[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 www.regulations.gov. 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: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d397838383e1e3e1e1808797e3e3e3e293b6b6fdb7bcb6fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9edf9f9f99b999b9bfafded99999998e9cccc87cdc6cc87cec6df">[email protected]</span></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 www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001. 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 
www.regulations.gov.

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"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b1a2b2b37323a35383e082f3a353f3a293f280a2e3e282f323435281b3e3e753f343e753c342d">[email protected]</span></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"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="34555951585d551a435c5d405d5a53745c451a505b511a535b42">[email protected]</span></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"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f5c4c4d8ddd5dad7d1e7c0d5dad0d5c6d0c7e5c1d1c7c0dddbdac7f4d1d19ad0dbd19ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></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\ www.energy.gov/gc/articles/direct-purpose-pool-pumps-enforcement-policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov 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 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 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 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. Comments and documents submitted via 
email 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 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"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87c6f7f7ebeee6e9e4e2d4f3e6e9e3e6f5e3f4d6f2e2f4f3eee8e9f4c7e2e2a9e3e8e2a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></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>