln (hhp)
Filter Pumps. + 6.59.
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool hhp < 0.711 hp..................... Single............ WEF = 5.55 for hhp <=
Filter Pumps. 0.13 hp,-1.30 * ln
(hhp) + 2.90 for hhp
> 0.13 hp.
Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter hhp < 2.5 hp....................... Any............... WEF = 4.60 for hhp <=
Pumps. 0.13 hp,-0.85 * ln
(hhp) + 2.87 for hhp
> 0.13 hp.
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps. Any................................ Any............... WEF = 0.42.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure
at 10 CFR 431.464 and applicable sampling plans.
*** WEF is measured by kgal/kWh.
Table II.2--Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedicated-purpose pool pump Prescriptive standard
variety Hydraulic horsepower 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.
All Dedicated-Purpose Pool Any................................ Any............... The pump must be
Pumps Distributed in Commerce shipped with freeze
with Freeze Protection protection disabled
Controls. or with the following
default, user-
adjustable settings:
The default
dry-bulb air
temperature setting
is no greater than 40
[deg]F;
The default
run time setting
shall be no greater
than 1 hour (before
the temperature is
rechecked); and
The default
motor speed shall not
be more than \1/2\ of
the maximum available
speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments on the DPPP Direct Final Rule
Of the 11 substantive comments received in response to the direct
final rule, 9 were from parties that expressed support for the direct
final rule and its outcome. (All comments are available for public
viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.)
Among these commenters, five manufacturers and one trade group all
commented positively on finalizing the rule based on manufacturing
certainty. In addition, they highlighted the significant economic
benefits to consumers and ratepayers that the direct final rule would
provide.
Other parties submitted comments that either expressed tentative
support or no support for the DPPP direct final rule. The following
sections discuss these specific comments and DOE's determination that
the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule.
1. Replacement Motors
Four parties commented that they hesitated to support or stated
they did not support the direct final rule, despite their participation
in the DPPP Working Group and unanimous consensus to the DPPP Term
Sheet, because the direct final rule did not address replacement
motors. Two parties further encouraged DOE to initiate a working group
to address specifically replacement pool motors.
In response, DOE notes that its direct final rule and Working Group
only supported the development of energy conservation standards for
DPPPs. DPPP replacement motors are not the subject of in this direct
final rule. DOE appreciates that stakeholders have expressed support
for adoption of the direct final rule as currently drafted, and notes
that affected stakeholders have four-and-a-half years to take steps
toward compliance with the DPPP standards, including forming a
replacement pool pump motors working group. Thus, DOE plans to hold a
public meeting in the near future with the interested parties to gather
data and information that could lead to the consideration of energy
conservation standards for replacement pool pump motors.
2. Cost/Benefit Analysis
DOE received one substantive comment that alleged that the costs
(regulatory and consumer) published in the DPPP direct final rule were
too high. In particular, the commenter noted that the installation cost
of a typical self-priming pool pump would increase by 77 percent, and
that other pump categories will see price increases of anywhere between
$9 and $66.
In response, DOE notes that all of these issues were discussed in
detail during the Working Group negotiations. DOE's analysis accounted
for the lower energy costs that the consumers would receive, which
would add up to a lifetime cost saving of over $2,000 and an eight-
month payback period. DOE also received a comment from a manufacturer
that stated that 50 percent
[[Page 24221]]
of the self-priming pool pumps on the market are already compliant,
which suggests that the direct final rule's standards are
technologically feasible and economically justified.
DOE notes that EPCA does not require it to choose the standard
level with the least consumer cost, or the least cost to manufacturers,
but only to assess those, among other, costs and benefits (using the 7
factors articulated at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) and determine whether the
burdens outweigh the benefits. In this case, the recommended TSL met
that standard, and DOE's analysis and conclusions would not change
based on the comments received. Thus, DOE does not consider these
comments to provide a basis to justify a withdrawal of this direct
final rule under EPCA.
3. Independent Control as Interested Parties
DOE received a comment from an independent control manufacturer who
commented that the views of independent control manufacturers were not
represented in the Working Group, and thus the Working Group Term Sheet
did not represent a consensus agreement. The Working Group meetings
were conducted transparently, and the commenter's concerns were raised
by multiple Working Group members, discussed at length, and resolved.
III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the
Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney General'') to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule
discussed in this document, DOE published a NOPR containing energy
conservation standards identical to those set forth the direct final
rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the
accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') to the Attorney
General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'')
provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's
comments at the end of this document.
DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the
direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its
analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in the direct
final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on
competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in the
direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in
the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who
believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested
parties).
IV. Social Cost of Carbon
DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this document
preceded Executive Order 13783's requirement to revise future analyses
involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The
direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts
associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were
ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine
whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the
statutory criteria prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change
the results of DOE's analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of
these values helped in providing additional detail regarding the
impacts from the rule, those details played no role in determining the
outcome of DOE's decision under EPCA.
V. National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has determined that this direct final rule fits within
the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (``CX'') B5.1
and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10
CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5).
This rule fits within the category of actions because they are
rulemakings establishing energy conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX
determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for it.
DOE's CX determination applying to this direct final rule is available
at https://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that
the comments received in response to the direct final rule establishing
new energy conservation standards for DPPPs do not provide a reasonable
basis for its withdrawal. As a result, the energy conservation
standards set forth in that direct final rule became effective on May
18, 2017. Compliance with the standards articulated in that direct
final rule is required on July 19, 2021.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Appendix
[The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
ANDREW C. FINCH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
(202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax)
April 21, 2017
Daniel Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:
I am responding to your February 21, 2017, letter seeking the
views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation standards for dedicated-
purpose pool pumps (EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008). Your request was
submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)
and 43 U.S.C. 6316(a), which requires the Attorney General to make a
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on
competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by
substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry
concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher
prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Direct
Final Rule (82 FR 5650, Jan. 18, 2017). We have also reviewed
supplementary infounation submitted to the Attorney General by the
Department of Energy and spoken with industry representatives. Based
on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy
conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps are unlikely
to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Finch
[FR Doc. 2017-10868 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P