[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20075-20086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032]
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial &
Industrial Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to consider amendments to the test
procedure for Commercial and Industrial Pumps (``pumps''). Through this
request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information
[[Page 20076]]
regarding issues pertinent to whether amended test procedures would
more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test
procedure produces results that measure energy use during a
representative average use cycle for the product without being unduly
burdensome to conduct, or that reduce testing burden. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including topics not raised in this RFI), as well as the
submission of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
TP-0032, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and
hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an
undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments
through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
Mr. 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].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Pump and Related Component Definitions
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
2. Pump Characteristics
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
C. Test Procedure
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
2. Testing and Calculation Options
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only Motors
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
5. Rounding and Represented Values
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
2. Labeling Requirement
3. Any Additional Information
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Commercial and industrial pumps (collectively, ``pumps'') are among
the industrial equipment for which DOE is authorized to establish and
amend test procedures and energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A)) DOE's test procedures for pumps are prescribed in title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''), subpart Y of part 431.
Relevant to this document, DOE has established a test procedure for
pumps at 10 CFR 431.464 and appendix A to subpart Y of part 431
(``Appendix A''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish and amend test procedures for pumps, as well as relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for this equipment.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619 (Nov. 9, 1978), Title IV,
Sec. 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317 as codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve industrial equipment energy
efficiency. The equipment addressed under these provisions include
pumps, the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297). DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying
[[Page 20077]]
to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review
test procedures for all types of covered equipment, including pumps, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements that the test procedures be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle and to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if the Secretary
determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary
must publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register, and
afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days'
duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the
proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that
test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this
RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
B. Rulemaking History
DOE's test procedure for determining pump energy efficiency was
established in a final rule published on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086
(``January 2016 Final Rule'').\3\ The January 2016 Final Rule
established definitions for the terms ``pump,'' ``driver,'' \4\ and
``controls,'' \5\ and described several categories and configurations
of pumps. The pumps test procedure currently incorporates by reference
the Hydraulic Institute (``HI'') Standard 40.6-2014, ``Methods for
Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-2014''), along with
several modifications to that testing method related to measuring the
hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps,
inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous
controls.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction to the January
2016 Final Rule to correct the placement of the product-specific
enforcement provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134 at
paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
\4\ A ``driver'' provides mechanical input to drive a bare pump
directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Electric
motors, internal combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are
examples of drivers. (10 CFR 431.462)
\5\ A ``control'' is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR 431.462)
\6\ A ``continuous control'' is 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. A ``non-continuous control'' is 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. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2020, DOE published an early assessment review RFI
in which it sought data and information pertinent to whether amended
test procedures would (1) more accurately or fully comply with the
requirement that the test procedure produces results that measure
energy use during a representative average use cycle for the equipment
without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2) reduce testing
burden. 85 FR 60734 (``September 2020 Early Assessment RFI''). DOE
received comments in response to the September 2020 Early Assessment
RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.1. A parenthetical
reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the
location of the item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in DOE's test procedure rulemaking docket.
(Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, which is maintained at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the September 2020
Early Assessment RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Organization(s) RFI Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utility.
Utilities.
Grundfos Americas Corporation... Grundfos.......... Manufacturer.
Hydraulic Institute............. HI................ Trade Association.
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
People's Republic of China...... PRC............... Nation/Government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's review of the test procedure for pumps and the
comments received, DOE has determined it is appropriate to continue the
test procedure rulemaking after the early assessment process. See 10
CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 8(b). Specific
comments are discussed in the sections that follow.
II. Request for Information
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to determine whether, and if so how, an amended
test procedure for pumps would (1) more accurately or fully comply with
the requirements in EPCA that test procedures be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy use during a representative
average use cycle, without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2)
reduce testing burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Further, DOE issued an Early Assessment RFI (85 FR 60734) to seek
more general information on whether its test procedures are reasonably
designed, as required by EPCA, to produce results that measure the
energy use or efficiency of equipment during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. See also 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019) (RFI
seeking public comment on the measurement of average use cycles or
periods of use in DOE's test procedures). DOE seeks comment on this
issue as it pertains to the test procedure for pumps.
[[Page 20078]]
As stated previously, DOE received multiple comments to the 2020
Early Assessment RFI. These comments are summarized in this RFI and DOE
asks for additional information and comment on these issues. In
addition, DOE notes that since publication of the January 2016 Final
Rule, as well as the subsequent energy conservation standards final
rule,\8\ it has received inquiries from stakeholders related to
implementation of and compliance with the regulatory requirements for
pumps. This RFI discusses these issues and notes the additional
information that would be needed if DOE decided to propose amending its
current test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Pump and Related Component Definitions
This RFI covers pumps and relevant components of pumps, such as the
``bare pump'', ``mechanical equipment'', ``driver'', and ``control'',
all of which are defined at 10 CFR 431.462.
Some manufacturers distribute kits of unassembled components that
customers (including end users or distributors) may purchase and
assemble into finished equipment that meets the definition of a pump or
a bare pump (see additional discussion in section II.D.2 of this RFI).
Manufacturers may also otherwise distribute various pump parts together
in commerce.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the definitions of ``pump'' and
its components and whether any of the terms should be amended, and if
so, how the terms should be amended. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether the terms are sufficient to identify which equipment
is subject to the test procedure and whether any test procedure
amendments are required to ensure that all such equipment can be
appropriately tested in accordance with the test procedure.
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
The following sections address in detail various elements related
to the scope of the test procedure. DOE seeks input regarding these
elements to help determine what specific changes, if any, might be
needed to improve the current test procedure's ability to determine
pump energy efficiency in a manner consistent with the requirements set
out in 42 U.S.C. 6314.
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
The current DOE test procedure for pumps applies only to certain
rotodynamic pumps \9\ that are defined as ``clean water pumps''. 10 CFR
431.462. Specifically, it applies to five categories of clean water
pumps with specific characteristics. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1). Pumps are
further delineated into equipment classes based on nominal speed of
rotation and operating mode (i.e., constant load or variable load). 10
CFR 431.465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A rotodynamic pump is one in which energy is continuously
imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller,
propeller, or rotor. 10 CFR 431.462. This kind of pump (also known
as a ``centrifugal pump'') is in contrast to a positive displacement
pump, which has an expanding cavity on the suction side and a
decreasing cavity on the discharge side that moves a constant volume
of fluid for each cycle of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five categories of clean water pumps to which the test
procedure applies are: End suction close-coupled (``ESCC''); end
suction frame mounted/own bearings (``ESFM''); in-line (``IL'');
radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing
(``RSV''); and submersible turbine (``ST'') pumps. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(1)(i). DOE defines each of these five categories in 10 CFR
431.462.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether DOE's five pump categories
sufficiently represent the market and technology available for clean
water pumps; whether these categories are sufficiently defined in order
to ensure that the categories are mutually exclusive; or whether any of
these categories or descriptions should be amended.
Definitions relevant to the pump categories listed above and
applicable to this test procedure include ``close-coupled pump,'' ``end
suction pump,'' ``mechanically-coupled pump,'' and ``single axis flow
pump,'' See 10 CFR 431.462 (defining each of these terms).
Determining the applicability of the pump categories relies in part
on the defined terms ``close-coupled pump'' and ``mechanically-coupled
pump'' DOE defines a close-coupled pump as a pump having a motor shaft
that also acts as the impeller shaft, while a mechanically-coupled pump
is one that has its own impeller shaft and bearings separate from the
motor shaft. (Id.) DOE is aware that certain pumps may have their own
shaft, but with no bearings to support that shaft. Additionally, DOE
notes that while its close-coupled pump definition describes a pump in
which the motor shaft also serves as the pump shaft, the definition
does not provide any detail on how the motor and pump shaft may be
connected. DOE has observed that some manufacturers describe close-
coupled pumps as using an adapter to mount the impeller directly to the
motor shaft. The coupling type is the only differentiator between end
suction close-coupled pumps, which are ``close-coupled pumps'', and end
suction frame mounted/own bearings pumps, which are ``mechanically-
coupled pumps''. In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE noted that it
intended for the equipment category definitions for ESFM and ESCC pumps
to be mutually exclusive, to ensure that pumps that are close-coupled
to the motor and have a single impeller and motor shaft would be part
of the ESCC equipment category while all other end suction pumps that
are mechanically-coupled to the motor and for which the bare pump and
motor have separate shafts would be part of the ESFM equipment
category. 81 FR 4096.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the definitions of ``close-coupled
pump'' and ``mechanically-coupled pump'' and whether the terms should
be revised to achieve the differentiation described above--and if so,
how. DOE also requests comment on whether the terms themselves are
specific enough to ensure that end suction close-coupled pumps and end
suction frame mounted/own bearings pumps remain mutually exclusive.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on whether there are pumps being
sold in commerce that may not meet the ``close-coupled'' or
``mechanically-coupled'' definitions but would otherwise meet the
definition for an ``end suction'' pump.
Determining the applicability of the pump categories also relies in
part on the defined terms ``single axis flow pump'' and ``end suction
pump.'' IL pumps are defined as single axis flow pumps, and ESCC pumps
are defined as end suction pumps. The definition of single axis flow
pump does not explicitly state whether the axis is defined by the
suction opening to the volute \10\ or the suction opening at the
perimeter of the pump. A close-coupled pump can be designed with a
tangential discharge volute (i.e., a design in which the suction and
discharge openings do not share a common axis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A volute may also be referred to as a ``housing'' or
``casing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers are currently
categorizing close-coupled pumps with tangential discharge volutes
relative to the five pump categories defined at 10 CFR 431.464.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on whether it should provide
additional detail in the definitions of single-axis flow pumps and/or
end suction pumps regarding tangential discharge volute configurations,
or whether the existing
[[Page 20079]]
definitions are sufficient to determine individual pump
classifications.
2. Pump Characteristics
The applicable scope for the test procedure is limited to the five
pump categories discussed previously, with flow rate, maximum head,
design temperature range, motor type, bowl diameter, and speed
additionally specified in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii).
The applicable scope for the test procedure also excludes fire
pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps,
pumps for nuclear facilities, and pumps meeting certain military
specifications. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(iii).
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEEA
commented that while the test procedure scope covers a large portion of
the U.S. commercial and industrial pump market, pumps with similar
characteristics may be subject to the DOE test procedure and standards
while some are not. NEEA stated that this may create market confusion
and inconsistency in ratings (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8). NEEA specifically
highlighted small vertical inline pumps (``SVIL'') below 1 horsepower
as recommended by DOE's Circulator Working Group,\11\ pumps operating
with motors at speeds different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm, and
submersible turbine pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches as
examples of pumps that DOE should consider including as part of an
expanded scope. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See docket EERE-2013-BT-STD-0039, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on the percentage of manufacturer pump
models that fall within the scope of the current test procedure and
those models that fall outside the scope of the procedure. DOE also
seeks information regarding how manufacturers address this situation
when communicating performance in catalogs and other related
literature.
Issue 7: DOE requests shipment and market performance data for SVIL
pumps below 1 horsepower (``hp''); pumps operating with motors at
speeds different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm (e.g., non-induction motors
with a range of speed of rotation starting above 4,320 revolutions per
minute, as further discussed in section II.C.3); submersible turbine
pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches; and other pumps that
are currently excluded from scope based on the pump characteristics
provided at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii) (e.g., pumps designed to operate
with greater than 4 pole induction motors) that should be considered
for inclusion in the test procedure scope.
NEEA also supported the Circulator Working Group recommendation to
adopt test procedures for Circulator Pumps (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8). DOE
notes that it may consider the testing of circulator pumps in a
separate rulemaking. DOE also notes that the Circulator Working Group
characterized SVIL pumps as potential substitutes for circulator pumps
and recommended using the pumps test procedure to measure the
performance of SVIL pumps, with necessary modifications made as
determined by DOE (EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0058, recommendation #1B).
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
HI and the American Petroleum Institute (``API'') publish standards
that include design criteria for different pump configurations. Section
2.1.3.4 of ANSI/HI \12\ Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps
of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and
Definitions,'' describes vertically separate discharge sump pumps, a
category of pump that includes line shaft (``VS4'') pumps and
cantilever (``VS5'') pumps. Section 9.3 of API Standard 610,
``Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas
Industries'' \13\ also provides a description of VS4 and VS5 pumps.
Both VS4 and VS5 pumps are vertically suspended, volute pumps with a
single casing and with a discharge column that is separate from the
shaft column. The line shaft of a VS4 pump is supported by one or more
bearings throughout the center column, while the line shaft of a VS5
pump is cantilevered and has no support bearing within the shaft
column. The pump equipment categories defined by DOE do not explicitly
reference VS4 or VS5 pumps, and some pumps may simultaneously fit the
DOE definition of an ESFM pump and the API definition of a VS4 or VS5
pump. However, the scope of the current DOE test procedure includes
only clean water pumps (see 10 CFR 431.464(a)(i)) and most VS4 and VS5
pumps are not designed for clean water. To the extent that a VS4 or VS5
pump is a ``clean water pump'' that meets the definition of ESFM and
the other applicable criteria, it would be within the scope of
equipment subject to DOE's Appendix A test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``ANSI'' refers to American National Standards Institute.
\13\ API standards are available for purchase from the API
website at: https://www.api.org/Standards/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
be amended to explicitly address line shaft pumps and cantilever pumps
such as VS4 and VS5 pumps as described in the HI and API standards, and
if so, how the definition should be amended.
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
Section 1.2.9.2 of ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic
Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions'' and section 9.2 of
API Standard 610 describe between-bearing (``BB'') pumps with bearings
on both ends of the rotating assembly. ``BB1'' pumps are axially-split,
one- or two-stage pumps that are mounted to a baseplate and driven by a
motor via a flexible coupling. BB1 pumps are not explicitly excluded
from the scope of coverage and the definition of IL pumps could be
understood to include BB1 pumps. However, BB1 pumps are not typically
designed for clean water (the scope of the current DOE test procedure
includes only clean water pumps) and have horsepower ratings greater
than the 200 hp limit of pumps currently within the scope of the DOE
test procedure.
In addition, BB1 pumps do not have an ``overhung impeller.'' An
``overhung impeller'' generally is an impeller that is mounted on the
end of a shaft and that is cantilevered or ``overhung'' from the
bearing supports. Although not included in the definition of ``in-line
pump,'' IL pumps that are single-stage generally have an overhung
impeller.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on whether any pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described in the HI and API standards) are
designed for clean water use and are rated below 200 hp.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on whether pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described in the HI and API standards) may
be tested according to the DOE test procedure for pumps, or if special
instructions or accommodations would be needed to test BB1 pumps.
C. Test Procedure
DOE specifies the constant load pump energy index
(``PEICL'') as the test metric for pumps sold without
continuous or non-continuous controls, and the variable load pump
energy index (``PEIVL'') as the test metric for pumps sold
with continuous or non-continuous controls. 10 CFR 431.465. As noted, a
``continuous control'' is 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. 10 CFR 431.462.
[[Page 20080]]
A ``non-continuous control'' is 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. Id.
Generally, the PEI metric is a ratio of the pump energy rating
(``PER'') of the tested pump to the PER of a minimally compliant pump
(``PERSTD''). The pump energy rating for constant load pumps
(``PERCL'') represents an average of driver power input at
75%, 100%, and 110% of flow at the best efficiency point (``BEP''),\14\
in which the flows are achieved by varying the operating head to follow
the pump performance curve. The pump energy rating for variable load
pumps (``PERVL'') represents an average of driver power
input at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of flow at BEP, in which the flows
are achieved by speed reduction to follow a specified system curve. As
noted, BEP is defined as the pump hydraulic power operating point
(consisting of both flow and head conditions) that results in the
maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Best efficiency point (``BEP'') means the pump hydraulic
power operating point (consisting of both flow and head conditions)
that results in the maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt industry standards as DOE
test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated
operating costs of that product during a representative average use
cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430 subpart C Appendix A section 8(c).
In cases where the industry testing standard does not meet the EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make any necessary
modifications to these testing standards through the rulemaking process
when adopting them for inclusion into DOE's regulations.
DOE sought comment in the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI on
whether another consensus-based test procedure could be adopted, with
or without modification, and meet the criteria in EPCA related to
representativeness and test burden (85 FR 60736-60737). HI noted that
it was not aware of any consensus-based test procedures that could be
adopted (HI, No. 6, p. 3). NEEA stated that it was not aware of any
test procedure that would improve on the DOE test procedure and that
they found DOE's test procedure to be the only one that satisfies the
criteria in EPCA related to representativeness and test burden (NEEA,
No. 8, p. 6).
a. HI Standard 40.6
DOE's test procedure for pumps generally incorporates HI 40.6-2014.
10 CFR 431.463. Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the
Hydraulics Institute updated HI 40.6-2014 with the publication of HI
Standard 40.6-2016, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing''
(``HI 40.6-2016''), The 2016 update aligned the definitions and
procedures described in HI Standard 40.6-2014 with the DOE test
procedure for pumps published in the January 2016 Final Rule. HI 40.6-
2016 revisions to HI 40.6-2014 are summarized below, with the
referenced sections noted in parentheses:
Clarified that the standard covers efficiency testing of
rotodynamic pumps that are included in DOE regulations for energy
conservation. (Section 40.6.1 ``Scope'')
Updated the calculation of bare pump efficiency to match
the current DOE test procedure requirements for plotting test data to
determine the BEP rate of flow. (Section 40.6.6.3 ``Performance
curve'')
Updated the description and requirements of the pressure
tap configuration for measurement sections at inlet and outlet of the
pump. (Section A.3.1.3 ``Pressure taps'')
Expanded the requirements for measurement of driver power
input with power quality and measurement requirements that meet the
requirements of the current DOE test procedure. (Section C.4.3
``Electric power measurements,'' and section C.4.3.1 ``Additional
requirements for measurement of driver power input to the motor and
controls'')
Added an informative appendix with examples regarding the
determination of systematic uncertainty of the devices for measurement
of required quantities on test. (Appendix G ``Determination,
application, and calculation of instrument (systematic) uncertainty
(informative)'')
DOE is aware that HI plans to publish another updated version of HI
40.6, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-
2021''). HI 40.6-2021 contains the following modifications to HI 40.6-
2014, in addition to the HI 40.6-2016 changes listed previously:
References ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2 ``Rotodynamic Pumps for
Nomenclature and Definitions'' (``ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2'') which supersedes
ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 ``American National Standard for Rotodynamic
Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions'' and ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2014 ``Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed and Axial Flow
Types for Nomenclature and Definitions''. (Section 40.6.4.1
``Vertically suspended pumps''; Section 40.6.4.3 ``All other pump
types'')
Includes a new appendix (Appendix E) for the testing of
circulator pumps. (Appendix E ``Testing Circulator Pumps'')
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE asked stakeholders
to comment on the potential effect of incorporating HI 40.6-2016 by
reference as the DOE test procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734, 60737.
Specifically, DOE requested information on whether the updates in HI
40.6-2016 impact the measured values, and if so, to what extent. Id.
DOE also requested information on the impact of the updates in HI 40.6-
2016 to the test burden and the representativeness of the test results.
Id.
In response, Grundfos, NEEA, and HI urged DOE to incorporate by
reference HI 40.6-2021 rather than HI 40.6-2016 (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; HI, No. 6, p. 1). HI stated that HI 40.6-2016
included updates to match DOE's test procedure and did not impact
measured values, burden or representativeness (HI, No. 6 at p. 3). Both
HI and NEEA stated that HI 40.6-2021 further includes editorial
revisions and adds circulator pump testing, that also would not impact
measured values, burden, or representativeness. (HI, No. 6 at p. 3;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 6) Grundfos agreed that HI 40.6-2021 does not affect
overall implementation of the standard, but stated that if DOE decides
not to incorporate HI 40.6-2021 by reference, then it should at least
incorporate HI 40.6-2016 by reference (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2). More
generally, NEMA indicated that it would be unduly burdensome to require
manufacturers to switch from using the current HI testing standard to a
different method of testing and evaluation in light of the relatively
short time that the current method has been in place. (NEMA, No. 4, p.
2).
Issue 12: DOE requests comments on whether it should adopt HI 40.6-
2016 or HI 40.6-2021 as the DOE test procedure for pumps, and requests
that stakeholders provide specific information as to why one version of
HI 40.6 should be incorporated by reference over the other. DOE also
seeks information on whether the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-
2016 or HI 40.6-2021 would impact measured values, and if so, by how
much. Additionally, the current DOE test procedure currently
incorporates by reference ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 which
[[Page 20081]]
was replaced by ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2. DOE seeks comment on ANSI/HI 14.1-
14.2, referenced by HI 40.6-2021, including whether, and if so how, it
would affect the scope of DOE's test procedures and energy consumption
standards for commercial and industrial pumps.
b. IEC 61800-9-2:2017 and Other Industry Test Standards Related to
Motor and Control Combinations
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE noted that while
its test procedure for pumps incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2014,
DOE also includes additional provisions related to measuring the
hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps,
inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous
controls. 85 FR 60734, 60737. Since publication of the January 2016
Final Rule, the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
published standard IEC 61800-9-2:2017 ``Adjustable speed electrical
power drive systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor
starters, power electronics and their driven applications--Energy
efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,''
(``IEC 61800-9-2:2017'') which addresses test methods and reference
losses for ``power drive systems'' (i.e., motors and their associated
controllers). Specifically, Annex A of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 describes
reference losses for complete drive modules (i.e. controls) and power
drive systems at different operating points comparable to the approach
already presented in section VII.E.1.2 of Appendix A of that testing
standard. DOE requested comments on whether it should consider
substituting the model in Annex A of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 for the current
calculations in section VII of Appendix A, or whether any
considerations for updates should be postponed until the second edition
of IEC 61800-9-2 is published. Id. A second edition of this standard is
expected to be published in March 2022 to further address the test
method and reference losses.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/31527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to DOE's request for comment, the majority of
commenters urged DOE to maintain the current test approach in section
VII.E.1.2 of Appendix A. (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p. 7; CA
IOUs, No. 5, p. 4; HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). Grundfos, NEEA,
the Hydraulic Institute, and NEMA all asserted that substituting IEC
61800-9-2 for the current approach would add burden without achieving
additional energy savings (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p. 7;;
HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). However, NEMA stated that it is an
active participant in efforts to revise IEC 61800-9-2 and that
consideration of this standard may be warranted for future test
procedure development for equipment classes not yet covered by DOE
regulation (NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). The PRC requested that DOE consider
incorporating IEC 61800-9-2 as a consensus-based standard to facilitate
international trade (PRC, No. 3, p. 2). The CA IOUs stated that
substituting IEC 61800-9-2 for the current approach would overstate
motor losses. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 4)
Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the Air Movement
and Control Association (``AMCA'') published AMCA 207-17 ``Fan System
Efficiency and Fan System Input Power Calculation'' (``AMCA 207-
17'').\16\ AMCA 207-17 provides default values and equations to
calculate the performance of various motors and control combinations,
including currently regulated motors and control combinations (i.e.,
variable frequency drives (``VFD''), variable-speed drives, inverter
drives). See AMCA 207-17 section 4.1.3.1, ``Regulated polyphase
induction motors controlled by a VFD''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See https://www.techstreet.com/amca/standards/amca-207-17?product_id=1949776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
suggested that DOE reconsider the combined VFD and motor loss equations
created for section VII, ``Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold
With Motors and Controls,'' of Appendix A in favor of the methods in
AMCA 207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, pp. 1-4). Specifically, the CA IOUs
stated that the efficiency of a motor/control combination determined
using the calculations in section VII of Appendix A showed more
variation as a function of horsepower than values predicted by AMCA
207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2). The CA IOUs also stated that the full-
load efficiency of the motor and control combination calculated using
section VII of Appendix A led to lower efficiency values than those
predicted by AMCA 207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3). The CA IOUs further
commented that updating the calculations in section VII of Appendix A
with relevant equations from AMCA 2017-17 should not require any repeat
testing, but the change would impact the PEI calculation and might
impact pump compliance with the pump energy conservation standards. (CA
IOUs, No. 5, p. 4).
DOE notes that the calculations in section VII of Appendix A were
developed during the 2015 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') negotiations and were voted on by the
members of the working group, including the CA IOUs (Docket EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0039-0092). As noted by the CA IOUs, the equations in section
VII of Appendix A were considered the best available method of
calculation at the time (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2).
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on the applicability of the VFD/
motor efficiencies in AMCA 207-17 to pumps, and whether DOE should
consider replacing the calculations in section VII of Appendix A with
those in AMCA 207-17. DOE also requests comment on whether adoption of
the AMCA 207-17 approach would be representative for pumps.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether such a change would
impact PEI ratings (and if so, how), manufacturer testing burden, or
manufacturer pump designs.
c. ISO/ASME 14414
In response to DOE's September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the PRC
recommended that DOE incorporate by reference ISO/ASME 14414 ``Pumps
System Energy Assessment'' (``ISO/ASME 14414'') in order to facilitate
international trade (PRC, No. 3, p. 3). DOE understands that ISO/ASME
14414 (the most recent version of which was published in January 2019)
provides a method for evaluating pump system energy consumption,
including the effects of heat, noise and vibration on over-sizing of
pump system components (i.e., pumps, process components, and control
valves), and provides methods for identifying and documenting
opportunities for improvement in energy use.\17\ Consequently, ISO/ASME
14414's scope appears to go beyond determining the representative
energy use of individual bare pumps or pumps sold with motors and/or
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A summary of ISO/ASME 14414-2019 is available at: https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/iso-asme-14414-pump-system-energy-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 14: DOE requests comment on whether DOE should consider
incorporating any aspect of ISO/ASME 14414 into its test procedure for
pumps--and if so, which aspects and why.
2. Testing and Calculation Options
DOE's test procedure for pumps includes calculation-based and
testing-based options that apply based on pump configuration (including
style of motor and control) as distributed in commerce.
[[Page 20082]]
See Appendix A, Table 1. The calculation-based options rely on a bare
pump test and are described in sections III, V, and VII of Appendix A.
The testing-based options rely on a ``wire-to-water'' test and are
prescribed in sections IV and VI of Appendix A. The calculation-based
options may reduce test burden by allowing a manufacturer to test a
sample of bare pumps and use that data to rate multiple pump
configurations using calculation-based methods. Although testing-based
methods require wire-to-water testing of individual pump
configurations, they may allow manufacturers to more accurately
represent pump, motor, or control performance if so desired. DOE's
definition of a ``basic model'' for pumps provides additional options
for reducing test burden within the parameters of Table 1 (see section
II.D.1 of this RFI).
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE noted that its
calculations of testing costs assumed that the majority of pump basic
models would be certified based on the bare pump configuration and that
subsequent ratings for the same bare pump sold with any number of
applicable motors and continuous controls could be generated using the
calculation-based approach. DOE also sought comment on whether any
modifications to the test procedure could reduce test burden while
still allowing for accurate determinations of energy use during a
representative average use cycle. 85 FR 60734, 60736.
In response, HI stated that, based on a survey of HI members,
industry testing costs significantly exceeded DOE's estimates, and that
wire-to-water testing represented 20 percent of total industry testing
(HI, No. 6, p. 2). Grundfos commented that approximately 45 percent of
its testing was wire-to-water testing--specifically, for pumps sold
with motors that can only operate when driven by an inverter (i.e.,
inverter-only motors) (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2). HI, Grundfos, NEEA, and
NEMA stated that in order to reduce test burden, DOE should work with
stakeholders to develop a calculation method for pumps sold with
inverter-only motors (HI, No. 6 at p. 1-2; Grundfos No. 7 at p. 1;
NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 5-6; NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2). The potential for
development of a calculation-based method for pumps sold with inverter-
only motors is further discussed in section II.C.3 of this RFI.
Grundfos, HI and NEEA further recommended that DOE make no
additional changes to the test procedure that would require re-testing.
HI commented that such changes would add industry burden and result in
no additional energy savings, while NEEA added that the current test
procedure provides a sufficiently accurate indicator of energy
consumption (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; HI, No. 6 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 8 at
p. 1).
Issue 15: In order to further assess opportunity for reducing
burden, DOE requests additional information on how manufacturers are
implementing Table 1 of Appendix A (aside from inverter-only motors).
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the extent to which pumps sold with
multiple motor and control configurations are tested multiple times
using testing-based methods; the extent to which pumps sold with
single-phase motors are being rated as bare pumps (using a calculation-
based approach) rather than by a testing-based approach; and the extent
to which pumps sold with motors (other than inverter-only motors) are
being tested with a calculation-based approach as opposed to a testing-
based approach.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on whether any revisions to Table 1
of Appendix A could be considered to maintain or improve the
information derived from the test procedure while reducing burden with
no impact on the PEI rating for currently regulated pumps.
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only Motors
This section addresses how DOE could consider amending the test
procedure for pumps sold with inverter-only motors to reduce test
burden.
Inverter-only motors are currently not subject to DOE's electric
motor energy conservation standards, and as such, based on Table 1,
currently require wire-to-water testing. As discussed in section II.C.2
of this RFI, commenters requested that DOE work with stakeholders to
develop a calculation-based method for pumps sold with inverter-only
motors. In addition, based on Table 1, pumps sold with inverter-only
motors but without controls must use a testing-based approach resulting
in a PEICL rating, rather than a PEIVL rating. HI
and Grundfos commented that a calculation method for pumps sold with
inverter-only motors and without controls should allow for a
PEIVL rating in order to appropriately represent energy use
to the consumer (HI, No. 6 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 7 at p.1). HI and
NEEA, noted that a calculation-based method resulting in a
PEIVL rating for inverter-only motors would help encourage
the expanded use of this more efficient equipment. (HI, No. 6 at p. 2;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
In consideration of developing such a method, DOE is contemplating
constructing a table (or tables) \18\ similar to Table 2--``Default
Nominal Full Load Submersible Motor Efficiency by Motor Horsepower and
Pole,'' as well as a table (or tables) similar to Table 4--``Motor and
Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Section
VII.E.1.2.2 of Appendix A.'' This strategy was suggested by NEEA, HI,
and NEMA (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; HI, No. 6, p. 2; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). More
generally, Grundfos recommended that DOE work with stakeholders to
establish a calculation-based method for pumps with inverter-only
motors. (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The different categories of inverter-only motors may
require separate models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 17: DOE requests information and feedback on the categories
of motors for which DOE should consider allowing the use of a
calculation-based method. Specifically, DOE requests information on the
categories of inverter-only motors (e.g., electronically commutated
motors, permanent magnet alternative current motors (``PMACs''), or
other AC induction motors) that should evaluate using a calculation-
based method.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback and comments on the general
approach for including default values and equations to represent
inverter-only motor performance. DOE requests data and information to
support the development of default values for inverter-only motors
(similar to the values developed for submersible motors in Table 2 of
Appendix A) as well as equations that would represent the part-load
efficiency or losses of these motors (similar to the equations
developed for certain motor and drive combinations in Table 4 of
Appendix A). To the extent DOE should consider a different approach,
DOE requests information on the methodology it should consider and
supporting data.
Issue 19: DOE requests information on the percentage of pumps sold
with inverter-only motors without controls (and thus would be impacted
by a change in rating from PEICL to PEIVL).
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
As previously discussed, in response to the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, Grundfos, HI, and NEEA commented that the current test
procedure produces results that sufficiently measure energy use during
a representative average use cycle and recommended that DOE make no
substantial changes to the current test approach (Grundfos, No. 7, p.
2; HI, No. 6, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, pp. 1-2). However, the following
sections discuss two
[[Page 20083]]
specific topics raised by stakeholders that may impact the
representative average use cycle.
a. Load Profile
The current test procedure requires that constant load PER be
determined using 75%, 100% and 110% of BEP flow, with each value
multiplied by 0.33 and the results summed to determine PERCL
(See Appendix A, sections III.E, IV.E, V.E). Similarly, for variable
load pumps, energy ratings are determined at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of
BEP flow with each point weighted by 0.25 and summed to obtain a value
for PERVL (See Appendix A, sections VI.E, VII.E).
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEEA
referenced its pumps database that was developed through the Regional
Technical Forum \19\ and suggested that DOE use the database to
evaluate the impact of pump load profile on estimated energy savings
(NEEA, No. 8, p. 3). In its comments, NEEA provided constant speed load
profile data for pumps at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 110% and greater than
110% of BEP flow, which indicate that real-world operating hours may be
different than those assumed in the DOE test procedure (NEEA, No. 8,
pp. 3-4). NEEA observed that while the data may be representative of
load profiles in commercial application, they stated that modifying the
load profile for either constant or variable load pumps would likely
increase burden while having little impact on final PEI values. (NEEA,
No. 8, pp. 4-5). NEEA recommended that DOE maintain the current load
profiles in the test procedure (NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Regional Technical Forum (``RTF'') is a technical
advisory committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
established to develop standards and evaluate energy efficiency
savings. See https://rtf.nwcouncil.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 20: DOE seeks additional comment on the load profile
distribution for constant and variable load pumps and the effect of the
distribution on PEI value.
b. Nominal Speed
The scope of the test procedure is limited to pumps designed to
operate with either a 2- or 4-pole induction motor or a non-induction
motor with a speed of rotation operating range between 2,880 and 4,320
rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii). Section I.C.1
of Appendix A specifies selection of nominal speed of rotation of
either 1,800 or 3,600 rpm, depending on the number of poles of the
motor or the operating range of non-induction motors.
In response to the 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE evaluate whether rating pumps at nominal speeds
higher than 3600 rpm, when paired with a variable-speed drive, would
provide consumer value and be cost effective. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs stated that incorporating a higher nominal speed(s) in the
test procedure would require retesting and urged DOE to consider if
ratings for pumps at higher nominal speeds might be determined by
calculation rather than wire-to-water testing. Id. NEEA also commented
that the energy use of pumps capable of operating with motors at speeds
higher than 3600 rpm, such as high-speed permanent magnet motors, may
not be appropriately represented by the current DOE test procedure
(NEEA, No. 8, p. 8-9).
DOE notes that pumps with speeds higher than 3600 rpm have
historically made up a small percentage of the market, and DOE has had
limited access to shipment and efficiency data for this equipment (See
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0060, at p. 4, which provides a
summary of the fourth negotiated rulemaking working group meeting for
commercial and industrial pumps held on March 26-27, 2014).
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether the nominal motor speeds
of 1800 rpm and 3600 rpm used in the current DOE test procedure
appropriately represent the operation and energy use of pumps that are
capable of higher speeds. If these motor speeds are not representative,
DOE requests comment on which speeds would be representative and
whether a testing-based or calculation-based approach would provide
more representative energy use values and the expected cost burden of
each. Additionally, DOE requests test data at speeds other than the
nominal speeds specified in the current test procedure in order to
determine if a calculation-based method is appropriate.
5. Rounding and Represented Values
The DOE test procedure includes provisions for calculations and
rounding in Section I.D.3 of Appendix A. Generally, all measured data
must be normalized such that it represents performance at nominal speed
of rotation in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and all calculations must
be carried out using raw measured values without rounding. See Appendix
A, section I.D.3. PER is rounded to three significant digits and PEI is
rounded to the hundredths place. Id. Explicit rounding directions are
not provided for other parameters.
In addition, 10 CFR 429.59(a) includes requirements for determining
the represented value of PEI based on a tested sample. DOE's
certification requirements include reporting of other parameters that
are derived from the test procedure, including pump total head in feet
at BEP and nominal speed; volume per unit time (i.e., flow rate) in
gallons per minute at BEP and nominal speed; and calculated driver
power input at each load point i.e., corrected to nominal speed in
horsepower. 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2).
DOE is considering whether to propose that these values be
represented by the mean of the value for each tested unit in the
sample, or whether there is a more appropriate approach. DOE is also
considering specifying rounding requirements for these values in the
test procedure (for a given tested unit) and/or in the requirements for
determination of represented values (for a sample of tested units).
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
specify rounding requirements for parameters other than PER and PEI;
and if so, what those rounding requirements should be.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on whether it should specify an
approach for determining represented values for parameters other than
PEI, and if so, what approach should be established and why.
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
DOE's certification regulations for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59 require
that manufacturers determine the represented value for each basic model
through testing in accordance with the sampling provisions specified in
that section. As applied to pumps, DOE defines the term ``basic model''
in 10 CFR 431.462.
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. 81 FR 4086, 4093. Accordingly, manufacturers
may pair a given bare pump with several different motors (or motor and
controls) and can include all combinations under the same basic model
if the certification of energy use and all representations made by the
manufacturer are based on the most consumptive bare pump/motor (or
motor and controls) combination for each basic model and all individual
[[Page 20084]]
models are in the same equipment class. Id.
In addition, clauses (1) and (2) of the basic model definition
align the scope of the ``basic model'' definition for pumps with the
requirements that testing be conducted at a certain number of stages
for RSV and ST pumps and at full impeller diameter).\20\ 10 CFR
431.462. Clause (3) of the definition addresses basic models inclusive
of pump models for which the bare pump differs in number of stages or
impeller diameter. (Id.) Specifically, variation in motor sizing (i.e.,
variation in the horsepower rating of the paired motor as a result of
different impeller trims or stages within a basic model) is not a basis
for requiring units to be rated as unique basic models. However,
variation in motor sizing may also be associated with variation in
motor efficiency, which is a performance characteristic; typically,
larger motors are more efficient than smaller motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Full impeller diameter'' means the maximum diameter
impeller with which a given pump basic model is distributed in
commerce. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to group pumps sold with motors into a single basic model,
clause (3)(i) provides that for basic models inclusive of pump models
for which the bare pump differs in number of stages or impeller
diameter, each motor offered in a pump included in that basic model
must have a full-load efficiency at the Federal minimum for NEMA Design
B electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) or the same number of bands above the
Federal minimum for each respective motor horsepower as described in
Table 3 of Appendix A. (Id.) Clause (3)(ii) provides a similar
allowance for submersible turbine pumps, where, in order to group pumps
sold with motors into a single basic model, each motor offered in a
pump included in that basic model must have a full load motor
efficiency at the default nominal full load submersible motor
efficiency shown in Table 2 of Appendix A, or the same number of bands
above the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency for
each respective motor horsepower as described in Table 3 of Appendix A.
(Id.)
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers are currently
making use of the basic model grouping provisions when rating their
pumps, and whether any general clarifications or modifications are
needed.
DOE has received several inquiries related to application of the
basic model definition to pumps sold with VFDs of varying phase,
voltage, and/or efficiency; pumps sold with inverter-only motors such
as PMAC motors; and pumps sold with both single-phase and polyphase
motors.
For pumps sold with motors, when determining how to group models
within a basic model, manufacturers must consider clause (3), which
currently allows grouping of models based on the number of bands above
``nominal full load motor efficiency rated at the Federal minimum (see
the current table for NEMA Design B electric motors at Sec. 431.25)'',
or for submersible turbine pumps, based on the number of bands above
the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency. DOE may
consider inclusion of explicit language that applies this clause to
pumps sold with specific kinds of motors, or to pumps sold with VFDs.
For example, inverter-only motors may have a rated efficiency (i.e.,
nameplate efficiency) that exceeds the Federal minimum for NEMA Design
B electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) (based on hp, poles, and enclosure
construction of that motor), as might certain single-phase motors
subject to the energy efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.446 and tested
in accordance with 10 CFR 431.444.\21\ In addition, as discussed in
section II.C.3. of this RFI, stakeholders have recommended that DOE
develop default nominal full load efficiency values for inverter-only
motors, which could also provide a baseline for grouping pumps sold
with those motors. (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; Grundfos, No. 7, p. 1; HI, No.
6, p. 2; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE notes that this discussion is relevant only to the
option in Table 1 to Appendix A to rate pumps sold with single-phase
motors using a testing-based method. Per Table 1, manufacturers also
have the option to rate pumps sold with single-phase motors as bare
pumps, regardless of the single-phase motor's efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that for motors not currently subject to the DOE test
procedure for electric motors, it is not clear how manufacturers would
determine the full-load efficiency of a given motor, or specifically,
determine the number of bands above the Federal minimum or above the
default efficiency. For inverter-only motors, DOE notes that IEC
recently published an industry test procedure that provides test
methods for measuring the efficiency of these motors: IEC 60034-2-
3:2020, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-3: Specific test methods
for determining losses and efficiency of converter-fed AC motors''
(``IEC 60034'') and IEC 61800-9-2:2017 (discussed in section II.C.1.b
of this RFI).
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether to amend clause (3) in
the basic model definition for pumps to provide additional detail
regarding pumps sold with inverter-only motors, single-phase motors, or
other non-NEMA Design B electric motors.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment on which motor categories not
currently subject to DOE's test procedure and standards are commonly
combined with pumps, as well as their relative efficiency compared to
regulated NEMA Design B electric motors, and which corresponding
industry test procedure (if any) should be used to establish their
``rated'' efficiency.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment on how VFDs are typically paired
with pumps and motors; for example, whether motors of various sizes are
paired with the same VFD. DOE further requests comment on whether a
pump manufacturer would know which VFD commonly paired with its pumps
would result in the most consumptive rating.
DOE notes that in order to group pumps sold with both single-phase
motors and pumps sold with polyphase motors into a single basic model,
manufacturers would need to utilize a testing-based approach on the
most consumptive configuration, as pumps sold with polyphase motors
cannot be rated as bare pumps, and pumps sold with single-phase motors
cannot be rated using a calculation-based approach (see Table 1 to
Appendix A).
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on whether the allowed grouping
under the same basic model for pumps sold with both single phase and
polyphase motors requires more explicit direction in 10 CFR part 431.
2. Labeling Requirement
The test procedure for pumps provides the basis for the labeling
requirement at 10 CFR 431.466. The following specific information must
be included on the nameplate and in marketing materials:
PEICL or PEIVL, as applicable; bare pump model
number; and if transferred directly to an end user, the impeller
diameter. 10 CFR 431.466(a)(1)(i). The representations included on the
nameplate and in marketing materials must be based on testing of the
pump in accordance with Appendix A and the representation must fairly
disclose the results of such testing. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
DOE is aware of certain situations in which the test procedure and
labeling requirements do not explicitly address how the results of
testing are to be included on the nameplate or in marketing materials.
One example is a bare pump distributed as a pump kit that could be
assembled as either an ESCC or ESFM pump. As required by Appendix A,
this pump kit would be tested as a bare pump, if distributed
[[Page 20085]]
without a motor (see Table 1 to Appendix A). As part of the DOE test
procedure, PERSTD is calculated based on the category and
nominal speed of rotation of the tested pump. Appendix A, Sections
I.C.1 and II.B. In this case, the pump kit would be ``tested'' twice,
once using a calculation based on ESCC and once based on ESFM, and must
be labeled with the most consumptive PEI relevant to the kit. Another
example is that pumps distributed with motors (and rated as such in
accordance with Table 1 to Appendix A) may be more appropriately
labeled with the manufacturer's individual model number than with a
bare pump model number.
An additional example would be a pump distributed in commerce with
multiple stages--including different sized impellers in different
stages. As required by Appendix A, this pump would be tested at full
impeller diameter (i.e., the maximum diameter impeller with which a
given pump basic model is distributed in commerce). Appendix A, Section
I.C. In this case manufacturers may include on the nameplate the
largest impeller diameter only, as well as sufficient identifying
information in the individual model number to identify inclusion of
reduced impeller sizes.
Issue 29: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
explicitly specify how to determine the information required to be
marked on a label in accordance with 10 CFR 431.466, and if so, how.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment on whether the term ``full impeller
diameter'' should be modified to explicitly address pumps with multiple
stages and varying impeller diameters, and if so, how.
3. Any Additional Information
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures
for pumps.
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on whether the existing test
procedures limit a manufacturer's ability to provide additional
features to consumers on pumps. DOE particularly seeks information on
how the test procedures could be amended to reduce the cost of new or
additional features and make it more likely that such features are
included on pumps, while still meeting the requirements of EPCA.
Issue 32: DOE requests comments on any potential amendments to the
existing test procedures that would address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
Finally, DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sep. 17, 2018)
(``September 2018 RFI''). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better
understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for consumer
appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology.
DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory
obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and
equipment.
Issue 33: DOE seeks, as part of this RFI, comments, data and
information on the issues presented in the September 2018 RFI as they
may be applicable to pumps.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading comments and information on matters addressed
in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's early assessment of
whether more stringent energy conservation standards are not warranted
for commercial and industrial pumps.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Following this instruction, persons viewing comments will see
only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the
[[Page 20086]]
document marked confidential including all the information believed to
be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 9,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-07701 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P