5446 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
part 72 Certificate of Compliance 
Corrections and Revisions’’ is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14107A510. 
•NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 
purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 
B. Submitting Comments 
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 
0255 in your comment submission. 
The NRC cautions you not to include 
identifying or contact information that 
you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 
comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information. 
If you are requesting or aggregating 
comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. 
II. Background. 
The NRC is issuing this RIS to inform 
addressees of the processes to revise an 
initial CoC and subsequent amendments (hereafter referred to as CoCs, whether initial CoCs or subsequent amendments) to make administrative corrections and technical changes using the existing regulatory framework in 10 CFR part 72. 
The NRC issues RISs to communicate 
with stakeholders on a broad range of matters. 
III. Proposed Action 
The NRC is requesting public 
comments on the draft RIS. All 
comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must still be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the 
ADDRESSES section of 
this document. The NRC staff will make a final determination regarding issuance of the RIS after it considers any public comments received in response to this request. 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 
of December 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
John McKirgan, 
Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division 
of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 
[FR Doc. 2016–31986 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
10 CFR Part 431 
[Docket Number EERE–2015–BT–STD– 
0008] 
RIN 1904–AD52 
Energy Conservation Program: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Dedicated- Purpose Pool Pumps 
AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR). 
SUMMARY : The Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title III establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment.’’ The covered equipment includes pumps. In this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in the Federal Register. If DOE receives an adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and will proceed with this proposed rule. 
DATES : DOE will accept comments, data, 
and information regarding the proposed standards no later than May 8, 2017. 
Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the 
ADDRESSES section before February 
17, 2017. 
ADDRESSES : If DOE withdraws the direct 
final rule published elsewhere in the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any public meeting in the Federal Register. 
Instructions: Any comments 
submitted must identify the NOPR on Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps, and provide docket number EERE–2015– BT–STD–0008 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904–AD52. 
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 
1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
2) Email: PoolPumps2015STD0008@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. 
3) Postal Mail: Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. If 
possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 
accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document (‘‘Public Participation’’). 
Written comments regarding the 
burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to Chad_ S_
Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 
EPCA requires the Attorney General 
to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at energy.standards@usdoj.gov before 
February 17, 2017. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice. 
Docket: The docket, which includes 
Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:58 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5447 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 2All references to EPCA refer to the statute as 
amended through the Energy Efficiency 
Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11 
(April 30, 2015). 
3See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 
appliance_ standards/standards.aspx?productid=41. the www.regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the 
index may not be publicly available, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure. 
The docket Web page can be found at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008. The docket 
Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mr. 
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: Johanna.Jochum@hq.doe.gov. 
For further information on how to 
submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction 
A. Authority 
B. Background 
II. Proposed Standards 
1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards 
Considered for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps 
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and 
Costs of the Proposed Standards 
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review V. Public Participation 
A. Submission of Comments B. Public Meeting 
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 
I. Introduction 
A. Authority 
Title III, Part C1of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment.
2‘‘Pumps’’ are 
listed as a type of covered industrial 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 
While pumps are listed as a type of 
covered equipment, EPCA does not define the term ‘‘pump.’’ To address this, in January 2016, DOE published a test procedure final rule (January 2016 general pumps test procedure final rule) that established a definition for the term ‘‘pump.’’ 81 FR 4086, 4147 (January 25, 2016). In the December, 2016 test procedure final rule (‘‘test procedure final rule’’),
3DOE noted the 
applicability of the definition of ‘‘pump’’ and associated terms to dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 
conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 6316(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and when making representations to the public regarding their energy use or efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test 
procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart Y, appendix B. 
DOE must follow specific statutory 
criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), 6295(o), and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 
standard (1) for certain equipment, including dedicated-purpose pool pumps, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 6316(a)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors: 
1. The economic impact of the 
standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard; 
2. The savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard; 
3. The total projected amount of 
energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard; 
4. Any lessening of the utility or the 
performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the standard; 
5. The impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard; 
6. The need for national energy and 
water conservation; and 
7. Other factors the Secretary of 
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 
and 6316(a)) 
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) and 6316(a)) 
EPCA also contains what is known as 
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) and 6316(a)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5448 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
if interested persons have established by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a)) 
Additionally, EPCA specifies 
requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (a) consumes a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (b) has a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a)) 
Federal energy conservation 
requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and 6316(a)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). 
With particular regard to direct final 
rules, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. Law 110–140 (December 19, 2007), amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a type of final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final rule’’) 
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product or equipment 
(including dedicated-purpose pool pumps) on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) and 6316(a)) That statement must 
contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR, and publish in the Federal Register the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(ii)) 
B. Background 
DOE began the separate rulemaking 
for dedicated-purpose pool pumps on 
May 8, 2015, when it issued a Request for Information (RFI) (May 2015 DPPP RFI). 80 FR 26475. Consistent with feedback from these interested parties, DOE began a process through the ASRAC to charter a working group to recommend energy conservation standards and a test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps rather than continuing down the traditional notice and comment route that DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE–2015– BT–STD–0008) On August 25, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a working group for dedicated- purpose pool pumps (the DPPP Working Group). 80 FR 51483. DOE selected the members of the DPPP Working Group to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy organizations and 
manufacturers, as well as one representative from a state government organization. Additionally, one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative were part of the group. 
The DPPP Working Group completed 
its initial charter on December 8, 2015, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and the basis of test procedure (‘‘December 2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations’’). ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the December 
2015 DPPP Working Group recommendations during its January 20, 2016 meeting. (Docket No. EERE–2015– BT–STD–0008, No. 0052) At the January 20, 2016 ASRAC meeting, the DPPP Working Group also requested more time to discuss potential energy conservation standards for dedicated- purpose pool pumps. In response, ASRAC recommended that the DPPP Working Group continue its work in a second phase of negotiations to recommend potential energy conservation standards for dedicated- purpose pool pumps. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005, No. 71 at pp. 20–52) 
The second phase of meetings 
commenced on March 21, 2016 and concluded on June 23, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet (June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations). This term sheet contained DPPP Working Group recommendations on performance-based energy conservation standard levels, scope of such standards, certain prescriptive requirements, certain labeling requirements, certain definitions, and certain amendments to its previous test procedure recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 2015–BT–STD–0008, No. 82) ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the June 2016 DPPP Working Group recommendations during the July 29, 2016 meeting. 
After carefully considering the 
consensus recommendations submitted by the DPPP Working Group and adopted by ASRAC, DOE has determined that these recommendations comprised a statement submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. In reaching this determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Working Group, in conjunction with ASRAC members who approved the recommendations, consisted of representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates—all of which are groups specifically identified by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) 
DOE has considered the 
recommended energy conservation 
standards and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for pool pumps elsewhere in Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5449 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
withdrawal and withdraws the direct 
final rule, DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in determining how to proceed with this proposed rule. 
For further background information 
on these proposed standards and the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published elsewhere in Federal Register. That document includes additional discussion of the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy conservation standards; the history of the standards rulemaking for 
pool pumps; and information on the test procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of pool pumps. The document also contains an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, and the analytical results. 
II. Proposed Standards 1. Benefits and Burdens of Standards 
Considered for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps 
Table II.1 and Table II.2 summarize 
the quantitative impacts estimated for each trial standard level (TSL) for pool 
pumps. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of dedicated- purpose pool pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with new standards (2021–2050). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule. 
TABLE II.1—S UMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR POOLPUMPS TSL S: NATIONAL IMPACTS  
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings quads 
0.79 .............. 3.0 ................ 3.8 ................ 4.1 ................ 4.6 
NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits billion 2015$ 
3% discount rate .................................................................. 5.1 ................ 17 ................. 24 ..... ............ 21 ................. 25 
7% discount rate .................................................................. 2.5 ................ 8.1 ................ 11 ..... ............ 10 ................. 12 
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction.
CO 2million metric tons ........................................................ 42 ................. 160 ............... 202 ............... 216 ............... 246 
SO 2thousand tons ............................................................... 31 ................. 116 ............... 147 ............... 156 ............... 178 
NO Xthousand tons .............................................................. 53 ................. 203 ............... 257 ............... 275 ............... 313 
Hg tons ................................................................................. 0.10 .............. 0.39 .............. 0.50 .............. 0.53 .............. 0.60 
CH 4thousand tons ............................................................... 200 ............... 765 ............... 968 ............... 1,035 ............ 1,179 
N2O thousand tons ............................................................... 0.62 .............. 2.3 ................ 3.0 ................ 3.2 ................ 3.6 
Value of Emissions Reduction 
CO 2billion 2015$*................................................................ 0.327 to 
4.388.1.207 to 
16.402.1.524 to 
20.724.1.624 to 
22.104.1.841 to 
25.113 
CH 4billion 2015$ ................................................................. 0.069 to 
0.549.0.256 to 
2.082.0.324 to 
2.632.0.346 to 
2.812.0.393 to 
3.202 
N2O billion 2015$ ................................................................. 0.002 to 
0.019.0.007 to 
0.072.0.008 to 
0.091.0.009 to 
0.097.0.010 to 
0.110 
NO X—3% discount rate billion 2015$ .................................. 0.103 to 
0.231.0.378 to 
0.851.0.477 to 
1.075.0.508 to 
1.144.0.575 to 
1.297 
NO X—7% discount rate billion 2015$ .................................. 0.047 to 
0.106.0.167 to 
0.377.0.210 to 
0.475.0.222 to 
0.503.0.25 to 0.566 
Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 
* Range of the economic value of CO 2reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO 2emissions. 
TABLE II.2—M ANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS FOR DEDICATED -PURPOSE POOLPUMPS TSL S 
Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4* TSL 5* 
Manufacturer Impacts 
Industry NPV million 2015$ (No-standards case INPV = 
$212.8).201.0–210.9 178.8–200.2 166.5–219.8 126.2–195.9 36.8–110.5 
Industry NPV % change ....................................................... (5.5)–(0.9) .... (16.0)–(5.9) .. (21.8)–3.3 ..... (40.7)–(7.9) .. (82.7)–(48.1) 
Consumer Average LCC Savings 2015$.
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...................... 669 ............... 1,779 ............ 2,140 ............ 2,140 ..... ....... 2,085 
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ........................... 295 ............... 322 ............... 295 ............... 360 ... ............ 414 
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .............. 191 ............... 35 ................. 191 ............... 10 ......... ........ 93 
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .................. 36 ................. 36 ................. 36 ................. 10 ..... ............ 10 
Waterfall Pump ..................................................................... (3) ................. (3) ................. n/a . ............... (20) ............... 13 
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ......................................... 111 ............... 111 ............... 111 ............... (37 2) ............. (313) 
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump .............................................. n/a ................ n/a ................ 128 .......... ..... n/a ................ n/a 
Integral Sand Filter Pump .................................................... n/a ................ n/a ................ 73 .......... ....... n/a ................ n/a 
Consumer Simple PBP years 
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...................... 0.6 ................ 0.7 ................ 0.7 ................ 0.7 .. .............. 0.6 
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ........................... 0.8 ................ 2.0 ................ 0.8 ................ 2.1 ................ 1.9 
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .............. 0.2 ................ 2.3 ................ 0.2 ................ 2.3 ...... .......... 2.1 
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .................. 0.9 ................ 0.9 ................ 0.9 ................ 1.6 .... ............ 1.6 
Waterfall Pumps ................................................................... 4.5 ................ 4.5 ................ n/a .... ............ 5.4 ................ 3.7 
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps ....................................... 0.6 ................ 0.6 ................ 0.6 ................ 6 .0 ................ 5.1 
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump .............................................. n/a ................ n/a ................ 0.4 .......... ...... n/a ................ n/a 
Integral Sand Filter Pump .................................................... n/a ................ n/a ................ 0.5 ......... ....... n/a ................ n/a 
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost % 
Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ...................... 1 ................... 5 ................... 10 ................. 10 . ................ 8 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5450 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.2—M ANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS FOR DEDICATED -PURPOSE POOLPUMPS TSL S—Continued 
Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4* TSL 5* 
Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ........................... 4 ................... 27 ................. 4 ................... 2 9 ................. 26 
Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .............. 0 ................... 58 ................. 0 ................... 51 ..... ............ 47 
Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump .................. 4 ................... 4 ................... 4 ................... 39 .. ............... 39 
Waterfall Pumps ................................................................... 50 ................. 50 ................. n/a .... ............ 70 ................. 55 
Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps ....................................... 0 ................... 0 ................... 0 ................. .. 69 ................. 68 
Integral Cartridge Filter Pump .............................................. n/a ................ n/a ................ 3 ............ ....... n/a ................ n/a 
Integral Sand Filter Pump .................................................... n/a ................ n/a ................ 3 ........... ........ n/a ................ n/a 
* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 
DOE first considered TSL 5, which 
represents the max-tech efficiency 
levels. TSL 5 would save an estimated 4.6 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $12 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $25 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. 
The cumulative emissions reductions 
at TSL 5 are 246 Mt of CO
2; 178 
thousand tons of SO 2; 313 thousand 
tons of NO X´0.60 tons of Hg; 1,179 
thousand tons of CH 4´and 3.6 thousand 
tons of N 2O. The estimated monetary 
value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 5 ranges from $1.8 billion to $25 billion for CO
2,from $393 million to 
3,202 million for CH 4,and from $10 
million to $110 million for N 2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the NO X 
emissions reduction at TSL 5 is $250 million using a 7-percent discount rate and $575 million using a 3-percent discount rate. 
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 
a savings that ranges from $10 for extra- small non-self-priming pumps, to $2,085 for standard-size self-priming pump, except for pressure cleaner booster pumps, which have a savings of negative $313. The simple payback period ranges from 0.6 years for standard-size self-priming pumps to 5.1 years for pressure cleaner booster pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from eight percent for standard-size self- priming pumps to 68 percent for pressure cleaner booster pumps. 
At TSL 5, the projected change in 
INPV ranges from a decrease of $176.0 million to a decrease of $102.3 million, which correspond to decreases of 82.7 percent and 48.1 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $199.5 million to comply with standards set at TSL 5. Manufacturers would need to redesign a significant portion of the equipment they offer, including hydraulic redesigns to convert the vast majority of their standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps. 
The Secretary tentatively concludes 
that at TSL 5 for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, and the significant impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified. 
DOE then considered TSL 4, which 
represents efficiency levels based on variable speed technology for most equipment classes. TSL 4 would save an estimated 4.1 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $10 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. 
The cumulative emissions reductions 
at TSL 4 are 216 Mt of CO
2, 156 
thousand tons of SO 2, 275 thousand 
tons of NO X, 0.53 tons of Hg, 
1,035thousand tons of CH 4,and 3.2 
thousand tons of N 2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 4 ranges from $1.6 billion to $22 billion for CO
2,from $346 
million to $2,812 million for CH 4,and 
from $8.8 million to $97 million for N
2O. The estimated monetary value of 
the NO Xemissions reduction at TSL 4 
is $222 million using a 7-percent discount rate and $508 million using a 3-percent discount rate. 
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 
a savings that ranges from $10 for extra- small non-self-priming pumps, to $2,140 for standard-size self-priming pumps, except for pressure cleaner booster pumps, which have a savings of negative $372, and waterfall pumps, which have a savings of negative $20. The simple payback period ranges from 0.7 years for standard-size self-priming pumps to 6.0 years for pressure cleaner booster pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 10 percent for standard-size self-priming pumps to 70 percent for waterfall pumps. 
At TSL 4, the projected change in 
INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.6 million to a decrease of $16.9 million, which correspond to decreases of 40.7 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $68.4 million to comply with standards set at TSL 4. 
The Secretary tentatively concludes 
that at TSL 4 for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, and the significant impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified. 
DOE then considered TSL 3, the 
recommended TSL, which would save an estimated 3.8 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $11 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $24 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. 
The cumulative emissions reductions 
at TSL 3 are 202 Mt of CO
2,147 
thousand tons of SO 2; 257 thousand 
tons of NO X, 0.50 tons of Hg, 968 
thousand tons of CH 4; and 3.0 thousand 
tons of N 2O. The estimated monetary 
value of the GHG emissions reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $1.5 billion to $21 billion for CO
2,from $324 million to 
$2,632 million for CH 4,and from $8.3 
million to $91 million for N 2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the NO X 
emissions reduction at TSL 3 is $210 million using a 7-percent discount rate and $477 million using a 3-percent discount rate. 
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 
a savings that ranges from $36 for extra- small non-self-priming pool filter pumps to $2,140 for standard-size self- priming pumps. The simple payback 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5451 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
4DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent 
discount rate these values are considered as the 
‘‘central’’ estimates by the interagency group. period ranges from 0.2 years for 
standard-size non-self-priming pool filter pumps to 0.8 years for extra-small non-self-priming pool filter pumps. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from zero percent for standard-size non-self-priming pumps and pressure cleaner booster pumps to 10 percent for standard-size self-priming pumps. 
At TSL 3, the projected change in 
INPV ranges from a decrease of $46.3 
million to an increase of $7.0 million, which represents a decrease of 21.8 percent to an increase of 3.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $35.6 million to 
comply with standards set at TSL 3. 
After considering the analysis and 
weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that, at TSL 3 for dedicated-purpose pool pumps, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive 
average LCC savings, would outweigh the potential negative impacts on manufacturers. Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. 
Therefore, based on the above 
considerations, DOE proposes the energy conservation standards for pool pumps at TSL 3. The proposed performance-based energy conservation standards for pool pumps, which are expressed as kgal/kWh, are shown in Table II.3. The proposed prescriptive energy conservation standards for pool 
pumps are shown in Table II.4. 
TABLE II.3—P ROPOSED PERFORMANCE -BASED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED -PURPOSE POOL 
PUMPS  
Equipment class Minimum allowable WEF score 
[kgal/kwh] Dedicated-purpose pool pump variety hhp Applicability* Motor phase 
Self-priming pool filter pumps ........................... 0.711 hp ≤ hhp < 2.5 hp ..... Single ............. ¥2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59. 
Self-priming pool filter pumps ........................... hhp < 0.711 hp .................... Single ............. 5.55, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp 
¥ 1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90, for hhp > 0.13 hp. 
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps** ................. hhp < 2.5 hp ........................ Any ................. 4.60, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp 
¥ 0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87, for hhp > 0.13 hp. 
Pressure cleaner booster pumps ...................... Any ...................................... Any ................. 0.42. 
* All instances of hhp refer to rated hydraulic horsepower as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.464 and 
applicable sampling plans. 
** Because DOE selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small and standard-size non-self-priming pool filter pumps, the two equip-
ment classes were ultimately merged into one. 
TABLE II.4—P ROPOSED PRESCRIPTIVE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR DEDICATED -PURPOSE POOLPUMPS  
Equipment class 
Prescriptive standard Dedicated-purpose pool pump 
variety hhp 
Applicability Motor phase 
Integral sand filter pool pump .......... Any ................. Any ................. Must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either 
integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with 
the pump. 
Integral cartridge filter pool 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. 
2. Summary of Annualized Benefits and 
Costs of the Proposed Standards 
The benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2015$) of the benefits from operating equipment that meet the adopted standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of GHG and NO
Xemission 
reductions. Table II.5 shows the annualized 
values for dedicated-purpose pool 
pumps under TSL 3, expressed in 2015$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. 
Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
benefits and costs other than GHG reduction (for which DOE used average social costs with a 3-percent discount rate),
4the estimated cost of the 
standards in this rule is $138 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1.3 billion in reduced equipment operating costs, $449 million in GHG reductions, and $22 million in reduced 
NO
Xemissions. In this case, the net 
benefit amounts to $1.7 billion per year. 
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the adopted standards for dedicated- purpose pool pumps is $149 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1.5 billion in reduced operating costs, $449 million in CO
2reductions, and $27 
million in reduced NO Xemissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.8 billion per year. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5452 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE II.5—A NNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS (TSL 3) FORDEDICATED -PURPOSE POOL 
PUMPS  
Discount rate 
% Million 2015$/year 
Primary 
estimate Low-net-bene-
fits estimate High-net-bene-
fits estimate 
Benefits 
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................... 7 ................................ 1,340 ...... ........ 1,221 .............. 1,467 
3 ................................ 1,516 .............. 1,367 .............. 1,678 
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 5% discount rate)** ....... 5 ................................ 147 ................. 129 ... .............. 164 
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 3% discount rate)** ....... 3 ................................ 449 ................. 392 ... .............. 504 
GHG Reduction (using avg. social costs at 2.5% discount rate)** .... 2.5 ............................. 642 ................. 560 ..... ............ 721 
GHG Reduction (using 95th percentile social costs at 3% discount 
rate)**.3 ................................ 1,346 .............. 1,175 .............. 1,510 
NO XReduction † ................................................................................. 7% ............................. 22 ................... 20 ................... 55 
3% ............................. 27 ................... 24 ................... 70 
Total Benefits ‡.................................................................................... 7% plus GHG range .. 1,509 to 2,708 1,369 to 2,416 1,686 to 3,032 
7% ............................. 1,811 .............. 1,633 .............. 2,026 
3% plus GHG range .. 1,690 to 2,890 1,520 to 2,566 1,912 to 3,258 
3% ............................. 1,993 .............. 1,783 .............. 2,252 
Costs 
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs ........................................... 7% ............................. 138 .............. ... 124 ................. 151 
3% ............................. 149 ................. 133 ................. 164 
Manufacturer Conversion Costs †† ..................................................... 7% .............................
3% .............................3 .....................
2 .....................3 .....................2 .....................3 2 
Net Benefits 
Total ‡........................................................................................... 7% plus GHG range .. 1,371 to 2,570 1,245 to 2,292 1,535 to 2,881 
7% ............................. 1,673 .............. 1,509 .............. 1,875 
3% plus GHG range .. 1,542 to 2,741 1,387 to 2,433 1,748 to 3,094 
3% ............................. 1,844 .............. 1,651 .............. 2,088 
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pool pumps shipped in 2021–2050. These results include benefits to 
consumers which accrue after 2050 from the pool pumps purchased from 2021–2050. The incremental equipment costs include increme ntal 
equipment cost as well as installation costs. The costs account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the 
proposed standards, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices and real GDP from the AEO2016 No–CPP case, a Low Economic Growth case, and a High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect the default price trend in the Primary Estimate, a high price trend in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a low price trend in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sec-tion IV.F.1 of the DFR. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 
** The interagency group selected four sets of SC–CO
2SC–CH 4, and SC–N 2O values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are 
based on the average social costs from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile of the social cost distributions calculated using a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent high-er-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the social cost distributions. The social cost values are emission year specific. The GHG reduction benefits are global benefits due to actions that occur nationally. See section IV.L of the DFR for more details. 
† DOE estimated the monetized value of NO
Xemissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, published in August 2015 by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand-ards. (Available at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-final-rule-regulatory-impact-analysis.) See section IV.L.3 for further discussion. 
For the Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, DOE used national benefit-per-ton estimates for NO
Xemitted from the Electric Gener-
ating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al. 2009). For the High Net Benefits Esti-
mate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al. 2011); these are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than 
those from the ACS study. 
‡Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. In the 
rows labeled ‘‘7% plus GHG range’’ and ‘‘3% plus GHG range,’’ the operating cost and NO Xbenefits are calculated using the labeled discount 
rate, and those values are added to the full range of social cost values. 
†† Manufacturers are estimated to incur $35.6 million in conversion costs between 2017 and 2020. 
III. Other Prescriptive Requirements 
As part of the DPPP Working Group’s 
extended charter, the DPPP Working 
Group considered requirements for pumps distributed in commerce with freeze protections controls. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005, No. 71 at pp. 20–52) Freeze protection controls, as defined in the test procedure final rule, are controls that, at certain ambient temperature, turn on the dedicated- purpose pool pump to circulate water for a period of time to prevent the pool 
and water in plumbing from freezing. As the control schemes for freeze protection vary widely between manufacturers, the resultant energy consumption associated with such control can also vary depending on control settings and climate. To ensure freeze protection controls on dedicated- purpose pool pumps only operate when necessary and do not result in unnecessary energy use, the DPPP Working Group recommended 
establishing prescriptive requirements for dedicated-purpose pool pumps that are distributed in commerce with freeze protection controls. Specifically, the DPPP Working Group made the following recommendation, which it purports to maintain end-user utility 
while also reducing energy consumption: 
All dedicated-purpose pool pumps 
distributed in commerce with freeze 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5453 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
protection controls must be shipped 
either with freeze protection disabled, or with the following default, user- adjustable settings: (1) The default dry- 
bulb air temperature setting is no greater than 40 °F; and (2) the default run time 
setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (3) the default motor speed shall not 
be more than half of the maximum available speed. Id. (Docket No. EERE– 
2015–BT–STD–0008, No. 82, Recommendation #6A at p. 4). DOE agrees with the DPPP Working Group’s reasoning, and given the considerations discussed in section III.A of the Direct Final Rule, DOE proposes to adopt the recommended prescriptive standard for dedicated-purpose pool pumps distributed in commerce with freeze protection controls. 
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 
Review 
The regulatory reviews conducted for 
this proposed rule are identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule for further details. 
V. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments 
DOE will accept comments, data, and 
information regarding this proposed 
rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the 
DATES section at the beginning of 
this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. 
Submitting comments via 
www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page will 
require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. 
However, your contact information 
will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. 
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 
as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. 
DOE processes submissions made 
through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. 
Submitting comments via email, hand 
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you 
do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments 
Include contact information each time 
you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 
Comments, data, and other 
information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author. 
Campaign form letters. Please submit 
campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. 
Confidential Business Information. 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. 
Factors of interest to DOE when 
evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. 
It is DOE’s policy that all comments 
may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from 
public disclosure). 
B. Public Meeting 
As stated previously, if DOE 
withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in the Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting in the Federal Register. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS5454 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 
VI. Approval of the Office of the 
Secretary 
The Secretary of Energy has approved 
publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking. 
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. 
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 
23, 2016. 
David J. Friedman, Acting Assistant SecretaryEnergy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy. 
For the reasons set forth in the 
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 
■1. The authority citation for part 431 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 
2461 note. 
■2. Section 431.462 is amended by 
adding the definition for ‘‘pool pump timer’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: 
§ 431.462 Definitions. 
* * * * * 
Pool pump timer means a pool pump 
control that automatically turns off a dedicated-purpose pool pump after a run-time of no longer than 10 hours. 
* * * * * ■3. Section 431.465 is amended by 
adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) to 
read as follows: 
§ 431.465 Pumps energy conservation 
standards and their compliance dates. 
* * * * * 
(e) For the purposes of paragraph (f) 
of this section, ‘‘WEF’’ means the 
weighted energy factor and ‘‘hhp’’ means the rated hydraulic horsepower, as determined in accordance with the test procedure in § 431.464(b) and applicable sampling plans in § 429.59 of this chapter. 
(f) Each dedicated-purpose pool pump 
that is not a submersible pump and is manufactured starting on July 19, 2021 must have a WEF rating that is not less than the value calculated from the following table: 
Equipment class Minimum 
allowable 
WEF score 
[kgal/kWh] Minimum allowable WEF score [kgal/kWh] 
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Variety hhp 
Applicability 
Motor phase 
Self-priming pool filter pumps ............................... 0.711 hp ≤ hhp < 2.5 hp Single ............. WEF = ¥2.30 * ln (hhp) + 6.59. 
Self-priming pool filter pumps ............................... hhp < 0.711 hp ............. Single ............. WEF = 5.55, for hhp ≤ 1.30. hp 
¥ 1.30 * ln (hhp) + 2.90, for hhp > 0.13 hp. 
Non-self-priming pool filter pumps ........................ hhp < 2.5 hp ................. Any ................. WEF = 4.60, for hhp ≤ 0.13 hp 
¥0.85 * ln (hhp) + 2.87, for hhp > 0.13 hp. 
Pressure cleaner booster pumps ......................... Any ................................ Any ................. WEF = 0.42 
(g) Each integral cartridge filter pool 
pump and integral sand filter pool pump that is manufactured starting on July 19, 2021 must be distributed in commerce with a pool pump timer that is either integral to the pump or a separate component that is shipped with the pump. 
(h) For all dedicated-purpose pool 
pumps distributed in commerce with freeze protection controls, the pump must be shipped with freeze protection disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable settings: 
(1) The default dry-bulb air 
temperature setting is no greater than 40°F; 
(2) The default run time setting shall 
be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and 
(3) The default motor speed shall not 
be more than 
1⁄2of the maximum 
available speed. 
[FR Doc. 2016–31665 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0755; Directorate 
Identifier 2010–NE–12–AD] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 
plc Turbofan Engines 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 
SUMMARY : We propose to supersede 
airworthiness directive (AD) 2012–04– 01 that applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211–Trent 800 model turbofan engines. AD 2012–04–01 requires removal from service of certain critical engine rotating parts based on reduced life limits. Since we issued AD 2012– 04–01, RR has further revised the life limits of certain critical engine rotating parts. This proposed AD would make additional revisions to the life limits of certain critical engine rotating parts. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products. 
DATES : We must receive comments on 
this proposed AD by March 6, 2017. 
ADDRESSES : You may send comments, 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
•Fax: 202–493–2251. 
•Mail: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
•Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 
address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Examining the AD Docket 
You may examine the AD docket on 
the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2010– 0755; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM 18JAP1mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS