Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-00849

Proposed Rule2022-00849

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 24, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") is initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps ("DPPPs"). Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these standards at least once every six years and publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR") to propose new standards for DPPPs or a notification of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for information ("RFI") solicits information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for DPPPs would result in significant energy savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3461-3470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00849]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001]

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps

[[Page 3462]]

(``DPPPs''). Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended,
DOE must review these standards at least once every six years and
publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose
new standards for DPPPs or a notification of determination that the
existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE
determine whether amended standards for DPPPs would result in
significant energy savings and whether such standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE also welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well
as the submission of data and other relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before February 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d397838383e1e3e1e1808797e3e3e3e293b6b6fdb7bcb6fdb4bca5">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing corona virus (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, some
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section III for information on how to submit comments through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f4e7f7f63666e616c6a5c7b6e616b6e7d6b7c5e7a6a7c7b6660617c4f6a6a216b606a21686079">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2588; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c4c8c0c9ccc48bd2cdccd1cccbc2e5cdd48bc1cac08bc2cad3">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7d4c4c50555d525f596f485d52585d4e584f6d49594f485553524f7c595912585359125b534a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
2. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
2. Cost Analysis
E. Markup Analysis
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs
2. Equipment Lifetime
H. Shipments
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317). Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. ``Pumps'' are listed as a type of industrial
equipment covered by EPCA, although EPCA does not define the term
``pump.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE defines ``pump'' as equipment
designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free
solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action
and includes a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the
time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and controls. 10 CFR
431.462. Dedicated-purpose pool pumps, which are the subject of this
RFI, meet this definition of a pump and are covered under the pump
equipment type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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 EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of

[[Page 3463]]

covered equipment, including those at issue here, and publish either a
notification of determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) If DOE determines not to amend a
standard based on the statutory criteria, not later than 3 years after
the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must
publish either a notification of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must
make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available
and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) If DOE decides to
amend the standard based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a
final rule not later than two years after energy conservation standards
are proposed. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule (``January
2017 Direct Final Rule'') \3\ to codify energy conservation standards
for DPPPs manufactured or imported to the United States. 82 FR 5650.
The energy conservation standards are consistent with the
recommendations of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (``ASRAC'') negotiated rulemaking working group for
dedicated-purpose pool pumps (82 FR 5650, 5658). (Docket No. EERE-2015-
BT-STD-0008, Nos. 51 and 82) The current energy conservation standards
are located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 431, section 465(f)-(h). DOE established performance-based
standards, expressed in terms of weighted energy factor (``WEF''), for
certain DPPP classes. 10 CFR 431.465(f). For certain classes of DPPPs,
including those classes subject to the performance standards, DOE
established a design requirement. 10 CFR 431.465(g) and (h). Compliance
with the standards established for DPPPs is required on and after July
19, 2021. The currently applicable DOE test procedures for DPPPs appear
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y, appendices B and C (``Appendices B and
C'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ On May 26, 2017, DOE published a confirmation of the
effective date and compliance date for the direct final rule,
confirming adoption of the energy conservation standards established
in the direct final rule. 82 FR 24218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform this rulemaking consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will
not result in significant conservation of energy or is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\4\ For
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on
February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has
committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean
global temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission
have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products
and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during
periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy
savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects
for different covered products and equipment when determining whether
energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include
the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load
shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892, 70906).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis.
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
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 considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.

[[Page 3464]]

Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............ <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
<bullet> National Impact Analysis.
<bullet> Energy and Water Use Analysis.
Technological Feasibility............. <bullet> Market and Technology Assessment.
<bullet> Screening Analysis.
<bullet> Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on <bullet> Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Manufacturers and Consumers.
<bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
<bullet> Consumer Subgroup Analysis.
<bullet> Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings <bullet> Markups for Equipment Price Determination.
Compared to Increased Cost for
the Equipment.
<bullet> Energy and Water Use Analysis.
<bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings. <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
<bullet> National Impact Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or <bullet> Screening Analysis.
Performance.
<bullet> Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of <bullet> Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Competition.
6. Need for National Energy and <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
Water Conservation.
<bullet> National Impact Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary <bullet> Employment Impact Analysis.
Considers Relevant.
<bullet> Utility Impact Analysis.
<bullet> Emissions Analysis.
<bullet> Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
<bullet> Regulatory Impact Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for DPPPs.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with Section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from that appendix's
provision requiring a 75 day comment period for all pre-NOPR standards
documents. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6(d)(2). DOE
is opting to deviate from this step because DOE believes that 30 days
is a sufficient time to respond to this initial rulemaking document
given stakeholder engagement and participation in prior rulemaking
activities regarding dedicated-purpose pool pumps.

II. Request for Information and Comments

In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for DPPPs.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

This RFI covers those products that meet the definitions of DPPPs,
as codified at 10 CFR 431.462. The definitions for DPPPs were
established by a test procedure final rule published on August 7, 2017.
82 FR 36858.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for DPPPs
require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should be
revised. DOE also requests feedback on whether the sub-category
definitions currently in place are appropriate or whether further
modifications are needed. If these sub-category definitions need
modifying, DOE seeks specific input on how to define these terms and
why such modifications are needed.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage
between equipment varieties. DOE also seeks input on whether such
equipment currently exist in the market or whether they are being
planned for introduction.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the DPPP industry that
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of DPPPs. DOE also reviews
equipment literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
DPPPs.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that
justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1))
In determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.)
For DPPPs, the current energy conservation standards specified in
10 CFR 431.465 are based on the following performance-related features:
Strainer or filtration accessory, self-priming ability, pump capacity,
and rotational speed. Table II.1 lists the seven current equipment
classes for DPPPs.

[[Page 3465]]

Table II.1--Current Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump (0.711 hp <= hhp < 2.5
hp).
2. Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump (hhp < 0.711 hp).
3. Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump (hhp < 2.5 hp).
4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump.
5. Waterfall Pump.
6. Integral Cartridge Filter Pool Pump.
7. Integral Sand Filter Pool Pump.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the current DPPP equipment
classes and whether changes to these individual equipment classes and
their descriptions should be made or if novel equipment can be
classified as multiple different units.
The DPPPs ASRAC Working Group limited its scope to self-priming and
non-self-priming pool filter pumps with hydraulic output power less
than 2.5 horsepower, as those pumps are typically installed in
residential applications (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-0008, No. 82, pp. 1-
2). Very large pool filter pumps, with hydraulic output of 2.5
horsepower or more, are more commonly installed in commercial
applications, where the head and flow characteristics are significantly
different from residential installations. The ASRAC DPPP Working Group
also noted a lack of performance data for these very large pool filter
pumps, which prevented the group from negotiating standards for these
pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 53 at pp. 197-198; Docket
No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, No. 79 at pp. 33-34, pp. 41-42, pp. 44-48,
pp. 50-53).
Following adoption of the test procedure and energy conservation
standards for DPPPs, manufacturers identified several models of DPPPs
that are designed and marketed for commercial applications, but do in
fact have hydraulic output power less than 2.5 horsepower. The Office
of the General Counsel has issued an enforcement policy statement
regarding these DPPPs.\5\ The policy states that DOE will not enforce
the testing, labeling, certification, and standards compliance
requirements for DPPPs meeting all of the following three criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/articles/direct-purpose-pool-pumps-enforcement-policy">www.energy.gov/gc/articles/direct-purpose-pool-pumps-enforcement-policy</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The orifice on the pump body that accepts suction side plumbing
connections has an inner diameter of greater than 2.85 inches; and
(2) The pump has a measured performance of >=200 gallons per minute
(gpm) at 50 feet of head as determined in accordance with appendices B
or C (as applicable) to subpart Y of part 431, section I.A.1 (When
determining overall efficiency, best efficiency point, or other
applicable pump energy performance information, section 40.6.5.5.1,
``Test procedure''; section 40.6.6.2, ``Pump efficiency''; and section
40.6.6.3, ``Performance curve'' must be used, as applicable); and
(3) The pump is marketed exclusively for commercial applications.
As explained in the enforcement policy statement, these pumps were
not considered during the ASRAC negotiations, but were not explicitly
exempted in the regulatory text.
Issue 4: DOE seeks information regarding any other new equipment
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically,
DOE requests information on performance-related features that provide
unique consumer utility and data detailing the corresponding impacts on
energy use that would justify separate equipment classes (i.e.,
explanation for why the presence of these performance-related features
would increase energy consumption).
2. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for DPPPs. A complete list of those prior options appears in
Table II.2. See also 82 FR 5650, 5676-5679.

Table II.2--Technology Options Considered in the Development of the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved motor efficiency.
Ability to Operate at Reduced Speed.
Improved Hydraulic Design.
Pool Pump Timer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 5: DOE seeks information on the technology options listed in
Table II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how
these technologies may impact the efficiency of DPPPs as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how
these technologies may have changed since their prior consideration
during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE
seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently available for each technology
option.
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and details regarding the
extent to which these technologies may impact equipment features or
consumer utility. DOE also seeks input regarding the cost-effectiveness
of implementing these options.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact product features or consumer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial equipment or in working

[[Page 3466]]

prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10
CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and
7(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
None of the technology options listed in Table II.2 were screened
out in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.
Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI with
respect to DPPPs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these
same criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in
DPPPs.

D. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of DPPPs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product/equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output
of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that
are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
and payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill''
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level
currently available on the market).
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility. Consistent with this analytical
approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy
conservation standards (which went into effect July 19, 2021) to
establish baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class group.
The current standards for each equipment class are found at 10 CFR
431.465(f)-(h).
Issue 9: DOE requests feedback (including data) on whether the
current established energy conservation standards for DPPPs appropriate
baseline efficiency levels for DOE are to apply to each equipment class
group in evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for these equipment classes.
Issue 10: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for any equipment classes that are not currently in
place, such as pool filter pumps with hydraulic horsepower greater than
or equal to 2.5 horsepower, or DPPPs subject to the enforcement policy.
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the most efficient unit currently available on the market. For the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE did not directly analyze every
available DPPP capacity. Rather, DOE selected and analyzed certain
representative capacities from each equipment class and based its
overall analysis for each equipment class on those representative
units. The representative units from each equipment class were
determined based on horsepower ratings, in addition to corresponding
shipment volumes, examination of manufacturers' catalog data, and
soliciting feedback from interested parties.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE
would only include those that are compatible with each other that when
combined, would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially
available because it is not economically feasible. In the January 2017
Direct Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech efficiency levels using
energy

[[Page 3467]]

modeling as well as input from interested parties during negotiation.
These energy models were based on using various technology options (as
discussed in section II.B.2 of this RFI) applicable to specific
equipment classes. While all these equipment configurations had not
likely been tested as prototypes, all the individual design options had
been incorporated in available equipment, and therefore a compatible
combination of the design options used for max-tech is theoretically
possible. The max-tech efficiency levels analyzed in the January 2017
Direct Final Rule are included in Table II.3.

Table II.3--Max-Tech Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor nameplate Weighted energy
Equipment class Pump variety efficiency at Horsepower factor, WEF
high speed (%) rating (hhp) (kgal/kWh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. Standard-Size Self-Priming 82 1.88 6.97
Pool Filter Pump.
81 0.95 8.59
2............................. Small-Size Self-Priming 81 0.44 11.71
Pool Filter Pump.
3............................. Standard-Size Non-Self- 81 0.52 11.96
Priming Pool Filter Pump.
4............................. Extra-Small Non-Self- 72 0.09 5.14
Priming Pool Filter Pump.
5............................. Pressure Cleaner Booster 81 0.28 0.56
Pump.
6............................. Waterfall Pump............ 78 0.40 9.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 11: DOE seeks input on whether it is appropriate to use the
same representative units for the purpose of the engineering analysis.
Issue 12: DOE seeks input on whether the max-tech efficiency levels
presented in Table II.3 are appropriate and technologically feasible
for potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards--
and if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on whether the max-tech
efficiencies presented in Table II.3 of this RFI are representative of
other pump capacities not directly analyzed in the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule. If the range of possible efficiencies is different for the
other pump capacities not analyzes, what alternative approaches should
DOE consider using for those pump capacities and why?
Issue 13: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated for each equipment class at a max-tech efficiency level,
and the efficiencies associated with those levels.
Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate max-tech
efficiency levels for any equipment classes that are not currently in
place, such as pool filter pumps with hydraulic horsepower greater than
or equal to 2.5 horsepower, or DPPPs subject to the enforcement policy.
2. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
<bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
<bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer
production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency equipment for the analyzed equipment
classes. For the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed the
cost-efficiency relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements
and costs associated with incorporating specific design options into
the assumed baseline model for each analyzed equipment class.
Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 of this RFI to
increase energy efficiency of DPPPs beyond the baseline, and if so,
how. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers
would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve
the efficiencies of equipment. DOE also requests feedback on whether
the increased energy efficiency of DPPPs would lead to other design
changes that would not occur otherwise, and if so, what those changes
would be. DOE is also interested in information regarding any potential
impact of adopting a given design option on a manufacturer's ability to
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer
demand.
Issue 16: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated
with incorporating each design option. Specifically, DOE is interested
in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in the
January 2017 Direct Final Rule have changed since the time of that
analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments needed to
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials,
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option,
and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue 17: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not

[[Page 3468]]

be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment classes.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a manufacturer
markup of 1.46 for self-priming pool filter pumps and waterfall pumps,
1.35 for non-self-priming pool filter pumps and pressure cleaner
booster pool pumps, and 1.27 for integral cartridge-filter pool pumps
and integral sand-filter pool pumps. DOE developed these estimated
markups based on corporate reports and conversations with manufacturers
and experts. See chapter 6 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD
for further detail.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the manufacturer markups
used in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule are still appropriate for
DOE to use when evaluating whether to amend its current standards. If
the markups require revision, what specific revisions are needed for
each? Are there additional markups that DOE should also consider--if
so, which ones and why?

E. Markup Analysis

DOE derives customer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate),
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in
generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and national
impact analysis (``NIA''). In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE
accounted for three distribution channels for dedicated-purpose pool
pumps: Two for replacements of pool pumps for an existing swimming pool
and one for installations of a pool pump in a new swimming pool. DOE
also estimated the fraction of pool pumps distributed through each
channel:

Existing Pool:
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Pool Service Contractor
[rarr] Consumer (75%)
Manufacturer [rarr] Pool Product Retailer [rarr] Consumer (20%)
New Pool:
Manufacturer [rarr] Pool Builder [rarr] Consumer (5%)
82 FR 5650, 5698.

In addition, in DOE's analysis in the January 2017 Direct Final
Rule, in some cases only the motor component is replaced rather than
the entire pool pump. Therefore, DOE also considered distribution
channels to account for how motors are distributed in the motor
replacement market:

Motor Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Contractor [rarr] Consumer
(25%)
Motor Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Consumer
via internet or direct sale at local stores (25%)
Pump Manufacturer [rarr] Pump Product Retailer [rarr] Consumer (50%)
82 FR 5650, 5696.

Issue 19: DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the channels that were identified in
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule and as described in section E. DOE
also requests data on the fraction of sales that go through these
channels and any other identified channels.

F. Energy Use Analysis

As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how equipment is used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. The energy use analysis is meant to represent the energy
consumption of a given product or equipment when used in the field.
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined the annual
energy consumption of DPPPs by multiplying the average daily unit
energy consumption (``UEC'') by the annual days of operation. For
single-speed pool pumps, the daily UEC is the pool pump power
multiplied by the daily operating hours. For two-speed and variable-
speed pool pumps, the daily UEC is the sum of low-speed mode power,
multiplied by daily low-speed operating hours, and the high-speed mode
power, multiplied by the daily high-speed operating hours. 82 FR 5650,
5697. DOE's determination of power inputs, operating hours, and annual
days of operation are described in detail in the January 2017 Direct
Final Rule. 82 FR 5650, 5697-5700.
Issue 20: DOE requests information on whether any of the data or
assumptions used to estimate average annual energy use for DPPPs need
to be updated, and if so why and how.
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on the energy use patterns of pool
filter pumps with hydraulic horsepower greater than or equal to 2.5
horsepower, or DPPPs subject to the enforcement policy, including (1)
power inputs, (2) operating hours, and (3) annual days of operation.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis

DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for DPPPs on
individual customers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The
LCC is the total customer expense over the life of the equipment,
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes
MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and installation
costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual
energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and the year
that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
1. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE only accounted for the
difference in installation cost by efficiency level. Specifically, for
two-speed pumps, DOE included the cost of a timer control and its
installation where applicable. For two-speed and variable-speed pumps,
DOE included supplemental installation labor costs. 82 FR 5650, 5701.
DOE also assumed that for maintenance cost, there is no change with
efficiency level, so DOE did not include those costs in the model. 82
FR 5650, 5702. Finally, for repair costs, DOE accounted for the cost of
a motor replacement. DOE estimated that such replacement occurs at the
halfway point in a pump's lifetime, but only for those dedicated-
purpose pool pumps whose lifetime exceeds the average lifetime for the
relevant equipment class. The cost of the motor was determined through
the engineering and markups analysis. DOE used 2015 RS Means to
estimate labor costs for pump motor replacement. Id.
Issue 22: DOE requests feedback and data on its assumptions
regarding installation and maintenance costs described in section G as
well as for any technology options listed in Table II.2 of this RFI.
Issue 23: To the extent that these costs differ by efficiency
level, DOE seeks

[[Page 3469]]

supporting data and the reasons for those differences.
Issue 24: DOE requests information and data on the frequency of
repair and repair costs by equipment class for motor replacement or for
any of the technology options listed in Table II.2 of this RFI.
2. Equipment Lifetime
In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a survival
function, which provides a distribution of lifetime ranging from a
minimum of 2 or 3 years based on warranty covered period, to a maximum
of 15 years, with a mean value of 7 years for self-priming and
waterfall pumps, 5 years for non-self-priming and pressure cleaner
booster pumps, and 4 years for integral pumps. These values are
applicable to pumps in residential applications. For commercial
applications, DOE scaled the lifetime to acknowledge the higher
operating hours compared to residential applications, resulting in a
reduced average lifetime. 82 FR 5650, 5702.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether the lifetime values
continue to be appropriate for pool pumps currently subject to
standards, and if not, how they should be changed.
Issue 26: DOE requests information on the lifetime of pool filter
pumps with hydraulic horsepower greater than or equal to 2.5 horsepower
and DPPPs subject to the enforcement policy.

H. Shipments

DOE develops shipments projections of DPPPs to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future
manufacturer cash flows. In the January 2017 Final Rule, DOE estimated
shipments in 2015 using data collected from manufacturer interview. DOE
projected shipments using growth rates obtained from manufacturer
interviews, a consulting report, and several macroeconomic indicators.
82 FR 5650, 5703.
Issue 27: DOE requests 2020 annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) for dedicated-purpose pool pumps and corresponding equipment
classes (including those for pool filter pumps with hydraulic
horsepower greater than or equal to 2.5 horsepower and DPPPs subject to
the enforcement policy). For each class, DOE also requests the fraction
of sales by class that are ENERGY STAR-qualified, as well as the
fraction of sales by class that are single-speed, two-speed, or multi-
and variable-speed.
Issue 28: If available, DOE requests the same information for the
previous five years (2015-2019).

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of DPPPs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for each
equipment in this analysis, with the key output of industry net present
value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as equipment
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and equipment trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code.\6\ Manufacturing of DPPPs is classified under NAICS
code 333914, ``Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Available online at <a href="http://sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards">sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the equipment-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered equipment. While any one regulation may not
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of
several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences
for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry.
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers'
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon equipment
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing
equipment. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance
efficiency.
Issue 29: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute DPPPs in the United States.
Issue 30: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's
size threshold, of DPPPs that manufacture equipment in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue 31: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of DPPPs associated with (1)
other DOE standards applying to different equipment that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) equipment-specific regulatory
actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its
methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether
there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this
burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations
standards for DPPPs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data and
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.

[[Page 3470]]

Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office 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 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. If this instruction is followed, 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 on 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. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and 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 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. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process or would like to
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d3e2e2fefbf3fcf1f7c1e6f3fcf6f3e0f6e1c3e7f7e1e6fbfdfce1d2f7f7bcf6fdf7bcf5fde4">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 12,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00849 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 24, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.