[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