[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17586-17651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06945]



[[Page 17585]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 62

April 1, 2015

Part III





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 17586]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055]
RIN 1905-AD50


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish a 
new test procedure for pumps. Specifically, DOE is proposing a test 
method for measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric 
input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous 
or non-continuous controls. The proposal, if adopted, would incorporate 
by reference the test procedure from the Hydraulic Institute (HI)--
Standard 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency 
Testing.'' The proposed test procedure would be used to determine the 
constant load pump energy index (PEICL) for pumps sold 
without continuous or non-continuous controls or the variable load pump 
energy index (PEIVL) for pumps sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls. The PEICL and PEIVL describe 
the power consumption of the rated pump, inclusive of an electric motor 
and, if applicable, any integrated continuous or non-continuous 
controls, normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally 
compliant pump for each pump basic model. The proposal reflects certain 
recommendations made by a stakeholder Working Group for pumps 
established under the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory 
Committee (ASRAC). DOE is also announcing a public meeting to discuss 
and receive comments on issues presented in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR).

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 
from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also 
be broadcast as a webinar. See section IV.M, ``Public Participation,'' 
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR 
before and after the public meeting, but no later than June 15, 2015. 
See section IV.M, ``Public Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945.
    Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more 
information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of 
this proposed rule.
    Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section IV.M of this 
document (``Public Participation'').
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the 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.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
public comments, in the docket. See section IV.M for information on how 
to submit comments through regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586-6590. Email: 
[email protected].
    Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Incorporation by Reference Under 1 CFR part 51

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry 
standards into 10 CFR part 431:
    (1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (``ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014''), 
``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;'' 
approved 2014, sections 1.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' and 1.2.9, 
``Rotodynamic pump icons.''
    (2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (``ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 ''), 
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,'' 
approved 2008, section 2.1, ``Types and nomenclature.''
    (3) HI 40.6-2014, (``HI 40.6-2014''), ``Methods for Rotodynamic 
Pump Efficiency Testing,'' except for section 40.6.5.3, ``Test 
report;'' section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C 
(86[emsp14][deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results,'' 
approved 2014.
    Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 and HI 40.6-
2014 can be obtained from: The Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, 
First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 07054-4406, or by going to 
www.pumps.org.
    (4) FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire 
Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' approved October 2008.
    Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: Factory 
Mutual. 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401-275-3000. 
www.fmglobal.com/.
    (5) NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of 
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' approved 2013.
    Copies of NFPA Standard 20-2013 can be obtained from: The National 
Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 
617-770-3000. www.nfpa.org.

[[Page 17587]]

    (6) UL Standard 448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-
Protection Service,'' approved 2007.
    Copies of UL Standard 448-2007 can be obtained from: The 
Underwriters Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. 
http://ul.com/.
    Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. These standards are discussed in more 
detail in section IV.M. of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Scope
    1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps
    2. Equipment Classes
    3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application
    4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This 
Rulemaking
    5. Non-Electric Drivers
    6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors
    B. Rating Metric
    1. Working Group and Other Stakeholder Comments
    2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and Variable Load Pump Energy 
Index
    C. Determination of Pump Performance
    1. Referenced Industry Standards
    2. Minor Modifications and Additions to HI 40.6-2014
    D. Determination of Motor Efficiency
    1. Default Motor Efficiency
    2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses
    E. Test Methods for Different Pump Configurations
    1. Calculation-Based Test Methods
    2. Testing-Based Methods
    3. Applicability of Calculation and Testing-Based Test Methods 
to Different Pump Configurations
    F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency
    G. Sampling Plans for Pumps
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Small Business Determination
    2. Assessing the Number of Basic Models per Manufacturer
    3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Pump Test Procedure
    4. Capital Expense Associated With Constructing a Pump Testing 
Facility
    5. Recurring Burden Associated With Ongoing Testing Activities
    6. Cumulative Burden
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Pumps are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which 
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards 
and test procedures. DOE does not currently regulate the energy 
efficiency of this equipment or have test procedures to measure the 
efficiency of such equipment. The following sections discuss DOE's 
authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant 
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures 
for this equipment.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 
94-163, as amended by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment under Title III, Part C. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as 
codified).\1\ Included among the various types of industrial equipment 
addressed by EPCA are pumps, the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1)(A)) All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended 
through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 
(AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation 
standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and 
(2) making representations about the energy consumption of that 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when 
prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA 
provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual 
operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    In addition, before prescribing any final test procedures, DOE must 
publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to 
present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)-(2))
    DOE is authorized to prescribe energy conservation standards and 
corresponding test procedures for statutorily-covered equipment such as 
pumps. While DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy 
conservation standards for pumps, (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), 
DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, 
energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of a given type of 
covered equipment before establishing any new energy conservation 
standards for that equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) and 
6316(a).
    To fulfill these requirements, DOE is proposing to establish a test 
procedure for pumps concurrent with its ongoing energy conservation 
standards rulemaking for this equipment. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0031. The test procedure, if adopted, would include the methods 
necessary to: (1) Measure the performance of the covered equipment; and 
(2) use the measured results to calculate a pump energy index 
(PEICL for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous 
controls or PEIVL for pumps sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls) to represent the power consumption of the pump, 
inclusive of a motor \2\ and

[[Page 17588]]

any continuous or non-continuous controls, normalized with respect to 
the performance of a minimally compliant pump. DOE is also proposing to 
set the scope of those pumps to which the proposed test method would 
apply. DOE's proposals reflect certain recommendations made by a 
stakeholder Working Group for pumps established under the Appliance 
Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC), which is 
discussed further in section I.B. This group consisted of a wide 
variety of interested parties with a diverse set of interests with 
respect to pump efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE is proposing to include pumps sold with all electric 
motors except single-phase induction motors in the scope of this 
rulemaking. The terms ``motor'' and ``electric motor'' are used 
synonymously and interchangeably in this document to refer to those 
motors to which the proposed test procedure would apply (i.e., all 
electric motors except single-phase induction motors). See section 
III.A.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If adopted, manufacturers would be required to use the proposed 
test procedure and metric when making representations regarding the 
energy use of covered equipment 180 days after the publication date of 
any applicable energy conservation standards final rule for those pumps 
that are addressed by the test procedure. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0031). See also 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).

B. Background

    DOE does not currently regulate pumps. In 2011, DOE issued a 
Request for Information (RFI) to gather data and information related to 
pumps in anticipation of initiating rulemakings to formally consider 
test procedures and energy conservation standards for this equipment. 
76 FR 34192 (June 13, 2011). In February 2013, DOE published a Notice 
of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document to 
initiate the energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps. 78 FR 
7304 (Feb. 1, 2013). DOE posted the February 2013 Framework Document 
(``Framework Document'') to its Web site.\3\ In the Framework Document, 
DOE requested feedback from interested parties on how to test pump 
efficiency. DOE held a public meeting to discuss the Framework Document 
on February 20, 2013 (the ``Pumps Framework Public Meeting''). While 
the comment period had been scheduled to close on March 18, 2013, DOE 
extended the comment period to May 2, 2013, to allow commenters 
sufficient time to formulate responses to the large number and broad 
scope of questions and issues raised by DOE in the Framework Document. 
See 78 FR 11996 (Feb. 21, 2013). DOE received 12 comments in response 
to the Framework Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with these efforts, DOE also began a process through the 
ASRAC to discuss conducting a negotiated rulemaking to develop 
standards and test procedures for pumps as an alternative to the route 
DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039) \4\ On July 
23, 2013, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated 
rulemaking working group for commercial and industrial pumps (``CIP 
Working Group'' or, in context, ``Working Group'') to negotiate, if 
possible, Federal standards for the energy efficiency of commercial and 
industrial pumps. 78 FR 44036. On November 12, 2013, DOE published a 
notice to announce the first meeting of the CIP Working Group and 
listed the 14 nominees that were selected to serve as members of the 
Working Group, in addition to one member from ASRAC and one DOE 
representative. 78 FR 67319. The members of the Working Group were 
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder interests 
and expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy 
organizations, manufacturers, and a utility (representing a user of 
pumps). Table I.1 lists the members and their affiliations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Information on the ASRAC, about the commercial and 
industrial pumps working group, and about meeting dates is available 
at http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee.

      Table I.1--ASRAC Pump Working Group Members and Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                            Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Adin...................  U.S. Department of Energy.
Tom Eckman...................  Northwest Power and Conservation Council
                                (ASRAC Member)
Robert Barbour...............  TACO, Inc.
Charles Cappelino............  ITT Industrial Process.
Greg Case....................  Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics.
Gary Fernstrom...............  Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego
                                Gas & Electric Company, Southern
                                California Edison, and Southern
                                California Gas Company.
Mark Handzel.................  Xylem Corporation.
Albert Huber.................  Patterson Pump Company.
Joanna Mauer.................  Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
Doug Potts...................  American Water.
Charles Powers...............  Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps.
Howard Richardson............  Regal Beloit.
Steve Rosenstock.............  Edison Electric Institute.
Louis Starr..................  Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Greg Towsley.................  Grundfos USA.
Meg Waltner..................  Natural Resources Defense Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17589]]

    The Working Group commenced negotiations at an open meeting on 
December 18 and 19, 2013, and held six additional meetings and two 
webinars to discuss scope, metrics, test procedures, and standard 
levels for pumps.\5\ The CIP Working Group concluded its negotiations 
on June 19, 2014, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet 
containing recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for 
pumps as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the 
metric and test procedure for pumps (``Working Group 
Recommendations'').\6\ The term sheet containing the Working Group 
Recommendations is available in the CIP Working Group's docket. (Docket 
No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92) ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously 
to approve the Working Group Recommendations during a July 7, 2014 
webinar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Details of the negotiation sessions can be found in the 
public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the 
Working Group (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039).
    \6\ The ground rules of the CIP Working Group define consensus 
as no more than two (2) negative votes. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039, No. 18 at p. 2) Concurrence was assumed if absent, and 
overt dissent evidenced by a negative vote. Abstention was not 
construed as a negative vote. In this NOPR, only negative votes are 
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those recommendations regarding issues pertinent to the test 
procedure and standard metric are addressed in this NOPR and reflected 
in DOE's proposed pump test procedure. In this NOPR, DOE also refers to 
discussions from the CIP Working Group meetings regarding potential 
actions that may not have been formally approved as an addition to the 
Working Group Recommendations. All references to approved 
recommendations will be specified with a citation to the Working Group 
Recommendations and noting the recommendation number (for example: 
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y); 
references to discussion or suggestions of the CIP Working Group not 
found in the Working Group Recommendations will have a citation to 
meeting transcripts (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 
X at p. Y).
    DOE notes that many of those who submitted comments on the 
Framework Document later became members of the CIP Working Group. As 
such, the concerns of these commenters were fully discussed as part of 
the meetings, and their positions may have changed as a result of the 
compromises inherent in a negotiation. The proposals in this NOPR 
incorporate and respond to several issues and recommendations that were 
raised in response to the Framework Document. However, where a 
framework commenter became a member of the CIP Working Group, DOE does 
not reference or respond to comments made by that stakeholder regarding 
issues that were later discussed or negotiated in the CIP Working 
Group. Table I.2 lists the framework commenters as well as whether they 
participated in the CIP Working Group.

                 Table I.2--List of Framework Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Member of the CIP Working
                 Commenter                              Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineered Software, Inc..................  No.
Richard Shaw..............................  No.
Grundfos Pumps Corporation................  Yes.
Hydraulic Institute (HI)..................  Yes.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San       Yes.
 Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
 California Gas Company, and Southern
 California Edison (collectively, ``the CA
 IOUs'').
National Fire Protection Association        No.
 (NFPA).
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and              No.
 Refrigeration Institute (AHRI).
Colombia Engineering......................  No.
Earthjustice..............................  No.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)...........  Yes.
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project   ASAP and NRDC.
 (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE),
 American Council for an Energy Efficient
 Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and
 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
 (collectively, ``the Advocates'').
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and    Yes.
 the Northwest Power and Conservation
 Council (collectively, ``NEEA/NPCC'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    DOE is proposing to establish a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would contain definitions 
and a test procedure applicable to pumps. Today's NOPR also contains 
related proposals for sampling plans for the purposes of demonstrating 
compliance with any energy conservation standards for pumps that DOE 
adopts. As part of the test procedure, DOE proposes to prescribe test 
methods for measuring the energy consumption of pumps, inclusive of 
motors and controls (continuous or non-continuous), if they are 
included with the pump when distributed in commerce. To do this, DOE's 
proposed test procedure includes measurements and calculations of the 
produced hydraulic power, pump shaft input power, electric input power 
to the motor, and electrical input power to the continuous or non-
continuous controls, as applicable.
    Consistent with the Working Group Recommendations, DOE proposes 
that these test methods be in accordance with HI Standard 40.6-2014, 
``Methods for Rotodynamic Pumps Efficiency Testing,'' (``HI 40.6-
2014''), with slight modifications as noted in section III.C.2. (Docket 
No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at p. 4) Members 
of the pumps industry developed HI 40.6-2014, which contains methods 
for determining the energy performance of rotodynamic pumps without 
accounting for the impact of continuous or non-continuous controls. HI 
40.6-2014 was developed following DOE's announcement in the Framework 
Document that DOE planned to develop a test procedure for pumps. In 
this NOPR, DOE also proposes to include testing and calculation methods 
to account for the energy performance of pumps sold with motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls. DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014 
and finds, for the reasons stated below and in detail in section III,

[[Page 17590]]

that the procedure would be likely to produce test results that would 
reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating 
costs of a pump during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) DOE also has reviewed the burdens associated with 
conducting the proposed test procedure, including HI 40.6-2014 and, 
based on the results of such analysis, finds the proposed test 
procedure would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) DOE's analysis of the burden associated with the proposed 
test procedure is presented in detail in section IV.B.
    DOE's approach, which is consistent with the Working Group's 
recommendations, proposes to use a new metric, the pump energy index 
(PEI), to rate the energy performance of pumps covered by this proposed 
test procedure. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, 
Recommendation #11 at p. 5) The proposed test procedure contains 
methods for determining the constant load PEI (PEICL) for 
pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls and the 
variable load PEI (PEIVL) for pumps sold with either 
continuous or non-continuous controls. The PEICL or 
PEIVL, as applicable, describes the weighted average 
performance of the rated pump, inclusive of any motor and, if included, 
continuous or non-continuous controls, at specific load points, 
normalized with respect to the performance of a minimally compliant 
pump without controls. These indices, if adopted, would provide a 
representative measurement of the energy consumption of the rated pump 
under expected conditions of use since they are inclusive of a motor 
and any continuous or non-continuous controls at full and partial 
loading. The indices would also describe the performance of the rated 
pump in comparison to a minimally compliant pump of the same equipment 
class with no controls (see section III.A.2 for a discussion of pump 
equipment classes) and provide a description of a covered pump's energy 
performance that can be readily interpreted and used by customers and 
the market.
    The proposed test procedure contains methods to determine the 
appropriate index for all equipment for which this test procedure would 
apply using either calculation-based methods and/or testing-based 
methods. While both methods include some amount of testing and some 
amount of calculation, the terms ``calculation-based'' and ``testing-
based'' are used to distinguish between methods in which the input 
power to the pump is determined either by (a) measuring the pump shaft 
input power \7\ and combining it with the efficiency, or losses, of the 
motor and any continuous control \8\ at specific load points using an 
algorithm (i.e., calculation-based method) or (b) measuring the input 
power to the driver,\9\ or motor, and any continuous or non-continuous 
controls \10\ for a given pump directly at each of the load points 
(i.e., testing-based method). In both cases, the results for the given 
pump are divided by the calculated input power to the motor for a 
hypothetical pump (sold without a motor or controls) that serves an 
identical hydraulic load and minimally complies with any energy 
conservation standards that DOE may set as a result of the ongoing 
standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) This 
normalized metric would effectively result in a value that is indexed 
to the standard (i.e., a value of 1.0 for a pump that is minimally 
compliant, and a value less than 1.0 for a pump that is less 
consumptive than the maximum the standard allows).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``pump shaft input power'' is referred to as ``pump 
power input'' in HI 40.6-2014. The term ``pump shaft input power'' 
is used synonymously with that term in this document.
    \8\ DOE notes that for non-continuous controls, as defined in 
section III.E.1.c, PEIVL can only be determined using a 
``testing-based'' method. If a calculation-based method is desired, 
the pump would instead be rated as a pump sold with a motor and 
without speed controls using the PEICL metric. See 
section III.E.1.c for further discussion.
    \9\ The input power to the driver is referred to as ``driver 
power input'' in HI 40.6-2014. The term ``input power to the 
driver'' is used synonymously with that term in this document.
    \10\ In the case that a pump is sold with a motor equipped with 
either continuous or non-continuous controls and is rated using the 
testing-based method, the input power to the pump would be 
determined as the input power to the continuous or non-continuous 
control. See section III.E.2.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the calculation-based method discussed in section 
III.E.1 would only apply to certain pumps: (1) Pumps sold without 
either a motor or controls (i.e., ``bare pump,'' discussed later in 
section III.A.1.a), (2) pumps sold with motors that are subject to 
DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors (with or 
without continuous controls), and (3) pumps sold with submersible 
motors (with or without continuous controls). This is because for other 
pumps, the necessary efficiency information is not available in a 
standardized, referenceable format and the assumptions inherent in the 
calculation-based approach do not apply. Specifically, for pumps sold 
with motors that are not subject to DOE's energy conservation standards 
for electric motors, except submersible motors, DOE has not established 
standards or default values for the nominal full load efficiency that 
can be used in the calculations. For pumps sold with any motors (i.e., 
covered, uncovered, or submersible motors) and non-continuous controls, 
the reference system curve is not applicable (see section III.E.1.c for 
more information). Under DOE's proposal, such pumps would be required 
to be tested using the testing-based methods discussed in section 
III.E.2. Conversely, only the proposed calculation-based method could 
be used to test a pump sold without a motor or controls because a PEI 
rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) could not be 
determined based on a test of the pump without a motor. The specific 
test methods applicable to each class and configuration of pump model 
are described in more detail in section III.E.3.
    DOE also proposes to establish requirements regarding the sampling 
plan and representations for covered pumps at subpart B of part 429 of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed sampling plan 
requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial 
equipment and are appropriate for pumps based on the expected range of 
measurement uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this 
equipment. Regarding representations, for those pumps addressed by this 
proposal, DOE is also specifying the energy consumption or energy 
efficiency representations that may be made, in addition to the 
regulated metric (PEICL or PEIVL).
    DOE notes that equipment meeting the proposed pump definition is 
already covered equipment. However, DOE's proposal is more narrowly 
applied to a specific scope of pumps. Specifically, this proposal would 
apply to the limited scope of rotodynamic pumps \11\ for which 
standards are being considered in DOE's energy conservation standards 
rulemaking and as proposed in section III.A of this NOPR. (Docket No. 
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) Manufacturers of those pumps that would be 
regulated as a result of DOE's parallel test procedure and standards 
rulemakings would be required to use the test procedure DOE adopts when 
certifying compliance with any applicable standard and when

[[Page 17591]]

making representations about the efficiency or energy use of their 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A rotodynamic (or centrifugal) pump is a kinetic machine 
that continuously imparts energy to the pumped fluid by means of a 
rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. This is in contrast to 
positive-displacement pumps, which have an expanding cavity on the 
suction side and a decreasing cavity of the discharge side that move 
a constant volume of fluid for each cycle of operation. DOE is 
proposing limiting the scope of the test procedure to only specific 
kinds of rotodynamic pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Starting on the compliance date for any energy conservation 
standards that DOE may set, and assuming that the provisions of this 
NOPR are adopted, all pumps within the scope of those energy 
conservation standards would be required to be tested in accordance 
with the proposed subpart Y of part 431 and must have their testing 
performed in a manner consistent with the applicable sampling 
requirements. Similarly, all representations regarding the energy 
efficiency or energy use of pumps within the scope of pumps proposed 
for coverage by this test procedure would be required to be made based 
on the adopted pump test procedure 180 days after the publication date 
of any final rule establishing energy conservation for those pumps that 
are addressed by the test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d).

III. Discussion

    DOE's proposal would place a new pump test procedure and related 
definitions in a new subpart Y of part 431, and add new sampling plans 
and reporting requirements for this equipment in a new section 429.59 
of 10 CFR part 429. This proposed subpart Y would contain definitions, 
materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure for certain 
classes and configurations of pumps established as a result of this 
rulemaking, as well as any energy conservation standards for pumps 
resulting from the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking, as 
shown in Table III.1. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)

 Table III.1--Summary of Proposals in This NOPR, Their Location Within the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
                                         Applicable Preamble Discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Applicable preamble
             Location                    Proposal               Summary of additions              discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR 429.59 \*\................  Sampling Plan.......  Number of pumps to be tested to     Section III.G.
                                                          rate a pump basic model and
                                                          calculation of rating.
10 CFR 431.461...................  Purpose and Scope...  Scope of pump regulations, as well  Section III.A.
                                                          as the proposed test procedure
                                                          and associated energy
                                                          conservation standard.
10 CFR 431.462...................  Definitions.........  Definitions pertinent to            Section III.A.
                                                          establishing equipment classes
                                                          and testing applicable classes of
                                                          pumps.
10 CFR 431.463...................  Incorporation by      Description of industry standards   Section III.A and
                                    Reference.            incorporated by reference in the    III.C.
                                                          DOE test procedure or related
                                                          definitions.
10 CFR 431.464 and Appendix A to   Test Procedure......  Instructions for determining the    Section III.B,
 Subpart Y of Part 431.                                   PEICL or PEIVL for applicable       III.C, III.D, and
                                                          classes of pumps.                   III.E.
10 CFR 431.466...................  Energy Conservation   Energy conservation standard for    Section Error!
                                    Standards.            applicable classes of pumps, in     Reference source
                                                          terms of PEI and associated C-      not found. and
                                                          Value.                              Docket EERE-2011-
                                                                                              BT-STD-0031.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: DOE also proposes minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2; 429.11(a) and (b); 429.70; 429.72; and 429.102 to
  apply the general sampling requirements established in these sections to the equipment-specific sampling
  requirements proposed for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59.

    The following sections discuss DOE's proposals regarding 
establishing new testing and sampling requirements for pumps, 
including: Scope; rating metric; determination of pump performance; 
determination of motor efficiency; test methods for different 
combinations of pumps and drivers and controls; representations; and 
sampling plans.

A. Scope

    Although a ``pump'' is listed as a type of covered equipment under 
EPCA, that term is undefined. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A). As part of its 
collective efforts to help DOE craft an appropriate regulatory approach 
for pumps, the CIP Working Group made a series of recommendations 
regarding a variety of potential definitions that would have an impact 
on the overall scope and structure of the proposed test procedure and 
related energy conservation standards. In particular, the Working Group 
offered a definition for ``pump'' along with other related terms ``bare 
pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``controls.'' Each of 
these terms relate to particular pump components that are germane to 
DOE's efforts to set standards and establish a test procedure for this 
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations 
#1 and 2 at pp. 1-2) Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt these 
recommended definitions for these terms.
    DOE notes that while the proposed definition of ``pump'' is broad, 
the scope of prospective energy conservation standards, as recommended 
by the Working Group, would be limited to a more narrow range of 
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations 
#4 and 6-8 at pp. 2-4) DOE also notes that the scope of this proposed 
test procedure is intended to be consistent with the scope of the 
parallel standards rulemaking effort currently under evaluation. In 
other words, DOE proposes that only pumps subject to an energy 
conservation standard would have to be tested in accordance with the 
adopted test procedure. Finally, DOE notes that the broad definition of 
``pump'' being considered in this proposal would provide DOE with 
flexibility to make any necessary adjustments to its regulations to 
address potential scoping changes in the future that DOE may consider.
    After considering the Working Group Recommendations, DOE is 
proposing to define which pumps would need to be tested with the 
proposed test procedure by applying three criteria: (1) The equipment 
class; (2) the application; and (3) applicable performance 
specifications--i.e., horsepower (hp), flow rate, head, design 
temperature, and speed restrictions. For these three areas, DOE's 
proposed criteria for establishing which pumps would be subject to the 
proposed test procedure are discussed in sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and 
III.A.4, respectively.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the 
pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as 
recommended by the Working Group.
1. Definitions Related to the Scope of Covered Pumps
    To help set the scope for this proposal and the manner in which 
both the procedure and related standards would

[[Page 17592]]

be applied to different pump configurations and classes of pumps, the 
aforementioned definitions for pump, certain pump components, and 
others, are discussed in the following subsections.
a. Pumps and Related Components
    DOE proposes to include definitions in a new 10 CFR 431.462 that 
would describe the components comprising a pump for scoping purposes. 
Consistent with the intent of the Working Group Recommendations, DOE 
proposes to define the following terms:

    (1) Pump means equipment that is designed to move liquids (which 
may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved 
solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes at least a 
bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, 
mechanical equipment, driver and controls.
    (2) Bare pump means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, 
driver, and controls.
    Mechanical equipment means any component of a pump that 
transfers energy from a driver to the bare pump.
    Driver means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a 
bare pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. 
Examples include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, 
internal combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine.
    Control means any device that can be used to operate the driver. 
Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-
continuous speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, 
and float switches.

(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #1-2 at pp. 
1-2)
    DOE notes that, while there was consensus among the members of the 
Working Group in favor of these definitions as part of the entirety of 
the Working Group Recommendations, there was one Working Group member 
who specifically objected to the ``pump'' definition that the Working 
Group developed,\12\ see Recommendation #1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The voting procedures and consensus requirements agreed 
upon by the CIP Working Group did not require identification of the 
individual opposing or their reason for opposition and so is not 
noted in the transcript for that public meeting. (See ground rules: 
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 18; and the public meeting 
transcript: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at p. 165)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,'' 
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
b. Definition of Categories of Controls
    The definition of ``control'' proposed by DOE and recommended by 
the CIP Working Group is broad. DOE acknowledges the proposed 
definition may be include many different kinds of electronic or 
mechanical devices that can ``control the driver'' of a pump (e.g., 
continuous or non-continuous speed controls, timers, and on/off 
switches). These various controls may use a variety of mechanisms to 
control the pump for operational reasons, which may or may not result 
in reduced energy consumption.
    For this proposed test procedure, DOE is focusing on those controls 
that reduce energy consumption--i.e., controls that reduce pump power 
input at a given flow rate. As discussed by the CIP Working Group, DOE 
understands that speed controls achieve this goal and are the most 
common kind of control currently applied to pumps. After carefully 
examining the pump market, DOE has not found any mechanisms for 
controlling pump drivers that would reduce pump power input at a given 
flow other than those mechanisms used to control the driver's rotating 
speed. Consistent with this finding, DOE's proposal to establish test 
methods for those configurations in which a bare pump is configured 
with motors that have been paired with controls would address only such 
configurations using speed controls. Similarly, DOE also proposes that 
the PEIVL metric would only apply to pumps sold with motors 
and speed controls. Conversely, pumps sold with motors and controls 
other than speed controls would be subject to the appropriate bare pump 
and motor test procedures and rated using PEICL.
    To explicitly establish the kinds of controls that can apply the 
PEIVL metric, DOE would define the terms ``continuous'' and 
``non-continuous'' control (see section III.B.2 and III.E.3 for further 
discussion of the PEIVL rating metric and its applicability 
to pumps with controls, respectively):
    (1) Continuous control means a control that adjusts the speed of 
the pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in 
response to incremental changes in the required pump flow, head, or 
power output.\13\ As an example, variable speed drives, including 
variable frequency drives and electronically commutated motors (ECMs) 
would meet the definition for continuous controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ HI-40.6, as incorporated by reference, defines pump power 
output as ``the mechanical power transferred to the liquid as it 
passes through the pump, also known as pump hydraulic power.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Non-continuous control means a control that adjusts the speed 
of a driver to one of a discrete number of non-continuous preset 
operating speeds, and does not respond to incremental reductions in the 
required pump flow, head, or power output. As an example, multi-speed 
motors such as 2-speed motors would meet the definition for non-
continuous controls.
    While the proposed PEIVL test procedure would only apply 
to pumps sold with continuous and non-continuous controls, DOE 
recognizes that including a broader definition of ``control'' provides 
the flexibility to address additional kinds of controls in future test 
procedure revisions, as was discussed in the CIP Working Group. (EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 46 at pp. 179-85) To retain this flexibility, DOE 
proposes to maintain the broad definition of control presented above, 
which would include any device that operates a pump driver, regardless 
of its impact on energy consumption or rotational speed of the driver. 
However, pumps with a motor and controls that do not meet the proposed 
definitions of continuous or non-continuous controls would be required 
to be tested as a pump sold with a motor under the proposed test 
procedure.
    DOE also notes that the definitions of continuous and non-
continuous controls do not require the control to include the necessary 
sensors and feedback logic to automatically respond to changes in the 
required flow, head, or pump power output. DOE recognizes that such 
continuous or non-continuous controls (e.g., variable speed drives 
(VSDs) or multi-speed motors, respectively) will not reduce energy 
consumption unless some feedback is provided regarding the process 
requirements at any given time. However, DOE understands that many 
applications use such controls as part of a larger process or facility-
wide energy management system. Similarly, such feedback sensors and 
control logic may also be custom-designed based on an application's 
specific design requirements. Consequently, while sensors and logic to 
enable automatic feedback and response of any speed control are 
available from pump manufacturers, they are not always required by, or 
included in, a given pump at the time of sale.
    In summary, by not requiring continuous or non-continuous controls 
to be automatically actuating when distributed in commerce, DOE seeks 
to limit the costs and burdens of adding continuous or non-continuous 
controls to a given pump. Furthermore, DOE believes that the 
incremental cost of any continuous or non-continuous control is 
sufficiently high, making it extremely unlikely that a customer would 
buy a pump with such controls and not employ appropriate and 
application-specific sensors and feedback logic to achieve energy 
savings. As such, DOE is

[[Page 17593]]

proposing to define continuous and non-continuous controls as devices 
that ``adjust the speed'' of the driver without requiring that 
adjustment to happen automatically.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``continuous 
control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
    DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of a pump with 
continuous or non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, 
but never being paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that 
would enable energy savings.
c. Definition of Basic Model
    In the course of regulating consumer products and commercial and 
industrial equipment, DOE has developed the concept of a ``basic 
model'' to determine the specific product or equipment configuration(s) 
to which the regulations would apply. For the purposes of applying the 
proposed pumps regulations, DOE is also proposing to define what 
constitutes a ``basic model'' of pump. Applying this basic model 
concept would allow manufacturers to group similar models within a 
basic model to minimize testing burden. In other words, manufacturers 
would need to test only a representative number of units of a basic 
model in lieu of testing every model they manufacture. By grouping 
models together, a manufacturer would be able to test a smaller number 
of units. However, manufacturers would need to make this decision with 
the understanding that there is increased risk associated with these 
groupings due to the potential for a wider impact from a noncompliance 
finding. Basic model groupings increase this risk because, if DOE 
determines a basic model is noncompliant, all models within the basic 
model are determined to be noncompliant.
    In keeping with this practice, DOE also proposes to define a 
``basic model'' for pumps so manufacturers can determine the pump 
models on which they must conduct testing to demonstrate compliance 
with a prospective energy conservation standard for pumps. The proposal 
would define a ``basic model'' in a manner similar to that for other 
commercial and industrial equipment, with the exception of two pump-
specific issues. For most commercial and industrial equipment, DOE 
defines basic model to include all units of a given product or 
equipment type (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, 
having the same primary energy source, and having essentially identical 
electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics 
that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, 
or water efficiency.
    For the purposes of establishing a basic model definition for 
pumps, DOE proposes modifying the general definition by addressing two 
particular characteristics that impact the energy consumption of pumps. 
First, radially split, multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser 
(RSV) and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps for which the bare 
pump varies only in the number of stages would be required to be 
treated as the same basic model. Second, pumps for which the bare pump 
varies only in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered 
to be the same basic model or may optionally be rated as unique basic 
models. These exceptions are discussed in the following sections.
Variation in Number of Stages for Multi-Stage Pumps
    The first modification to the basic model definition applies to 
variation in the number of stages for multi-stage pumps. DOE proposes 
that variation in the number of stages, while it may affect efficiency 
and will affect power, should not constitute a characteristic that 
would differentiate pump basic models. Specifically, any improvements 
in the hydraulic design of a single stage (or bowl) would be reflected 
in the measured performance of the pump with any number of stages. In 
addition, requiring testing for each stage version of a multi-stage 
pump would add significant testing burden. For these reasons, the CIP 
Working Group recommended each multi-stage pump be tested with a 
specified number of stages, as discussed in section III.C.2.c. DOE 
notes that any representations made with respect to PEI and pump energy 
rating (PER) for individual models with alternate number of stages 
within a single basic model: (1) Must be on the same as the basic model 
with the specified number of stages required for testing under the test 
procedure and (2) must be rated using method A.1, ``bare pump with 
default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve'' 
(explained further in section III.E).
Basic Model Grouping for Pumps With Different Impeller Trims
    The second modification DOE proposes to the typical basic model 
definition is that a trimmed impeller, though it may impact efficiency, 
would not be a basis for requiring units to be rated as unique basic 
models. This proposal is consistent with the Working Group 
recommendation that the rating of a given pump basic model should be 
based on testing at full impeller diameter only and that DOE not 
require testing at reduced impeller diameters. (Docket No. EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3) DOE understands that a 
given pump may be distributed to customers with a variety of impeller 
trims to meet a certain hydraulic load for a certain application, and 
impeller trim has a direct impact on a pump's performance 
characteristics. However, DOE, in general, agrees with the Working 
Group's proposal. Rather than requiring a manufacturer to certify to 
DOE a pump with any given impeller trim that may be requested by a 
customer, DOE is proposing to limit the number of specific pump models 
to certify, which would reduce the overall manufacturer burden from 
testing while helping ensure that a reasonably accurate measurement of 
a given pump's efficiency is obtained. Rating at full impeller would 
typically reflect the most consumptive rating for that pump, due to the 
higher hydraulic power provided by the full impeller, as compared to a 
trimmed impeller in the same bare pump bowl. Therefore, any pump model 
with a bare pump that is otherwise identical (i.e., same casing, same 
bearings and seals, etc.) but with a trimmed impeller will, except in 
very limited cases, almost always consume less energy than the same 
pump with full impeller. Consistent with the CIP Working Group 
Recommendations, DOE proposes to base the certified rating for a given 
pump basic model on that model's full impeller diameter--all PEI and 
PER representations for the members of this basic model would be based 
upon the full impeller model.
    Relevant to this requirement, DOE proposes to define the term 
``full impeller'' as it pertains to the rating of pump models in 
accordance with the proposed test procedure. The European Union (EU) 
defines ``full impeller'' as ``the impeller with the maximum diameter 
for which performance characteristics are given for a pump size in the 
catalogues of a water pump manufacturer.'' \14\ DOE proposes to largely 
harmonize with this definition, but is proposing additional language to 
establish requirements for pumps for which performance data are not 
published in manufacturer catalogs, such as custom pumps. Specifically,

[[Page 17594]]

DOE proposes to define full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller 
with which the pump is distributed in commerce in the United States or 
the maximum impeller diameter represented in the manufacturer's 
literature, whichever is larger. DOE understands that in most cases, 
these would be the same. However, for pumps that may only be sold with 
a trimmed impeller due to a custom application, DOE is proposing to 
define the full impeller as the maximum diameter impeller with which 
the pump is distributed in commerce. DOE notes that the certified 
rating should represent the configuration based on the maximum diameter 
impeller offered by the manufacturer, regardless of the actual impeller 
size used with a given pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 
ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the 
European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 28-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under DOE's proposed definition for ``full impeller,'' 
manufacturers would also be able to represent a model with a trimmed 
impeller as less consumptive than at full impeller. To do so, they must 
treat that trimmed impeller model as a different basic model and test a 
representative number of models at the maximum diameter distributed in 
commerce of that trimmed basic model listing. In such a case, the 
impeller trim with which the pump is rated becomes the ``full impeller 
diameter,'' which is the ``maximum diameter impeller used with a given 
pump basic model distributed in commerce or the maximum diameter 
impeller referenced in the manufacturer's literature for that pump 
basic model, whichever is larger.'' In these cases, manufacturers may 
elect to: (1) Group individual pump units with bare pumps that vary 
only impeller diameter into a single basic model or (2) establish 
separate basic models (with unique ratings) for any number of unique 
impeller trims, provided that the PEI rating associated with any 
individual model is based on the maximum diameter impeller for that 
basic model and that basic model is compliant with any energy 
conservation standards established as part of the parallel pumps ECS 
rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)
    DOE notes that, while manufacturers may group pump models with 
various impeller trims under one basic model with the same certified 
PEI rating based on the full impeller diameter, all representations of 
PEI and PER for any individual model must be: (1) Based on testing of 
the model with the full diameter impeller in the basic model and (2) 
rated using method A.1, ``bare pump with default motor efficiency and 
default motor part load loss curve'' (explained further in section 
III.E).
d. Basic Models for Pumps Sold With Motors or Motors and Speed Controls
    DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with 
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, pump manufacturers 
may pair a given pump with several different motors with different 
performance characteristics. Under the proposed definition, each unique 
pump and motor pairing would represent a unique basic model. However, 
consistent with DOE's practice with other products and equipment, pump 
manufacturers may elect to group similar individual pump models within 
the same equipment class into the same basic model to reduce testing 
burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of pumps 
within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive 
unit. See 76 FR 12422, 12423 (March 7, 2011)).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These provisions allow manufacturers to group individual 
models with essentially identical, but not exactly the same, energy 
performance characteristics into a basic model to reduce testing 
burden. Under DOE's certification requirements, all the individual 
models within a basic model identified in a certification report as 
being the same basic model must have the same certified efficiency 
rating and use the same test data underlying the certified rating. 
The CCE final rule also establishes that the efficiency rating of a 
basic model must be based on the least efficient or most energy 
consuming individual model (i.e., put another way, all individual 
models within a basic model must be at least as energy efficient as 
the certified rating). 76 FR at 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, pumps that share the same bare pump but have different 
motors could be grouped into the same basic model based on the least 
efficient pump and motor combination as long as the manufacturer did 
not want to make representations of the more-efficient pump and motor 
combination. However, for pumps sold with trimmed impellers, DOE 
recognizes that a given pump with a trimmed impeller may be sold with a 
different motor than the same pump with a full impeller. As variation 
in impeller trim of the bare pump does not constitute a characteristic 
that would differentiate basic models, variation in motor sizing as a 
result of different impeller trims would also not serve as a basis for 
differentiating basic models.
    Since the proposed pump basic model definition and certified rating 
are both based on the pump as tested with a full impeller and a 
specific number of stages, to the extent that the paired motor varies 
between a given pump unit and the same bare pump at full impeller 
diameter with the specified number of stages for testing, this 
difference would not constitute a characteristic that would define 
separate basic models.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic model'' 
as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on 
DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with 
trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models, 
provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum 
impeller diameter available within that basic model.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full 
impeller.''
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump 
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
    DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are 
unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require 
modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as proposed.
2. Equipment Classes
    Table III.2 presents a list of the specific pump categories that 
DOE considered in the context of its Framework Document. The treatment 
of these rotodynamic pumps was extensively discussed and debated among 
members of the CIP Working Group. Those pump categories that the 
Working Group recommended for inclusion as part of DOE's standards-
setting efforts are marked accordingly. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0039, No. 92, Recommendation #4 at p. 2)

      Table III.2--Rotodynamic Clean Water Pump Equipment Overview and Recommended Scope of Pumps Test Procedure and Energy Conservation Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  In CIP working  group
          Pump category                Sub-category              Stages              DOE terminology           ANSI/HI Term               scope
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Suction......................  Close-coupled.......  Single...............  End Suction Close-coupled  OH7................  Yes.
                                                                                 (ESCC).

[[Page 17595]]

 
                                   Own Bearings/Frame    Single...............  End Suction Frame Mounted  OH0, OH1...........  Yes.
                                    Mounted.                                     (ESFM).
Vertical In-Line.................  ....................  Single...............  In-Line (IL).............  OH3, OH4, OH5......  Yes.
Axial Split......................  Single..............  Double Suction (DS)..  BB1, OH4 (double suction)  No.................
                                   ....................  Multi................  Axially Split Multi-Stage  BB1 (2-stage), BB3.  No.
                                                                                 (AS).
Radial Split.....................  Multi...............  Radially Split Multi-  VS8......................  Yes.*
                                                          Stage Vertical In-
                                                          Line Casing Diffuser
                                                          (RSV).
                                   ....................  Multi................  Radially Split Multi-      BB2 (2-stage), BB4.  No.
                                                                                 Stage Horizontal (RSH).
Vertical Turbine.................  Non-Submersible.....  Any..................  Vertical Turbine (VT)....  VS1, VS2...........  No.
                                   Submersible.........  Any..................  Vertical Turbine           VS0................  Yes.
                                                                                 Submersible (VTS).
--------------------------------------------------------
Axial/Propeller and Mixed Flow.........................  Any..................  Axial/Propeller and Mixed  OH00, VS3..........  No.
                                                                                 (AM).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Multistage radial split vertical immersible pumps are excluded from the proposed scope.

    Discussions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of certain 
categories of pumps can be found in the transcripts from the first 
several meetings of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039, Nos. 8, 9, 14, 15, 46, 47, and 62) As recommended by the 
Working Group, DOE is applying a scope (for both the test procedure and 
in evaluating potential standards) that would include the following 
pump equipment classes: end suction close-coupled (ESCC), end suction 
frame mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), radially split multi-stage vertical 
IL casing diffuser (RSV), and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps. 
DOE notes that, while intended to be consistent with this test 
procedure proposal, the scope of any energy conservation standards 
proposed for pumps will be discussed as part of a separate rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test 
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC, 
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
a. Definitions of Pump Equipment Classes
    To help manufacturers determine whether a given pump falls into one 
of the equipment classes that would be addressed by the scope of this 
proposal and the parallel energy conservation standards under 
consideration, DOE is proposing to define each pump equipment class 
that DOE would regulate. In developing these definitions, DOE 
considered the comments received in response to the Framework Document 
along with subsequent input provided during the CIP Working Group 
meetings. For example, HI preferred that DOE use the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) HI definitions for equivalent pump 
categories and nomenclature instead of the definitions tentatively 
proposed by DOE. (HI, No. 25 at p. 28) \16\ Grundfos preferred that DOE 
use EU and HI definitions and resolve any conflicts through the 
existing Joint International Pump Industry Standardization Committee. 
Grundfos regarded the DOE definitions as ambiguous. (Grundfos, No. 24 
at p. 10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A notation in this form provides a reference for 
information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps 
(Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov). This particular notation refers to a comment: 
(1) Submitted by HI; (2) appearing in document number 25 of the 
docket; and (3) appearing on page 28 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A joint comment submitted by the Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and the National 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (collectively referred to as ``the 
Advocates'') \17\ criticized the HI definitions as narrow, increasing 
the risk that a manufacturer could make small changes to avoid DOE's 
regulations. To avoid this problem, the Advocates preferred DOE's broad 
definitions and offered some recommended modifications to those 
definitions. (Advocates, No. 32 at p. 4) Earthjustice also suggested 
adopting the Advocates' suggestions for modifying the definitions and 
added that DOE could provide illustrative references to the relevant HI 
nomenclature for further clarification. (Earthjustice, No. 30 at p. 1) 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council (NPCC) made a similar suggestion, suggesting that 
the definitions be coupled with an appendix that would map to the 
appropriate ANSI/HI nomenclature and definitions. (NEAA/NPCC, No. 31 at 
p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted in Table I.2, ASAP and NRDC were members of the 
CIP Working Group, while ASE, ACEE, and Earthjustice were not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CIP Working Group recommended establishing a test 
procedure and standards for specific classes of pumps, in the interest 
of time, the specific definitions of these pump equipment classes were 
not negotiated by the CIP Working Group. After considering the 
stakeholder comments on the Framework Document, DOE is proposing 
specific definitions for particular categories of pumps and specific 
pump equipment classes. DOE is proposing general definitions for some 
specific characteristics of pumps for which DOE is proposing that the 
test procedure be applicable; namely rotodynamic pump, single-axis flow 
pump, and end suction pump.
    DOE proposes that rotodynamic pump refer to a pump in which energy 
is continuously imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating 
impeller, propeller, or rotor. DOE proposes such a definition to help 
define the specific pump equipment classes to which the proposed test 
procedure is applicable and differentiate those from positive 
displacement pumps (i.e., non-

[[Page 17596]]

rotodynamic pumps) with otherwise similar attributes.
    DOE also proposes to define single axis flow pump as a pump in 
which the liquid inlet of the bare pump is on the same axis as the 
liquid discharge of the bare pump to clarify when specific pump 
equipment classes, discussed below, are proposed to exclude similar 
pumps in which the pumped liquid enters and exits the pump on different 
axes.
    DOE proposes to define end suction pump as a specific variety of 
rotodynamic pump that is single-stage and in which the liquid enters 
the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft and on the 
end opposite the bare pump's driver-end. Such a pump is not single axis 
flow because the liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane 
perpendicular to the shaft.
    Based on these three definitions describing general pump 
characteristics, DOE proposes to define the following five pump 
equipment classes to which the proposed test procedure would be 
applicable:
    (1) End suction frame mounted (ESFM) pump means an end suction pump 
wherein:
    (a) The bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so 
does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;
    (b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
    (c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
    Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with 
ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in the 2008 version of 
ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For 
Nomenclature And Definitions'' (ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014).
    (2) End suction close-coupled (ESCC) pump means an end suction pump 
in which:
    (a) The motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare 
pump;
    (b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
    (c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
    Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with 
ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
    (3) In-line (IL) pump means a single-stage, single axis flow, 
rotodynamic pump in which:
    (a) Liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular 
to the impeller shaft; and
    (b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected.
    Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with 
ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-
2014.
    (4) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line, diffuser casing 
(RSV) pump means a vertically suspended, multi-stage, single axis flow, 
rotodynamic pump in which:
    (a) liquid is discharged in a plane perpendicular to the impeller 
shaft;
    (b) each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and.
    (c) no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in 
the pumped liquid.
    Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with 
ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in the 2008 version of ANSI/HI 
Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And 
Definitions'' (ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008).
    (5) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pump means a single-stage or 
multi-stage rotodynamic pump that is designed to be operated with the 
motor and stage(s) (or bowl(s)) fully submerged in the pumped liquid, 
and in which:
    (a) each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser 
and
    (b) liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a 
direction parallel to the impeller shaft.
    Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with 
ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008.
    DOE notes that any references to HI nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1-
1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 are incorporated into the definitions 
of the aforementioned pump equipment classes as examples only. As 
several interested parties expressed their desire to reference the HI 
nomenclature to help provide clarity to the industry, DOE is proposing 
to list the relevant HI pump nomenclature in the definition of each 
pump equipment class. However, in some cases, the HI nomenclature can 
be vague or inconsistent.\18\ In cases where there is a conflict 
between the description provided in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 
2.1-2.2-2008, as applicable, and the proposed regulatory text, the 
language in the regulatory text would prevail. Accordingly, a 
manufacturer would need to carefully review the applicable regulatory 
text in determining how its equipment would be affected because DOE 
would be using these provisions when applying the test procedure and 
setting the scope for any standards that DOE may develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 does not identify 
specific definitions for the considered pumps. Rather, it provides 
classification trees (as in Figure 1.1.3a of that document) as well 
as construction drawings (e.g. Figures 1.1.5a-bb). The words 
describing a given pump classification are not always exactly 
consistent between the tree and the drawing captions. For example, 
OH0 is variously described as ``overhung--flexibly coupled--
horizontal--frame mounted'' and ``overhung impeller--flexibly 
coupled--single stage--frame mounted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction 
pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump, 
in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing 
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical 
turbine submersible pump.
    DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI 
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the 
regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies, 
and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would 
provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when 
determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
    With regard to the proposed definition for RSV pumps, DOE 
understands that, in such a pump, flow typically proceeds from the bare 
pump inlet through the stages in series, with each stage increasing the 
total head, and exits at the pump discharge. DOE requests comment on 
whether it needs to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps 
from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards 
applicability.
    One issue related to the above that DOE is currently considering is 
whether its proposed RSV pump definition requires further clarification 
to ensure that immersible pumps do not fall within the definition. As 
proposed, this definition would exclude immersible pumps that would 
otherwise meet the remaining characteristics detailed in the definition 
(i.e., ``No external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in 
the pumped liquid).'' While DOE believes that this language should be 
sufficient to exclude any immersible pumps from being treated as an RSV 
pump for purposes of DOE's regulations,

[[Page 17597]]

DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is necessary to 
make this exclusion clearer.
b. Circulators and Pool Pumps
    Circulators, which are a specific kind of rotodynamic pump, are 
small, low-head pumps similar to the in-line or end suction close-
coupled configuration pumps that are generally used to circulate water 
in hydronic space conditioning or potable water systems in buildings.
    The CIP Working Group recommended that circulator pumps be 
addressed as part of a separate rulemaking process that would involve 
informal negotiation between stakeholders followed by an ASRAC-approved 
negotiation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation 
#5A at p. 2) DOE has not yet received any proposals or requests for 
negotiation from the stakeholders.
    To explicitly exclude circulators from this rulemaking and the 
parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE proposes to 
define the term ``circulator'' as referring to either:
     An end suction pump with a pump housing that requires only 
the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected 
to function as designed, or
     A single-stage, single axis flow, rotodynamic pump, with a 
pump housing that requires only the support of the supply and discharge 
piping to which it is connected to function as designed.
    Under this definition, such a pump would not be able to function as 
designed without attachment to a rigid foundation. Examples include, 
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, 
CP2, or CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
    Adopting this definition would help ensure that circulators can be 
clearly and unambiguously differentiated from other pumps that DOE may 
consider regulating and to which this proposed test procedure would 
apply. The proposed definition would rely on the unique and 
distinguishable design characteristics of circulators--namely, that 
circulators require only pipe-mounted support and do not need to be 
attached to a rigid foundation to function as designed. Conversely, 
ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps, by definition, require attachment to a rigid 
foundation to function as designed. DOE believes that such a definition 
for a circulator would encompass all pumps commonly referred to as 
circulators by the industry, which the CIP Working Group recommended 
that DOE not regulate in this rulemaking. DOE proposes to also 
reference the ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2--2014 nomenclature for circulators, as 
included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92 at p. 2)
    By defining circulators, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps as mutually 
exclusive from each other on the basis of design characteristics, it is 
unnecessary to include a size-based threshold in the proposed 
circulator definition, as had been suggested by stakeholders. (HI, No. 
25 at p. 20; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 338) DOE 
notes that it is uncommon for pumps larger than 3 hp to be supported 
only by their supply and discharge pipes. This is due to limitations on 
the structural weight loads that a piping system can support. The 
constraint imposed by the piping system, in effect, acts as an inherent 
upper size threshold for circulators.
    The CIP Working Group also formally recommended that DOE initiate a 
separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps by December 2014. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) 
The CIP Working Group further sought to identify the unique 
characteristics of pool pumps that differentiate them from the other 
pump classes within the scope of this rulemaking to make clear that 
dedicated-purpose pool pumps are not required to be tested in 
accordance with the proposed procedure. During the March 26, 2014 CIP 
Working Group meeting, Xylem Inc. (Xylem) indicated that all dedicated-
purpose pool pumps include an integrated basket strainer, unlike other 
end suction close-coupled pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 
62 at p. 195) To distinguish a ``dedicated-purpose pool pump'' from 
other pumps that DOE is currently considering regulating in this NOPR, 
DOE proposes to define this device as an end suction pump designed 
specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an 
integrated basket strainer.
    DOE notes that this definition will be discussed in more detail in 
a separate rulemaking to consider potential energy conservation 
standards and test procedures for pool pumps.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and 
pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE also 
requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators and 
dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Finally, DOE requests comment on the 
extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps require attachment to a 
rigid foundation to function as designed. Specifically, DOE is 
interested to know if any pumps commonly referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, 
or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid foundation.
c. Axial/Mixed Flow and Positive Displacement Pumps
    ``Axial/mixed flow pump'' is a term used by the pump industry to 
describe a rotodynamic pump that is used to move large volumes of 
liquid at high flow rates and low heads. These pumps are typically 
custom-designed and used in applications such as dewatering, flood 
control, and storm water management.
    Positive displacement (PD) pumps are a style of pump that operates 
by first opening an increasing volume to suction; this volume is then 
filled, closed, moved to discharge, and displaced. PD pumps operate at 
near-constant flow over their range of operational pressures and can 
often produce higher pressure than a centrifugal pump, at a given flow 
rate. PD pumps also excel at maintaining flow and efficiency for 
liquids more viscous than water. When used in clean water applications, 
PD pumps are typically chosen for high pressure, constant flow 
applications such as high pressure power washing, oil field water 
injection, and low-flow metering processes.
    The CIP Working Group recommended excluding both of these types of 
pumps from being subject to the prospective energy conservation 
standards DOE is considering. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 
92, Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The primary reason for excluding these 
pumps at this time is their low market share in the considered 
horsepower range and low potential for energy savings. (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at pp. 114 and 372-373) In addition, the 
CIP Working Group acknowledged that PD pumps are more commonly used in 
non-clean water applications and provide a different utility than the 
categories of pumps addressed in this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 114) Therefore, DOE is considering 
excluding these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking and the 
parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    DOE believes that the pump equipment classes and scope parameters 
defined in sections III.A.2 and III.A.4, respectively, implicitly 
exclude positive displacement and axial flow pumps.
    As mentioned previously, axial/mixed flow pumps are designed to 
accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio applications and are therefore 
implicitly

[[Page 17598]]

excluded from the scope of pumps being considered in this NOPR based on 
the head, flow, and pump brake horsepower parameters proposed in 
section III.A.4. Additionally, the proposed definitions of ESCC, ESFM, 
and IL pumps would exclude axial/mixed flow pumps through the reference 
of a discharge volute, which is typically not present on equipment 
referred to as axial/mixed flow pumps. The proposed definition of RSV 
pumps would also exclude equipment referred to as axial/mixed flow 
pumps through implication by specifying that the liquid inlet is in a 
plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft, as compared to axial/mixed 
flow pumps where liquid intake is parallel to the impeller shaft. 
Finally, the proposed definition of VTS pumps would exclude equipment 
referred to as axial/mixed flow pumps because axial/mixed flow pumps 
are not designed to be completely submerged in the pumped liquid. 
Consequently, given the required characteristics of each of the 
proposed equipment class definitions, DOE believes additional 
clarification is unnecessary to effectively exclude axial/mixed flow 
pumps. If, however, additional facts suggest that further clarification 
is needed, DOE may consider the merits of adding clarifying language to 
the appropriate regulatory text.
    As discussed previously, PD pumps are typically used to handle high 
viscosity liquids or handle extremely high head applications. PD pumps 
are not rotodynamic pumps and so do not meet the definition of any of 
the pump equipment classes discussed in section III.A.2.a that DOE is 
considering addressing in this rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed 
flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on 
the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where 
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests 
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or 
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pump equipment 
classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application
    DOE initially considered limiting its rulemaking scope to address 
only rotodynamic pumps intended for use in pumping clean water, with 
the potential of further limiting the scope to exclude specific 
categories of pumps based on their design or application. (Docket No. 
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 13 at pp. 2-6) DOE also discussed the 
possibility of defining ``clean water pump'' using physical 
characteristics rather than just defining ``clean water'' as in the EU 
Commission Regulation No 547/2012 EU 547.\19\ After extensive 
discussions on this subject, the CIP Working Group recommended limiting 
the scope of the rulemaking to pumps designed for use in pumping clean 
water and excluding certain pumps, some of which are designed for use 
in pumping clean water and some of which are not, from being regulated 
for the purposes of this proposal and the standards currently under 
consideration. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, 
Recommendation #8 at pp. 3-4) However, in the interest of time, the CIP 
Working Group did not recommend specific definitions to help implement 
any of these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to meet the intent and recommendations of the CIP 
Working Group, DOE is proposing to define ``clean water pump.'' DOE is 
also proposing to define several kinds of clean water pumps that are 
designed for specific applications and that the Working Group had 
indicated should be excluded from the scope of this proposal and DOE's 
standards rulemaking efforts that are under development. These 
definitions would be laid out in a new 10 CFR 431.462.
a. Definition of Clean Water Pump
    First, DOE proposes to define ``clean water pump'' as a pump that 
is designed for use in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free 
solid content of 0.25 kilograms per cubic meter, and with a maximum 
dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic meter, provided that 
the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation 
volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water 
from freezing at a minimum of -10 [deg]C.
    DOE notes that, when determining whether a given pump would satisfy 
the definition of clean water pump, DOE would consider marketing 
materials, labels and certifications, equipment design, and actual 
application of such equipment.
    To clarify the scope of ``clean water pumps,'' DOE notes that 
several common pumps would not meet the definition of clean water 
pumps, as they are not designed for pumping clean water. The CIP 
Working Group specifically identified the following non-clean water 
pumps:
    (1) Wastewater, sump, slurry, or solids handling pump (i.e., a pump 
designed to move liquid with maximum dissolved solid content that 
exceeds the limits in the definition of clean water).
    (2) Pump designed for pumping hydrocarbon product fluids that meets 
the requirements of API's Standard 610-2010, ``Centrifugal Pumps for 
Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries'' or ISO 
13709:2009.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ISO 13709:2009 is an identical standard to API 610 and is 
included under the same cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Chemical process pump that meets the requirements of ANSI/ASME 
Standard B73.1-2012, ``Specification for Horizontal End Suction 
Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process;'' ANSI/ASME B73.2-2002, 
``Specifications for Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical 
Process;'' or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 
2858:1975, ``End-suction centrifugal pumps (rating 16 bar)--
Designation, nominal duty point and dimensions,'' and ISO 5199:2002, 
``Technical specifications for centrifugal pumps--Class II.''
    (4) Sanitary pump that meets the requirements of 3-A Sanitary 
Standards, Inc. Standard 3A 02-11, ``Centrifugal and Positive Rotary 
Pumps for Milk and Milk Products.''
    DOE also proposes to establish a specific definition for ``clear 
water'' for testing purposes that would describe the fluid to be used 
when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. 
Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the definition 
for ``clear water'' established in HI 40.6-2014. This definition would 
apply solely for the purposes of the test procedure and is distinct 
from the definition of ``clean water,'' as defined in this section. The 
definition of ``clear water'' as it applies to the test fluid to be 
used in the testing of pumps under the proposed DOE test procedure is 
narrower than the proposed definition of ``clean water,'' which would 
be used to establish the scope of the DOE test procedure and related 
energy conservation standards.
    DOE also requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean 
water pump.''
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference 
the definition for ``clear water'' in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the 
testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE 
test procedure.
b. Exclusion of Specific Kinds of Clean Water Pumps
    Also in accordance with the Working Group recommendations, DOE 
proposes

[[Page 17599]]

to define several kinds of pumps that are clean water pumps, as 
defined, but would not be subject to the proposed test procedure. 
Specifically, DOE proposes that the test procedure would not apply to:
    (1) Fire pumps;
    (2) self-priming pumps;
    (3) prime-assist pumps;
    (4) sealless pumps;
    (5) pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 
CFR part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 
Facilities; and
    (6) a pump meeting the design and construction requirements set 
forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, 
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
    Accordingly, DOE proposes the following definitions for fire pump, 
self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and sealless pump:
    (1) Fire pump means a pump that is compliant with National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the 
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' and either (1) 
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed under UL Standard 448-2007, 
``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,'' or (2) 
Factory Mutual (FM) approved under the October 2008 edition of FM Class 
Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 
(Horizontal, End Suction Type).''
    (2) Self-priming pump means a pump designed to lift liquid that 
originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump 
requires initial manual priming from a dry start condition, but 
requires no subsequent manual re-priming.
    (3) Prime-assist pump means a pump designed to lift liquid that 
originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump 
requires no manual intervention to prime or re-prime from a dry-start 
condition. Such a pump includes a vacuum pump or air compressor to 
remove air from the suction line to automatically perform the prime or 
re-prime function.
    (4) Sealless pump means either:
    (a) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump 
using a magnetic coupling, or
    (b) A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller 
shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped 
fluid.
    DOE notes that the proposal to exclude fire pumps is consistent 
with comments submitted in response to the Framework Document, 
including from from stakeholders that were not members of the CIP 
Working Group.\21\ (NFPA, No. 27 at pp. 1-2; Colombia Engineering, No. 
29 at p. 1) However, while Earthjustice suggested that DOE could 
require that fire pumps be marked ``For use as a fire pump only,'' 
(Earthjustice, No.30 at p.2) DOE declines to propose a mandatory label 
for fire pumps because it seems superfluous in that there is an 
increased cost of such pumps that is likely to inherently limit their 
sale to that specific application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOE did not receive comments on the Framework Document 
regarding other types of pumps for exclusion from stakeholders not 
represented on the CIP Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE reviewed the requirements for fire pumps, pumps designed to be 
used in a nuclear facility under 10 CFR 50, and pumps designed per 
military specification MIL-P-17639F (Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous 
Service, Naval Shipboard Use). DOE believes that in all cases, the 
increased burden in design and test requirements provides a legitimate 
reason to exclude these from the scope of the proposed test procedure 
and standards.
    According to Patterson Pumps, fire pumps are manufactured according 
to NFPA Standard 20, and certified according to either UL or FM 
standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at pp. 191-192) 
The CIP Working Group agreed to exclude pumps compliant with NFPA 20 as 
long as they are certified as ``fire pumps'' to the relevant UL or FM 
standard, noting that UL and FM are the only two certification bodies 
for fire pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at p. 193-
194). The CIP Working Group also represented that it was unlikely 
manufacturers would attempt to sell pumps intended for other 
applications as fire pumps in an effort to circumvent a proposed DOE 
standard for pumps because of the high expense in testing to complete 
the certification process for UL or FM. Likewise, consumers would find 
the expense of buying a fire pump for a non-fire pump application would 
be higher than that of buying a pump that complies with an eventual DOE 
standard. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 125)
    Nuclear facility pumps must have certified design specifications 
and must conform to many specific design and testing criteria. These 
include, but are not limited to, classification as ASME Code Class 1 of 
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, ``Rule for 
Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,'' for reactor coolant 
pumps. DOE understands that the design and construction of pumps in 
accordance with ASME Code Class 1 represent significant additional 
expense and significantly increases the cost of such pumps compared to 
the clean water pumps considered in this test procedure. Similar to 
fire pumps, DOE believes there is sufficient justification to exclude 
such nuclear facility pumps from the scope of this rulemaking without a 
risk of clean water pumps being marketed or sold as nuclear facility 
pumps for actual use in other applications.
    Pumps designed to military specifications (commonly referred to as 
``MIL-SPEC''), such as MIL-P-17639F, must meet very specific physical 
and or operational characteristics and have complex and rigid reporting 
requirements.\22\ Specifically, MIL-P-17639F requires significant 
amounts of design and test data be submitted to various military design 
review agencies to ensure that the pump can be operated and maintained 
in harsh naval environments. When considering if a pump is designed and 
constructed to the requirements set forth in MIL-P-17639F, DOE may 
request that a manufacturer provide DOE with copies of the original 
design and test data that were submitted to appropriate design review 
agencies, as required by MIL-P-17639F. Similar to fire and nuclear 
facility pumps, DOE believes there is sufficient justification to 
exclude MIL-SPEC pumps from the scope of this rulemaking without a risk 
of clean water pumps being marketed or sold as MIL-SPEC for actual use 
in other applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ United States General Accounting Office, Report to 
Congressional Committees, Acquisition Reform: DOD Begins Program To 
Reform Specifications and Standards, GAO/NSIAD-95-14. October 11, 
1994. Washington, DC. pp. 2-3. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire pump,'' 
``self-priming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless pump.''
    Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes 
that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front 
of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the 
priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design 
features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and 
whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to 
determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military 
Specification and if

[[Page 17600]]

any Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F should be 
referenced.
    DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test 
procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless 
pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 
CFR part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 
Facilities, and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements 
set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, 
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of Pumps in This Rulemaking
    In addition to limiting the types of pumps that DOE would regulate 
at this time through pump definitions and their applications, DOE 
proposes to further limit its scope consistent with the Working Group's 
recommendation by applying the following performance and design 
characteristics:

    (1) 1-200 hp (shaft power at the best efficiency point, BEP, at 
full impeller diameter for the number of stages required for testing 
to the standard); \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The CIP Working Group also recommended that testing be 
required with 3 stages for RSV pumps and 9 stages for VTS pumps, 
unless a model is not available with that specific number of stages, 
in which case the pump would be tested with the next closest number 
of stages. This recommendation is discussed in more detail in 
section III.C.2.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
    (3) 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
    (4) design temperature range from -10 to 120 [deg]C;
    (5) pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per 
minute (rpm) driver speeds; and
    (6) 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).

(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3)

    Similarly, DOE proposes to apply the pump test procedure scope to 
the scope of pumps discussed in sections III.A.1 and III.A.3 possessing 
the characteristics presented by the CIP Working Group.
    DOE notes that with respect to the limiting criterion proposed for 
VTS pumps (i.e., bowl diameter) DOE is also proposing to define this 
term to remove ambiguity and to ensure that all entities are 
calculating bowl diameter the same way. HI 40.6-2014 defines bowl 
diameter as follows: ``Bowl diameter means the measure of a straight 
line passing through the center of a circular shape that intersects the 
circular shape at both of its ends.'' While DOE largely agrees with the 
HI definition, additional specificity is required with respect to that 
definition's use of the phrase ``circular shape.'' As such, DOE 
proposes to define ``bowl diameter'' as it applies to VTS pumps as 
follows:
    Bowl diameter means the maximum dimension of an imaginary straight 
line passing through and in the plane of the circular shape of the 
intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump that is perpendicular to 
the pump shaft and that intersects the circular shape of the 
intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump at both of its ends, 
where the intermediate bowl or chamber is as defined in ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008.
    If adopted, only those VTS pumps with bowl diameters of 6 inches or 
less would be required to be tested under the proposed procedure.
    DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (i.e., 
power, flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl diameter) 
as limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed test 
procedure would apply.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl 
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
5. Non-Electric Drivers
    DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural 
sector, may be sold and operated with non-electric drivers, such as 
engines, steam turbines, or generators. During the CIP Working Group's 
negotiations, testing and coverage of non-electric drivers were 
discussed. To ensure simplicity and comparability when testing and 
certifying pumps with non-electric drivers, the CIP Working Group 
recommended that pumps sold with non-electric drivers be rated as a 
bare pump, excluding the energy performance of the non-electric driver. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2) 
By requiring testing and certification in this manner, any hydraulic 
improvements made to the bare pump to comply with any applicable energy 
conservation standards that may apply to the bare pump would also 
result in energy savings if the pump is used with a non-electric 
driver. DOE notes that the proposed test procedure is applicable only 
to drivers that are electric motors. Therefore, when rating a pump with 
any driver other than an electric motor, or other bare pump, DOE would 
provide default rating calculations in the test procedure to represent 
the performance of the given bare pump with a default motor that is 
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for 
electric motors. See 10 CFR 431.25. This procedure is described in more 
detail in section III.E.1.a. (In context, as noted earlier, the terms 
``electric motor'' and ``motor'' are used interchangeably.)
    The Working Group's approach, as described above, is likely to 
reduce the test burden and complexity of the regulation. DOE notes 
that, in order to accurately capture the energy performance of non-
electric drivers in the DOE pump test procedure, separate test 
procedures would be necessary for each type of driver (e.g., turbines, 
generators), which are not currently available in HI 40.6-2014 or other 
relevant pump test standards and, thus, would add significant 
complexity and burden to the pump test procedure. DOE believes that 
there is insufficient technical merit or potential for additional 
energy savings to justify the additional burden associated with rating 
and certifying pumps sold with non-electric drivers inclusive of those 
drivers.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-
electric drivers as bare pumps.
6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase Induction Motors
    DOE recognizes that some pumps within the proposed scope of this 
rulemaking may be distributed in commerce with single-phase motors. 
However, DOE understands that the majority of pumps in the proposed 
scope of this test procedure rulemaking are sold with polyphase 
induction motors. One reason for the prevalence of polyphase motors is 
that the pumps for which the proposed test procedure would apply are 
typically sold into commercial and industrial applications where 
polyphase (three-phase) power is known to be commonplace. Additionally, 
single-phase induction motors are not widely available in motors with 
horsepower (hp) ratings greater than approximately 5 hp, while the 
proposed test procedure would apply to pumps from 1-200 hp, as 
discussed in section III.A.4. This circumstance further restricts the 
prevalence of single-phase motors in pumps for which the proposed test 
procedure would apply. According to the CIP Working Group, almost all 
pumps except for smaller pumps use three-phase motors, with the 
transition from single-phase to three-phase motors occurring at around 
\1/2\ to \3/4\ hp. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 105 at p. 
224-225)
    In addition, DOE understands that most pumps within the scope of 
this proposed rulemaking that are distributed in commerce with single-
phase induction motors are also distributed in commerce with polyphase 
induction motors of similar size to

[[Page 17601]]

accommodate variation in power requirements among customers.
    DOE understands that single-phase induction motors are, in general, 
less efficient than polyphase induction motors and, thus, would result 
in different energy consumption characteristics when paired with the 
same bare pump. Therefore, to establish the desired calculation-based 
methods for pumps paired with single-phase and polyphase motors, DOE 
would need to develop specific default motor efficiency assumptions and 
motor loss curves for both single-phase and polyphase motors. However, 
DOE believes that developing a separate rating methodology (including 
separate default motor efficiency assumptions) for pumps sold with 
single-phase induction motors is not justified at this time due to the 
small percentage of pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors. 
The CIP Working Group agreed that, based on the scope established for 
pumps being from 1-200 hp, it is more meaningful to focus the rating 
methodology on three-phase motors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, 
No. 105 at p. 226)
    For these reasons, DOE has developed the proposed test methods to 
be based on polyphase induction motors in that the default nominal full 
load motor efficiency discussed in section III.D.1 would specify a 
minimum efficiency value for a National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (NEMA) Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N electric 
motor, which are a specific kind of polyphase induction motor. However, 
DOE believes that such default nominal full load motor efficiency 
values are not applicable to single-phase induction motors. Therefore, 
in order not to penalize pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, 
DOE proposes that such pumps be tested and rated in the bare pump 
configuration, using the calculation-based method.
    DOE notes that, if a pump distributed in commerce with a single-
phase induction motor is also distributed in commerce in a bare pump 
configuration, this proposal would not increase the testing or rating 
burden on manufacturers. DOE also wishes to clarify that, to the extent 
that such a pump is also sold with an electric motor other than a 
single-phase induction motor, the pump must also be rated based on the 
PEICL or PEIVL as determined for the pump when 
paired with that other motor.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in 
commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the 
bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
    DOE requests comment from interested parties on any other 
categories of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are 
used with pumps considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have 
efficiencies lower than the default nominal full load efficiency for 
NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors.

B. Rating Metric

    One of the first and most important issues DOE must consider in 
designing a test procedure is selection of the regulatory metric. The 
most common metric used in the pump industry today to describe the 
performance of bare pumps (i.e., pumps sold alone, not inclusive of 
motors and controls) is pump efficiency, which is the ratio of 
hydraulic power (the product of flow, density, gravity, and head) to 
pump shaft input power, as shown in equation (1):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.000

Where:

[eta]pump = bare pump efficiency,
PHydro = pump hydraulic output power, and
Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at rating point 
(i).

    When a pump is tested for performance inclusive of a motor and/or 
controls, pump efficiency is not as useful a metric, as it does not 
capture the performance of the other components that are integral to 
the performance and utility of the pump when installed in the field. In 
the Framework Document, DOE discussed bare pump efficiency as well as 
overall pump efficiency (i.e., the efficiency of a pump coupled with a 
driver, as defined in HI 40.6-2014) and ``wire-to-water,'' \24\ power-
based metrics. DOE also discussed the possible application of different 
metrics to pumps depending on how they are sold: (1) Alone as bare 
pumps, (2) with motors, or (3) with motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The term ``wire-to-water'' refers to the physically-tested, 
combined performance of the bare pump, motor, and any continuous or 
non-continuous controls. This is consistent with the testing-based 
methods discussed in section III.E.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Working Group and Other Stakeholder Comments
    The different rating approaches suggested in the Framework Document 
were also discussed in the negotiations of the CIP Working Group. The 
Working Group recommended that DOE use a wire-to-water, power-based 
metric for all pumps, regardless of how they are sold. (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at p. 5) The CIP 
Working Group recommended a similar metric for all pump configurations 
(i.e., bare pumps, pumps sold with a motor, and pumps sold with a motor 
and continuous or non-continuous controls) to allow for better 
comparability and more consistent application of the rating metric for 
all pumps within the recommended scope. This way, the benefit of speed 
control, as compared to a similar pump without speed control, can be 
reflected in the measurement of energy use or energy efficiency.
    In developing the metric proposed in this NOPR, DOE reviewed the 
CIP Working Group recommendations as well as the relevant comments made 
in response to the Framework Document. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, 
and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which was not a member of the 
Working Group, suggested that if DOE defines pumps to be inclusive of 
motors and/or controls, that DOE develop a combined pump/motor/control 
efficiency metric using a weighted average of measurements at specified 
rating points (as preferable to minimum levels at multiple points 
because it allows more design flexibility). (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI 
noted that a regulatory regime that includes controls must include 
appropriate part load levels and operating points, reflective of part 
load conditions typically in use. It cited AHRI 1210-2011, ``2011 
Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,'' as an 
example of a relevant test procedure that requires that a variable 
frequency drive \25\ (VFD) and

[[Page 17602]]

motor be tested at four different speeds: 40, 50, 75, and 100 percent 
of full speed. AHRI estimated that VFDs in pump/motor/VFD packages 
range from 50 to 100 percent of maximum speed, and average operation is 
approximately 75 percent of full speed. AHRI also noted that the 
methodology used to develop the Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) 
metric in appendix D of AHRI standard 550/590 may be a useful 
reference. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Variable Frequency Drive (or VFD) is defined in AHRI 1210-
2011 as ``A power electronic device that regulates the speed of an 
alternating current (AC) motor by adjusting the frequency and the 
voltage of the electrical power supplied to the motor.'' This 
definition applies to asynchronous induction motors. The term 
``dynamic continuous control,'' as defined in section III.E.1.c, is 
synonymous with the term ``variable speed drive (VSD)'' and refers 
to a power electronic device that controls the output of a motor via 
continuous modulation rotating speed. This includes variable 
frequency drives, which control speed through changes in input 
frequency to the motor and are applicable only to AC motors, as well 
as direct-current machines such as electronically commutated motors. 
(HI, Europump, and DOE; ``Variable Speed Pumping Systems: A Guide to 
Successful Applications,'' pg. 9) For the purposes of this 
rulemaking, ``VSD'' will be used when discussing speed control of 
pumps in general, as applicable to either AC- or DC-driven motors. 
VFD will only be used when specifically discussing continuous 
control of AC induction motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that in general, AHRI's comments are in line with the CIP 
Working Group recommendation. Specifically, the metric recommended by 
the CIP Working Group is a weighted average of measurements at 
specified load points. The CIP Working Group recommended metric 
incorporates load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for 
pumps without continuous or non-continuous controls, and 25, 50, 75, 
and 100 percent of BEP flow for a pump sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls. The latter load points are similar to those 
specified in AHRI 1210. The reasoning behind these differing loading 
profiles is further discussed in section III.B.2.a.
2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and Variable Load Pump Energy Index
    After carefully considering the Framework stage comments and the 
recommendations of the CIP Working Group, DOE is proposing to adopt the 
metric recommended by the CIP Working Group. That metric consists of a 
ratio of the representative performance of the pump being rated over 
the representative performance of a pump that would minimally comply 
with any prospective DOE energy conservation standard for that pump 
type. The representative performance is referred to as the ``pump 
energy rating'' (PER) and is calculated as the equally-weighted average 
of the electric input power to the pump at three or four load points. 
As recommended by the CIP Working Group, DOE is also proposing similar 
metrics for all pumps, regardless of whether they are sold with 
continuous or non-continuous controls.
    For pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE 
proposes to use three load points near the BEP of the pump to determine 
the constant load pump energy rating (PERCL). For pumps sold 
with continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposes to use four 
load points to determine the variable load pump energy rating 
(PERVL).
    To scale the rated pump performance (PERCL or 
PERVL) with respect to the weighted average electrical input 
power of a bare pump that would minimally comply with any prospective 
DOE energy conservation standard for that pump type, DOE proposes to 
define a ``standard pump energy rating'' (PERSTD) that 
represents the performance of a bare pump of the same equipment class 
that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards 
serving the same hydraulic load. In other words, when determining the 
PERSTD for a bare pump, a pump with a motor, or a pump with 
a motor using either continuous or non-continuous controls, the 
PERCL of a minimally compliant bare pump within the same 
class would be used. A more detailed discussion of the 
PERSTD value is provided in section III.B.2.b.
    Specifically, for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous 
controls, DOE proposes using the PEICL metric, which would 
be evaluated as shown in equation (2):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.001

Where:

PERCL = the weighted average input power to the motor at 
load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow (hp) and
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy 
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp).

    Evaluating this metric for a given pump would entail the following 
steps:
    (1) Determining the PERCL for that pump in accordance 
with the specific methods discussed in section III.D,
    (2) determining the PERSTD for a pump of the same 
equipment class (i.e., pumps of the same configuration and performance 
characteristics to which a single standard would apply) that would be 
minimally compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards 
DOE may set, and
    (3) taking a ratio of the two values.
    As shown in equation (3), the PERCL would be evaluated 
as the weighted average input power to the motor at load points of 75, 
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15A.002

Where:

[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor 
at rating point i (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.


[[Page 17603]]


    Similarly, for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-
continuous controls, DOE is proposing using PEIVL, which 
would be evaluated as shown in equation (4):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.003

Where:

PERVL = the weighted average input power to the motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls at load points of 25, 50, 75, 
and 100 percent of BEP flow (hp) and
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy 
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp). The 
procedure for determining PERSTD is described in detail 
in section III.B.2.b.

    PEIVL would be similarly evaluated for a given pump 
equipped with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, by:
    (1) Determining the PERVL for that pump in accordance 
with the methods specified in section III.E.1.c,
    (2) determining the same PERSTD as for the same class of 
pump without continuous or non-continuous controls, and
    (3) taking a ratio of the two values.
    PERVL would then be calculated as a weighted average of 
input power to the motor and continuous or non-continuous controls at 
load points of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown in 
equation (5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.004

Where:

[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor 
at rating point i (hp), and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.

    Under DOE's proposed approach, the performance of bare pumps or 
pumps paired with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous 
controls) would be determined for the appropriate load points along the 
single-speed pump curve by increasing head (i.e., throttling) as flow 
is decreased from the maximum flow rate of the pump. As the flow is 
decreased, the power will typically decrease slightly. Pumps sold with 
continuous or non-continuous controls, by contrast, can follow a system 
curve and achieve the desired flow points by reducing the pump's speed 
of rotation rather than controlling flow by throttling. By reducing 
speed, power would be reduced in proportion to the cube of speed, 
resulting in lower power requirements for any part load flow points. As 
such, the PEIVL for a pump sold with continuous or non-
continuous controls will be lower than the PEICL for the 
same pump sold without continuous or non-continuous controls. In 
essence, adopting both PEICL and PEIVL would 
illustrate the inherent performance differences that can occur when 
coupling a given pump with continuous or non-continuous controls.
a. Load Profile
    In order to determine the part load performance of pumps, DOE must 
define a load profile and establish specific part load rating points at 
which to test a given pump. DOE researched the variety of applications 
and usage profiles for the pumps considered for the scope of this 
rulemaking and determined that the data regarding typical duty profiles 
of covered pumps are extremely variable and not widely available. Thus, 
it is extremely difficult to generalize duty profiles for a given pump 
based on type, size, or other factors.
    The CIP Working Group indicated that pumps sold as bare pumps and 
pumps sold with motors are more often installed in constant load 
applications that are intended to operate in applications with the 
design load closer to the BEP of the pump. Conversely, the Working 
Group added that pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls 
are typically applied in more variable applications with design 
conditions between 25 percent and 100 percent of the BEP flow and head 
conditions. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 73 at pp. 80-82) 
Based on the assessment and recommendation provided by the Working 
Group, DOE is therefore proposing to adopt two distinct load profiles 
to represent constant speed and variable speed pump operation. See 
Table III.3.

         Table III.3--Load Profiles Based on Pump Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pump configuration           Load profile         Load points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumps Sold without Continuous   Constant Load      75%, 100%, and 110%
 or Non-Continuous Controls      Profile.           of BEP flow.
 (i.e., bare pumps and pumps
 sold with motors).

[[Page 17604]]

 
Pumps Sold with Continuous or   Variable Load      25%, 50%, 75%, and
 Non-Continuous Controls.        Profile.           100% of BEP flow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lack of field data on load profiles and the wide variation in 
system operation also make it difficult to select appropriate weights 
for the load profiles. For these reasons, the CIP Working Group members 
concluded that equal weighting would at least create a level playing 
field across manufacturers. (See, e.g., Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0039, No. 63 at p. 125) DOE also proposes to equally weight the 
measured input power to the driver or driver and continuous or non-
continuous controls at each of the specified flow points in both the 
constant load and the variable load case, as recommended by the CIP 
Working Group. Due to the wide range of operating conditions a given 
pump may experience in the field, DOE believes the proposed load points 
and weights adequately represent the operating range of pumps sold with 
and without continuous or non-continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for 
PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and 
PEIVL for pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
b. PERSTD: Minimally Compliant Pump
    Within the PEICL and PEIVL equations, the 
average input power to the motor or motor with continuous or non-
continuous control in the numerator of these equations would be scaled 
based on a normalizing factor to provide a rating for each pump model 
that is indexed to a standardized value. DOE recognizes the benefit of 
scaling the PEICL and PEIVL metrics based on a 
normalizing factor because it could help compare values across and 
among various pump types and sizes.
    In recognition of these potential advantages, DOE proposes 
normalizing the weighted average input power to the pump being rated 
against the weighted average input power to a pump that would minimally 
comply with the applicable standard for the same class of pump. This 
approach is consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at pg. 5) 
This approach is also similar to the approach suggested by Europump, a 
trade association of European pump manufacturers. Europump's approach 
would normalize the tested input power to the tested pump with a motor 
and continuous or non-continuous controls, as measured at the input to 
the continuous or non-continuous control, relative to the reference 
shaft power for a minimally compliant pump with a minimally compliant 
motor at the given BEP.\26\ Europump's approach relies on the EU's 
existing regulations for certain categories of rotodynamic pumps 
designed for pumping clean water which were first published in 
2012.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Europump. Extended Product Approach for Pumps: A Europump 
Guide. April 8, 2013.
    \27\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 
ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the 
European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is proposing implementing an approach that would approximate a 
baseline pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant default motor, to use 
as a reference pump for each combination of flow and specific speed. 
The minimally compliant pump would be defined as a function of 
variables descriptive of the bare pump's physical properties, such as 
flow and specific speed, as in the EU approach to regulating clean 
water pumps.\28\ DOE proposes to use the same equation used by the EU 
to develop its standard, translated to 60 Hz electrical input power and 
English units \29\ as shown in equation (6), to determine the 
efficiency of a minimally compliant pump:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 
ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the 
European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 28-36.
    \29\ The equation to define the minimally compliant pump in the 
EU is of the same form, but employs different coefficients to 
reflect the fact that the flow will be reported in m\3\/hr at 50 Hz 
and the specific speed will also be reported in metric units. 
Specific speed is a dimensionless quantity, but has a different 
magnitude when calculated using metric versus English units. DOE 
notes that an exact translation from metric to English units is not 
possible due to the logarithmic relationship of the terms.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.005

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm),
Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz, and
C = an intercept that is set for the two-dimensional surface 
described by equation (6), which is set based on the speed of 
rotation and equipment type of the pump model. The values of this 
intercept, or ``C-values,'' used for determining pump efficiency for 
the minimally compliant pump would be established in the pump energy 
conservation standard rulemaking.

    In the above equation (6), the specific speed (Ns) is a 
quasi-non-dimensional number used to classify pumps based on their 
relative geometry and hydraulic characteristics. It is calculated as a 
function of the rotational speed, flow rate, and head of the pump as 
shown in equation (7) below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.006


[[Page 17605]]


Where:

Ns = specific speed,
N = speed of rotation (rpm),
Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm), and
H100% = total head at BEP flow (ft).

    Under this proposal, the calculated efficiency of the minimally 
compliant pump reflects the pump efficiency at BEP. As pump efficiency 
typically varies as a function of flow rate, DOE must also determine a 
method to specify the default efficiency of a minimally compliant pump 
at the load points corresponding to 75 and 100 percent of BEP flow. To 
do so, DOE also proposes to follow the approach used in the EU 
regulations; that is, DOE proposes to scale the efficiency determined 
at 100 percent of BEP flow in equation (6) using nominal and 
standardized values that represent how pump efficiency typically 
changes at part load (75 percent of BEP flow) and over load (110 
percent of BEP flow) load conditions. Namely, the efficiency at 75 
percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 94.7 percent of that at 100 
percent of BEP flow, and the pump efficiency at 110 percent of BEP flow 
is assumed to be 98.5 percent of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, as 
shown in equation (8):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.007

Where:

[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating 
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency, 
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
    Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as 
determined in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps 
in sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and
    i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.

    Equation (8) also demonstrates how the ratio between the minimally 
compliant pump efficiency and the hydraulic output power for the rated 
pump is used to determine the input power to a minimally compliant pump 
at each load point. Note that the pump hydraulic output power for the 
minimally compliant pump would be the same as that for the particular 
pump being evaluated. Under DOE's proposed approach, calculating the 
hydraulic power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP 
flow, would require the following equation (9):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.008

Where:
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating 
point i of the tested pump (hp),
Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating point i of the 
tested pump (gpm),
Hi = pump total head at each rating point i of the tested 
pump (ft), and
SG = the specific gravity of water at specified test conditions.

    The calculated shaft input power for the minimally compliant pump 
at each load point is then combined with a minimally compliant motor 
for that default motor type and appropriate size, described in section 
III.D.1, and the default part load loss curve, described in section 
III.D.2, to determine the input power to the motor at each load point. 
The applicable minimum nominal full load motor efficiency is determined 
as a function of type (i.e., open or enclosed), pole configuration, and 
horsepower rating, as specified by DOE's electric motor standards. 
PERSTD would then be determined as the weighted average 
input power to the motor at each load point, as shown in equation (8).
    The use of a reference denominator based on PERCL for a 
minimally compliant bare pump (including assigned default motor 
losses), as described in the preceding paragraphs, was recommended by 
the CIP Working Group. The benefit of this approach is that it would 
consistently show the difference between a given pump's performance and 
the baseline performance of a pump with the same flow and specific 
speed. A value higher than 1.0 would indicate that the pump would 
exceed the applicable pump energy consumption standard and would not 
comply, while a lower value would indicate that the pump is less 
consumptive than the maximum allowed by the standard and would 
therefore comply.

[[Page 17606]]

    To implement the Working Group's recommended approach, DOE's 
proposal would describe how to calculate PEICL and 
PEIVL as a ratio of the weighted average input power of the 
tested pump model over the weighted average input power of a minimally 
compliant bare pump paired with a minimally compliant motor with no 
controls, as shown in equations (10) and (11):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.054

Where:

PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant load (applicable to 
bare pumps and pumps sold with a motor) (hp),
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Piin = measured or calculated input power to 
the motor at rating point i for the tested pump (hp),
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating 
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency, 
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as determined 
in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps in 
sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2 (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with 
the DOE test procedure.

    Equation (10) would apply to both bare pumps and pumps sold with a 
motor (but without any accompanying continuous or non-continuous 
controls). For pumps sold with motors inclusive of continuous or non-
continuous controls, the PEIVL would be calculated as 
defined in equation (11) below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.010

Where:

PEIVL = pump energy index for a variable load (applicable to pumps 
sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls),
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting \1/3\ or \1/4\ as applicable),
Piin = measured or calculated input power to 
the continuous or non-continuous controls at rating point i for the 
tested pump,
PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output power at rating 
point i of the tested pump (hp),
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency, 
as determined in accordance with equation (6),
Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as determined 
in accordance with the procedure specified for bare pumps in 
sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and
i = 25, 50, 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure, where the load points are as 
noted in equation (11).

    DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and 
PEIVL metric architecture.
Default Motor Efficiency for the Minimally Compliant Pump
    DOE notes that the default motor efficiency discussed above varies 
as a function of motor horsepower. As such, DOE must prescribe a 
consistent method to determine the rated horsepower, and thus default 
efficiency, of the hypothetical minimally compliant motor used to 
determine PERSTD. DOE proposes that for bare pumps, which 
must be assigned a hypothetical default motor in order to calculate the 
proposed PEICL metric, the motor horsepower for the 
minimally compliant pump (PERSTD) would be determined using 
the bare pump (PERCL), described in section III.D.1.a. This 
procedure would select the default motor's horsepower as equivalent to, 
or the next highest horsepower-rated level greater than, the calculated 
pump shaft input power of the pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP 
flow. This approach would yield the same motor horsepower being 
selected for bare pumps and for their associated minimally compliant 
pump.
    For pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls, manufacturers could choose to 
sell their pump with a motor whose horsepower varies from that assumed 
based on the default motor selection criteria. See section III.D.1.a., 
infra. In such a case, the horsepower of the default motor selected to 
calculate PERSTD may vary from that of the one sold with the 
evaluated pump. DOE believes that applying the same motor horsepower to 
both the pump being evaluated and the minimally compliant pump 
(PERSTD) would provide the most equitable and straight-
forward comparison of pump performance. As a result, DOE is proposing 
to require that if a pump is sold with: (1) A motor or (2) a motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls, the motor horsepower for the 
minimally compliant pump used in the calculation would be based on the 
horsepower rating of the motor with which that pump is sold. To 
determine the minimally compliant pump's associated motor part load 
losses at each load point, the nominal full load efficiency associated 
with that motor's horsepower would be determined based on a motor that 
minimally complies with the applicable DOE electric motor energy 
conservation standards (or in the case of submersible motors, as 
described in section III.D.1.b) and using the procedure for calculating 
part load losses described in section III.D.2.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor 
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being 
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant 
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the 
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the 
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold 
with motors (with or without continuous or non-continuous controls).

C. Determination of Pump Performance

    To determine PEICL or PEIVL for applicable 
pumps, the proposed test procedure would require physically measuring 
the performance of either: (1) The bare pump, under the calculation-

[[Page 17607]]

based methods (see section III.E.1), or (2) the entire pump, inclusive 
of any motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control, under the 
testing-based methods (III.E.2). Specifically, the input power to the 
pump at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for PEICL, or 
at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for PEIVL, is 
required for input into the PEICL or PEIVL 
equations, respectively. Depending on whether the calculation-based 
method or testing-based method is applied, a slightly different test 
method would apply for measuring pump performance. In the case of the 
calculation-based method, only the bare pump performance is physically 
measured--the performance of the motor and any continuous or non-
continuous controls would be addressed through a series of 
calculations. In the case of the testing-based method, the full wire-
to-water performance of the pump is physically measured and the 
measured input power to the pump at the motor or at the continuous or 
non-continuous control, if any, is used to calculate PEICL 
or PEIVL. In either case, DOE's test procedure, as proposed, 
would require instructions for how to physically measure the 
performance of bare pumps, pumps with motors, and pumps with motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls in a standardized and consistent 
manner.
1. Referenced Industry Standards
    In developing this proposal, DOE reviewed domestic and 
international industry test procedures. Table III.4 shows a number of 
industry test methods that relate to the pumps for which DOE is 
considering adopting a test method and standards.

                        Table III.4--Overview of Currently Available Pump Test Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Test procedure                              Origin                              Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/HI 14.6-2011, ``Rotodynamic Pumps     United States......................  Harmonized with ANSI/HI 11.6 and
 for Hydraulic Performance Acceptance                                            ISO 9906-2012.
 Tests''.
HI 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic    United States......................  Developed, in coordination with
 Pump Efficiency Testing''.                                                      DOE and the CIP Working Group,
                                                                                 to support DOE's pump test
                                                                                 procedure.
ANSI/HI 11.6-2012, ``Submersible Pump      United States......................  Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6.
 Tests''.
ASME PTC 8.2-1990, ``Centrifugal Pump''..  United States......................  References dated measurement
                                                                                 techniques.
ISO 9906-2012 Rotodynamic pumps--          International......................  Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6 and
 Hydraulic performance acceptance tests--                                        referenced in EU
 Grades 1, 2 and 3.                                                              regulations.\*\
ISO 5198-1999 Centrifugal, mixed flow,     International......................  Provides guidance for
 and axial pumps. Code for hydraulic                                             measurement of very high
 performance tests. Precision class.                                             accuracy. Includes
                                                                                 specification of an optional
                                                                                 thermodynamic method for direct
                                                                                 measurement of pump
                                                                                 efficiencies.
AS 2417-2001 Rotodynamic pumps--Hydraulic  Australia..........................  Based on ISO 9906-2012.
 performance acceptance tests--Grades 1
 and 2.
GB/T 3216-2005...........................  China..............................  Based on ISO 9906-2012.
NOM-010-ENER-2004 Submersible deep well    Mexico.............................  Based on ISO 9906-2012.
 clean water motor pumps.
NOM-001-ENER-2000 Vertical turbine pumps   Mexico.............................  Based on ISO 3555 (predecessor
 with external vertical electric motor                                           to 9906-2012).
 for pumping clean water for irrigation,
 municipal supply, or industrial supply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Council of the European Union. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive
  2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for water
  pumps. Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 28-36.

    As presented in the Framework Document, DOE determined that ANSI/HI 
14.6-2011: (1) Is the most widely used test standard in the pump 
industry for evaluating pump performance; (2) defines uniform methods 
for conducting laboratory tests to determine flow rate, head, power, 
and efficiency at a given speed of rotation; and (3) applies to all 
pumps that DOE is considering regulating. See section III.A., supra. In 
the Framework Document, DOE requested comments from interested parties 
on the use of several test procedures, including ANSI/HI 14.6-2011, as 
a basis for developing DOE's test procedure. HI, Grundfos, and AHRI all 
recommended the use of ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 for stand-alone pump testing 
(i.e., testing of a bare pump without a motor and without continuous or 
non-continuous controls). (HI, No. 25 at p. 34, Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 
17, and AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2)
    After publication of the Framework Document, HI convened a group of 
subject matter experts to, in coordination with DOE and the CIP Working 
Group, revise ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 to make the test protocol more relevant 
for incorporation by DOE as part of the DOE test procedure. The new, 
revised standard was issued by HI in July 2014 as HI 40.6-2014 and 
incorporates several improvements over the previous testing standard, 
including greater precision and accuracy in describing evaluation 
techniques and mandatory language. The CIP Working Group recommended 
that whatever procedure the DOE adopts, it should be consistent with HI 
40.6-2014 for determining bare pump performance. (Docket No. EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at pg. 4)
    DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014 and determined that it contains the 
relevant test methods needed to accurately characterize the performance 
of the pumps that would be addressed by this rulemaking. These test 
methods include a means to determine pump shaft input power (for the 
calculation-based methods) and input power to the motor or motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls (for the testing-based methods) 
at the specified load points. Specifically, HI 40.6-2014 defines and 
explains how to calculate pump power input,\30\ driver power input,\31\ 
pump power output,\32\ pump efficiency,\33\ bowl efficiency,\34\ 
overall

[[Page 17608]]

efficiency,\35\ and other relevant quantities. HI 40.6-2014 also 
contains appropriate specifications regarding the scope of pumps 
covered by the test methods, test methodology, standard rating 
conditions, equipment specifications, uncertainty calculations, and 
tolerances. Additionally, HI 40.6-2014, when coupled with the minor 
modifications specified in section III.C.2.a, would provide clarity 
regarding certain mandatory requirements when performing the test 
procedure, such as the test conditions and instrumentation requirements 
necessary to ensure testing accuracy and repeatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The term ``pump power input'' in HI 40.6-2014 is defined as 
``the power transmitted to the pump by its driver'' and is 
synonymous with the term ``pump shaft input power,'' as used in this 
document.
    \31\ The term ``driver power input'' in HI 40.6-2014 is defined 
as ``the power absorbed by the pump driver'' and is synonymous with 
the term ``pump input power to the driver,'' as used in this 
document.
    \32\ The term ``pump power output'' in HI-40.6 is defined as 
``the mechanical power transferred to the liquid as it passes 
through the pump, also known as pump hydraulic power.'' It is used 
synonymously with ``pump hydraulic power'' in this document.
    \33\ The term ``pump efficiency is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as a 
ratio of pump power output to pump power input.
    \34\ The term ``bowl efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 as 
a ratio of pump power output to bowl assembly power input and is 
applicable only to VTS and RSV pumps.
    \35\ The term ``overall efficiency'' is defined in HI 40.6-2014 
as a ratio of pump power output to driver power input and describes 
the combined efficiency of a pump and driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To limit the overall burden presented by this proposal, DOE has 
chosen an approach that is as closely aligned as possible with existing 
and widely used industry test procedures. Although HI 40.6-2014 is a 
new test standard, its methods are substantially the same as those 
specified in ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 and currently used to evaluate pumps in 
the industry. Accordingly, in DOE's view, HI 40.6-2014, as a procedure 
based on an already widely used and recognized industry-developed 
procedure, is an appropriate method for evaluating bare pump/pump and 
motor performance. For this reason, DOE is proposing to incorporate 
this testing standard as part of DOE's test procedure for measuring the 
energy consumption of pumps, with the minor modifications and 
exceptions listed in the following sections III.C.2.a through 
III.C.2.f.
    DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE 
test procedure for pumps.
2. Minor Modifications and Additions to HI 40.6-2014
    In general, DOE finds the test methods contained within HI 40.6-
2014 are sufficiently specific and reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency and energy use. However, in 
DOE's view, a few minor modifications are necessary to ensure 
repeatable and reproducible test results and to provide measurement 
methods and equipment specifications for the entire scope of pumps that 
DOE is addressing as part of this proposal.
a. Sections Excluded From DOE's Incorporation by Reference
    While DOE proposes to reference HI 40.640.6-2014 as the basis for 
its proposed test procedure, DOE notes that some sections of the 
standard are not applicable to DOE's regulatory framework. 
Specifically, section 40.6.5.3 provides requirements regarding the 
generation of a test report and appendix ``B'' provides guidance on 
test report formatting, both of which are not required for testing and 
rating pumps in accordance with DOE's proposed procedure. As such, DOE 
proposes to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3 and appendix 
B of HI 40.6-2014.
    HI 40.6-2014 also contains relevant requirements for the 
characteristics of the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in 
section 40.6.5.5, ``Test conditions.'' Specifically, section 40.6.5.5 
requires that ``tests shall be made with clear water at a maximum 
temperature of 10-30 [deg]C (50-86[emsp14][deg]F)'' and clarifies that 
``clear water means water to be used for pump testing, with a maximum 
kinematic viscosity of 1.5 x 10-\6\ m\2\/s (1.6 x 
10-\5\ ft\2\/s) and a maximum density of 1000 kg/m\3\ (62.4 
lb/ft\3\).'' DOE agrees with these requirements and proposes to include 
them in the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-2014. However, in 
section A.7 of appendix A, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 
[deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F),'' HI 40.6-2014 addresses testing at 
temperatures above 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F). DOE does not intend to 
allow testing with liquids other than those meeting the definition of 
clear water presented above, including water at elevated 
temperatures.\36\ As such, DOE also proposes to exclude section A.7 
from the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Testing at higher temperatures may be conducted by 
manufacturers when their pumps are designed for a specific, higher-
temperature application. However, for DOE's purposes in developing a 
test procedure to determine the energy use of pumps, testing outside 
the nominal, standardized rating conditions is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by 
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 
as part of the DOE test procedure.
b. Data Collection and Determination of Stabilization
    In order to ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the 
DOE pump test procedure must provide instructions regarding how to 
sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data 
is taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely 
represent the performance of the pump at that load point. HI 40.6-2014 
provides that all measurements shall be made under steady state 
conditions, which are described as follows: (1) No vortexing, (2) 
margins as specified in ANSI/HI 9.6.1 Rotodynamic Pumps Guideline for 
NPSH Margin, and (3) when the mean value of all measured quantities 
required for the test data point remain constant within the permissible 
amplitudes of fluctuations defined in Table 40.6.3.2.2 over a minimum 
time of 10 seconds before data are collected. However, HI 40.6-2014 
does not specify the frequency of data collection. As such, determining 
stabilization, as specified, could occur based on a minimum of two data 
points (as a minimum of two data points are necessary to calculate a 
mean) or many data points based on a 1 second or sub-second data 
sampling frequency. DOE believes that, at a minimum, two data points 
should be used to determine stabilization and, as such, data must be 
collected at least every 5 seconds. DOE believes that two data points 
are necessary because at least two data points are necessary to 
determine an average. DOE proposes to specify that data shall be 
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
    As noted above, section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014, ``Permissible 
fluctuations,'' provides permissible amplitude of fluctuations for 
various measured quantities throughout the test. As specified in that 
section, all measurements must be less than these thresholds for the 
duration of the measurement period for a valid measurement. The section 
also describes permissible dampening devices that may be used to 
minimize noise and large fluctuations in the data. DOE proposes to 
incorporate by reference section 40.6.3.2.2 except that dampening 
devices would only be permitted to integrate up to the data collection 
interval, or 5 seconds, to ensure that each data point is reflective of 
a unique measurement.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be 
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as 
described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above 
(i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, or 5 
seconds).
c. Modifications Regarding Test Consistency and Repeatability
    Sections 40.6.5.6 and 40.6.5.7 of HI 40.6-2014 specify test 
arrangements and test conditions. However, DOE finds that the 
standardized test conditions described in these sections are not 
sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results. 
Specifically, the nominal pump speed, the input power

[[Page 17609]]

characteristics, and the number of stages to test for multi-stage pumps 
are not addressed, all of which could impact the measured test result 
for a given pump unit. To address these potential sources of 
variability or ambiguity, DOE proposes to adopt several additional 
requirements to further specify the procedures for adjusting the test 
data to standardized rating conditions.
    HI 40.6-2014 specifies that testing shall be done with clear water 
and defines clear water for the purposes of pump testing. HI 40.6-2014 
also provides a standardized description of the method for configuring 
pumps for testing. However, additional specifications not present in HI 
40.6-2014 are also required regarding the speed of rotation, the 
characteristics of the power supply, and the configuration of specific 
pump types for the purposes of testing pumps and for use in any 
subsequent calculations to determine the PEICL or 
PEIVL.
Pump Speed
    The rated speed of a pump affects the efficiency and 
PEICL or PEIVL of that pump. To limit variability 
and increase repeatability within the test procedure, DOE is proposing 
to include nominal rating speeds of 3,600 and 1,800 rpm at 60 Hz. For 
pumps sold without motors, the nominal rating speed would be selected 
based on the speed of rotation for which the pump is designed. 
Specifically, pumps designed to operate at any speed of rotation 
between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm would be rated at 3,600 rpm and pumps 
designed to operate at any speed of rotation between 1,440 and 2,160 
rpm would be rated at 1,800 rpm, as noted in Table III.5.

                  Table III.5--Nominal Speed of Rotation for Different Configurations of Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Nominal speed of rotation
        Pump configuration          Pump design speed of rotation   Style of motor            for rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump.........................  2,880 and 4,320 rpm..........  N/A.............  3,600 rpm.
                                    1,440 and 2,160 rpm..........  ................  1,800 rpm.
Pump + Motor OR...................  N/A..........................  2-pole Induction  3,600 rpm.
                                                                    Motor.
Pump + Motor + Control............  N/A..........................  4-pole Induction  1,800 rpm.
                                                                    Motor.
                                    N/A..........................  Non-Induction     3,600 rpm.
                                                                    Motor Designed
                                                                    to Operate
                                                                    between 2,880
                                                                    and 4,320 rpm.
                                    N/A..........................  Non-Induction     1,800 rpm.
                                                                    Motor Designed
                                                                    to Operate
                                                                    between 1,440
                                                                    and 2,160 rpm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposes that pumps designed to operate at speeds that include 
both ranges would be rated at both nominal speeds of rotations. DOE 
notes that each nominal speed rating would represent a different basic 
model of pump. DOE selected these operating speed ranges consistent 
with the tolerance about the nominal rating speed allowed for in the 
test procedure. Specifically, section 40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6-2014 
requires that the tested speed be maintained within 20 percent of the 
rated speed, or the specified nominal speed of rotation in this case. 
Therefore, any pump ``designed for operation'' at any speed of rotation 
between, for example, 2,880 and 4,320 rpm would be able to be tested 
under the proposed test procedure at the design speed of rotation and 
the results corrected to the rated nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 
rpm.
    DOE notes that these speed ranges are not exclusive. That is, if a 
pump were to be designed to operate from 2,600 to 4,000 rpm, such a 
pump would have a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm for the 
purposes of testing and rating the pump.
    For pumps sold with motors, DOE proposes that the nominal speed of 
rotation be selected based on the speed(s) for which the motor is 
designed to operate. Specifically, as shown in Table III.5, pumps sold 
with 2-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 3,600 rpm, and pumps 
sold with 4-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 1,800 rpm. 
Pumps sold with non-induction motors (e.g., DC motors and ECMs) would 
be evaluated at the nominal rating speed that falls within the 
operating range of the motor with which the pump is being sold. If the 
pump is sold with a non-induction motor that is designed to operate at 
any speed of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, that pump would be 
rated at a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm. If the pump is sold 
with a non-induction motor that is designed to operate at any speed of 
rotation between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, that pump would be rated at 1,800 
rpm. If the operating range of the non-induction motor with which the 
pump is distributed in commerce includes speeds of rotation that are 
both between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the 
pump would be rated at both 3,600 and 1,800 rpm and each nominal speed 
of rotation would represent a separate basic model.
    However, DOE acknowledges that it may not be feasible to operate 
pumps during the test at exactly 3,600 or 1,800 rpm. Therefore, DOE 
proposes that all data collected as a result of the test procedure at 
the speed measured during the test be adjusted to the nominal speed 
prior to use in subsequent calculations and that the PEICL 
or PEIVL of a given pump be based on the nominal speed. For 
pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls and 
that are tested using the testing-based method described in section 
III.E.2.c, this adjustment to the nominal rating speed would apply only 
at the 100 percent of BEP flow rating point--subsequent part load 
points would be measured at reduced speed and would not be adjusted. 
DOE proposes to use the methods in HI 40.6-2014 section 40.6.6.1.1, 
``Translation of the test results into data based on the specified 
speed of rotation (for frequency) and density'' to adjust any data from 
the measured speed to the nominal speed.
    In all cases, as required by HI 40.6-2014, the tested speed 
maintained during the test at each rating point must be maintained 
within 20 percent of the nominal speed and the speed of rotation 
recorded at each test point may not vary more than 1 
percent to ensure accurate and reliable results.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at 
the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal 
speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in 
HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed 
and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is 
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of 
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce 
more accurate and repeatable test results.

[[Page 17610]]

Power Supply Characteristics
    Because pump power consumption is a component of the proposed 
metric, inclusive of any motor and continuous or non-continuous 
controls, measuring power consumption is an important element of the 
test. The characteristics of the power supplied to the pump affect the 
accuracy and repeatability of the measured power consumption of the 
pump. As such, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of power 
consumption, DOE is also proposing to specify nominal characteristics 
of the power supply. Namely, DOE is proposing nominal values for 
voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and 
impedance levels, as well as tolerances about each of these quantities, 
that must be maintained at the input terminals to the motor, continuous 
control, or non-continuous control, as applicable.
    To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics testing 
pumps with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) 
and pumps with both motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, 
DOE examined applicable test methods for electric motors and VSD 
systems. DOE determined that IEEE Standard 112-2004 (``IEEE Standard 
Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators''), which 
is the test method incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.16 for 
electric motors, is the most applicable test method for electric motors 
when considering testing and rated values for motors that are 
integrated with a pump. DOE identified both AHRI 1210-2011, ``2011 
Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,'' (AHRI 
1210-2011) and the 2013 version of the Canadian Standards Association 
(CSA) Standard C838, ``Energy efficient test methods for three-phase 
variable frequency drive systems,'' (CSA C838-2013) as applicable 
methods for measuring the performance of VSD control systems.
    IEEE 112-2004, AHRI 1210-2011, and CSA C838-2013 all specify that 
voltage and frequency must be maintained at the rated voltage and 
frequency of the motor 0.5 percent. In addition, all three 
standards specify that the power source ``voltage unbalance'' shall not 
exceed 0.5 percent during the test. Voltage unbalance is calculated as 
the maximum voltage deviation from the average measured voltage divided 
by the average measured voltage.
    DOE recognizes that any harmonics in the power system can affect 
the measured performance of the pump when tested with a motor or motor 
and continuous or non-continuous control. IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C838-
2013 also include requirements to maintain total harmonic distortion 
below 5 percent. When measuring the input power to the continuous or 
non-continuous controls that are paired with an electric motor-driven 
pump, AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013 also specify impedance levels of 
the incoming power supplied to the VSD. AHRI 1210-2011 requires that 
source impedance not exceed 1 percent, while CSA C838-2013 requires 
that source impedance shall be greater than 1 percent but not exceed 3 
percent for VFDs under 500 hp.
    DOE is also proposing to establish these requirements for voltage, 
frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance 
in the DOE pump test procedure when testing pumps that either have 
motors (but without controls) or pumps with motors with continuous or 
non-continuous controls.
    While some pump manufacturers may be capable and equipped to 
accurately measure pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls in accordance with the proposed power supply 
characteristics, DOE recognizes that there may be some variability 
among manufacturers in this regard. Consequently, these requirements 
may represent a significant incremental burden for some testing 
facilities. To lessen this burden, DOE proposes to require that power 
supply requirements would apply only to pumps being evaluated using a 
physical testing-based method or pumps being tested using a calibrated 
motor. Pumps evaluated based on the calculation method where the input 
power to the motor is determined using equipment other than a 
calibrated motor would not have to meet these requirements, as 
variations in voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance are not 
expected to affect the tested pump's energy performance.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 
unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that 
must be met when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing a 
bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests comments 
on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump test labs, 
or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment 
would be required.
Number of Stages for Multi-Stage Pumps
    RSV and VTS pumps are typically multi-stage pumps that may be 
offered in a variety of stages (also known as bowls), each with its own 
energy consumption characteristics, which scale approximately linearly 
with each additional bowl. With these pump designs, any improvements in 
the hydraulic design of the bowl would be reflected in the measured 
performance of the pump with any number of stages. Thus, to simplify 
certification requirements and limit testing burden, DOE proposes to 
require that certification of RSV and VTS pumps be based on testing 
with the following number of stages:

 RSV: 3 stages; and
 VTS: 9 stages.

    If a model is not available with that specific number of stages, 
the model would be tested with the next closest number of stages 
distributed in commerce by the manufacturer. This proposal was part of 
the Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, 
No. 92, Recommendation #14 at p. 6)
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in 
their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number 
of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that 
particular number of stages.
d. Determination of Pump Shaft Input Power at Specified Flow Rates
    HI 40.6-2014 provides a specific procedure for determining BEP for 
a given pump based on seven data points at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and 
120 percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump. The test protocol in 
HI 40.6-2014 requires that the hydraulic power and the pump shaft input 
power, or input power to the motor for pumps tested using the testing-
based methods, be measured at each of the seven data points. HI 40.6-
2014 further specifies that the pump efficiency be determined as a 
ratio of hydraulic power divided by shaft input power, as described in 
equation (1), or the measured input power to the motor multiplied by 
the known efficiency of a calibrated motor, depending on how the pump 
is tested.
    The pump efficiency at each of these points is then used to 
determine the tested BEP for a given pump. Then, based on the 
determined BEP flow, the pump shaft input power or input power to the 
motor is determined at each of the specified load points, as discussed 
in section III.B.2.a. However, the specific data points measured in the 
test protocol may not be exactly at 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP 
flow load points specified in the proposal. Thus, the relevant test 
values--specifically, pump shaft input power, input power to the pump 
at the driver, or input power

[[Page 17611]]

to the continuous or non-continuous controls--must be adjusted to 
reflect the power input at the load points specified in the test 
procedure.
    Consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations, (Docket 
No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 35) DOE proposes to address 
this issue by requiring that the pump shaft input power at the defined 
load points be obtained by performing the pump test across a complete 
range of flow rates (i.e., sweeping the pump curve) and determining the 
pump shaft input power at a number of load points between shutoff (no 
flow) and overload (max flow), as specified in HI 40.6-2014. In this 
method, the established pump curve could then be used to find BEP (as 
described in section III.C.2.d). The pump shaft input power at the 
specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow could be 
determined by regressing the pump shaft input power with respect to 
flow between 75 and 110 percent of BEP flow. Specifically, the 
regressed test points would include the test points beginning with the 
next standard flow point below 75 percent of BEP flow (e.g., the load 
point corresponding to 60 percent of expected BEP flow) and continuing 
to the highest flow rate measured during the test.
    This method would provide a low testing burden, as test data would 
only have to be collected at each of the specified seven load points 
with no measurements required at subsequent load points (e.g., 75 or 
110 percent of BEP flow if the previously collected load points 
collected based on the expected BEP of the pump were not sufficiently 
close to the necessary load points based on the actual BEP of the 
pump). By design, the method relies on the relationship between pump 
shaft input power and flow being fairly linear across the flow rates of 
interest. To verify the assumption of linearity, DOE researched the 
relationship of pump shaft input power to flow using publicly available 
pump performance data. Based on this research, DOE observed that the 
relationship of pump shaft input power to flow rate was very nearly 
linear, but sometimes decreased slightly in slope at higher flow rates. 
These data indicate that, as a general matter, applying a linear 
regression approach across the flow range between 75 and 110 percent of 
BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the proposed 
specified flow points would provide a reasonably accurate measurement 
of pump shaft input power.
    DOE recognizes that this method may overestimate pump shaft input 
power in cases where the pump shaft input power increases less 
significantly above BEP flow, which would result in a slightly higher 
PERCL for the given pump. However, DOE's contractors 
analyzed the impact of the linear regression approach on the pumps in 
their pump database \37\ and found that the linear regression method 
was, on average, within approximately 1 percent of the measured pump 
shaft input power values. DOE also notes this method would be applied 
equivalently to all pumps, result in a worst-case rating, and offer the 
least burdensome approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DOE's contractors have created a database of available pump 
models being proposed for coverage under this test procedure and the 
associated energy conservation standards. The database represents a 
significant portion of the pump market and is based on data supplied 
to DOE's contractors directly from pump manufacturers and aggregated 
data supplied by HI. DOE's contractors developed this database over 
the course of the CIP Working Group negotiations, and the database 
is described in more detail in the docket for those meetings. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE discussed this proposed method with the CIP Working Group, 
which informally agreed with DOE's proposed approach to linearly 
regress the measured pump shaft input power at the relevant flow points 
to determine the pump shaft input power at the specific flow points of 
75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0039, No. 107 at p. 35)
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of 
the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested 
flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to 
determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75, 
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any 
pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate 
measurements.
Determination of Pump Shaft Input Power for Pumps With BEP at Run Out
    HI 40.6-2014 contains a method for determining the BEP of tested 
pumps based on the flow rate at which the maximum pump efficiency 
occurs. DOE recognizes that there may be some unique pump models that 
do not exhibit the typical parabolic relationship of pump efficiency to 
flow rate. Instead, for some pumps, pump efficiency will continue to 
increase as a function of flow until pump run-out--the maximum flow 
that can be developed without damaging the pump. For such pumps, it may 
not be possible to use the procedure described in HI 40.6-2014 to 
determine BEP, since the pump cannot safely operate at flows of 110 and 
120 percent of the expected BEP of the pump (assuming the pump was 
designed intentionally to have the BEP occur at run-out or the maximum 
flow rate). In such cases, DOE proposes that the seven flow points for 
determination of BEP be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of 
expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described in section 
40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014.
    In addition, since 100 percent of BEP flow corresponds to the 
maximum flow rate of the pump, there are no data corresponding to 110 
percent of BEP flow, or any flow rates above BEP flow. Therefore, in 
cases where the BEP flow is at run-out, DOE proposes that the specified 
constant load flow points be 100, 90, and 65 percent of the BEP (or 
maximum) flow rate. DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls, no modification would be 
necessary since there are no load points above 100 percent of BEP flow 
in the variable load profile.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that, for pumps with BEP at 
run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 
percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described 
in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points 
for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP 
flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
e. Measurement Equipment for VFD Wire-to-Water Test
    HI 40.6-2014 does not contain all the necessary methods and 
calculations to determine pump power consumption for the range of 
equipment that would be addressed by this proposal (i.e., pumps 
inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls). For the 
purposes of determining pump shaft input power, motor input power, 
input power to the continuous or non-continuous controls, and pump 
hydraulic power, certain equipment is necessary to measure head, speed, 
flow rate, torque, electrical power, and temperature. To specify the 
appropriate equipment to accurately and precisely measure relevant 
parameters, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference HI 40.6-2014, 
appendix C, which specifies the required instrumentation to measure 
head, speed, flow rate, torque, temperature, and electrical input power 
to the motor. However, for the purposes of measuring input power to the 
pump for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous 
controls, the equipment specified in section C.4.3.1, ``electric power 
input to the motor,'' of HI 40.6-2014 may not be sufficient.

[[Page 17612]]

    In response to the Framework Document, several commenters discussed 
the instrumentation needed to test a pump inclusive of motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls. The CA IOUs mentioned that most 
VFDs introduce non-linear, or non-sinusoidal, wave forms into the 
utility system, which will affect the total harmonic distortion 
experienced in the power system.\38\ As such, it would be important to 
measure their power and energy use with true root mean square (RMS) 
power-measuring equipment to capture the impact of such harmonic 
distortion on the measured input power to any pump sold with a motor 
and continuous or non-continuous control. (CA IOUs, Framework Public 
Meeting Transcript No. 19 at p. 236) In addition, HI stated that 
testing pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls would require an upgrade to the test instrumentation to 
measure the input power into a VFD to compensate for the disruption of 
the input power by the VFD. (HI, No. 25 at p. 35) However, HI added 
that this additional instrumentation is manageable and within the 
capabilities of what most of the HI members are doing today. (HI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 19 at p. 235)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Total harmonic distortion results from the introduction of 
non-linear loads into the power system, which introduces wave forms 
that are out of phase with the voltage and can affect power quality 
and the efficiency of power distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the appropriate electrical measurement equipment for 
pumps tested with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, 
DOE consulted CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011, since these test 
standards are the most relevant references for measuring input power to 
such controls. Both CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011 require that 
electrical measurements for determining variable speed drive efficiency 
be taken using equipment capable of measuring current, voltage, and 
real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply 
source frequency \39\ and have an accuracy level of 0.2 
percent of full scale when measured at the fundamental supply source 
frequency. In addition, AHRI 1210-2011 prescribes that such electrical 
measurement equipment must be designed as per International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61000-4-7-2002, 
``Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)--Part 4-7: Testing and 
measurement techniques--General guide on harmonics and interharmonics 
measurements and instrumentation, for power supply systems and 
equipment connected thereto.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ CSA C838-2013 requires measurement up to the 50th harmonic. 
However, DOE believes that measurement up to the 40th harmonic is 
sufficient, and the difference between the two types of frequency 
measurement equipment will not be appreciable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because some variable speed control methods have the potential to 
introduce harmonics to the power system, which can reduce power factor 
\40\ and affect the performance of certain electrical equipment, such 
as motors, DOE proposes that the electrical measurement equipment 
specified in AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013 be required for the 
purposes of measuring input power to a pump sold with a motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls. DOE agrees with interested 
parties that specific electrical measurement equipment capable of 
capturing the disruption or distortion of input power should be used to 
ensure measurement accuracy. Also, DOE does not anticipate that this 
proposed requirement would be likely to introduce an undue burden on 
pump manufacturers since many of them are already using this type of 
specialized equipment to test pumps equipped with motors having 
continuous or non-continuous controls. The burden associated with this 
test procedure, and in particular the required test equipment, is 
discussed further in section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Power factor is defined as the ratio of the real power 
supplied to the load over the apparent power in the circuit and is a 
dimensionless number between -1 and 1. Higher values of power factor 
(closer to 1) indicate that more real power is being supplied to the 
load relative to the current and voltage flowing in the circuit. 
When non-linear loads are applied that distort the wave form, less 
real power is available relative to the current and voltage in the 
circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required 
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical 
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-
continuous controls.
f. Calculations and Rounding
    DOE notes HI 40.6-2014 does not specify how to round values for 
calculation and reporting purposes. DOE recognizes that the manner in 
which values are rounded can affect the resulting PER or PEI, and all 
PER or PEI values should be reported with the same number of 
significant digits. DOE proposes to require that all calculations be 
performed with the raw measured data, to ensure accuracy, and that the 
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and 
PEIVL be reported to the nearest 0.01. Therefore, the values 
obtained from any corrections to nominal speed or calculations 
performed prior to obtaining the final PER or PEI values would not be 
rounded.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations 
and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the 
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL 
PEIVL, as applicable, be reported to the nearest 0.01.

D. Determination of Motor Efficiency

    The PEICL and PEIVL metrics both describe the 
performance of a pump and its accompanying motor and continuous or non-
continuous controls, if applicable. As such, the performance of the 
applicable motor must be determined to calculate the PEICL 
or PEIVL of a given pump model. For determining pump 
performance for bare pumps and determining the default motor efficiency 
of a minimally compliant pump (PERSTD), DOE is proposing to 
specify a standardized default motor nominal efficiency.
    For determining pump performance for pumps sold with motors or with 
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE is proposing to 
use either (1) the physically tested performance of the motor paired 
with that pump when using testing-based methods, or (2) the nominal 
full load motor efficiency of the motor (other than submersible) paired 
with that pump model when using the calculation-based test method to 
determine the PERCL or PERVL for that pump. See 
section III.E.1.b, infra, describing the proposed calculation-based 
method for pumps sold with motors and the use of the nominal motor 
efficiency when calculating overall pump power consumption.
    The default nominal or rated nominal full load motor efficiency, as 
represented by the motor manufacturer, would then be used to determine 
the full load losses, in horsepower, associated with that motor. The 
full load losses would then be adjusted using an algorithm to reflect 
the motor performance at partial loads, corresponding to the load 
points specified in the DOE test. The specific procedures for 
determining the default nominal and rated nominal motor part load 
losses are described below.
1. Default Motor Efficiency
    To calculate PERCL for a pump sold in the bare pump 
configuration and determining its PERSTD, default motor 
losses would be added to the pump shaft input power at each rating 
point, and the sum would be multiplied by a weighting factor. In order 
to calculate the default motor losses at each rating point, DOE 
proposes to adopt default motor efficiency values based on the

[[Page 17613]]

nominal full load motor efficiency values for general purpose, 
polyphase, NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors 
defined in 10 CFR 431, subpart B for medium and large electric motors. 
Based on the Working Group discussions, DOE believes that most motors 
sold with pumps under the scope of this rulemaking are sold with motors 
covered by DOE's updated electric motors standards and test procedures. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 09 at pp. 57-58) See section 
III.D.1.c, infra., for a discussion regarding submersible motors.
    Subpart B of 10 CFR 431 contains DOE's energy conservation 
standards for electric motors, which DOE recently updated. See 79 FR 
30934 (May 29, 2014). That rule established energy conservation 
standards for a number of different categories of electric motors DOE 
had not previously regulated, such as partial motors. In addition, 
although it did not change the required minimum efficiency of electric 
motors currently covered as general purpose electric motors (subtype 
I), it did increase the required efficiency for electric motors 
currently defined by DOE under the category of general purpose electric 
motors (subtype II), which includes close-coupled pump motors. Motors 
that are regulated must be manufactured in compliance with these 
updated standards beginning on June 1, 2016. 79 FR at 30944.
    DOE proposes to use the applicable minimum nominal full load motor 
efficiency values at 10 CFR 431.25 for the category and horsepower of 
electric motors with which pumps are typically paired (i.e., NEMA 
Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors). Specifically, DOE 
believes that the minimum efficiency of a NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, 
or IEC Design N motor is an applicable default minimum motor efficiency 
to apply to all pumps to which the proposed test procedure would apply, 
except submersible motors. At the time of writing, the values in Table 
5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) define the nominal minimum efficiency for motors 
paired with bare pumps sold alone and for determining the 
PERSTD (see section III.B.2.b). Table 5 defines the minimum 
nominal efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N 
electric motors from 1 to 500 hp meeting the following criteria:
    (1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
    (2) are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type 
S1 (IEC);
    (3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
    (4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal 
line power;
    (5) are rated 600 volts or less;
    (6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
    (7) are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or 
IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive 
NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA 
frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
    (8) produce at least 1 hp (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 hp 
(373 kW); and
    (9) meet all of the performance requirements of one of the 
following motor types: A NEMA Design A or B motor or an IEC Design N. 
79 FR at 31012 (to be codified at 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(h)).
a. Default Motor Selection
    For bare pumps, DOE proposes to specify the selection of the 
default motor used for calculating PERCL and 
PERSTD based on the nominal speed and measured shaft input 
power of the rated pump. DOE proposes that the number of poles selected 
for the default motor be equivalent to the nominal speed of the rated 
pump (i.e., 2 poles corresponds to 3600 rpm and 4 poles corresponds to 
1800 rpm). DOE also proposes that the motor horsepower selected for a 
given pump would be required to be either equivalent to, or the next 
highest horsepower-rated level greater than, the measured pump shaft 
input power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE also proposes that the 
shaft input power at the 120 percent of BEP flow point be calculated 
based on a linear extrapolation of the 100 and 110 percent of BEP flow 
points, similar to the approach proposed for determining the input 
power to the pump at these specified flow points, discussed in section 
III.C.2.d.
    DOE notes that the energy conservation standards for motors, found 
in Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h), include minimum nominal full load motor 
efficiency values for both open and enclosed motor construction. In 
general, motors with an open construction have a lower minimum nominal 
full load efficiency value; however, for some pole and horsepower 
combinations, this relationship does not hold. Therefore, for bare 
pumps and the minimally compliant pump in PERSTD, DOE 
proposes to specify selection of the minimum efficiency value listed in 
Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the lower value of either the open or 
enclosed construction at the appropriate motor horsepower and number of 
poles.
    As noted in section III.B.2.b, for pumps sold either with motors or 
with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, the motor 
horsepower and number of poles selected for determining the minimally 
compliant full load nominal efficiency from Table 5 in 10 CFR 
431.25(h)) (or the submersible motor table, in the case of submersible 
motors, see section III.D.1.b) and used in the equation for 
PERSTD should be equivalent to the horsepower and poles of 
the motor actually sold with the pump. In other words, the horsepower 
and number of poles of the minimally compliant motor in 
PERSTD would be the same as the motor with which the pump is 
being rated. In such a case, the minimum full load nominal efficiency 
corresponding to the minimally compliant motor in PERSTD 
shall still be the minimum of the open and enclosed values. That is, 
regardless of the motor construction (i.e., open or enclosed) of the 
motor with which the pump is being rated, the minimum efficiency value 
listed in the table at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the given motor horsepower 
and number of poles shall be used.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor 
horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at 
120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for 
which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an 
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g., 
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a 
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the default, 
minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based on the 
applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency 
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A, 
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps 
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
b. Rated Nominal Motor Efficiency for Pumps Sold With Motors
    For pumps sold with motors and rated using the calculation-based 
approach, DOE proposes that the motor nominal full load efficiency used 
in determining the PERCL or PERVL would be the 
measured nominal full load efficiency determined in accordance with the 
DOE electric motor test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.16 and 
appendix B to subpart B of part 431. For pumps sold with submersible 
motors and rated using the calculation-based approach, the motor full 
load efficiency values are discussed in section III.D.1.c. For pumps 
sold with motors not addressed

[[Page 17614]]

by DOE's electric motor test procedure (except submersible motors), the 
calculation-based methods described in section III.E.1 would not apply 
and no assumption regarding nominal efficiency of the motor paired with 
the pump would be required when determining PERCL or 
PERVL. However, an assumption regarding the default 
efficiency of the minimally compliant motor that could be paired with a 
given pump would still be required to calculate PERSTD. See 
section III.D.1.a., supra.
c. Submersible Motors
    DOE notes that submersible motors are not currently subject to the 
DOE energy conservation standards for electric motors specified at 10 
CFR 431.25. For the purposes of calculating PEICL for bare 
VTS pumps or PERSTD for any pumps sold with submersible 
motors, DOE requires a default assumption regarding full load 
efficiency for submersible motors. DOE surveyed the literature and 
equipment catalogs of pump and motor manufacturers producing 
submersible motors and collected full load efficiency data. The data 
collected are the representations made in manufacturer literature 
regarding the full load efficiency of the motor, but do not indicate 
whether these reported efficiency values comprise tested, nominal, or 
rated values, as submersible motors are not covered by DOE's energy 
conservation standards or test procedures.
    Based on the available information, DOE constructed a table of 
motor full load efficiencies by motor horsepower, similar to the table 
of energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 
431.25(h). DOE notes that because submersible motors are only available 
in enclosed construction, full load efficiency values are only provided 
for enclosed constructions.
    To construct the submersible motor full load efficiency table, DOE 
conducted research to determine the least efficient motor commercially 
available within each specified horsepower and pole configuration 
(where data were available). DOE selected the least efficient 
submersible motor available because DOE recognizes that, by selecting a 
value higher than the minimum available, DOE could unintentionally 
drive the submersible motor market without explicitly regulating it. 
Based on the available data, DOE identified the number of ``bands'' 
\41\ below the minimum full load efficiency values for NEMA Design A, 
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors, as presented in Table 5 of 10 
CFR 431.25(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Because motor efficiency varies from unit to unit, even 
within a specific model, NEMA has established a list of standardized 
efficiency values that manufacturers use when labeling their motors. 
Each incremental step, or ``band,'' constitutes a 10 percent change 
in motor losses. NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-10 contains the list of 
NEMA nominal efficiencies. See Electric Motors Final Rule, 79 FR 
30933 (May 29, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``minimum observed efficiency'' column in Table III.6 reflects 
the least efficient motors found by DOE. As it is not DOE's intent to 
impact the rated efficiency of submersible motors through this 
rulemaking, DOE deflated the minimum observed submersible motor 
efficiency by using the maximum number of ``bands'' across a horsepower 
range to ensure that the value represented a worst-case value. Where no 
data were available, DOE applied the same number of NEMA bands across 
the range of motor horsepower and numbers of poles. The observed and 
default number of ``bands'' below the minimum full load efficiency 
values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors from 
Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h), are presented in Table III.6 below.

Table III.6--Two-Pole Motor Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor Horsepower Relative to the Full Load
                                  Efficiency in in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Observed number   Default number of
                                                         Minimum observed      of ``bands''     ``bands'' below
                                                             full load        below the full     the full load
                 Motor horsepower (hp)                    efficiency (2-     load efficiency    efficiency in in
                                                            poles) (%)       in in table 5 of  table 5 of 10 CFR
                                                                             10 CFR 431.25(h)      431.25(h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................                67                    6                 11
1.5...................................................                67                   11
2.....................................................                73                    9
3.....................................................                75                    9
5.....................................................                76                   10
7.5...................................................                77                   10                 15
10....................................................                75                   13
15....................................................                72.2                 15
20....................................................                76.4                 13
25....................................................                79                   12
30....................................................                79.9                 12                 12
40....................................................                83                   10
50....................................................                83                   11
60....................................................                84                   11
75....................................................                83.8                 12
100...................................................                87                   10                 14
125...................................................                86                   13
150...................................................                86                   13
175...................................................                88                   12
200...................................................                87                   14
250...................................................                87                   14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting proposed default minimum electric motor full load 
efficiencies for submersible motors, as presented in the ``default 
minimum efficiency'' column in Table III.7, can then be calculated by 
applying the number of ``bands'' below the minimum full load efficiency 
values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC

[[Page 17615]]

Design N motors in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h), as presented in Table 
III.6, to the actual efficiency values listed in the same Table 5 of 10 
CFR 431.25(h).

  Table III.7--Default Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor
                               Horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Default submersible motor full load nominal efficiency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Pole configurations
                Motor horsepower                 -----------------------
                                                       2           4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................        55          68
1.5.............................................        66          70
2...............................................        68          70
3...............................................        70          75.5
5...............................................        74          75.5
7.5.............................................        68          74
10..............................................        70          74
15..............................................        72          75.5
20..............................................        72          77
25..............................................        74          78.5
30..............................................        78.5        82.5
40..............................................        80          84
50..............................................        81.5        85.5
60..............................................        82.5        86.5
75..............................................        82.5        87.5
100.............................................        81.5        85.5
125.............................................        84          85.5
150.............................................        84          86.5
200.............................................        85.5        87.5
250.............................................        86.5        87.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load 
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
    DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor 
full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most 
current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric 
motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table III.6.
    DOE proposes to apply this table of default minimum efficiency 
values for submersible motor full load efficiency when calculating 
PERSTD for VTS pumps and to calculate the PEICL 
for pumps sold with submersible motors or PEIVL for pumps 
sold with a submersible motor and continuous or non-continuous 
controls, using the calculation-based approach described in section 
III.E.1. This aspect of DOE's proposal would result in a conservative 
calculation of energy consumption for the rated pump model, since the 
submersible motor with which the rated pump model is paired may be more 
efficient than the default minimum full load efficiency assumed in 
Table III.7. Allowing the calculation-based method to be used for pumps 
sold with submersible motors may also reduce the testing burden for 
some manufacturers. If manufacturers wish to account for the use of 
submersible motors with a higher efficiency than the minimum default 
full load efficiency, they may choose to rate the pump model through 
using the testing-based, wire-to-water method described in section 
III.E.2.
    In summary, DOE proposes allowing the use of the default minimum 
submersible motor full load efficiency values presented in Table III.7 
to rate (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and 
(3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls as an option instead of wire-to-water testing.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the 
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented 
in Table III.7 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with 
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses
    To determine the full load losses of the motor, the proposal would 
require that the full load motor efficiency described in section 
III.D.1 be used. Using this value, DOE would apply an algorithm to 
determine the part load losses of the motor at each of the rating 
points.
    To obtain the losses of the motor used at a fraction of full load 
under the proposal in this NOPR, manufacturers would be required to 
calculate the part load motor losses at each specified load point in 
accordance with the following three steps:
    (1) Determine the part load loss factor (yi) for each 
rating point, where part load loss factor at a given point represents 
the part load losses at the given load divided by full load losses, as 
shown in equation (12):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.011

Where:

yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and
i = percentage of flow at the BEP of the pump.

    (2) Calculate full load losses for the motor as shown in equation 
(13):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.012

Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the full load motor efficiency as 
determined in accordance with section III.D.1 (%).

    (3) Multiply the full load losses by each part load loss factor to 
obtain part load losses at each rating point, as shown in equation 
(14):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.013

Where:
Li = default motor losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
yi = part load loss factor at each rating point i, and

[[Page 17616]]

i = rating points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP 
flow for uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP 
flow for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous 
controls as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.

    DOE determined the cubic polynomial used to describe the part load 
loss factor (yi) based on part load efficiency data provided 
by the NEMA electric motors subcommittee.\42\ The cubic polynomial 
represents the measured part load performance of motors from 1-200 
horsepower from seven manufacturers that are members of the NEMA 
subgroup. These data were provided at part load values of 25, 50, 75, 
and 100 percent of the rated motor load. To determine how motor losses 
changed as a function of motor load over the range of those motors 
addressed in this rulemaking, the data were normalized based on the 
minimum full load efficiency of the motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ During the CIP Working Group negotiations, the NEMA motor 
and drive working group provided DOE contractors with a table of 
representative nominal motor efficiency values, broken out by 
horsepower and motor load, to support development of the part load 
loss curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges that losses may vary as a function of the motor's 
rotating speed (2-pole vs. 4-pole), motor design (open vs. enclosed), 
or the motor's horsepower rating. However, based on the data provided 
by NEMA, as well as additional data DOE gathered using DOE's 
MotorMaster database \43\ and DOE's Motor Challenge Program Fact 
Sheet,\44\ DOE did not observe any significant or generalizable trends 
of motor efficiency or fractional motor losses with respect to a 
motor's number of poles, category, or horsepower. DOE conducted a 
sensitivity analysis based on each of these factors and, in every case, 
the maximum impact on the rated pump PEICL or 
PEIVL was less than 1 percent. DOE's sensitivity analysis 
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. As such, DOE does not 
believe the additional complexity associated with multiple curves 
describing small variations in a motor's part load performance is 
justified and proposes to use the single cubic polynomial presented in 
equation (12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Department of Energy. September 21, 2010. MotorMaster+. 
Version 4.01.01. www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/motormaster.
    \44\ Department of Energy. Determining Electrical Motor Load and 
Efficiency. pp. 13-14. www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/pdfs/10097517.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These calculated part load motor losses at each of the specified 
load points would then be combined with the measured pump shaft input 
power and weighted equally to calculate PERCL or 
PERVL and PERSTD, as described in section 
III.B.2.
    DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part 
load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered 
motors and submersible motors, including the default motor specified in 
section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD

E. Test Methods for Different Pump Configurations

    As previously discussed, the PEICL and PEIVL 
for a given pump would be determined by first calculating the 
PERCL or PERVL, as applicable, for the given 
pump. The PERCL or PERVL would then be scaled 
based on a calculated PERSTD (i.e., the PERCL of 
a pump that would comply with the applicable standard). (Docket No. 
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) The process for determining the 
PERSTD is described in section III.B.2.b.
    The PERCL and PERVL are a weighted average of 
input power to the pump over a range of full and part load operating 
flow rates, and can potentially be determined using a number of 
different test methods, based on the way the pump model is sold. For 
example, the test method for pumps sold alone (i.e., bare pumps) will 
be different than that for pumps sold with motors or pumps sold with 
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls. However, the DOE test 
procedure for pumps will have a similar format for each configuration 
in that each will describe (1) the physical test method, testing 
conditions, and required data collection to ensure consistent and 
accurate test results and (2) the calculation method that defines how 
the collected data will be used to determine the final PERCL 
or PERVL for that model.
    Some test methods that DOE considered rely more on the performance 
of physical tests to obtain rating data (i.e., testing-based methods), 
which increases testing burden but may be more accurate than test 
procedures that rely more heavily on calculations. In a testing-based 
approach, each pump basic model must be individually tested, which is 
considerably more burdensome than calculating the rating. However, the 
wire-to-water performance of the product would be determined directly 
as a result of the test rather than by determining it through a 
calculation method, and the unique performance of each component at 
full and partial loading would be accurately captured.
    In contrast, a calculation-based approach to determine 
PERCL or PERVL (i.e., the numerator of the 
PEICL or PEIVL, respectively) for a given pump 
model can reduce the number of tests by allowing for the independent 
measurement of each component. That is, the input power to the bare 
pump, motor efficiency, or performance of a motor with continuous 
controls would be determined separately and subsequently combined 
through an equation to obtain the overall PERCL or 
PERVL rating for the pump. The equations could be used to 
determine ratings for unique basic models made up of different 
combinations of bare pumps, motors, and continuous controls without the 
need to test each unique combination.
    Calculation-based test methods are extremely repeatable and 
straightforward to conduct. However, calculation-based methods may not 
account for the efficiency or energy use impact of all theoretical 
designs of a given component. For example, to calculate the performance 
of a pump sold with a motor and continuous control, assumptions 
regarding how the continuous control affects the input power to the 
pump would be required at full and part load, and this assumed ``system 
curve'' may not reflect the actual measured performance of different 
types or brands of continuous controls available.
    In the subsequent sections, DOE discusses calculation-based and 
testing-based test methods for different pump configurations.
1. Calculation-Based Test Methods
    Calculation-based test methods have the benefit of being 
repeatable, straightforward, and minimally burdensome. DOE proposes 
that the following calculation-based test methods would be used to rate 
(1) pumps sold as bare pumps (Method A.1); (2) pumps sold either with 
(a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) 
submersible motors (Method A.2); and (3) pumps sold with motors that 
are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) 
submersible motors, and that are equipped with continuous controls 
45 46 (Method A.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The calculation-based test method was designed to capture 
the dynamic response of a control that can continuously respond to 
changes in load and reduce power consumption at all load points 
below BEP. Therefore, pumps sold with non-continuous controls would 
instead use the testing-based method described in section III.E.2.c, 
which captures some reduction in power consumption at some reduced 
flow rates. DOE discussed this approach with the CIP Working Group, 
which generally agreed with it, although such a recommendation was 
not specifically included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 49-50)
    \46\ DOE notes that some pumps sold with continuous controls, 
such as pumps sold with ECMs, may not be eligible to apply the 
calculation-based method based on the fact that ECMs are not: (1) A 
type of motor covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for 
covered motors or (2) a submersible motor (see section III.E). These 
pumps would instead apply a testing-based method.

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

[[Page 17617]]

    In general, the calculation-based test method for the applicable 
pump types would include physical testing of the bare pump, in 
accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and subsequent calculations to determine 
the PEICL or PEIVL, as applicable. The general 
steps of the calculation-based procedure would be as follows:
    (1) Determine performance of the bare pump in accordance with HI 
40.6-2014.
    (a) Measure the flow rate (gpm), head (ft), rotational speed (rpm), 
and torque (inches-pounds force) at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 
percent of the flow rate at the expected BEP of the pump and determine 
the pump efficiency at each point.
    (b) Determine the actual BEP by finding the maximum point of the 
pump efficiency curve, as measured, with respect to flow rate.
    (c) Determine pump input power (torque multiplied by speed) and 
regress pump shaft input power with respect to flow to find a linear 
relationship for all flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of 
expected BEP flow. Use this regression to determine pump shaft input 
power at 75, 100, and 110 of actual BEP flow.
    (d) Adjust all values to nominal speed.
    (2) Determine the part load losses of the motor and any continuous 
or non-continuous controls applicable to the rated pump model at each 
load point.
    (a) For bare pumps sold alone, the part load losses at each load 
point shall be determined based on the default motor efficiency of an 
appropriately sized motor that minimally complies with DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors and the default motor loss 
curve, as described in section III.D. Motor selection requirements are 
discussed in section III.D.1.a
    (b) For pumps sold with motors that are regulated by DOE's energy 
conservation standards, the part load losses at each load point shall 
be determined based on the rated full load motor efficiency of the 
motor that is paired with that pump and the default motor loss curve 
described in section III.D.2. For pumps sold with submersible motors, 
the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on 
the default minimum submersible motor efficiency from Table III.6 and 
the default motor loss curve described in section III.D.2.
    (c) For pumps sold with applicable motors and continuous controls, 
the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on 
the rated full load motor efficiency of the motor that is paired with 
that pump and the default motor and continuous control loss curve 
described in section III.E.1.c.
    (3) Determine PERCL or PERVL, as applicable, 
for the given pump
    (a) Sum the pump shaft input power at nominal speed and the 
calculated part load motor losses at each load point in the constant 
load or variable load profiles, as applicable, to determine the input 
power to the pump.
    (b) Average the calculated values of input power to the pump at the 
applicable rating points.
    (4) Determine PERSTD for the minimally compliant pump, 
as described in section III.B.2.
    (5) Divide PERCL or PERVL from step 3 by the 
PERSTD for that pump model to determine PEICL or 
PEIVL, respectively.
    The specific test methods for bare pumps, pumps sold with motors, 
and pumps sold with motors and continuous controls are described in 
more detail in the following sections III.E.1.a, III.E.1.b, and 
III.E.1.c, respectively.
a. Calculation-Based Test Method A.1: Bare Pump
    As described previously, the bare pump PERCL would be 
measured based on the pump shaft input power at 75, 100, and 110 
percent of BEP flow. Section III.C of this notice describes the 
proposed test method for determining pump shaft input power at the 
designated load points, which is based on HI 40.6-2014. The measured 
pump shaft input power at the three constant load flow points would 
then be combined with the part load motor losses at each flow point and 
equally weighted to determine PERCL for that bare pump, as 
shown in equation (15):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.014

Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = calculated input power to the motor at rating 
point i (hp),
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp),
Li = default motor losses at each load point i (hp), and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.

    The part load motor losses would be determined for the bare pump 
based on an assumed default motor efficiency representative of a motor 
that is minimally compliant with DOE's electric motor energy 
conservation standards (or the default minimum motor efficiency for 
submersible motors), as described in section III.D.1, and the default 
motor loss curve, as described in section III.D.2.
    The PEICL can then be calculated as the PERCL 
for a given pump divided by the PERSTD for a pump that is 
minimally compliant with DOE's pump standards with no controls, as 
shown in equation (16):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.015


Where:
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy 
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load (hp). The 
procedure for determining PERSTD is described in detail 
in section III.B.2.b.


[[Page 17618]]


b. Calculation-Based Test Method B.1: Pump Sold With a Motor
    In cases where a pump's efficiency can be independently measured 
and that pump is sold with an applicable motor, the primary test 
procedure would be similar to that for pumps sold alone (A.1) except 
that the motor efficiency, or losses, would be that of the motor with 
which the pump is sold when determining PERCL, as opposed to 
the default motor efficiency assumed in the bare pump case. For motors 
covered by DOE's electric motor standards, DOE proposes to use the 
measured nominal full load efficiency determined in accordance with the 
DOE electric motor test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.16 and 
appendix B to subpart B of part 431 (see section III.D.1.b). For pumps 
sold with submersible motors rated using the calculation-based method, 
the full load motor efficiency would be determined based on the default 
minimum submersible motor efficiency from Table III.6 (see section 
III.D.1.c). DOE notes that this calculation-based method would not 
apply to pumps sold with motors that are not subject to DOE's electric 
motor standards (except for submersible motors).
    The PEICL for pumps sold with motors would then be 
calculated using a similar approach that would be applied to bare pumps 
shown in equation (15) and (16), above, except that the default part 
load losses of the motor at each load point i would be determined based 
on the nominal full load efficiency for the motor, as described in 
section III.D.2.
    As previously discussed in section III.B.2.b, in determining 
PERSTD, DOE would base the nominal full load motor 
efficiency of the minimally compliant pump on the electric motor 
efficiency standards listed at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for pumps sold with 
motors other than submersible motors. Similarly, for pumps sold with 
submersible motors, DOE proposes that the default motor efficiency be 
that specified in Table III.7 in section III.D.1.c for both the rated 
pump model and PERSTD.
    DOE currently requires motor manufacturers to rate only full load 
efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.16. The extrapolation of the certified full 
load efficiency data to the required rating points representative of 
75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow for the paired pump using 
default part load curves is the least burdensome approach for 
determining part load efficiency of regulated motors when sold with 
pumps. This method would also allow for consistency and repeatability 
of results for a given pump. However, if the motor manufacturer makes 
certain changes to the motor design that improve part load performance 
without impacting efficiency at full load, this difference would not be 
reflected in the calculated PEICL using this proposed 
approach.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load 
losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation 
standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal 
full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with 
DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part 
load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the 
bare pump.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the 
PERCL of pumps sold with submersible motors using the 
proposed default minimum efficiency values for submersible motors and 
applying the same default motor part load loss curve to the default 
motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
    DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with 
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure 
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water, 
testing-based approach.
c. Calculation-Based Test Method C.1: Pump Sold With a Motor and 
Continuous Controls
    For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the 
PEIVL metric would account for the power reduction resulting 
from reducing speed and, thus, head, to achieve a given flow rate as 
opposed to throttling. In this case, the PEIVL is determined 
as the PERVL of the given pump divided by the 
PERSTD. The PERSTD would be determined in 
accordance with the procedures in section III.B.2.b. The 
PERVL would be determined as the weighted average input 
power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown 
in equation (17):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.016

Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/4\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the pump 
at the input to the continuous or non-continuous controls at rating 
point i, and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.

    The input power to the pump when sold with motors and continuous 
controls would be determined by adding together the pump shaft input 
power and the combined losses from the motor and continuous controls at 
each of the load points i. However, in the case of determining 
PERVL for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, 
the proposal would require that only the input power at the 100 percent 
of BEP flow point be determined through testing and the remaining 25, 
50, and 75 percent load points be calculated based on an assumed system 
curve.
    DOE understands that the system curve a given pump will follow in 
the field is based on the specific dynamics of the system (e.g., the 
amount of static head, or fixed pressure, in a system) and the 
characteristics of the continuous or non-continuous control (e.g. how 
the given control adjusts speed in response to changes in the required 
flow, head, or pump output power may vary among control types, as 
discussed in section III.E.1.c). However, DOE also believes that a 
single representative curve is sufficiently representative for the 
default calculation method as it equally applies to all pumps sold with 
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, thereby reflecting 
the input of the CIP Working Group regarding an appropriate and 
representative reference curve. DOE also proposes that the combined 
performance of the motor and continuous controls be determined based on 
a loss curve that describes the decreased efficiency of the motor and 
continuous controls at full and part load points. DOE notes that the 
CIP Working Group informally agreed with this approach. (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pg. 94-96)
    With respect to VFDs, AHRI recommended that DOE take time to 
develop a sound method for testing pump/motor/VFD packages and consider 
typical VFD operation in those packages. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI 
noted that AHRI Standard 1210-2011 will soon provide performance maps 
for VFDs tested with standard NEMA Design B four-pole motors that meet 
the criteria of NEMA Standard MG-1, ``Motors and Generators,'' Part 31.

[[Page 17619]]

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI noted that it launched an AHRI VFD 
certification program and expected to publish performance data in 
2014.\47\ AHRI further noted that a systemic efficiency calculation for 
the majority of pump/motor/VFD packages may then be possible by 
combining VFD, motor, and pump performance maps, and that a random 
selection of calculated system efficiency metrics could be verified by 
test. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) DOE considered these comments in making 
its proposal. The relevant definitions and specific calculation 
procedures are described in detail in the subsequent sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ To date, variable frequency drives are listed as one of the 
product types to which AHRI certification programs apply (see http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/CERT_PROGS_ENG.pdf); however, no certification data are available 
through AHRI's certification database (see https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference System Curve
    For pumps tested without continuous or non-continuous controls, no 
reference system is required as measurements are taken at various 
loading points along a pump curve at the nominal rating speed only. For 
pumps tested inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls (using a calculation-based or testing-based method), a 
reference system curve must be implemented to standardize the system 
curve shape on which multiple points will be calculated. Such a system 
curve describes the relationship between the head and the flow at each 
load point.
    AHRI 1210-2011 specifies a quadratic (or nearly quadratic) system 
curve, which would maximize the benefits of the speed control provided 
by continuous or non-continuous controls. A quadratic system curve, 
theoretically, is more representative of system curves in the 
field.\48\ This system curve will also likely more closely match the 
system curve in the test labs and, thus, linear extrapolation may be 
applied without significant loss of accuracy if a quadratic 
relationship is used. However, during the Working Group negotiations, 
interested parties suggested that DOE implement a static head offset 
instead of a completely quadratic relationship. Interested parties 
commented that this static head offset would be representative of a 
static head component of the system curve and would reasonably 
approximate the system curve pumps experience in the field. 
Specifically, HI suggested that DOE use a system curve with a static 
head component representative of 20 percent of head at BEP flow. 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 63 at p. 226)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ``2012 HVAC Systems and Equipment, 
Chapter 44: Centrifugal Pumps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with these suggestions, DOE proposes to use a quadratic 
reference system curve which goes through the BEP and offsets the y-
axis, as specified in equation (18):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.017

Where:
a = static offset correction factor for the system curve which is a 
scalar quantity,
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP 
flow (ft),
Hstatic = system head at zero flow rate (ft), and
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 
(gpm).

    For this test procedure, the system head at zero flow rate 
(Hstatic) is assumed to be 20 percent of BEP head, as 
recommended by the CIP Working Group. Therefore, as shown in equation 
(19) and depicted in Figure III.1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.018

Where:
H = the total system head (ft),
Q = the flow rate (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 
(gpm), and
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP 
flow (ft).

[[Page 17620]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.019

    DOE notes that this reference system curve would apply to pumps 
sold with a motor and continuous controls that are tested using this 
calculation-based method as well as to pumps sold with a motor and 
continuous or non-continuous controls that are tested using the wire-
to-water testing-based methods discussed in section III.E.2.c. As 
mentioned in section III.A.1.b, the calculation-based approach is not 
applicable to non-continuous controls, as such controls will not follow 
the assumed system curve precisely, as continuous controls would. 
Accordingly, DOE believes that the power consumption calculated along 
this reference curve would not be representative of the energy 
consumption of such pumps. Instead, DOE is proposing that pumps with a 
multi-speed motor, for example, or other non-continuous controls, would 
be rated using a physical ``wire-to-water'' test, which would capture 
some reduction in power consumption as measured by the test procedure 
at some reduced flow rates. Such a pump would be rated using the 
testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and controls, described 
in section III.E.2.c. DOE discussed this proposal with the CIP Working 
Group and the CIP Working Group generally agreed with DOE's approach, 
although such a recommendation was not specifically included in the CIP 
Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 
107 at pp. 49-50).
    DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as 
well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the 
statically loaded offset.
Determination of Bare Pump Shaft Input Power
    Under the proposed calculation-based approach for pumps sold with 
motors and continuous controls, the rated efficiency of the motor and 
continuous control would be combined with the pump shaft input power at 
the specified load points to calculate the PERVL of the 
pump. To determine the bare pump input power at the prescribed load 
points, only the pump shaft input power at 100 percent of BEP flow must 
be determined experimentally, in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and at 
the nominal full load operating speed of the pump (i.e., 1,800 rpm or 
3,600 rpm), as discussed in section III.C. However, DOE notes that the 
full HI 40.6-2014 test would still need to be conducted, and the pump 
hydraulic output power at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow would 
still be necessary for determining the PERSTD of the given 
pump.
    The pump shaft input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow 
would then be determined by applying the reference system curve 
discussed in section III.E.1.c and assuming continuous speed reduction 
is applied to achieve the reduced load points. Specifically, the 
reduction in pump shaft input power at part loadings is assumed to be 
equivalent to the relative reduction in pump hydraulic output power 
assumed by the system curve.\49\ The relative reduction can be 
determined as the product of the relative reductions in flow and head, 
as shown in equation (20):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Note, this assumes that bare pump efficiency is constant 
across the system curve.

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

[[Page 17621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.020

Where:
Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at rating point i 
(hp),
P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 percent 
of BEP flow (hp),
PHydro,i = pump hydraulic output power at rating point i 
(hp),
PHydro,100% = pump hydraulic output power at 
100 percent of BEP flow (hp),
Hi = total pump head at rating point i (ft),
H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of BEP 
flow (ft),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 
(gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.

    Based on this relationship, the pump shaft input power can be 
determined at each of the load points by multiplying the calculated 
ratio by the measured pump shaft input power at BEP, as shown in 
equation (21):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.021

    Where:
Pi = pump shaft input power at rating point i (hp),
P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 percent 
of BEP flow (hp),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 
(gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.

    DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for 
determining pump shaft input power for pumps sold with motors and 
continuous controls when rated using the calculation-based method.
Determination of Efficiency of the Motor and Continuous Controls
    DOE recognizes that determining the PERVL of a pump sold 
with a motor and continuous controls using the calculation-based method 
requires accounting for the efficiency of the motor and continuous 
control in combination with the measured pump shaft input power at the 
specified load points. Compared to an uncontrolled motor, the motor and 
continuous control together incur additional losses as a result of 
inefficiencies from the continuous control and increased inefficiencies 
in the speed-controlled motor due to harmonic distortion. Because of 
the interactions between the motor and control, treating the motor and 
control together would provide the most accurate measurement of the 
overall efficiency of a pump that has been paired with these two 
devices.
    DOE notes that, although a new test method for determining combined 
efficiency of motors and VFDs is available (AHRI 1210-2011), DOE does 
not currently require VFD manufacturers to test and certify their 
drives in accordance with that procedure or any other available test 
procedure for VFDs or other applicable speed controls. Therefore, 
consistent and standardized information regarding the efficiency of 
speed controls (combined with or separate from motor efficiency) is not 
available at this time. As such, requiring controller efficiency to be 
measured in a specific manner and used to determine performance of a 
pump sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls would 
represent a significant additional burden for pump manufacturers. In 
addition, such a requirement may also have the potential of requiring 
controller manufacturers to perform a specifically prescribed test.
    The Working Group also indicated that applying a standardized set 
of loss curves for determining the inefficiencies associated with motor 
and speed control components together would greatly simplify the method 
for calculating the total power consumption of the tested pump and 
present the least burdensome approach for manufacturers to implement. 
(EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at p. 218) For these reasons, DOE 
proposes to use a method similar to that applied to single-speed motors 
for determining the efficiency at part load points, discussed in 
section III.D.2, for the motor and continuous control.
    In order to develop the default part load loss equation to allow 
the calculation of the losses associated with motor and continuous 
control components, DOE used performance data generated from testing 
five motor and VFD combinations according to the AHRI 1210-2011 test 
method and examined additional data for 24 VFDs tested per AHRI 1210-
2011, provided confidentially to DOE's contractors by one VFD 
manufacturer.
    The DOE combined motor and VFD tests, conducted in accordance with 
AHRI 1210-2011, consisted of expanding upon the test points specified 
in the test procedure and taking up to 16 measurements of input power 
for each model tested based on permutations of 4 prescribed torque 
points tested at each of 4 speeds. Efficiency at each combination of 
torque and speed was determined by taking the ratio of the output power 
of the motor and input power to the VFD, where the output power was 
determined by the measured rotational speed and torque produced by the 
motor. The test data for the 24 VFD models provided by the VFD 
manufacturer included eight measurements at full load and part load.
    Based on the VFD performance data collected, DOE proposes using 
four part load loss equations to represent the combined efficiency of 
the motor and continuous control as a function of the output power of 
the continuous control. When analyzing the continuous control and motor 
efficiency as a function of the horsepower rating of the continuous 
control, DOE observed a significant variation by horsepower range and 
is proposing to account for this situation by establishing four 
equations as a function of the VFD's horsepower (see Table III.8).
    DOE proposes to describe the part load loss curves for the combined 
motor and continuous control as a function of the brake horsepower, or 
output power, of the motor (i.e., the power that would be supplied to 
the pump). DOE recognizes that using a relationship as a

[[Page 17622]]

function of motor brake horsepower rather than a two-dimensional 
equation as a function of torque and speed represents a simplification 
and may sacrifice some accuracy in determining the efficiency of a 
given motor and continuous control. For example, DOE observed that the 
speed and torque of the VFDs impacted the magnitude of the VFD's 
losses. DOE considered developing part load loss relationships as a 
function of speed and torque based on the test results. However, DOE 
notes that it is not clear whether the trends it observed during 
testing are universally applicable to motor and continuous and non-
continuous control systems available in the market, as each type of 
continuous or non-continuous control may impact motor efficiency 
differently based on the specific control approach. DOE believes that 
the available data are insufficient to create robust and representative 
relationships for all of the motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls that might be paired with pumps within the scope of this test 
procedure rulemaking. DOE notes that, based on its analysis of the 
available data, the proposed simplification would likely impact the 
resultant PEIVL for a given pump by a magnitude of less than 
1 percent.
    To derive the part load losses equations, DOE analyzed the results 
of all AHRI 1210-2011 test results to establish the maximum values of 
the ratio of VFD and motor losses to the motor full load losses (or 
part load loss factor). DOE determined this ratio at several motor load 
points using a regression as a function of the motor load percentage to 
derive the coefficients of the polynomial equation. The polynomial 
equation used to represent the part load loss factor is defined in 
equation (22):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.022

Where:
zi = the part load loss factor for the motor and 
continuous controls at load point i;
a,b,c = coefficients based on VFD horsepower, see Table III.8;
Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump (hp);
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being 
rated (hp); and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.


      Table III.8--Motor and Continuous Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Equation 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Coefficients of Equation (23)
            Motor horsepower (hp) between or equal to            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         a               b               c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5.............................................................         -0.4658          1.4965          0.5303
>5 and <=20.....................................................         -1.3198          2.9551          0.1052
>20 and <=50....................................................         -1.5122          3.0777          0.1847
>50.............................................................         -0.8914          2.8846          0.2625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the part load losses of the motor and continuous 
control, manufacturers would apply the part load loss curve polynomial, 
with the appropriate coefficient as established in Table III.8, to the 
nominal full load losses for the motor being sold with that pump in the 
same manner as that for determining the part load losses for single-
speed motors (see equation (14) in section III.D.2).
    DOE recognizes that the loading of the motor and continuous control 
when paired with a particular pump model may differ from those observed 
during DOE's testing and that this may affect the specific losses 
associated with a given pump. However, DOE believes that it is likely 
pump manufacturers would select a motor with a similar horsepower and 
control combinations to pair with a particular pump, as significantly 
oversized equipment will add unnecessary additional expense for the 
customer.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss 
factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor 
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined 
motor and continuous control, where the four curves would correspond to 
different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
    DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation 
compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed 
and torque).
    DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that 
was applied to the measured VFD efficiency data to generate the 
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically, 
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling 
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
    DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower 
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and 
motor horsepower.
    DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the 
extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would 
represent minimally efficient motor and continuous control 
combinations.
d. Other Calculation Methods for Determination of Pump Performance 
Determination
    DOE is proposing to require that each bare pump model be physically 
tested in accordance with the test procedure rather than to allow the 
use of calculation methods for determining performance of a bare pump 
with a similar design. DOE notes that the proposed calculation-based 
test procedure for certain applicable pumps already contains provisions 
for tested bare pump performance to be combined with default or tested 
performance data regarding the motor or motor with continuous or non-
continuous controls to calculate the PER of multiple pump basic models. 
This proposal would apply to: (1) Bare pumps; (2) pumps sold with 
either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) 
submersible motors; and (3) pumps sold with continuous-controlled 
motors that are either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor 
standards or (b) submersible motors. DOE also notes that, beyond the 
calculations proposed in this NOPR, DOE is not considering

[[Page 17623]]

permitting use of other algorithms or alternative efficiency 
determination methods to determine the rated performance of covered 
pumps or pump components (i.e., motors or controls).
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each 
individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or 
PEIVL rating for one or more pump basic models.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of 
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to 
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
    In summary, DOE proposes to establish the calculation-based methods 
discussed in this section III.E.1 for determining PEICL or 
PEIVL as the required test procedure for bare pumps and as 
one of two test methods that could be used for (1) pumps sold either 
with (a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or 
(b) submersible motors, and (2) pumps sold with continuous-controlled 
motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motors standards 
or (b) submersible motors. For pumps whose energy consumption cannot be 
calculated using the proposed calculation-based method, DOE proposes 
that the PEICL or PEIVL rating be determined 
based on testing only methods, as discussed in the next section, 
section III.E.2.
2. Testing-Based Methods
    Testing-based methods directly measure the input power to the 
motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control at the load points 
of interest (i.e., 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for 
uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for 
pumps sold with a motor and speed controls). As such, these methods 
cannot be applied to bare pumps. In addition, these test methods are 
the only test methods applicable to pumps sold with motors that are not 
addressed by DOE's electric motor test procedure (except submersible 
motors) or that are sold with non-continuous controls.
    DOE is also proposing providing these ``wire-to-water'' testing-
based methods as an optional procedure for all pumps sold with motors 
or motors with continuous controls. The benefit of using a testing-
based approach is that the test protocol is straightforward and 
accurate for a given pump sold with a motor or pump sold with a motor 
and continuous control combination. In these cases, it may be 
appropriate to use this testing-based approach for custom equipment 
that is already being tested for a specific customer. However, for 
standard pump models that may be paired with a variety of motors or 
continuous or non-continuous controls, testing each combination would 
significantly increase the burden of testing as compared to the 
calculation-based approach presented in section III.E.1.
    The following sections describe how to determine BEP for pumps 
rated using the testing-based method, as well as the specific test 
methods for pumps sold with motors (Method B.2) and pumps sold with 
motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (Method B.3).
a. The Best Efficiency Point for Pumps Testing Using Testing-Based 
Methods
    DOE notes that when testing some pumps using the testing-based 
methods, it is not possible to determine BEP as a ratio of pump input 
power over pump hydraulic power unless additional measurements are made 
of bare pump performance or pump shaft input power, in addition to 
input power to the motor. See section III.C.2.d, supra.
    In the case of pumps sold with motors or motors with continuous or 
non-continuous controls for which input power to the shaft is not 
measured directly, DOE proposes to determine the BEP using what is 
typically known as overall efficiency. Overall efficiency is the input 
power to the driver or continuous control, if any, divided by the pump 
hydraulic output power with no speed control (i.e., at the nominal 
rated speed). Overall efficiency is found by conducting a similar 
procedure involving sweeping the pump curve and fitting a curve to the 
rated points, as discussed in section III.C.2.d. This leads to a BEP 
value comparable with those determined based on direct application of 
the HI 40.6 method.
    To maintain consistent nomenclature, DOE proposes to define BEP for 
pumps tested using testing-based methods as the maximum measured value 
of the ratio of driver input power over pump hydraulic output at a 
single, nominal speed. Under this proposal, DOE would require use of 
the procedure specified in section III.C.2.d, except that the BEP would 
be determined based on the combined pump and motor efficiency instead 
of the bare pump efficiency.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps 
rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to 
the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output. 
DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield 
significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is 
determined based on pump efficiency.
b. Testing-Based Test Method B.2: Pump Sold With a Motor
    For pumps sold with motors, the PEICL can be determined 
by wire-to-water testing, as specified in HI 40.6-2014 section 
40.6.4.4. In this case, the PER becomes an average of the measured 
power input to the motor at the three rating points, as shown in 
equation (23):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.023

Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/3\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the motor 
at rating point i, and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as determined in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure.

    The PEICL determined using the tested wire-to-water 
method may vary slightly from that determined using the 
PEICL for pumps rated using calculation-based test methods 
B.1 or C.1 and will generally result in a better rating than the 
default calculation-based methods.
c. Testing-Based Test Method C.2: Pump Sold With a Motor and Speed 
Controls
    For pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls, DOE proposes that the PEIVL may be determined by 
wire-to-water testing, based on the procedure specified in HI 40.6, 
section 40.6.4.4, except that:
    (1) the input power is the ``driver input power,'' defined in table 
40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and referenced in table 40.6.3.2.3, section 
40.6.4.4, and section 40.6.6.2 refers to the input power to the 
continuous or non-continuous control and the input power to the 
continuous or non-continuous control and

[[Page 17624]]

    (2) is determined in accordance with the tolerances and 
requirements for measuring electrical power described in AHRI 1210-2011 
and CSA C838-2013, as proposed in section III.C.2.e.
    With this approach, pump manufacturers would determine the BEP of 
the pump, inclusive of motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, 
as described in section III.E.2.a, and then adjust the operating speed 
of the motor and the head until the specified head and flow conditions 
are reached (i.e., 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow and the 
associated head pressures determined by the reference system curve in 
section III.E.1.c).
    DOE recognizes that each test lab may have a similar but unique 
system curve that is representative of the specific valves, elbows, and 
other system components present in the test loop. As such, DOE proposes 
to specify the specific load points that must be determined based on 
the reference system curve to ensure repeatability among labs. However, 
DOE also recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve the exact 
load points given measurement and experimental uncertainty. To address 
this issue, DOE also proposes to establish an acceptable tolerance 
around each load point. The use of tolerances in this context is not 
unique. For example, EU 641 regulation \50\ for circulators adopts a 10 
percent tolerance around the specified load points for circulators 
greater than 100 watts (0.13 hp). To provide some level of measurement 
tolerance, DOE is proposing a tolerance level of 10 percent about 
(i.e., above and below) the target flow and head load points defined on 
the reference system curve for each pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Council of the European Union. 2009. Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 641/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 
ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone circulators and 
glandless circulators integrated in products. Official Journal of 
the European Union. L 191, 23 July 2009, pp. 35-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that it is still important for the input power 
values to represent the power at each specific load point. As such, DOE 
also proposes to require that load points determined via testing that 
are within the specified 10 percent tolerance band be extrapolated to 
the reference system curve to normalize the test data to the exact load 
points specified by the system curve. In this case, the pump shaft 
input power at the head at tested point i (e.g., head at 25 percent BEP 
flow) on the tested system curve, PT,i in, can be linearly 
extrapolated to the pump shaft input power at the specified head and 
flow rate (e.g., at 50 percent for BEP flow) based on the reference 
system curve, PR,i, using the following equation (24):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.024

Where:
PR,i = the rated pump shaft input power at flow point i 
(hp),
HR,i = the total system head at flow point i based on the 
reference system curve (ft),
HT,jj = the tested total system head at flow point j 
(ft),
QR,i = the total system head at flow point i based on the 
reference system curve (gpm),
QT,j = the tested total system head at flow point i 
(gpm),
PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point j,
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure, and
j= the tested flow point of the rated pump, determined in terms of 
percent of BEP flow.

[[Page 17625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.025

    In this case, the PER becomes an average of the measured power 
input to the continuous or non-continuous control at the four specified 
rating points based on the assumed system curve (as in Test Method 
C.1), as shown in equation (25):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.026

Where:
[omega]i = weighting at each rating point (equal 
weighting or \1/4\ in this case),
Pi\in\ = measured or calculated input power to the 
continuous or non-continuous controls at rating point i, and
i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as determined in 
accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Pumps Sold With Motors and Non-Continuous Speed Controls
    DOE notes that some pumps are sold with non-continuous controls, 
such as multi-speed motors with two or three discrete speed options. 
Pumps with these types of non-continuous controls are not able to use 
the calculation-based test method C.1 because they are not able to 
follow the reference system curve described in section III.E.1.c. For 
example, in the case of a pump sold with a two-speed motor, the pump 
will operate at full speed (i.e., the rated speed) for some of the flow 
points and reduced speed at the other flow points, as shown in Figure 
III.3. Which points are operated at full speed and which points are 
operated at reduced speed will depend on the turn-down ratio of the 
non-continuous control.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The turn-down ratio of a non-continuous control, such as a 
multi-speed motor, is generally defined as the ratio of the maximum 
speed of rotation (or speed of rotation at full speed) to the speed 
of rotation at the discrete lower speeds available on the control. 
For example, a motor with a speed of rotation at full speed of 3600 
rpm and ``low speed'' of rotation of 1800 rpm would have a turn-down 
ration of 2:1.

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

[[Page 17626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.027

    For these types of pumps sold with non-continuous controls, DOE 
proposes that the testing-based method found in HI 40.6-2014 be 
modified slightly to accommodate the operation of non-continuous 
controls and representatively account for their impact on pump energy 
performance. DOE proposes that for pumps sold with a motor and non-
continuous controls, the input power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, and 100 
percent of BEP flow be determined in the same manner as that for pumps 
sold with continuous controls described in section III.E.2.c, except 
that the head associated with each of the specified flow points does 
not have to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified head, as 
described by the reference system curve--only the flow rate would need 
to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified value. DOE proposes 
to require that the measured total head corresponding to the 25, 50, 75 
and 100 percent of BEP flow points be no lower than 10 percent below 
that defined by referenced system curve. That is, the associated total 
head may be anywhere in the region between the reference system curve 
and the full speed pump curve. In this case, the measured head and flow 
rate should not be corrected to the reference system curve. Instead, 
the measured points should be used directly in further calculations of 
PEIVL.
    The presence of continuous or non-continuous controls will 
positively impact the PEIVL rating (i.e., it will go down) 
due to decreased power consumption at part load rating points, as 
discussed previously. The PEIVL determined using this 
testing-based method will representatively capture the improved 
performance of pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls. This proposed method can be applied to any pumps sold with 
continuous or non-continuous controls, but would be the only applicable 
method when calculation method C.1 is not applicable; namely: (1) Pumps 
sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy conservation 
standards for electric motors (except submersible motors) and 
continuous controls and (2) pumps sold with any motors and non-
continuous controls.
    In addition, the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with 
motors and continuous controls will allow for more accurate 
differentiation of the variable performance of different continuous 
control technologies that cannot be adequately captured in the 
calculation-based method for pumps sold with regulated motors and 
continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps 
sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for 
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and 
non-continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control 
that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure 
would not apply.
3. Applicability of Calculation and Testing-Based Test Methods to 
Different Pump Configurations
    In summary, Table III.9 outlines which test methods would apply to 
which pump configurations under this proposal.

[[Page 17627]]



                  Table III.9--Applicability of Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Test Procedure Options Based on Pump Configuration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Calculation-based test
         Pump configuration            Pump sub-configuration              method                             Testing-based test method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump..........................  Bare Pump.................  A.1: Tested Pump..........  Not Applicable.
                                                                 Efficiency of Bare Pump +
                                                                  Default Motor Efficiency
                                                                  + Default Motor Part Load
                                                                  Loss Curve.
Pump + Motor.......................  Pump + Motor Covered by     B.1: Tested Pump..........  B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
                                      DOE's Electric Motor       Efficiency of Bare Pump +
                                      Energy Conservation         Motor Nameplate
                                      Standards OR Pump +         Efficiency for Actual
                                      Submersible Motor.          Motor Paired with Pump +
                                                                  Default Motor Part Load
                                                                  Loss Curve.
                                     Pump + Motor Not Covered    Not Applicable............  B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
                                      by DOE's Electric Motor
                                      Energy Conservation
                                      Standards (Except
                                      Submersible Motors).
Pump + Motor + Speed Controls......  Pump + Motor Covered by     C.1: Tested Pump..........  C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
                                      DOE's Electric Motor       Efficiency of Bare Pump +
                                      Energy Conservation         Motor Nameplate
                                      Standards + Continuous      Efficiency for Actual
                                      Control OR Pump +           Motor Paired with Pump +
                                      Submersible Motor +         Default Motor/Control
                                      Continuous Control.         Part Load Loss Curve +
                                                                  Assumed System Curve.
                                     Pump + Motor Covered by     Not Applicable............  C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
                                      DOE's Electric Motor
                                      Energy Conservation
                                      Standards + Non-
                                      Continuous Control OR
                                      Pump + Submersible Motor
                                      + Non-Continuous Control.
                                     Pump + Motor Not Covered    Not Applicable............  C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance.
                                      by DOE's Electric Motor
                                      Energy Conservation
                                      Standards (Except
                                      Submersible Motors) +
                                      Continuous or Non-
                                      Continuous Controls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For bare pumps, DOE is proposing to establish the calculation 
approach as the default test procedure (method A.1, which is discussed 
in section III.E.1.a). Testing-based methods would not apply to bare 
pumps because a PEI rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) 
could not be determined based on a test of the bare pump alone.
    For pumps sold with motors that are either regulated by DOE's 
electric motor standards or are submersible motors, DOE is proposing to 
also allow the use of the applicable calculation-based method (B.1, 
discussed in section III.E.1.b) or the testing-based method (B.2, 
discussed in section III.E.2.b).
    For pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric 
motor standards (except for submersible motors), DOE proposes to 
require use of the testing-based method B.2, discussed in section 
III.E.2.b, because the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as 
determined using a specific standardized procedure, is not available 
for those motors.
    For pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are 
either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric 
motors or (b) submersible motors, DOE proposes to allow use of either 
the applicable calculation-based method (Method C.1, discussed in 
section III.E.1.c) or the testing-based method (Method C.2, discussed 
in section III.E.2.c).
    For pumps sold with non-continuous control-equipped motors that are 
either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric 
motors or (b) submersible motors, as defined in section III.E.1.c, the 
calculation-based method C.1 would not be applicable because these 
controls are not able to follow the reference system curve described in 
section III.E.1.c. As such, pumps sold with non-continuous controls 
would also have to be tested using the testing-based method C.2 under 
this proposal.
    For pumps sold with motors not regulated by DOE's electric motor 
standards (excluding submersible motors) that are equipped with either 
continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE notes that the proposed 
calculation-based methods would also not apply, just as they do not 
apply to pumps sold with non-continuous controls. Thus, DOE proposes 
that such pumps would need to be evaluated using the testing-based 
method C.2 discussed in section III.E.2.c.
    DOE's proposed applicability of testing-based and calculation-based 
test methods, as shown in Table III.9, is intended to maximize the 
number of pumps that can be rated using the less burdensome 
calculation-based methods A.1, B.1, and C.1.
    In the case of a pump sold with a continuous or non-continuous 
controlled motor that is either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor 
standards or (b) a submersible motor, DOE proposes to allow use of 
either the calculation-based test method or the testing-based test 
method when determining the efficiency rating. In this case, if a 
manufacturer wishes to represent the improved performance of a given 
pump and believes that the assumptions made in the calculation method 
would not adequately represent the improved performance of that pump, 
the manufacturer may use the testing-based methods to rate the 
PEICL or PEIVL of that pump model to capture the 
improved performance of the pump as tested. For example, such improved 
performance could be due to increased motor efficiency (decreased 
losses) at part load. DOE notes that this is particularly important for 
pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, since DOE is only 
assuming a single system performance curve to represent all applicable 
continuous controls, as described in section III.E.1.c, and the 
testing-based method may provide an opportunity for manufacturers to 
differentiate the performance of

[[Page 17628]]

different continuous or non-continuous control technologies.
    DOE has designed the calculation-based approach to be conservative 
(through the assumed motor loss curve and assumed default motor 
efficiencies) to allow for comparability between the calculation-based 
and testing-based methods for pumps paired with continuous controls for 
motors that are (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) 
submersible motors. However, DOE notes that, since the actual measured 
efficiency of any single motor could be higher or lower than the 
nominal full load efficiency ratings assigned to that basic model of 
motor, it is possible for a given pump to be tested with a motor that 
is more or less efficient than its nameplate efficiency. Therefore, it 
is theoretically possible for the calculation-based method B.1 to 
generate ratings that are better or worse than the testing-based method 
B.2 based solely on the performance of the motor. To address this 
possibility, DOE proposes that, when performing enforcement testing, it 
would use the same test method (i.e., calculation-based or testing-
based) used by the manufacturer to generate and report the rating.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based 
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-
based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors 
that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation 
standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any 
motors and with non-continuous controls.
    DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-
based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps 
sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) 
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
    DOE requests comment on the level of burden in include with any 
certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a 
manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any 
energy conservation standards DOE may set.

F. Representations of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency

    As noted previously, manufacturers of any pumps within the scope of 
the pump test procedure would be required to use the test procedure 
established through this rulemaking when making representations about 
the energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Specifically, 
42 U.S.C. 6314(d) provides that ``[n]o manufacturer . . . may make any 
representation . . . respecting the energy consumption of such 
equipment or cost of energy consumed by such equipment, unless such 
equipment has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and 
such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.'' 
Manufacturers of equipment that would be addressed by this test 
procedure and any applicable standards that DOE may set would have 180 
days after the promulgation of those standards to begin using the DOE 
procedure. Performing this test procedure for pumps requires a key 
component (C-value) that will be addressed through the standards 
rulemaking for pumps. (As noted earlier, DOE is working on a parallel 
rulemaking to set these standards.) Because of this dependency, in 
DOE's view, the 180-day provision prescribed by 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) would 
necessarily apply only when both the test procedure and standards rules 
have been finalized. Accordingly, under this approach, manufacturers 
would not be required (nor would they be able) to use the proposed 
procedure until standards have been set.
    With respect to representations, generally, DOE understands 
manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical 
form) of energy use metrics, including pump efficiency, overall (wire-
to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power 
input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic 
horsepower). Manufacturers often make these representations at multiple 
impeller trims, operating speeds, and number of stages for a given 
pump. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to continue making these 
representations.
    Any representations of PEI and PER must be made in accordance with 
the DOE test procedure, and there may only be one PEI or PER 
representation for each basic model. In other words, representations of 
PEI and PER that differ from the full impeller PEI and PER cannot be 
made at alternate speeds, stages, or impeller trims. Additionally, if 
the PEI and PER for a basic model is rated using any method other than 
method A.1, ``bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor 
part load loss curve,'' such a basic model may not include individual 
models with alternate stages or impeller trims.
    If a manufacturer wishes to make unique representations of PEI or 
PER based on a trimmed impeller, DOE proposes that the manufacturer 
must certify the trimmed impeller as a separate basic model. In such a 
case, the ``trimmed impeller'' being rated would become the full 
impeller for the new basic model, or the maximum diameter impeller 
distributed in commerce for that pump model (see section III.A.1.c).

G. Sampling Plans for Pumps

    DOE provides in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429 sampling plans for all 
covered equipment. The purpose of these sampling plans is to provide 
uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with prescribed 
energy conservation standards and when making representations of energy 
consumption and energy efficiency for each covered equipment type on 
labels and in other locations such as marketing materials. DOE proposes 
to adopt for pumps the same statistical sampling plans used for other 
commercial and industrial equipment. These requirements would be added 
to 10 CFR Part 429.
    Under this proposal, for purposes of certification testing, the 
determination that a basic model complies with the applicable energy 
conservation standard would be based on testing conducted using the 
proposed DOE test procedure and sampling plan. The general sampling 
requirement currently applicable to all covered products and equipment 
provides that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and 
tested to ensure compliance and that, unless otherwise specified, a 
minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as 
compliant. 10 CFR 429.11 This minimum is implicit in the requirement to 
calculate a mean--an average--which requires at least two values.
    DOE proposes to apply this minimum requirement to pumps. Thus, 
under no circumstances would a sample size of one be authorized for the 
purposes of determining compliance with any prescribed energy 
conservation standards or for making representations of energy use of 
covered pumps. Manufacturers may need to test a sample of more than two 
units depending on the variability of their sample, as provided by the 
statistical sampling plan.
    DOE is also proposing to create a new section 10 CFR 429.59 for 
commercial and industrial pump certification that would include 
sampling procedures and certification report requirements for pumps. 
DOE proposes to adopt in 10 CFR 429.59 the same statistical sampling 
procedures that are applicable to many other types of commercial and 
industrial equipment. DOE believes equipment variability and 
measurement

[[Page 17629]]

repeatability associated with the measurements proposed for rating 
pumps are similar to the variability and measurement repeatability 
associated with energy efficiency or consumption measurement required 
for other commercial equipment.
    DOE is proposing to determine compliance in an enforcement matter 
based on the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed four units.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for 
certification and enforcement of compliance for commercial and 
industrial pumps.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed today's proposed rule, which would establish new test 
procedures for pumps, under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule, if adopted, 
would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis is set forth below.
1. Small Business Determination
    For the industrial pump manufacturing industry, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purpose of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any 
small entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size 
standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The standards are listed by 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Industrial pump manufacturers are 
classified under NAICS 333911, ``Pump and Pumping Equipment 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
    DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers 
of equipment covered by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE 
used available public information to identify potential small 
manufacturers. DOE's research involved the review individual company 
Web sites and marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet 
reports, Manta, Hoovers) to create a list of companies that manufacture 
pumps covered by this rulemaking. DOE also contacted the Hydraulic 
Institute to obtain information about pump manufacturing companies that 
participate in the national association. Using these sources, DOE 
identified 68 distinct manufacturers of pumps. DOE requests comment 
regarding the size of pump manufacturing entities and the number of 
manufacturing businesses represented by this market.
    DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met 
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of pumps and then 
screened out companies that do not offer equipment covered by this 
rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are 
foreign owned and operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified 38 
companies that would be considered small manufacturers by the SBA 
definition, which represents approximately 33 percent of pump 
manufacturers with facilities in the United States, as identified by 
DOE. Fourteen of the 38 manufacturers that qualify as being a small 
business were found to be foreign owned or operated, leaving 25 small 
businesses in the analysis. These 25 companies represent 29 percent of 
pump manufacturers with facilities in the United States.
    Table IV.1 groups the small businesses according to their number of 
employees. The majority of the small businesses affected by this 
rulemaking (60 percent) have fewer than 100 employees. According to 
DOE's analysis, annual sales associated with these small manufacturers 
were estimated at $1.09 billion ($43.97 million average annual sales 
per small manufacturer), which represents less than one percent of 
total industrial pump manufacturer annual sales. Although $1.09 billion 
in annual sales by the industry and over $43.97 million per small 
manufacturer are significant in many markets, many industrial and 
commercial pump manufacturers are large, multi-national companies, with 
annual sales ranging between a few million to over a trillion dollars.

                   Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees with Financial Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of    Percentage                 Average
                     Number of employees                         small       of small    Cumulative     annual
                                                               businesses   businesses   percentage   sales ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-25........................................................            4         16.0         16.0        $4.97
26-50.......................................................            5         20.0         36.0         6.56
51-100......................................................            6         24.0         60.0        17.90
101-200.....................................................            5         20.0         80.0        38.05
201-500.....................................................            5         20.0        100.0       104.29
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................           25        100.0        100.0        34.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17630]]

2. Assessing the Number of Basic Models per Manufacturer
    The proposed test procedure would impact manufacturers by requiring 
them to test the energy consumption of certain models of pumps they 
manufacture. As such, DOE conducted a focused inquiry into the number 
of basic models manufactured by large and small business in order to 
determine whether small business would be disproportionally impacted 
compared to large manufacturers. DOE used the definition of basic model 
and the scope of pumps proposed in section III.A as the basis for its 
inquiry into the number of pump models manufactured per company. Small 
manufacturers of pumps produce an average of 41 basic models per 
company covered under this scope.
    DOE notes that this estimate is based on the number of different 
bare pump models manufactured by a specific company because often 
information was not available regarding the number and type of motor or 
control options with which a pump could be sold. As such, DOE 
acknowledges that this estimate of basic models may be an under 
estimate. However, DOE also notes that, based on its research, pumps 
are often distributed in commerce as a bare pump, with different 
motors, continuous controls, and non-continuous controls offered as 
add-on options. As such, based on the proposed test procedure, only 
physical testing of the fundamental bare pump would be required under 
DOE's proposed test. Subsequent ratings when the pump is sold either 
with a motor or with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls 
could be developed based on calculations with no additional testing if 
the motor is covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for 
electric motors and the control is a continuous control.
    DOE notes that the vast majority of pumps that are sold with motors 
are sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy 
conservation standards. This understanding was confirmed by discussions 
of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 09 at 
p. 57) Based on a review of industry literature, DOE also finds that 
almost all controls available to be paired with pumps are VSD controls 
and would meet DOE's proposed definition of continuous control and, 
thus, the calculation method would be applicable.
    As discussed in more detail in the following, physical testing of 
each pump is by far the more burdensome and costly part of conducting 
the DOE test procedure, and any subsequent calculations should not 
significantly affect the burden associated with conducting DOE's 
proposed test procedure. Therefore, DOE acknowledges that, while 
different configurations of a bare pump, motor, and/or control may 
represent several basic models, estimating the burden associated with 
rating those models will be fundamentally based on the physical testing 
that must be performed on only the underlying bare pump, for most 
pumps. Therefore, DOE believes that calculating the burden of testing 
based on the number of bare pump models offered by a manufacturer is a 
reasonable and representative estimate of the burden associated with 
establishing a rating for the entire family, or group, or pump models 
that might be based on the individual bare pump. DOE notes that 
physical testing of the bare pump is commonly performed to describe 
pump performance information in manufacturer's literature. However, it 
is not clear that all pump manufacturers have facilities capable of 
performing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE has 
conservatively assumed that manufacturers would have to make a decision 
to incur the burden of constructing a test facility in order to perform 
the proposed DOE test procedure or conduct the testing a third party 
laboratory, as discussed further in section IV.B.3. DOE does not expect 
that every pump manufacturer will incur the cost as estimated in this 
IRFA given that many of the manufacturers are already testing and 
making representations of the bare pump efficiency.
    DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which 
the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with 
a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical 
test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of 
pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models 
sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous 
control.
3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE Pump Test Procedure
    Pumps would be newly regulated equipment; accordingly, DOE has no 
test procedures or standards for this equipment. As such, this proposal 
would apply a uniform test procedure for those pumps that would be 
required to be tested and an accompanying burden on the manufacturers 
of those pumps. As discussed in the proposed sampling provisions in 
section III.F, this test procedure would require manufacturers to test 
at least two units of each pump basic model to develop a certified 
rating.
    DOE notes that certification of covered pump models is not 
currently required because energy conservation standards do not exist 
for pumps. However, EPCA also requires that manufacturers use the DOE 
test procedure to make representations regarding energy efficiency or 
energy use based on the DOE test procedure for any covered pump models. 
For the purposes of this IRFA, DOE estimates that each manufacturer 
would rate each basic model of covered pump in order to make 
representations about a given basic model. Thus, the testing burden 
associated with this test procedure NOPR is similar regardless of 
whether standards apply. The potential difference between these cases, 
as discussed below, is any burden associated specifically with creating 
and maintaining certification reports to demonstrate compliance with 
any energy conservation standards for pumps.
    DOE recognizes that making representations regarding the energy 
efficiency or energy use of covered pump models is voluntary and thus, 
technically, the proposed test procedure does not have any incremental 
burden associated with it, unless DOE establishes energy conservation 
standards. If necessary, a manufacturer could elect to not make 
representations about the energy use of covered pump models. Since 
certification is not currently required because there are no pump 
energy conservation standards, manufacturers would not be required to 
conduct testing in accordance with this proposed test procedure and, 
thus, would not incur any incremental burden associated with such 
testing. However, DOE realizes that manufacturers often provide 
information about the energy performance of the pumps they manufacture 
since this information is an important marketing tool to help 
distinguish their pumps from competitor offerings. In addition, DOE 
recognizes that pump energy conservation standards are currently being 
considered in an associated rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-
0031) and may be proposed or promulgated in the near future. Therefore, 
DOE is estimating the full burden of developing certified ratings for 
covered pump models for the purposes of making representations 
regarding the energy use of covered

[[Page 17631]]

equipment or certifying compliance to DOE under any future energy 
conservation standards.
    DOE expects that in order to determine the pump performance of any 
covered pump models for the purposes of making representations or 
certifying compliance with under any future energy conservation 
standards for pumps, each manufacturer would have to either (a) have 
the units tested in-house or (b) have the units tested at a third party 
testing facility. If the manufacturer elects to test pumps in-house, 
each manufacturer would have to undertake the following burden-inducing 
activities:
    (1) construct and maintain a test facility that is capable of 
testing pumps in compliance with the test procedure, including 
acquisition and calibration of any necessary measurement equipment, and
    (2) conduct the DOE test procedure on two units of each covered 
pump model.
    DOE recognizes that many pump manufacturers already have pump test 
facilities of various types and conduct pump testing as part of an 
existing manufacturing quality control process, to develop pump 
performance information for new and existing products, and to 
demonstrate the performance of specific pump units for customers. 
However, DOE recognizes that, as such testing is not currently required 
or standardized, testing facilities may vary widely from one pump 
manufacturer to another. As such, for the purposes of estimating 
testing burden associated with this test procedure NOPR, DOE has 
estimated the burden associated with a situation where a given pump 
manufacturer does not have existing test facilities at all and would be 
required to construct such facilities to test equipment in accordance 
with any test procedure final rule. This is the most burdensome 
assumption.
    DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump 
manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to 
transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as 
proposed in this NOPR.
    The proposed test procedure would require manufacturers to conduct 
the calculation-based method or the testing-based method, depending on 
the type and configuration of pump being tested. As discussed in 
section III.E.1, DOE is proposing the less burdensome calculation-based 
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and pumps sold 
with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy 
conservation standards.
    In contrast, DOE is proposing to require that manufacturers use a 
testing-based method where pumps are sold either with motors that are 
not covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards or 
with non-continuous controls. For pumps sold with motors that are 
covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards and 
continuous controls, DOE is proposing to allow either testing-based 
methods or calculation-based methods be used to rate such equipment.
    Both the calculation-based method and the testing-based method 
would require physical testing of pumps at some level and, as such, 
would utilize a similar basic testing facility. To collect information 
on constructing a testing facility capable of performing the proposed 
DOE test procedure on the proposed scope of covered equipment, DOE 
utilized estimates from pump testing facilities and conversations with 
pump testing personnel.
4. Capital Expense Associated with Constructing a Pump Testing Facility
    From these sources, DOE estimates that the testing facility would 
need to be configured with 100 to 280 feet of stainless steel pipe of 6 
to 8 inches in diameter. DOE estimates that this configuration, 
including its respective fittings and valves, would cost between 
$17,000 and $100,000 to construct, based on cost data from RS 
Means.\52\ DOE estimates that the testing configuration would also 
include a double wall steel water reservoir that holds up to 6,000 
gallons for smaller pipe configurations and a 30,000 gallon reservoir 
for larger pipe configurations, which would cost between $21,000 and 
$70,000 based on RS Means cost data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2013 RS Means Electrical Cost 
Data. 2013. Kingston, MA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test platform of the facility could use a variety of devices to 
operate the bare pump. For example, a dynamometer can be used to 
simultaneously drive and measure the torque and rotating speed of the 
pump, the bare pump could be driven by a calibrated motor, or the pump 
could be driven by a non-calibrated motor with independent measurement 
of speed and torque. For testing of a pump and motor or pump, motor, 
and control, a separate drive system would not be necessary.
    In this analysis, DOE assumed that such a facility would use a VFD 
and a motor to enable each pump to be analyzed for energy consumption. 
DOE believes that this is likely to be the most common and cost-
effective approach for determining the energy consumptions of bare 
pumps. DOE estimates that the VFD, rated up to 250 horsepower in 
accordance with the scope of this rulemaking, would cost approximately 
$18,000 based on estimates obtained from retailers.
    DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated 
test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach 
for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test 
procedure.
    During testing, each pump is matched to an appropriately sized 
motor to drive the pump along at least seven points from 40 to 120 
percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump on the pump performance 
curve. To test the full range of pumps covered in the scope of this 
standard, DOE estimates that a minimum of four motors would be 
necessary.
    The motors would have to be sized based upon the range of pumps, 
which vary between 1 and 200 horsepower, to ensure that the pairing 
lowers the part load motor losses. These properly sized motors would be 
between 5 and 250 hp, and the combined cost of the motors ranges 
between $20,000 and $66,000.
    To measure energy consumption, measurements of head, pump rotating 
speed, flow rate, and either electrical power or torque would be 
necessary. DOE estimates that the total cost of this measurement 
equipment would be between $15,000 and $33,000.
    DOE estimates that building a testing facility capable of testing 
the range of pumps covered in the standard would cost approximately 
$91,000 to $277,000 per manufacturer.
    DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to 
build a pump testing facility as presented.
    DOE estimates that a majority of pumps are sold with motors that 
are covered under the current DOE motor standard or submersible motors 
and have been rated and, if equipped with controls, would use 
continuous controls. Under the proposed test procedure, DOE would not 
require these configurations of pumps and motors to be tested using the 
wire-to-water test, but would allow manufacturers the option to conduct 
the wire-to-water test.
    All pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's electric 
motor energy conservation standards would be required to conduct the 
wire-to-water test. The proposed wire-to-water test would utilize the 
basic test lab setup described above without the standard four test 
motors, but would require additional instrumentation to measure power 
into and out of the motor or VFD, as described in section III.C.2.e. 
DOE estimates the instrumentation required

[[Page 17632]]

to measure electrical input power in a wire-to-water test or when 
testing with a calibrated motor would add approximately $2,000 to the 
cost of the test lab set up.
    DOE understands that the characteristics of the power supplied to 
the test facility may impact the results of testing the controls in the 
system. However, DOE is not incorporating the testing or correction of 
power quality in the burden estimate presented in this NOPR because DOE 
could not identify reliable or consistent estimates for the cost of 
maintaining the proposed power supply requirements discussed in section 
III.C.2.a above. These factors, taken together, would result in a 
testing facility capable of conducting the wire-to-water test that 
costs between $72,000 and $213,000.
    DOE requests comment on the test facility description and 
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
    DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden 
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in 
the NOPR.
    DOE amortized the cost of building the testing facility based on 
loan interest rates and product lifetimes gathered in manufacturer 
surveys. The average interest rate for business loans reported by 
manufacturers was 11.8 percent, based on feedback obtained during 
preliminary analysis interviews for the standards rulemaking. DOE used 
a loan period of 7 years based on the assumption that the machinery 
qualifies for a 7-year depreciation schedule under the Modified 
Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS).\53\ The total annual payment 
for financing a test facility with these assumptions will be between 
$19,000 and $59,000 for the basic testing facility capable of 
conducting the calculation-based method. The total annual payment for 
financing for a test facility capable of conducting the alternative 
testing-based method would be between $15,000 and $45,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. How 
to Depreciate Property. IRS Pub. 926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Recurring Burden Associated With Ongoing Testing Activities
    In addition to the capital expenses associated with acquiring the 
appropriate equipment and facilities to conduct testing, manufacturers 
would incur recurring burden associated with maintaining the test 
facility and conducting each pump test. Each testing facility would 
need to calibrate the instrumentation used in the test loop as 
specified in HI 40.6-2004 appendix D. The flowmeter, torque sensor, and 
power quality meter all should be calibrated once a year. The pressure 
transducer should be calibrated every 4 months and a laser tachometer 
should be calibrated every 3 years. These calibrations, together, cost 
a testing facility about $1,241.67 per year to calibrate.
    Both methods of the proposed test procedure would require test 
personnel to set up, conduct, and remove each pump in accordance with 
that procedure. Based on conversations with test engineers, DOE 
estimates it would take between 1 and 2 hours of an engineer's time to 
complete the test procedure per model tested, which would result in a 
cost of $53.87 to $107.74 per model based on an engineer's labor rate 
of $53.87 per hour. DOE estimates that setting up and removing the 
pumps from the test stand would require 2 to 6 hours of the engineer's 
time depending on the size of the pump and any other fittings that need 
to be configured to enable testing, resulting in a cost between $107.74 
to $323.22 per model based on the labor rate of $53.87 per hour for an 
engineer. The total cost of testing a pump, including setup, tests, and 
takedown ranges between $161.61 and $430.96 per model. DOE estimates 
that the time required to conduct the calculation-based method of test 
would be the same as the time required to conduct the wire-to-water 
test.
    As described earlier, the proposed default calculation-based 
method, using the basic test facility set up, would require testing 
each bare pump model. The test results from that rated bare pump could 
then be used in subsequent calculations to determine certified ratings 
for that pump when sold as a bare pump, with a motor that is covered by 
DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors, or with a 
covered motor and continuous controls. However, for pumps sold with 
motors not certified to the DOE motor standard or with non-continuous 
controls, manufacturers would be required to conduct the wire-to-water 
test on each pump model in a test facility with additional electrical 
instrumentation, as described previously. Manufacturers conducting the 
wire-to-water tests on their equipment would need to test each pump and 
motor combination, which may incur a higher burden than the default 
calculation-based method.
    As previously discussed, DOE's estimate of burden for rating pump 
models covered by the proposed DOE test procedure is based on the 
assumption that the majority of covered pump models will be able to use 
the calculation-based method and same fundamental bare pump test to 
certify a given pump in the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, or pump 
sold with a motor and controls configurations. DOE notes that the wire-
to-water test would be available as an option for these pump models, 
but would not be required. DOE acknowledges that some pump models, such 
as pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors or submersible motors and 
pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, would be required 
to use the wire-to-water test procedure proposed in section III.E.2. 
However, based on DOE's research, very few pump models will be required 
to use these methods.
    DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer 
that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify 
pump performance.
6. Cumulative Burden
    These costs, taken together, would result in an additional burden 
for manufacturers conducting the DOE test procedure from the 
construction of a testing facility and the requirement to test all 
pumps under the scope of the proposed test procedure. Fifteen of 25 
small manufacturers identified in DOE's initial survey of manufacturers 
produce pumps that fall within the scope of this rulemaking and would 
be required to perform testing; the other 10 produce pump types that 
are not within the scope of pumps for which the proposed test procedure 
is applicable (see section III.A).
    The burden of building a testing facility and testing pumps varied 
across small manufacturers. The lowest burden estimate is approximately 
$61,000 in the first year and the highest burden experienced in the 
first year is estimated to be around $221,000 for small manufacturers 
affected by the rule. Table IV.2 presents the small manufacturers 
stratified by employee size and shows the average burden estimated for 
each employee bin size as a percentage of average annual sales.

[[Page 17633]]



 Table IV.2--Small Business Size with Pumps in Scope of Rulemaking by Number of Employees with Estimated Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Average
                                                     Number of        Average         Average        estimated
               Number of employees                     small         number of     annual sales    burden (% of
                                                    businesses     basic models        ($M)           sales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-50............................................               8              20             6.3            2.55
51-100..........................................               2              48            16.7            0.60
101-500.........................................               5              78            90.9            0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden estimates were based on annual sales data gathered in 
the manufacturer surveys, company Web sites, and marketing research 
tools. Total revenue for businesses was not used because data for all 
relevant companies were not publicly available. Annual average value 
added was another financial indicator investigated for the burden 
analysis. This indicator was not utilized because the value added 
pooled companies that manufacture other commodities and was not found 
to be representative of the pump manufacturing industry.
    DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial 
indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator 
would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump 
manufacturing industry.
    As the number of employees increases, the average estimated burden, 
as a percentage of average annual sales, decreases. The average number 
of basic models is highest for small manufacturers with 51-100 
employees; however, the average annual sales were a much larger factor 
in determining the average burden than the number of basic models per 
manufacturer.
    For the 15 small manufacturers that produce pumps within the scope 
of the rulemaking, the average burden is estimated to be 1.56 percent 
of their average annual sales. Based on the burden estimates described 
herein, 3 of the 15 manufacturers would incur a burden of over 2 
percent of their annual sales if the maximum burden is applied. The 
other 12 companies have an average estimated burden of 0.63 percent of 
annual sales.
    Based on the estimates presented, DOE believes that the proposed 
test procedure amendments may have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis may be required. DOE will transmit the 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and 
estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing 
the proposed DOE test procedure.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency 
must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations 
for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered 
consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. 
DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the 
framework document considering energy conservation standards for pumps 
on February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7304. In an application to renew the OMB 
information collection approval for DOE's certification and 
recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated burden for 
manufacturers of pumps in case DOE ultimately sets energy conservation 
standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the revised information 
collection for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 
FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). DOE estimated that it will take each 
respondent approximately 30 hours total per company per year to comply 
with the certification and recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours 
of technician/technical work and 10 hours clerical work to actually 
submit the Compliance and Certification Management System templates. 
This rulemaking would include recordkeeping requirements on 
manufacturers that are associated with executing and maintaining the 
test data for this equipment. DOE notes that the certification 
requirements would be established in a final rule establishing energy 
conservation standards for pumps. DOE recognizes that recordkeeping 
burden may vary substantially based on company preferences and 
practices.
    DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
    DOE also generally notes that notwithstanding any other provision 
of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person 
be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 
information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that 
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE is proposing a test procedure for pumps 
that will be used to support the upcoming pumps energy conservation 
standard rulemaking. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a 
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and 
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 
proposed rule considers a test procedure for a pump that is largely 
based upon industry test procedures and methodologies resulting from a 
negotiated rulemaking, so it would not affect the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the

[[Page 17634]]

necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies 
to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by 
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a 
statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation 
process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 
13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it 
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment that is the 
subject of today's proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption 
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and 
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, 
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which 
would prescribe the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency 
of pumps, is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a 
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly, 
DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed 
rule.

[[Page 17635]]

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The proposed rule incorporates by reference the testing methods 
contained in HI 40.6-2014, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency 
Testing,'' except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;'' section A.7, 
``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F);'' and 
appendix B, ``Reporting of test results.'' In addition, the NOPR's 
proposed definitions incorporate by reference the following standards:
    (1) Sections 1.1, ``types and nomenclature,'' and 1.2.9, 
``rotodynamic pump icons,'' of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI Standard 
1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And 
Definitions;''
    (2) section 2.1, ``types and nomenclature,'' of the 2008 version of 
ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 
Nomenclature And Definitions;''
    While today's proposed test procedure is not exclusively based on 
these industry testing standards, some components of the DOE test 
procedure would adopt definitions, test parameters, measurement 
techniques, and additional calculations from them without amendment. 
The Department has evaluated these industry testing standards and is 
unable to conclude whether they would fully comply with the 
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were 
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of this test procedure on 
competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference five 
industry standards related to pump nomenclature, definitions, and 
specifications, which DOE has referenced in its proposed definitions. 
These standards include ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ``Rotodynamic 
(Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;'' ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008, ``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And 
Definitions;'' FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for 
Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type);'' UL Standard 
448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service;'' 
and NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of 
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.'' These are industry-accepted 
standards used by pump manufacturers when designing and marketing pumps 
in North America. The definitions proposed in this NOPR reference 
specific sections of the HI standards for definitional clarity and the 
entirety of the NFPA, UL, and FM standards as a basis for scope 
exclusions. These standards are available through the respective Web 
sites of each individual organization.
    DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard 
published by HI titled ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency 
Testing,'' HI 40.6-2014, with the exception of section 40.6.5.3, ``Test 
report;'' section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C 
(86 [deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results.'' HI 40.6-
2014 was developed to support DOE's test procedure development and is 
heavily based on the industry-accepted test standard ANSI/HI 14.6. The 
test procedure proposed in this NOPR references nearly the entirety of 
ANSI/HI 14.6, in regards to test setup, instrumentation, and test 
conduct. HI 40.6-2014 is available from HI.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If you 
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures, which require advance 
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. Any foreign national 
wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as 
possible by contacting [email protected] to initiate the 
necessary procedures. Please also note that any person wishing to bring 
a laptop into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a 
property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an 
extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting via 
webinar.
    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding identification 
(ID) requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings 
from specific States and U.S. territories. As a result, driver's 
licenses from the following States or territory will not be accepted 
for building entry, and instead, one of the alternate forms of ID 
listed below will be required.
    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) 
from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE 
facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. 
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 
Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued 
by the States of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 
issued by these States are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's 
License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID 
card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least 1 week before the

[[Page 17636]]

public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 
prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please 
include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up 
contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the 
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The 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. 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 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 regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through 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 regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to 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. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, 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, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
commented to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information commented to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from

[[Page 17637]]

other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made 
available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; 
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 
which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information 
might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and 
(7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public 
interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the 
pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as 
recommended by the Working Group.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,'' 
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``continuous 
control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
    DOE also requests comment and information regarding how often pumps 
with continuous or non-continuous controls are packaged and distributed 
in commerce, by manufacturers, with integrated sensors and feedback 
logic that would allow such pumps to automatically actuate.
    DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of pumps with 
continuous and non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, 
but never paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would 
enable energy savings.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic model'' 
as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on 
DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with 
trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models, 
provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum 
impeller diameter for that model.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full 
impeller.''
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump 
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
    DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are 
unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require 
modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as proposed.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test 
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC, 
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction 
pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump, 
in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing 
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical 
turbine submersible pump.
    DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI 
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the 
regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies, 
and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would 
provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when 
determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
    DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow 
direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when 
determining test procedure and standards applicability.
    DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is 
necessary in the proposed RSV definition to make the exclusion of 
immersible pumps clearer.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and 
pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators 
and dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
    DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV 
pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. 
Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly referred 
to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid 
foundation.
    DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed 
flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on 
the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where 
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests 
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or 
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pumps 
equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean water 
pump.''
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference 
the definition for ``clear water'' in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the 
testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE 
test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire pump,'' 
``self-priming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless pump.''
    Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes 
that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front 
of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the 
priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design 
features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and 
whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to 
determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military 
Specification and if Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F 
should be referenced.
    DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test 
procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless 
pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 
CFR part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 
Facilities, and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements 
set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, 
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
    DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (power, 
flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl diameter) as 
limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed test procedure 
would apply.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl 
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-
electric drivers as bare pumps.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in 
commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the 
bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
    DOE requests comment from interested party on any categories of 
electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with 
pumps

[[Page 17638]]

considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have efficiencies lower 
than the default nominal full load motor efficiency for NEMA Design A, 
NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for 
PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and 
PEIVL for pumps inclusive of motors and continuous or non-
continuous controls.
    DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and 
PEIVL metric architecture.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor 
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being 
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant 
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the 
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the 
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold 
with motors and controls (with or without continuous or non-continuous 
controls).
    DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE 
test procedure for pumps.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by 
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 
as part of the DOE test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be 
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as 
described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above 
(i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, or 5 
seconds).
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at 
the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal 
speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in 
HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed 
and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is 
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of 
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce 
more accurate and repeatable test results.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 
unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that 
are required when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing 
a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests 
comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump 
test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning 
equipment would be required.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in 
their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number 
of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that 
particular number of stages.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of 
the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested 
flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to 
determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75, 
100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any 
pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate 
measurements.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that for pumps with BEP at 
run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 
percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described 
in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points 
for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP 
flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
    DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required 
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical 
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-
continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations 
and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the 
PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and 
PEIVL, as applicable, be reported to the nearest 0.01.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor 
horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at 
120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for 
which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an 
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g., 
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a 
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that would specify the 
default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based 
on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency 
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A, 
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps 
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load 
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
    DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor 
full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most 
current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric 
motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table III.6.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the 
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented 
in Table III.6 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with 
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and 
continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
    DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part 
load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered 
motors and submersible motors including the default motor specified in 
section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load 
losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation 
standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal 
full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with 
DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part 
load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the 
bare pump.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the 
PERCL of pumps sold with submersible motors using the 
proposed default minimum efficiency values for submersible motors and 
applying the same default motor part load loss curve to the default 
motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
    DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with 
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure 
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water, 
testing-based approach.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as 
well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the 
statically loaded offset.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for 
determining pump shaft input power for

[[Page 17639]]

pumps sold with motors and continuous controls when rated using the 
calculation-based method.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss 
factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor 
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined 
motor and continuous controls, where the four curves would correspond 
to different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
    DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation 
compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed 
and torque).
    DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that 
was applied to the measured VSD efficiency data to generate the 
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically, 
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling 
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
    DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower 
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and 
motor horsepower.
    DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the 
extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would 
represent minimum efficiency motor and continuous control combinations.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each 
individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or 
PEIVL rating for one or more pump basic models.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of 
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to 
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps 
rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to 
the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output. 
DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield 
significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is 
determined based on pump efficiency.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps 
sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for 
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and 
non-continuous controls.
    DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control 
that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure 
would not apply.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based 
test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-
based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors 
that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation 
standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any 
motors and with non-continuous controls.
    DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-
based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps 
sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) 
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
    DOE requests comment on the level of burden to include with any 
certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a 
manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any 
energy conservation standards DOE may set.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for 
certification of commercial and industrial pump models.
    DOE requests comment regarding the size of pump manufacturing 
entities and the number of manufacturing businesses represented by this 
market.
    DOE requests comment on its assumption that, for most pump models, 
only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is required, 
and subsequent ratings for that bare pump sold with a motor or motor 
and continuous control can be based on calculations only.
    DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which 
the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with 
a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical 
test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of 
pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models 
sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous 
control.
    DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump 
manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to 
transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as 
described in this NOPR.
    DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated 
test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach 
for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test 
procedure.
    DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to 
build a pump testing facility as presented.
    DOE requests comment on the test facility description and 
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
    DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden 
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in 
the NOPR.
    DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer 
that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify 
pump performance.
    DOE requests comment on the estimation of the portion of pumps that 
would need to be newly certified or recertified annually.
    DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial 
indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator 
would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump 
manufacturing industry.
    DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and 
estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing 
the proposed DOE test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, 
Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.


[[Page 17640]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of 
Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. In Sec.  429.2 revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.2  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions found in Sec. Sec.  430.2, 431.2, 431.62, 
431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.172, 431.192, 
431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322, 
431.442 and 431.462 apply for purposes of this part.
* * * * *


Sec.  429.11  [Amended]

0
3. Section 429.11 is amended in paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing 
``429.54'' and adding in its place ``429.62''.
0
4. Add Sec.  429.59 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.59  Pumps.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must 
determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating, 
for each basic model by testing, in conjunction with the following 
sampling provisions.
    (1) Units to be tested. The requirements of Sec.  429.11 are 
applicable to pumps; and for each basic model, a sample of sufficient 
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (i) Any value of the constant or variable load pump energy index or 
other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which 
consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to 
the higher of:
    (A) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.028
    
    and xx is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the maximum of the ith sample; or
    (B) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.01, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.029

    and xx is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 
(from appendix A of subpart B of part 429); and
    (ii) Any measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which 
consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the 
lower of:
    (A) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.030
    
    and xx is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the maximum of the ith sample; or
    (B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.99, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.031

    and xx is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
appendix A of subpart B).
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  429.70  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  429.70(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its place 
``429.62''.
0
6. Amend Sec.  429.71 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.71  Maintenance of records.

* * * * *
    (d) When considering if a pump is subject to energy conservation 
standards under part 431, DOE may need to determine if a pump was 
designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in MIL-P-17639F. 
In this case, DOE may request that a manufacturer provide DOE with 
copies of the original design and test data that were submitted to 
appropriate design review agencies, as required by MIL-P-17639F.


Sec.  429.72  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  429.72(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its place 
``429.62''.


Sec.  429.102  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  429.102(a) by removing ``429.54'' and adding in its 
place ``429.62''.


Sec.  429.110  Enforcement testing.

0
9. Section 429.110(e)(1), is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) through (vi) as (e)(1)(v) 
through (vii), respectively;
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(iv);
0
c. Removing ``(e)(1)(iii)'' in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(v), 
and adding ``(e)(1)(iv)'' in its place;
0
d. Removing ``(e)(1)(iv)'', in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vi), 
and adding ``(e)(1)(v)'' in its place; and
0
e. Removing ``(e)(1)(v)'', in newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vii), 
and adding ``(e)(l)(vi)'' in its place.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  429.110  Enforcement testing.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) For pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more 
than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic 
mean of the sample.
* * * * *

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
10. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
11. Add subpart Y to part 431 to read as follows:

Subpart Y--Pumps
Sec.
431.461 Purpose and scope.
431.462 Definitions.
431.463 Materials incorporated by reference.
431.464 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy 
consumption of pumps.
Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Pumps

Subpart Y--Pumps


Sec.  431.461  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart contains definitions, test procedures, and energy 
conservation requirements for pumps, pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III 
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317.


Sec.  431.462  Definitions.

    The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including

[[Page 17641]]

appendix A. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the 
definitions adopted in this section 462 takes precedence over any 
descriptions or definitions found in the 2014 version of ANSI/HI 
Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature 
And Definitions'' (ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014) (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.463), or the 2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, 
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions'' 
(ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463). 
In cases where definitions reference design intent, DOE will consider 
marketing materials, labels and certifications, and equipment design to 
determine design intent.
    Bare pump means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and 
controls.
    Basic model means all units of a given type of covered equipment 
(or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same 
primary energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, 
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect 
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water 
efficiency; except that:
    (1) RSV and VTS pump models for which the bare pump differs in the 
number of stages must be considered a single basic model; and
    (2) Pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller 
diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model.
    Best efficiency point means the pump hydraulic power operating 
point (consisting of both flow and head conditions) that results in the 
maximum efficiency.
    Bowl diameter means the maximum dimension of an imaginary straight 
line passing through and in the plane of the circular shape of the 
intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump that is perpendicular to 
the pump shaft and that intersects the circular shape of the 
intermediate bowl or chamber of the bare pump at both of its ends, 
where the intermediate bowl or chamber is as defined in ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    Circulator means a pump that:
    (1) Is either an end suction pump or a single-stage, single-axis 
flow, rotodynamic pump; and
    (2) Has a pump housing that only requires the support of the supply 
and discharge piping to which it is connected (without attachment to a 
rigid foundation) to function as designed. Examples include, but are 
not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or 
CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.463).
    Clean water pump means a pump that is designed for use in pumping 
water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.25 kilograms 
per cubic meter, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 
kilograms per cubic meter, provided that the total gas content of the 
water does not exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any 
additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of 
-10 [deg]C.
    Continuous control means a control that adjusts the speed of the 
pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in 
response to incremental changes in the required pump flow, head, or 
power output.
    Control means any device that can be used to operate the driver. 
Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-continuous 
speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, and float 
switches.
    Dedicated-purpose pool pump means an end suction pump designed 
specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an 
integrated basket strainer.
    Driver means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare 
pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples 
include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion 
engine, or gas/steam turbine.
    End suction close-coupled (ESCC) pump means an end suction pump in 
which:
    (1) The motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare 
pump;
    (2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
    (3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. Examples include, 
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, 
as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.463).
    End suction frame mounted (ESFM) pump means an end suction pump 
wherein:
    (1) The bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so 
does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;
    (2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
    (3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. Examples include, 
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 
and OH1, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    End suction pump means a single-stage, rotodynamic pump in which 
the liquid enters the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller 
shaft and on the side opposite the bare pump's driver-end. The liquid 
is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft.
    Fire pump means a pump that is compliant with NFPA Standard 20-2013 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463), ``Standard for the 
Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' and is either:
    (1) Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed under UL Standard 448-2007 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463), ``Centrifugal 
Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service''; or
    (2) Factory Mutual (FM) approved under the October 2008 edition of 
FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 
(Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.463).
    Full impeller diameter means the maximum diameter impeller used 
with a given pump basic model distributed in commerce or the maximum 
diameter impeller referenced in the manufacturer's literature for that 
pump basic model, whichever is larger.
    In-line (IL) pump means a single-stage, single axis flow, 
rotodynamic pump in which:
    (1) Liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular 
to the impeller shaft; and
    (2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function 
as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the 
supply and discharge piping to which it is connected. Examples include, 
but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, 
OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    Mechanical equipment means any component of a pump that transfers 
energy from the driver to the bare pump.
    Non-continuous control means a control that adjusts the speed of a 
driver to one of a discrete number of non-continuous preset operating 
speeds, and does not respond to incremental reductions in the required 
pump flow, head, or power output.

[[Page 17642]]

    Prime-assist pump means a pump designed to lift liquid that 
originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump 
requires no manual intervention to prime or re-prime from a dry-start 
condition. Such a pump includes a vacuum pump or air compressor to 
remove air from the suction line to automatically perform the prime or 
re-prime function.
    Pump means 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.
    Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing 
(RSV) pump means a vertically suspended, multi-stage, single axis flow, 
rotodynamic pump in which:
    (1) Liquid is discharged in a place perpendicular to the impeller 
shaft;
    (2) Each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and
    (3) No external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in 
the pumped liquid. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps 
complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    Rotodynamic pump means a pump in which energy is continuously 
imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, 
propeller, or rotor.
    Sealless pump means either:
    (1) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump 
using a magnetic coupling; or
    (2) A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller 
shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped 
fluid.
    Self-priming pump means a pump designed to lift liquid that 
originates below the center line of the pump impeller. Such a pump 
requires initial manual priming from a dry start condition, but 
requires no subsequent manual re-priming.
    Single axis flow pump means a pump in which the liquid inlet of the 
bare pump is on the same axis as the liquid discharge of the bare pump.
    Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pump means a single-stage or 
multi-stage rotodynamic pump that is designed to be operated with the 
motor and stage(s) (or bowl(s)) fully submerged in the pumped liquid, 
and in which:
    (1) Each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser; 
and
    (2) Liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a 
direction parallel to the impeller shaft. Examples include, but are not 
limited to, a pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as 
described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.463).


Sec.  431.463  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following standards 
into subpart Y of part 431. The material listed has been approved for 
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent 
amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not 
affect the DOE test procedures unless and until amended by DOE. 
Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a 
notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal 
Register. All approved material is available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go 
to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is 
available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth 
Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or 
go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. These 
standards can be obtained from the sources below.
    (b) FM. Factory Mutual. 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401-
275-3000. www.fmglobal.com/
    (1) FM Class Number 1319, ``Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire 
Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),'' approved October 2008, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.462.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) HI. Hydraulic Institute, 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North, 
Parsippany, NJ, 07054-4406, 973-267-9700. www.pumps.org
    (1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (``ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014''), 
``Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;'' 
approved 2014, section 1.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' and section 
1.2.9, ``Rotodynamic pump icons,'' IBR approved for Sec.  431.462.
    (2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (``ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008''), 
``Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,'' 
approved 2008, section 2.1, ``Types and nomenclature,'' IBR approved 
for Sec.  431.462.
    (3) HI 40.6-2014, (``HI 40.6-2014''), ``Methods for Rotodynamic 
Pump Efficiency Testing,'' except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;'' 
section A.7, ``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C 
(86[emsp14][deg]F);'' and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results;'' 
approved 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  431.464, and appendix A to 
subpart Y of part 431.
    (h) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 
Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 617-770-3000. www.nfpa.org.
    (1) NFPA Standard 20-2013, ``Standard for the Installation of 
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,'' approved 2013, IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.462.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (i) UL. Underwriters Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 
60062. http://ul.com/
    (1) UL Standard 448-2007, ``Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-
Protection Service,'' approved 2007, IBR approved for Sec.  431.462.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  431.464  Test procedure for measuring and determining energy 
consumption of pumps.

    (a) Scope. This section provides the test procedures for 
determining the constant and variable load pump energy index for:
    (1) The following categories of clean water pumps:
    (i) End suction close-coupled (ESCC);
    (ii) End suction frame mounted (ESFM);
    (iii) In-line (IL);
    (iv) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing diffuser 
(RSV); and
    (v) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps.
    (2) With the following characteristics:
    (i) Shaft power of at least 1 hp but no greater than 200 hp at the 
best efficiency point (BEP) at full impeller diameter for the number of 
stages required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of this appendix);
    (ii) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP and full impeller 
diameter;
    (iii) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller diameter;
    (iv) Design temperature range from -10 to 120 [deg]C;
    (v) Designed to operate with either:
    (A) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or
    (B) A non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range 
that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions 
per minute and/or 1,440 and 2,160 revolutions per minute; and
    (vi) For VTS pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter.

[[Page 17643]]

    (3) Except for the following pumps:
    (i) Fire pumps.
    (ii) Self-priming pumps.
    (iii) Prime-assist pumps.
    (iv) Sealless pumps.
    (v) Pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 
CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 
Facilities.''
    (vi) Pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set 
forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, 
Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
    (b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the applicable constant 
load pump energy index (PEICL) or variable load pump energy 
index (PEIVL) using the test procedure set forth in appendix 
A of this subpart Y.

Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Pumps.

I. Test Procedure for Pumps.

    A. General. To determine the constant load pump energy index 
(PEICL), for bare pumps and pumps sold with electric 
motors or the variable load pump energy index (PEIVL) for 
pumps sold with electric motors and continuous or non-continuous 
controls, testing shall be performed in accordance with HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, ``Test report;'' section A.7, 
``Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 [deg]C (86[emsp14][deg]F);'' 
and appendix B, ``Reporting of test results;'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463) with the modifications and additions 
as noted throughout the provisions below. Where HI 40.6-2014 refers 
to ``pump,'' the term should be interpreted to refer to the ``bare 
pump,'' as defined in Sec.  431.462. Also, for the purposes of 
applying this appendix, the term ``volume per unit time,'' as 
defined in section 40.6.2, ``Terms and definitions,'' of HI 40.6-
2014 shall be deemed to be synonymous with the term ``flow rate'' 
used throughout that standard and this appendix A.
    A.1 Scope. Section II of this appendix is applicable to all 
pumps and describes how to calculate the Pump Energy Index (section 
II.A) based on the PERSTD (section II.B) and the 
PERCL or PERVL determined in accordance with 
one of sections III through VII, based on the testing method and 
configuration in which the pump is distributed in commerce. Sections 
III through VII describe different test methods that apply depending 
on the configuration of the pump being rated, as described in Table 
1 of this appendix.

   Table 1--Applicability of Calculation-Based and Testing-Based Test
              Procedure Options Based on Pump Configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Pump sub-          Applicable test
     Pump configuration           configuration            methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bare Pump...................  Bare Pump...........  Section III: Test
                                                     Procedure for Bare
                                                     Pumps.
Pump + Motor................  Pump + Motor Covered  Section IV: Testing-
                               by DOE's Electric     Based Approach for
                               Motor Energy          Pumps Sold with
                               Conservation          Motors
                               Standards.
                              OR                    OR
                              Pump + Submersible    Section V:
                               Motor.                Calculation-Based
                                                     Approach for Pumps
                                                     Sold with Motors.
                              Pump + Motor Not      Section IV: Testing-
                               Covered by DOE's      Based Approach for
                               Electric Motor        Pumps Sold with
                               Energy Conservation   Motors.
                               Standards (Except
                               Submersible Motors).
Pump + Motor + Controls.....  Pump + Motor Covered  Section VI: Testing-
                               by DOE's Electric     Based Approach for
                               Motor Energy          Pumps Sold with
                               Conservation          Motors and Controls
                               Standards +
                               Continuous Control
                               Pump + Submersible
                               Motor + Continuous
                               Control.
                              OR                    OR
                              Pump + Submersible    Section VII:
                               Motor + Continuous    Calculation-Based
                               Control.              Approach for Pumps
                                                     Sold with Motors
                                                     Controls.
                              Pump + Motor Covered  Section VI: Testing-
                               by DOE's Electric     Based Approach for
                               Motor Energy          Pumps Sold with
                               Conservation          Motors and Controls
                               Standards + Non-
                               Continuous Control.
                              OR..................  ....................
                              Pump + Submersible    ....................
                               Motor + Non-
                               Continuous Control.
                              Pump + Motor Not      Section VI: Testing-
                               Covered by DOE's      Based Approach for
                               Electric Motor        Pumps Sold with
                               Energy Conservation   Motors and
                               Standards (Except     Controls.
                               Submersible Motors)
                               + Continuous or Non-
                               Continuous Controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III of this appendix addresses the test procedure 
applicable to bare pumps. This test procedure also applies to pumps 
sold with drivers other than motors and pumps sold with single-phase 
induction motors.
    Section IV of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach 
for pumps sold with motors, which is applicable to all pumps sold 
with electric motors, other than single-phase induction motors.
    Section V of this appendix addressed the calculation-based 
approach for pumps sold with motors, which applies to:
    (1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors at Sec.  431.25, other 
than single-phase induction motors; and
    (2) Pumps sold with submersible motors.
    Section VI of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach 
for pumps sold with motors and controls, which is applicable to all 
pumps sold with electric motors, other than single-phase induction 
motors, and continuous or non-continuous controls.
    Section VII of this appendix discusses the calculation-based 
approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which applies to:
    (1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors at Sec.  431.25, other 
than single-phase induction motors, and continuous controls; and
    (2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
    B. Measurement Equipment. For the purposes of measuring pump 
power input, driver power input, and pump power output, the 
equipment specified in HI 40.6-2014 Appendix C (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463) necessary to measure head, speed of 
rotation, flow rate, temperature, torque, and electrical power shall 
be used and shall comply with the stated accuracy requirements in HI 
40.6-2014 Table 40.6.3.2.3 except as noted in section VI.B of this 
appendix.
    C. Test Conditions. Testing shall be conducted in accordance 
with the test conditions, stabilization requirements, and 
specifications of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.463) section 40.6.3, ``Pump efficiency testing;'' section 
40.6.4, ``Considerations when determining the efficiency of a 
pump;'' section 40.6.5.4 (including appendix A), ``Test 
arrangements;'' and section 40.6.5.5, ``Test conditions;'' and at 
full impeller diameter.
    C.1 The nominal speed of rotation shall be determined based on 
the range of speeds of rotation at which the pump is designed to

[[Page 17644]]

operate, in accordance with sections I.C.1.1, I.C.1.2, I.C.1.3, 
I.C.1.4, or I.C.1.5 of this appendix, as applicable. When 
determining the range of speeds at which the pump is designed to 
operate, DOE will refer to published data, marketing literature, and 
other publically-available information about the pump model and 
motor, as applicable.
    C.1.1 For pumps sold without motors, the nominal rating speed 
will be selected based on the speed for which the pump is designed. 
For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 2,880 to 
4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm), the nominal speed of rotation 
shall be 3,600 rpm. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation 
including 1,440 to 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 
1,800 rpm.
    C.1.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors, the nominal 
speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
    C.1.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole induction motors, the nominal 
speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
    C.1.4 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the 
operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation 
between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 
3,600 rpm.
    C.1.5 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the 
operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation 
between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 
1,800 rpm.
    C.2 For RSV and VTS pumps, testing shall be performed on the 
pump with three stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for VTS pumps. 
If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with fewer 
than the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with 
the maximum number of stages with which the basic model is 
distributed in commerce in the United States. If the basic model of 
pump being tested is only available with greater than the required 
number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the lowest number of 
stages with which the basic model is distributed in commerce in the 
United States. If the basic model of pump being tested is available 
with both fewer and greater than the required number of stages, but 
not the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the 
number of stages closest to the required number of stages. If both 
the next lower and next higher number of stages are equivalently 
close to the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested 
with the next higher number of stages.
    D. Data Collection and Analysis.
    D.1 Data Sampling Frequency. Data shall be collected every three 
seconds for all measured quantities.
    D.2 Dampening Devices. Use of dampening devices, as described in 
section 40.6.3.2.2, shall only be permitted to integrate up to 5 
seconds.
    D.3 Stabilization. Data recording at any test point shall be 
taken under stabilized conditions, as defined in HI 40.6-2014 
section 40.6.5.5.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    D.4 Calculations and Rounding. All measured data shall be 
normalized to the nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 1,800 rpm 
based on the nominal speed of rotation selected for the pump in 
section I.C.1 of this appendix, in accordance with the procedures 
specified in section 40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463). Except for the ``expected BEP flow 
rate,'' all terms and quantities refer to values determined in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in this appendix for the 
rated pump. All calculations shall be performed using their raw 
measured values with PERCL, PERVL, 
PEICL, and PEIVL values, as applicable, 
rounded to the hundredths place (i.e., 0.01).
    D.5 Pumps with BEP at Run Out. Pumps for which the expected 
maximum efficiency corresponds to the maximum flow rate at which the 
pump is designed to operate continuously or safely (i.e., pumps with 
BEP at run-out), the seven flow points for determination of BEP in 
sections III.C, IV.C, V.C, VI.D, and VII. C of this appendix shall 
be as follows: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of the 
maximum flow rate of the pump instead of those specified. In 
addition, all references to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow 
rate for determination of PERCL and PERSTD 
shall instead be 65, 90, and 100 percent of the BEP flow rate 
determined with the modified flow points specified in this section 
I.D.5 of this appendix.

II. Calculation of the Pump Energy Index

    A. Determine the PEI of each tested pump based on the 
configuration in which it sold as follows:
    A.1. For bare pumps and pumps sold with motors, determine the 
PEICL using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.032

Where:

PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant load (hp),
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load 
determined in accordance with either section III (for bare pumps, 
pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, and pumps sold with 
drivers other than electric motors), section IV (for pumps sold with 
motors rated using the testing-based approach), or section V (for 
pumps sold with motors rated using the calculation-based approach) 
of this appendix (hp), and PERSTD = the PERCL 
for a pump of the same equipment class that is minimally compliant 
with DOE's energy conservation standards with the same flow and 
specific speed characteristics as the tested pump, as determined in 
accordance with section II.B of this appendix (hp).

    A.2 For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls or non-
continuous controls, determine the PEIVL using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.033

Where:

PEIVL= the pump energy index for a variable load,
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load 
determined in accordance with section VI (for pumps sold with motors 
and continuous or non-continuous controls rated using the testing-
based approach) or section VII of this appendix (for pumps sold with 
motors and continuous controls rated using the calculation-based 
approach) (hp), and
PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 
equipment class that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy 
conservation standards with the same flow and specific speed 
characteristics as the tested pump, as determined in accordance with 
section II.B of this appendix (hp).

    B. Determine the pump energy rating for the minimally compliant 
reference pump (PERSTD), according to the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.034

Where:

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump that is 
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards with 
the same flow and specific speed characteristics as the tested pump 
(hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
Pi\in\ = calculated driver power input at rating point i 
for the minimally compliant pump calculated in accordance with 
section II.B.1of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    B.1. Determine the driver power input at each rating point as 
the pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating 
point as follows:
    Pi\in\ = Pi + Li
Where:

Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating 
point i calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.1 of this 
appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i 
calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.2 of this appendix 
(hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.
    B.1.1. Determine the pump power input to the minimally compliant 
pump at each rating point i based on a ratio of the pump power 
output for the tested pump and the calculated efficiency of a 
minimally compliant pump with the same flow rate and specific speed 
characteristics as the tested pump:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.036

Where:
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating 
point i (hp),
[alpha]i = 0.947 for 75 percent of the BEP flow rate, 1.0 
for 100 percent of the BEP flow rate, and 0.985 for 110 percent of 
the BEP flow rate;

[[Page 17645]]

PHydro,i = the pump power output at rating point i of the 
tested pump determined in accordance with section II.B.1.1.2 of this 
appendix (hp);
[eta]pump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency 
calculated in accordance with section II.B.1.1.1 of this appendix 
(%); and
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the 
tested pump.

    B.1.1.1 Calculate the minimally compliant pump efficiency based on 
the following equation:
[eta]pump,STD = -0.85 x 
In(Q100%)2 - 0.38 x In(Ns) x 
In(Q100%) - 11.48 x In(Ns)2 + 13.46 
x In(Q100%) + 179.80 x In(Ns) - (C - 555.6)
Where:
[eta]pump,STD = minimally compliant pump efficiency (%),
Q100% = the BEP flow rate of the tested pump (gpm),
Ns = specific speed of the tested pump determined in accordance with 
section II.B.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, and
C = the appropriate C-value for the type and rated speed of rotation 
of the tested pump, as listed at Sec.  431.466.

    B.1.1.1.1 Determine the specific speed of the rated pump using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.037

Where:
Ns = specific speed,
n = the nominal speed of rotation (rpm),
Q100% = the measured BEP flow rate of the 
tested pump (gpm), and
H100% = total head at 100 percent of the BEP 
flow rate of the tested pump (ft).

    B.1.1.2 Determine the pump power output at each rating point, i, of 
the tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.038

Where:
PHydro,i = the measured pump power output at rating point 
i of the tested pump (hp),
Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating point i of the 
tested pump (gpm),
Hi = pump total head at each rating point i of the tested 
pump (ft), and
SG = the specific gravity of water at specified test conditions.

    B.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i 
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor 
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:

Li = Lfull,default x yi
Where:
Li = default part load motor losses at rating point i 
(hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load 
determined in accordance with section II.B.1.2.1 of this appendix 
(hp),
yi = part loss factor at rating point i determined in 
accordance with section II.B.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    B.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate 
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.039

Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower as determined in accordance with 
section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the default nominal full load motor 
efficiency as determined in accordance with section II.B.1.2.1.2 of 
this appendix (%).

    B.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor horsepower as follows:
     For bare pumps, the motor horsepower is determined as the 
horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either 
equivalent to or the next highest horsepower greater than the pump 
power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the 
tested pump.
     For pumps sold with motors, pumps sold with motors and 
continuous controls, or pumps sold with motors and non-continuous 
controls, the motor horsepower is that of the motor with which the pump 
is being sold.
    B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default nominal full load motor efficiency 
as follows:
     For pumps other than VTS pumps, the default nominal full 
load motor efficiency is the minimum of the nominal motor full load 
efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA Design B motors at 10 
CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles 
relevant to the speed at which the pump is being rated and the motor 
horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
     For VTS pumps, the default nominal full load motor 
efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this 
appendix with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the 
pump is being tested and the motor horsepower determined in section 
II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
    B.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i 
(yi) is determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.040

yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating 
point i (hp),
MotorHP = the motor horsepower as determined in accordance with section 
II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

III. Test Procedure for Bare Pumps

    A. Scope. This section III applies only to:
    (1) Bare pumps;
    (2) Pumps sold with drivers other than electric motors; and
    (3) Pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors.
    B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions 
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this

[[Page 17646]]

section III. When testing pumps using a calibrated motor:
    (1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power 
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated 
values of the motor; and
    (2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent 
throughout the test.
    C. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the best efficiency point 
(BEP) of the pump as follows:
    C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the 
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of 
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of 
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in 
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463), where the pump efficiency is the ratio 
of the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
    D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:

PERCL = [Sigma5] wi(pini)

Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = calculated driver power input at rating point i as determined in 
accordance with section III.D.1 of this appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the 
pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point 
as follows:

= Pi + Li

Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point 
i, as determined in section III.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i as 
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2 of this appendix (hp), 
and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 
percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to 
determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the 
nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the 
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the 
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump 
power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 
100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
    D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i 
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor 
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:

Li = Lfull,default x yi

Where:
Li = default motor losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load as 
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix 
(hp),
yi = loss factor at rating point i as determined in 
accordance with section III.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate 
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.041

Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp);
MotorHP = the motor horsepower, determined as the horsepower rating 
listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either equivalent to or the 
next highest horsepower greater than the pump power input to the bare 
pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix 
(%).

    D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
follows:
     For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load 
motor efficiency is the minimum of the standard motor full load 
efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA design B motors at 10 
CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles 
relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being 
rated and the appropriate motor horsepower as specified in section 
III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
     For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is 
the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with 
the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which 
the pump is being tested and the appropriate motor horsepower as 
specified in section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
    D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (yi) is 
determined as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.042

Where:
yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point 
i as determined in accordance with section III.D.1.1 of this appendix 
(hp),

[[Page 17647]]

MotorHP = the motor horsepower, determined as that equivalent to, or 
the next highest horsepower-level greater than, the pump power input to 
the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump 
(hp)determined in accordance with section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix 
(hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

IV. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold with Motors

    A. Scope. This section IV applies only to pumps sold with electric 
motors, other than single-phase induction motors.
    B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions 
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this section IV. The 
following conditions also apply:
    (1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power 
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated 
values of the motor; and
    (2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent 
throughout the test.
    C. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as 
follows:
    C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the 
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of 
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of 
maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined 
in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463), where the overall efficiency is the 
ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
    D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.043

Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = measured driver power input to the motor at rating point i for 
the tested pump as determined in accordance with section IV.D.1 of this 
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1 Determine the driver power input at 75, 100, and 110 percent of 
the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine 
a linear relationship between the driver power input at the nominal 
speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the 
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the 
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the 
driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points 
of 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate.

V. Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors

    A. Scope. This section V can only be used in lieu of the test 
method in section IV of this appendix to calculate the index for:
    (1) Pumps sold with motors subject to DOE's energy conservation 
standards for electric motors at Sec.  431.25 (except for single-phase 
induction motors); and
    (2) VTS pumps sold with submersible motors. Pumps sold with any 
other motors cannot use this section and must apply the test method in 
section IV of this appendix.
    B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions 
presented in section II.B of this appendix apply to this section V. 
When testing using a calibrated motor:
    (1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power 
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated 
values of the motor; and
    (2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent 
throughout the test.
    C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. Determine the best efficiency 
point (BEP) of the pump as follows:
    C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the 
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of 
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of 
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in 
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of 
the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
    D. Calculating the Constant Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 
PERCL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.044

Where:
PERCL = the pump energy rating for a constant load (hp),
[omega]i = 0.3333,
piin = calculated driver power input to the motor at rating point i for 
the tested pump as determined in accordance with section V.D.1 of this 
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the 
pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point 
as follows:

Piin = Pi + Li

Where:
Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at each rating point 
i, as determined in section V.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
Li = the part load motor losses at each rating point i as 
determined in accordance with section V.D.1.2 of this appendix (hp), 
and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP 
flow rate.

    D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 
percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to 
determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the 
nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the 
following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the 
expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump 
power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 
100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
    D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i 
by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor 
calculated at each rating point (yi), as follows:

Li = Lfull,default x yi

Where:

Li = motor losses at each load point i (hp),
Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as determine in 
accordance with section V.D.1.2.1 of this appendix (hp),

[[Page 17648]]

yi = part load loss factor at rating point i as determined 
in accordance with section V.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate 
motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.045

Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is 
being rated (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
determined in accordance with section V.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (%).
    D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
follows:
     For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load 
motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model 
is being rated, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure 
for electric motors at Sec.  431.16.
     For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is 
the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with 
the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which 
the pump is being tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the 
pump is being rated.
    D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (yi) is 
determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.046

Where:
    yi = the part load loss factor at load point i,
    Pi = the pump power input to the bare pump as determined 
in accordance with section V.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is 
being rated (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 110 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

VI. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors and Controls

    A. Scope. This section VI applies only to pumps sold with electric 
motors, other than single-phase induction motors, and continuous or 
non-continuous controls. For the purposes of this section VI, all 
references to ``driver input power'' in HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463) shall refer to the input power to the 
continuous or non-continuous controls.
    B. Measurement Equipment. The requirements regarding measurement 
equipment presented in section I.B of this appendix apply to this 
section VI, and in addition electrical measurement equipment shall be:
    (1) Capable of measuring current, voltage, and real power up to the 
40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency; and
    (2) Have an accuracy of 0.2 percent at the full scale 
at the fundamental supply source frequency.
    C. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions 
presented in section I.C of this appendix apply to this section VI and, 
in addition:
    (1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power 
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated 
values of the motor; and
    (2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent 
throughout the test.
    D. Testing BEP for the Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as 
follows:
    D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the 
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of 
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of 
maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined 
in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463), where overall efficiency is the ratio of 
the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
    E. Calculating the Variable Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 
PERVL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.047

Where:
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load (hp);
[omega]i = 0.25;
Piinthe measured driver power input to the motor and controls at rating 
point i for the tested pump as determined in accordance with section 
VI.E.1 of this appendix; and
i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    E.1. Determine the driver power input at 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares 
regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured 
driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the 
measured flow rate, using the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 
110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear 
relationship to define the driver power input at the nominal speed of 
rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the measured BEP flow 
rate of the tested pump.

    E.2 Determine the driver power input at 25, 50, and 75 percent of 
the BEP flow rate by measuring the driver power input at the load 
points defined by:
    (1) Those flow rates; and
    (2) The associated head points calculated according to the 
following reference system curve equation:

[[Page 17649]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.048

Where:
Hi = pump total head at rating point i (ft),
HBEP = pump total head at 100 percent of the BEP flow rate 
and nominal speed of rotation (ft),
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm),
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the BEP flow 
rate (gpm), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested 
pump.

    E.2.1. For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the 
specific head and flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the 
calculated values and the measured driver power input must be corrected 
to the exact intended head and flow conditions using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15A.049

Where:
PR,i = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point i 
(hp),
HR,i = the intended total system head at flow point i based 
on the reference system curve (ft),
HT,j = the tested total system head at flow point j (ft),
QR,i = the intended total system head at flow point i based 
on the reference system curve (ft),
QT,i = the tested total system head at flow point i (ft),
PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power at flow point j 
(hp),
j = the tested flow point of the pump being rated (stated in terms of 
percent of BEP flow), and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate.
    E.2.2. For pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the 
head associated with each of the specified flow points shall be no 
lower than 10 percent below that defined by the reference system curve 
equation in section VI.E.2 of this appendix. Only the measured flow 
points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values. 
Correct for flow and head as described in section VI.E.2.1, except do 
not correct measured head values that are higher than the reference 
system curve at the same flow rate; only flow rate and head values 
lower than the reference system curve at the same flow rate should be 
corrected. Instead, use the measured head points directly to calculate 
PEIVL.

VII. Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold With Motors and Controls

    A. Scope. This section VII can only be used in lieu of the test 
method in section VI of this appendix to calculate the index for:
    (1) Pumps sold with motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation 
standards for electric motors at Sec.  431.25 (except for single-phase 
induction motors) and continuous controls; and
    (2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls. 
This approach does not apply to:
    (i) Pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's energy 
conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25, except for 
VTS pumps; or
    (ii) Pumps that are sold with electric motors and non-continuous 
controls; these pumps must apply the test method in section VI of this 
appendix.
    B. Test Conditions. The requirements regarding test conditions 
presented in section II.B of this appendix apply to this section VII. 
When testing using a calibrated motor:
    (1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power 
supply shall be maintained within 0.5 percent of the rated 
values of the motor; and
    (2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent 
throughout the test.
    C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. Determine the BEP of the pump as 
follows:
    C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the 
speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 
60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of 
the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-
2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.463).
    C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of 
maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in 
accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of 
the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
    D. Calculating the Variable Load Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 
PERVL of each tested pump using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.050

Where:
PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable load (hp);
[omega]i = 0.25;
Pi\in\the calculated driver power input to the motor and 
controls at rating point i for the tested pump as determined in 
accordance with section VII.D.1 of this appendix; and
i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the 
pump power input plus the motor load losses at each rating point as 
follows:

Pi\in\= Pi + Li

Where:

Pi\in\ = driver power input at each rating point i (hp),
Pi = pump input power to the bare pump at each rating point 
i as determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.1 of this appendix 
(hp),
Li = the part load motor and control losses at each rating 
point i as determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.2 of this 
appendix (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 100 percent of the measured 
BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares 
regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured pump 
input power at the nominal speed of rotation and the measured flow rate 
at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of 
the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the 
pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of 
100 percent of the BEP flow rate.
    D.1.1.1 Determine the pump input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of 
the BEP flow rate based on the measured pump input power at 100 percent 
of the BEP flow rate and using with the following equation:

[[Page 17650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.051

Where:
Pi = pump input power at rating point i (hp);
P100% = pump input power at 100 percent of the 
BEP flow rate (hp);
Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm);
Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the BEP flow 
rate (gpm); and
i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested 
pump.

    D.1.2 Calculate the motor and control part load losses at each 
rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part 
load loss factor calculated at each rating point (zi), as 
follows:

Li = full,default xzi

Where:
Li = motor and control losses at rating point i (hp),
Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as determined in 
accordance with section VII.D.1.2.1 of this appendix (hp),
zi = part load loss factor at rating point i as determined 
in accordance with section VII.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate 
motor efficiency value and horsepower: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.052

Where:
Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump model is 
being rated (hp), and
[eta]motor,full = the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
determined in accordance with section VII.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix 
(%).

    D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as 
follows:
     For all pumps, except VTS pumps, sold with motors and 
continuous controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is that of 
the motor with which the given pump model is being rated, as determined 
in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at Sec.  
431.16.
     For VTS pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous 
controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal 
efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles 
relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being 
tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being 
rated.
    D.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i 
(zi) is determined at each load point follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP15.053

Where:
zi = the motor and control part load loss factor,
a,b,c = coefficients listed in Table 3 of this appendix based on the 
horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being rated,
Pi = the pump power input to the bare pump as determined in 
accordance with section VII.D.1.1 of this appendix (hp),
MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being 
rated (hp), and
i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.

    Table 2--Default Submersible Motor Full Load Efficiency by Motor
                               Horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Default submersible motor full load nominal efficiency
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Pole configurations
                Motor horsepower                 -----------------------
                                                       2           4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................        55          68
1.5.............................................        66          70
2...............................................        68          70
3...............................................        70          75.5
5...............................................        74          75.5
7.5.............................................        68          74
10..............................................        70          74
15..............................................        72          75.5
20..............................................        72          77
25..............................................        74          78.5
30..............................................        78.5        82.5
40..............................................        80          84
50..............................................        81.5        85.5
60..............................................        82.5        86.5
75..............................................        82.5        87.5
100.............................................        81.5        85.5
125.............................................        84          85.5
150.............................................        84          86.5
200.............................................        85.5        87.5
250.............................................        86.5        87.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17651]]


 Table 3--Motor and Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Section VII.D.1.2.2 of This Appendix
                                                        A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Coefficients for Motor and Control Part Load
                                                                                 Loss Factor (zi)
                      Motor horsepower (hp)                      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         a               B               c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=5.............................................................         -0.4658          1.4965          0.5303
>5 and <=20.....................................................         -1.3198          2.9551          0.1052
>20 and <=50....................................................         -1.5122          3.0777          0.1847
>50.............................................................         -0.8914          2.8846          0.2625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-06945 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P