Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

24519

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 87 / Friday, May 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules TABLE I.1ASRAC CPWG MEMBERS AND AFFILIATIONSContinued Member
Affiliation
Russell Pate
Don Lanser
Tom Eckman

Rheem Manufacturing Company
Nidec Motor Corporation
Northwest Power and Conservation Council ASRAC member

The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29, 2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test procedure items on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and the basis of the test procedure September 2016 CPWG
Recommendations. The term sheet containing these recommendations is available in the CPWG docket. Docket No. EERE2016BTSTD0004, No. 58
The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings began on November 34, 2016
and concluded on December 1, 2016, with approval of a second term sheet December 2016 CPWG
Recommendations containing CPWG
recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator pumps.
Docket No. EERE2016BTSTD0004, No. 98 ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the September and December 2016 CPWG
Recommendations collectively, the 2016 Term Sheets during a December meeting. Docket No. EERE2013BT
NOC0005, No. 91 at p. 2 5
In a letter dated June 9, 2017, HI
expressed its support for the process that DOE initiated regarding circulator
Abbreviation
pumps and encouraged the publishing of a NOPR and a final rule by the end of 2017. Docket No. EERE2016BT
STD0004, HI, No.103 at p. 1 In response to an early assessment review RFI published September 28, 2020
regarding the existing test procedures for certain pumps 85 FR 60734, September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, HI commented that it continues to support the recommendations from the CPWG. Docket No. EERE2020BT
TP0032, HI, No. 6 at p. 1 In addition, NEEA commented that the CPWG
recommended adopting test procedures for circulator pumps, which DOE
should do in the pumps or a separate rulemaking. Docket No. EERE2020
BTTP0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8
C. 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. 6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295o2A
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.
6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295o3B

Rheem.
Nidec.
NPCC.

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;
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 products 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. 6316a; 42 U.S.C.
6295o2BiIVII
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.2 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

TABLE I.2EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings

Technological Feasibility

Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product
5 All references in this document to the approved recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in the CPWG

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:32 May 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.

Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.

docket e.g., Docket No. EERE2016BTSTD0004, No. , Recommendation X at p. Y. References to discussions or suggestions of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable e.g., Docket No. EERE2016BTSTD
0004, Organization, No. X at p. Y.

E:FRFM07MYP1.SGM

07MYP1