Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3461 

reference NSF/ANSI/CAN 50–2019 

sections N3–3 (which is the same as 

section C3 of NSF/ANSI 50–2015) as the 

DOE test procedure for determining the 

self-priming capabilities of DPPPs. DOE 

also requests information on the impact 

of the updates in NSF/ANSI/CAN 50– 

2019 to the test burden and the 

representativeness of the test results. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date specified 

in the DATES section, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

RFI. 

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 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. 

Following this instruction, 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. Faxes 

will not 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, 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. 

According 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 wellmarked 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 test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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. 2022–00850 Filed 1–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0001] 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for DedicatedPurpose 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

(‘‘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 DPPP2022STD0001@

ee.doe.gov. 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/EERE2022-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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

amelia.whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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. Dedicatedpurpose pool pumps, which are the 

subject of this RFI, meet this definition 

of a pump and are covered under the 

pump equipment type. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3463 

3On 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. 

4The 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). 

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’’). 

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. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3464 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Significant Energy Savings .................................................................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

• Energy and Water Use Analysis. 

Technological Feasibility ........................................................................................................ • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ................................................ • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Consumer Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Equipment .. • Markups for Equipment Price Determination. 

• Energy and Water Use Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total Projected Energy Savings ................................................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance ................................................................................ • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition .................................................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation ................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ...................................................... • Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Emissions Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. 

• 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 subcategory 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3465 

5www.energy.gov/gc/articles/direct-purpose-poolpumps-enforcement-policy. 

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: 

(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 performancerelated 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 costeffectiveness 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 maxtech 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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

Equipment 

class Pump variety 

Motor 

nameplate 

efficiency 

at high speed 

(%) 

Horsepower 

rating 

(hhp) 

Weighted 

energy factor, 

WEF 

(kgal/kWh) 

1 ..................... Standard-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ..................................... 82 1.88 6.97 

81 0.95 8.59 

2 ..................... Small-Size Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ........................................... 81 0.44 11.71 

3 ..................... Standard-Size Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ............................. 81 0.52 11.96 

4 ..................... Extra-Small Non-Self-Priming Pool Filter Pump ................................. 72 0.09 5.14 

5 ..................... Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump ........................................................ 81 0.28 0.56 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 costprohibitive 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 costefficiency 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

be applicable to (or incompatible with) 

specific equipment classes. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction 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 higherefficiency 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 → Wholesaler → Pool 

Service Contractor → Consumer

(75%) 

Manufacturer → Pool Product Retailer 

→ Consumer (20%) 

New Pool: 

Manufacturer → Pool Builder → 

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 → Wholesaler → 

Contractor → Consumer (25%) 

Motor Manufacturer → Wholesaler → 

Retailer → Consumer via internet or 

direct sale at local stores (25%) 

Pump Manufacturer → Pump Product 

Retailer → 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 dedicatedpurpose 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 3469 

6Available online at sba.gov/document/support-- 

table-size-standards. 

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-selfpriming 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 singlespeed, 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. 

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 foreignbased 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) equipmentspecific 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–1185; Project 

Identifier AD–2021–00339–E] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell 

International, Inc. (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by AlliedSignal, Inc. 

and Textron Lycoming) Turboshaft 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2002–03–01, which applies to all 

Honeywell International, Inc. 

(Honeywell) T53 model turboshaft 

engines. AD 2002–03–01 requires initial 

and repetitive special vibration tests of 

the engine, and if necessary replacement 

with a serviceable reduction gearbox 

assembly, or a serviceable engine before 

further flight. Since the FAA issued AD 

2002–03–01, the FAA received reports 

that two additional Honeywell model 

turboshaft engines, not captured in AD 

2002–03–01, are also subject to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1