[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 87 (Friday, May 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24516-24537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09242]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004]
RIN 1904-AD61


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures and Energy 
Conservation Standards for Circulator Pumps and Small Vertical In-Line 
Pumps

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') 
is restarting rulemaking activities to consider potential test 
procedures and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and 
small vertical in-line pumps. Consensus recommendations for test 
procedures and energy conservation standards were negotiated in 2016 by 
a stakeholder working group of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking 
Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC''). Through this request for 
information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information regarding 
development and evaluation of new test procedures that would be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use 
during a representative average use cycle for the equipment without 
being unduly burdensome to conduct. Additionally, this RFI solicits 
information regarding the development and evaluation of potential new 
energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and small vertical 
in-line pumps, and whether such standards would result in significant 
energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically 
justified. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public on any 
subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not 
specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and other 
relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before July 6, 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 by email to the following address: 
[email protected]. Include ``Circulator Pumps RFI'' and 
docket number EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004 and/or RIN number 1904-AD61 in the 
subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special 
characters or any form of encryption.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand 
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make 
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of 
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only 
electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this 
change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards 
Program staff at (202) 586-

[[Page 24517]]

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.
    No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    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-2016-BT-STD-0004. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket. See section IV 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].
    Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-2588. Email: [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
    C. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential 
Test Procedure
    A. Scope and Definitions
    1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
    2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line Pump
    B. Metric for Circulator Pumps
    C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps
    1. Test Methods for Different Categories and Control Varieties
    2. Updates to Industry Standards
    D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps
III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Energy 
Conservation Standards
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    2. Cost Analysis
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
    2. Operating Hours
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    G. Shipments
    H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    I. Other Issues
IV. Submission of Comments
    A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

I. Introduction

    Pumps are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which 
DOE is authorized to establish test procedures and energy conservation 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) Circulator and small vertical in-line 
(``SVIL'') pumps, which are the subject of this notification, are 
categories of pumps. Currently, circulator pumps and SVIL pumps are not 
subject to DOE test procedures or energy conservation standards. The 
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures 
and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps 
and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of 
establishing Federal regulations for these equipment types.

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title 
IV, section 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 energy 
efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this 
document. (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 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 which reflect 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))
    Before prescribing any final test procedures, 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))
    In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against 
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in section I.C, and 
follow the

[[Page 24518]]

rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) DOE is publishing this RFI consistent with its 
obligations in EPCA.

B. Rulemaking History

    As stated, ``pumps'' are listed as a type of industrial equipment 
covered by EPCA, although EPCA does not define the term ``pump.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) In a final rule published January 25, 2016, DOE 
established definitions applicable to pumps and test procedures for 
certain pumps. 81 FR 4086 (``January 2016 TP final rule''). ``Pump'' is 
defined as equipment designed to move liquids (which may include 
entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical 
or mechanical action and includes a bare pump and, if included by the 
manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver, and 
controls. 10 CFR 431.462. This definition includes circulator pumps and 
SVIL pumps, but such pumps are not currently subject to the established 
Federal test procedure or energy conservation standards.
    The established test procedure for pumps is applicable to certain 
categories of clean water pumps,\3\ specifically those that are end 
suction close-coupled; end suction frame mounted/own bearings; in-line 
(``IL''); radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser 
casing; and submersible turbine (``ST'') pumps with the following 
characteristics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``clean water pump'' is a pump that is designed for use in 
pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 
0.016 pounds per cubic foot, and with a maximum dissolved solid 
content of 3.1 pounds per cubic foot, provided that the total gas 
content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and 
disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from 
freezing at a minimum of 14 [deg]F. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Flow rate of 25 gallons per minute (``gpm'') or greater 
(at best efficiency point (``BEP'') and full impeller diameter);
     459 feet of head maximum (at BEP and full impeller 
diameter and the number of stages specified for testing);
     Design temperature range from 14 to 248 [deg]F;
     Designed to operate with either (1) a 2- or 4-pole 
induction motor, or (2) a non-induction motor with a speed of rotation 
operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 
4,320 revolutions per minute (``rpm'') and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and 
in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the same speed;
     6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for ST pumps; and
     For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or 
equal to 5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units.
     Except for: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist 
pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear 
facility subject to 10 CFR part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production 
and Utilization Facilities''; and pumps meeting the design and 
construction requirements set forth in any relevant military 
specifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ I.e., MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous 
Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended); MIL-P-17881D, ``Pumps, 
Centrifugal, Boiler Feed, (Multi-Stage)'' (as amended); MIL-P-
17840C, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Close-Coupled, Navy Standard (For 
Surface Ship Application)'' (as amended); MIL-P-18682D, ``Pump, 
Centrifugal, Main Condenser Circulating, Naval Shipboard'' (as 
amended); and MIL-P-18472G, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Condensate, Feed 
Booster, Waste Heat Boiler, And Distilling Plant'' (as amended). 
Military specifications and standards are available at http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS.

10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)
    The pump categories subject to the current test procedures are 
referred to as ``general pumps'' in this document. As stated, 
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps are not general pumps.
    DOE also published a final rule establishing energy conservation 
standards applicable to certain classes of general pumps. 81 FR 4368 
(Jan. 26, 2016) (``January 2016 ECS final rule''); see also, 10 CFR 
431.465.
    The January 2016 TP final rule and the January 2016 ECS final rule 
implemented the recommendations of the Commercial and Industrial Pump 
Working Group (``CIPWG'') established through the ASRAC to negotiate 
standards and a test procedure for general pumps. (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-NOC-0039) The CIPWG concluded its negotiations on June 19, 
2014, with a consensus vote to approve a term sheet containing 
recommendations to DOE on appropriate standard levels for general 
pumps, as well as recommendations addressing issues related to the 
metric and test procedure for general pumps (``CIPWG 
recommendations''). (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92) 
Subsequently, ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the CIPWG 
recommendations during a July 7, 2014 webinar. The term sheet 
containing the CIPWG recommendations is available in the CIPWG's 
docket. The CIPWG recommendations included initiation of a separate 
rulemaking for circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 
92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2)
    On February 3, 2016, DOE published a Notice of Intent to Establish 
the Circulator Pumps Working Group to Negotiate a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NOPR'') for Energy Conservation Standards for Circulator 
Pumps to negotiate, if possible, Federal standards and a test procedure 
for circulator pumps and to announce the first public meeting. 81 FR 
5658. The members of the Circulator Pumps Working Group (``CPWG'') were 
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of interested parties and 
expertise, including representatives from efficiency advocacy 
organizations and manufacturers. Additionally, one member from ASRAC 
and one DOE representative were part of the CPWG. Table I.1 lists the 
members of the CPWG and their affiliations.

             Table I.1--ASRAC CPWG Members and Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Member                    Affiliation         Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles White.................  Plumbing-Heating-       PHCC.
                                 Cooling Contractors
                                 Association.
Gabor Lechner.................  Armstrong Pumps, Inc..  Armstrong.
Gary Fernstrom................  California Investor-    CA IOUs.
                                 Owned Utilities.
Joanna Mauer..................  Appliance Standards     ASAP.
                                 Awareness Project.
Joe Hagerman..................  U.S. Department of      DOE.
                                 Energy.
Laura Petrillo-Groh...........  Air-Conditioning,       AHRI.
                                 Heating, and
                                 Refrigeration
                                 Institute.
Lauren Urbanek................  Natural Resources       NRDC.
                                 Defense Council.
Mark Chaffee..................  TACO, Inc.............  Taco.
Mark Handzel..................  Xylem Inc.............  Xylem.
Peter Gaydon..................  Hydraulic Institute...  HI.
Richard Gussert...............  Grundfos Americas       Grundfos.
                                 Corporation.
David Bortolon................  Wilo Inc..............  Wilo.

[[Page 24519]]

 
Russell Pate..................  Rheem Manufacturing     Rheem.
                                 Company.
Don Lanser....................  Nidec Motor             Nidec.
                                 Corporation.
Tom Eckman....................  Northwest Power and     NPCC.
                                 Conservation Council
                                 (ASRAC member).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPWG commenced negotiations at an open meeting on March 29, 
2016, and held six additional meetings to discuss scope, metrics, and 
the test procedure. The CPWG concluded its negotiations for test 
procedure items on September 7, 2016, with a consensus vote to approve 
a term sheet containing recommendations to DOE on scope, metric, and 
the basis of the test procedure (``September 2016 CPWG 
Recommendations''). The term sheet containing these recommendations is 
available in the CPWG docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
58)
    The CPWG continued to meet to address potential energy conservation 
standards for circulator pumps. Those meetings began on November 3-4, 
2016 and concluded on December 1, 2016, with approval of a second term 
sheet (``December 2016 CPWG Recommendations'') containing CPWG 
recommendations related to energy conservation standards, applicable 
test procedure, labeling and certification requirements for circulator 
pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98) ASRAC subsequently 
voted unanimously to approve the September and December 2016 CPWG 
Recommendations (collectively, the ``2016 Term Sheets'') during a 
December meeting. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 91 at p. 2) 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All references in this document to the approved 
recommendations included in 2016 Term Sheets are noted with the 
recommendation number and a citation to the appropriate document in 
the CPWG docket (e.g., Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. #, 
Recommendation #X at p. Y). References to discussions or suggestions 
of the CPWG not found in the 2016 Term Sheets include a citation to 
meeting transcripts and the commenter, if applicable (e.g., Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, [Organization], No. X at p. Y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated June 9, 2017, HI expressed its support for the 
process that DOE initiated regarding circulator pumps and encouraged 
the publishing of a NOPR and a final rule by the end of 2017. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, HI, No.103 at p. 1) In response to an early 
assessment review RFI published September 28, 2020 regarding the 
existing test procedures for certain pumps (85 FR 60734, ``September 
2020 Early Assessment RFI), HI commented that it continues to support 
the recommendations from the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, 
HI, No. 6 at p. 1) In addition, NEEA commented that the CPWG 
recommended adopting test procedures for circulator pumps, which DOE 
should do in the pumps or a separate rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2020-
BT-TP-0032, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8)

C. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will 
not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial 
cost, or maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if 
applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

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

       Table I.2--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings..............   Shipments Analysis.
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis.
                                           Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination.
Technological Feasibility...............   Market and Technology
                                           Assessment.
                                           Screening Analysis.
                                           Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers    Manufacturer Impact
     and Consumers.                        Analysis.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost
                                           Subgroup Analysis.
                                           Shipments Analysis.
    2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings     Markups for Product
     Compared to Increased Cost for the    Price Determination.
     Product.                              Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.

[[Page 24520]]

 
    3. Total Projected Energy Savings...   Shipments Analysis.
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance.   Screening Analysis.
                                           Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of          Manufacturer Impact
     Competition.                          Analysis.
    6. Need for National Energy and        Shipments Analysis.
     Water Conservation.                   National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    7. Other Factors the Secretary         Employment Impact
     Considers Relevant.                   Analysis.
                                           Utility Impact
                                           Analysis.
                                           Emissions Analysis.
                                           Monetization of
                                           Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                           Regulatory Impact
                                           Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to establish the standards for 
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.

II. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Potential Test 
Procedure

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to assist in its evaluation of potential test 
procedures for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps, to ensure that any such 
test procedures would comply with the requirements in EPCA that they be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use 
during a representative average use cycle, without being unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

A. Scope and Definitions

    In the January 2016 TP final rule, DOE adopted a definition for 
pump, as well as definitions for pump categories and other pump 
component- and configuration-related definitions. 10 CFR 431.462. 
Although circulator pumps are a style of pump, DOE did not define 
circulator pump. 81 FR 4086, 4094 (Jan. 25, 2016). In addition, 
although DOE established a definition for inline pumps, the definition 
requires the pump to have a shaft input power greater than 1 hp and 
therefore excludes the SVIL pumps considered in this RFI because SVIL 
pumps have a shaft input power less than 1 hp.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted, an inline pump must have a shaft input power 
greater than or equal to 1 hp and less than or equal to 200 hp at 
BEP and full impeller diameter, in which liquid is discharged 
through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. See 10 CFR 
431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 2016 CPWG recommendations addressed the scope of a 
circulator pumps rulemaking. Specifically, the CPWG recommended that 
the scope of the circulator pumps test procedure and energy 
conservation standards cover clean water pumps (as defined at 10 CFR 
431.462) distributed in commerce with or without a volute \7\ and that 
are one of the following categories: Wet rotor circulator pumps, dry 
rotor close-coupled circulator pumps, and dry rotor mechanically-
coupled circulator pumps. The CPWG also recommended that the scope 
exclude submersible pumps and header pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #1A, 2A and 2B at p. 1-2) The CPWG 
also recommended the following definitions relevant to scope:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Volutes are also sometimes referred to as a ``housing'' or 
``casing.''

    Wet rotor circulator pump means a single stage, rotodynamic, 
close-coupled, wet rotor pump. Examples include, but are not limited 
to, pumps generally referred to in industry as CP1.
    Dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump means a single stage, 
rotodynamic, single-axis flow, close-coupled, dry rotor pump that: 
(1) Has a hydraulic power less than or equal to five horsepower at 
best efficiency point at full impeller diameter, (2) is distributed 
in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) discharges the pumped 
liquid through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft. 
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps generally referred 
to in industry as CP2.
    Dry rotor, three-piece circulator pump means a single stage, 
rotodynamic, single-axis flow, mechanically-coupled, dry rotor pump 
that: (1) Has a hydraulic power less than or equal to five 
horsepower at best efficiency point at full impeller diameter, (2) 
is distributed in commerce with a horizontal motor, and (3) 
discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane 
perpendicular to the shaft. Examples include, but are not limited 
to, pumps generally referred to in industry as CP3.
    Horizontal motor means a motor that requires the motor shaft to 
be in a horizontal position to function as designed under typical 
operating conditions, as specified in manufacturer literature.
    Submersible pump means a pump that is designed to be operated 
with the motor and bare pump fully submerged in the pumped liquid.
    Header pump means a pump that consists of a circulator-less-
volute intended to be installed in an original equipment 
manufacturer (``OEM'') piece of equipment that serves as the volute.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #2B, 3A, and 
3B at p. 2-3)
    DOE notes that the orientation of the motor is used to 
differentiate IL pumps from other pumps. As noted, the definition of IL 
pump excludes pumps that are distributed in commerce with a horizontal 
motor. 10 CFR 431.462. DOE currently defines a ``horizontal motor'' as 
a motor that requires the motor shaft to be in a horizontal position to 
function as designed, as specified in the manufacturer literature. Id.
    The definition of horizontal motor recommended by the CPWG includes 
``under typical operating conditions'' to qualify ``function as 
designed.'' The CPWG stated that this qualifier was added to address 
the potential that a motor would not be covered as a horizontal motor 
if a manufacturer were to advertise its circulator as being able to be 
installed in a non-horizontal orientation under certain conditions, 
such as high operating pressure (i.e., conditions other than typical 
conditions). (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 64 at pp. 75-83) 
The CPWG stated that the requirement to consider motor installation in 
the context of typical operating conditions, as specified in the 
manufacturer literature, would address this potential. (Docket No. 
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 66 at pp. 55-57)
    The definition for submersible pump is consistent with that already 
applicable to pumps in 10 CFR 431.462. The recommended definition for 
header pump is discussed in section II.A of this document.

[[Page 24521]]

    DOE requests comment on the CPWG's recommended definitions for wet 
rotor circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; dry rotor, 
three-piece circulator pump; and horizontal motor. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment regarding whether changes in the market since the 
CPWG's recommendation would affect the recommended definitions and 
scope.
1. Definitions for Circulator Pumps
    In addition to the circulator pump categories discussed in II.A of 
this document, circulator pumps can also be differentiated based on the 
configuration in which they are sold. Certain specific instances of 
this are discussed in sections II.A.1.a and II.A.1.b of this document.
a. Circulators-Less-Volute and Header Pumps
    Some circulator pumps are distributed in commerce as a complete 
assembly with a motor, impeller, and volute, while other circulator 
pumps are distributed in commerce with a motor and impeller, but 
without a volute (herein referred to as ``circulators-less-volute''). 
Some circulators-less-volute are solely intended to be installed in 
other equipment, such as a boiler, using a cast piece in the other 
piece of equipment as the volute, while others can be installed as a 
replacement for a failed circulator pump in an existing system or to be 
newly installed with a paired volute in the field. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 47 at pp. 371-372; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-
0004, No. 70 at p. 98)
    In reviewing the definition of a pump, the CPWG stated that 
circulator pumps distributed in commerce without volutes fall under the 
definition of pump as defined in the January 2016 TP final rule. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 70 at pp. 89-91) Further, the 
CPWG asserted that, if a circulator-less-volute was not subject to any 
adopted test procedure and standards, this could present a loophole 
since a circulator-less-volute and matching volute could easily be 
purchased and installed instead of a compliant circulator pump with a 
volute. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 383-403)
    However, the CPWG discussed that a circulator-less-volute (header 
pump) that is solely intended to be installed in other equipment, uses 
the other equipment as the volute, and does not have a matching volute 
that is separately distributed in commerce would not pose the same 
loophole risk and, furthermore, would be very difficult to test. 
Specifically, the CPWG discussed how circulator manufacturers would not 
have access to or design authority for the volute design. In addition, 
the circulator could not be tested as a standalone circulator because 
the volute would be unable to be removed from the other equipment, and 
there would be no paired volute distributed in commerce with which the 
header pump could be tested. Therefore, such equipment would 
potentially require extensive and burdensome equipment to test 
appropriately. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 413-
416)
    The CPWG recommended excluding circulator pumps that are 
distributed in commerce exclusively to be incorporated into other OEM 
equipment, such as boilers or pool heaters. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 415-416) The CPWG suggested referring to these 
circulator-less-volute pumps that are intended solely for installation 
in another piece of equipment and do not have a paired volute that is 
distributed in commerce as ``header pumps.'' (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 74 at pp. 384-386). Specifically, in the September 2016 
CPWG recommendations, the CPWG recommended to differentiate header 
pumps from other circulator-less-volute pumps by defining header pump 
as a pump that consists of a circulator-less-volute intended to be 
installed in an OEM piece of equipment that serves as the volute, and 
to exclude them from the recommended circulator test procedure and 
standards. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations 
#2B at p. 2)
    DOE requests comment regarding whether the market changes in the 
intervening years since the CPWG's recommendation of a definition for 
``header pump'' warrant modification of that recommended definition.
b. On-Demand Circulator Pumps
    On-demand circulator pumps are designed to maintain hot water 
supply within a temperature range by activating in response to a 
signal, such as user presence. The CPWG recommended that the following 
definition for ``on-demand circulator pumps'' be incorporated as 
necessary:
    ``On-demand circulator pump'' means a circulator pump that is 
distributed in commerce with an integral control that:

     Initiates water circulation based on receiving a signal 
from the action of a user [of a fixture or appliance] or sensing the 
presence of a user of a fixture and cannot initiate water 
circulation based on other inputs, such as water temperature or a 
pre-set schedule.
     Automatically terminates water circulation once hot 
water has reached the pump or desired fixture.
     Does not allow the pump to operate when the temperature 
in the pipe exceeds 104 [deg]F or for more than 5 minutes 
continuously.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Non-Binding Recommendation #1 
at pp. 4-5)
    In addition, the on-demand circulator pump must not be capable of 
operating without the control without physically destructive 
modification of the unit, such as any modification that would violate 
the product's standards listing.
    DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG-recommended definition of 
``on-demand circulator pump'' and whether it is appropriate to retain 
on-demand circulator pumps within the scope of future analysis.
2. Definition of Small Vertical In-Line Pump
    During the course of the negotiations, the CPWG also discussed and 
provided recommendations related to SVIL pumps. As noted, SVIL pumps 
are similar to IL pumps, but have a shaft input power lower than pumps 
included in the scope of the general pumps test procedure. 
Specifically, SVIL pumps are described as IL style pumps with a shaft 
input power of less than 1 hp at BEP at full impeller diameter and are 
distinguished from dry-rotor circulator pumps by having a motor that 
does not have to be configured in a horizontal position. The CPWG found 
that SVIL pumps could serve similar functions as some dry rotor 
circulator pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 66 at p. 11, 
52) Additionally, the CPWG stated that because they serve similar 
functions to some dry rotor circulator pumps, SVIL pumps pose a 
substitution risk and recommended that SVIL pumps be addressed as part 
the circulator pumps rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
66 at p. 27-30) Specifically, the CPWG recommended that SVIL pumps be 
evaluated on the PEICL or PEIVL metric, similar 
to commercial and industrial pumps (``CIP''),\8\ and use the CIP test 
procedure to measure performance, with any additional modifications 
necessary as determined by DOE. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
58 Recommendations #1B at pp. 1-2) Potential test procedures and metric 
for SVIL pumps are discussed further in section II.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Commercial and industrial pumps are referred to as ``general 
pumps'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to distinguish SVIL pumps from dry rotor circulator pumps, 
the

[[Page 24522]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPWG recommended the following definition for SVIL pumps:

    ``Small vertical in-line pump'' means a single stage, single-
axis flow, dry rotor, rotodynamic pump that:
    (1) Has a shaft input power less than 1 horse power at best 
efficiency point at full impeller diameter,
    (2) Is distributed in commerce with a motor that does not have 
to be in a horizontal position to function as designed, and
    (3) Discharges the pumped liquid through a volute in a plane 
perpendicular to the shaft.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #3C at p. 3)
    DOE seeks comment and feedback on the scope and definitions 
recommended by the CPWG, including whether anything has changed in the 
market since the conclusion of the CPWG that would impact the 
recommended scope and definitions for SVIL pumps.
    DOE seeks feedback and information regarding whether it may be 
appropriate to include SVIL pumps in the circulator pumps rulemaking, 
in the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, or in a separate 
rulemaking.
    DOE seeks comment regarding any other topics related to scope and 
definitions for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.

B. Metric for Circulator Pumps

    The CPWG focused on defining a performance-based metric that was 
similar to the pump energy index (``PEI'') metric established in the 
January 2016 TP final rule. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 64 
at pp. 246-247) The CPWG recommended using the PEICIRC 
metric, which would be defined as the pump energy rating (``PER'') for 
the rated circulator pump model (``PERCIRC''), divided by 
the PER for a circulator that is minimally compliant with energy 
conservation standards serving the same hydraulic load 
(``PERCIRC,STD''). (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
58, Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
    The equation for PEICIRC is shown in the equation (1):
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.000
    
Where:

PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (``hp''); and
PERCIRC,STD = pump energy rating for a minimally 
compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #5 at p. 4)
    PERCIRC would be determined as the weighted average 
input power to the circulator motor or controls, if available, of a 
given circulator over a number of specified load points. Due to 
differences in the various control varieties available with circulator 
pumps, the CPWG recommended that each circulator pump control variety 
have unique weights and load points that are used in determining 
PERCIRC. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 
Recommendations #6A and #6B at pp. 4-6) The test points, weights, and 
test methods necessary for calculating PERCIRC for pressure 
controls, temperature controls, manual speed controls, external input 
signal controls, and circulator pumps with no control (i.e., without 
external input signal, manual, pressure, or temperature control) \9\ 
are described in II.C.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed previously in section III.A.5, in this 
document, circulator pumps with no controls are also inclusive of 
other potential control varieties that have a control, but are not 
one of the identified circulator control varieties. DOE refers to 
these as circulator pumps with no controls throughout this document, 
as any circulator pump without one of the defined control varieties 
would be treated as a circulator pump with no controls, regardless 
of whether it is a single-speed circulator or has a control variety 
not defined in this test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PERCIRC,STD would be determined similarly for all 
circulator pumps, regardless of control variety. PERCIRC,STD 
would represent the weighted average input power to a minimally 
compliant circulator pump serving the same hydraulic load. As such, 
PERCIRC,STD would essentially define the minimally compliant 
circulator pump performance, such that the energy conservation standard 
level would always be defined as 1.00, and lower PEICIRC 
values would represent better performance. The CPWG discussed the 
derivation of PERCIRC,STD at length during the CPWG 
negotiations and, ultimately, recommended a standard level that is 
nominally equivalent to a single-speed circulator equipped with an 
electrically commutated motor. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
102 at pp. 53-56; Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 
Recommendations #1 and 2A-D at pp. 1-4)
    The CPWG specified a method for determining PERCIRC,STD 
equivalent to the test method recommended for circulator pumps with no 
controls, with additional procedures necessary to determine the 
minimally compliant overall efficiency at the various test points based 
on the hydraulic performance of the rated circulator pump. (Docket No. 
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendations #2A-D at pp. 1-4) 
However, because PERCIRC,STD would represent the energy 
conservation standard level, DOE would, in a potential future 
circulator pump ECS rulemaking, discuss in detail the derivation of 
PERCIRC,STD for the recommended standard level, as well as 
all of the efficiency levels presented to the CPWG, including 
assessment of the technical feasibility and economic justification for 
any adopted levels. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004)
    DOE requests comment on the CPWG recommendation to adopt 
PEICIRC as the metric to characterize the energy use of 
certain circulator pumps and on the recommended equation for 
PEICIRC, including whether anything in the technology or 
market has changed since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would 
lead to this metric no longer being appropriate.

C. Test Procedure for Circulator Pumps

    There is no current industry test procedure for circulator pumps. 
The September 2016 CPWG Term Sheet contained extensive recommendations 
related to development of a test procedure for circulator pumps. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendations #6-12 at p. 
4-9)
1. Test Methods for Different Categories and Control Varieties
    Many circulator pumps are sold with a variable speed drive and 
controls (i.e., logic or user interface) with various control 
strategies that reduce the required power input at a given flow rate to 
save energy. The ability of a circulator pump to operate at different 
speeds and the control logic of each control variety will impact the 
energy use for that circulator pump model in the field. To reflect this 
variation in energy consumption, the CPWG

[[Page 24523]]

recommended that DOE establish different test methods for each control 
variety in the circulator pump test procedure in order to best 
represent the different energy use patterns exhibited by each control 
variety. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #9 
at p. 7)
a. Control Definitions
    The CPWG recommended definitions for the following control 
varieties for circulator pumps: manual speed control, pressure control, 
temperature control, and external input signal control. The definitions 
of these pump control varieties recommended by the CPWG are as follows:

     Manual speed control means a control (variable speed 
drive and user interface) that adjusts the speed of a driver based 
on manual user input.
     Pressure control means a control (variable speed drive 
and integrated logic) that automatically adjusts the speed of the 
driver in response to pressure.
     Temperature control means a control (variable speed 
drive and integrated logic) that automatically adjusts the speed of 
the driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in 
response to temperature.
     External input signal control means a variable speed 
drive that adjusts the speed of the driver in response to an input 
signal from an external logic and/or user interface.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58, Recommendation #4 at p. 4)
    The CPWG did not recommend a definition for adaptive pressure 
controls, although it did recommend a separate test procedure for them, 
because, as discussed by the CPWG, adaptive pressure controls are able 
to adjust the slope of the control curve to fit the system needs 
through an ongoing learning process inherent in the software. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 45-46) The test procedure for 
circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls is discussed further 
in section II.C.1.c.
    DOE requests comment on the recommended definitions for manual 
speed control, pressure control, adaptive pressure control, temperature 
control, and external input signal control. Additionally, DOE requests 
comment on a possible definition for adaptive pressure control.
    DOE requests comment on whether any additional control variety is 
now currently on the market and if it should be considered in this 
rulemaking.
b. Reference Curve
    All recommended test methods for circulator control varieties, 
which involve variable speed control of the circulator pump, specify 
test points with respect to a representative system curve. That is, for 
circulator pumps with manual speed controls, pressure controls, 
temperature controls, or external input signal controls, a reference 
system curve is implemented to be representative of the speed reduction 
that is possible in a typical system to provide representative results. 
For circulator pumps with no controls, no reference system is required 
as measurements are taken at various test points along a pump curve at 
maximum speed only.
    Such a reference system curve describes the relationship between 
the head and the flow at each test point in a typical system. 
Additionally, a reference system curve that is representative of a 
typical system in which circulator pumps are installed may also allow 
for the differentiation of control varieties to be reflected in the 
resulting ratings. The CPWG recommended that DOE incorporate the same 
reference system curve that is used in the January 2016 TP final rule. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6-
7) This curve is a quadratic reference system curve, which intersects 
the BEP and has a static offset of 20 percent of BEP head, as shown in 
equation (2):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.001

Where:

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

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #8 at pp. 6-
7)

    DOE requests comment on whether the CPWG-recommended reference 
system curve shape, including the static offset, is reasonable for 
circulator pumps.
c. Pressure Control
    Pressure controls are a variety of circulator pump controls in 
which the variable speed drive is automatically adjusted based on the 
pressure in the system. For example, such controls are common in multi-
zone hydronic heating applications in which the flow and speed are 
adjusted in response to zones opening or closing. The CPWG recommended 
that for all circulator pumps distributed in commerce with pressure 
controls, the PERCIRC should be calculated as the weighted 
average input power at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, with 
unique weights shown in equation (3):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.002

Where:

PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
wi = weight of 0.05, 0.40, 0.40, and 0.15 at test points 
of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, respectively;
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test point i 
(hp); and

[[Page 24524]]

i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
flow at BEP.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #6A at pp. 4-
5 and #7 at p.6)

    The CPWG recommended testing circulator pumps with pressure 
controls using automatic speed adjustment based on the factory selected 
control setting, manual speed adjustment, or simulated pressure signal 
to trace a factory selected control curve setting that will achieve the 
test point flow rates with a head at or above the reference system 
curve. The CPWG also recommended that if a circulator pump with 
pressure controls is tested with automatic speed adjustment, that the 
pump can be manually adjusted to achieve 100 percent BEP flow and head 
point at maximum speed. Finally, for circulator pumps with adaptive 
pressure controls, the CPWG recommended that testing be conducted at 
the minimum thresholds for head based on manufacturer literature and 
through manual speed adjustment to achieve the test point flow rates 
with head values at or above the reference curve. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
    DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test points, 
and weights for circulator pumps with pressure controls, including 
circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls 
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different 
approach.
d. Temperature Control
    Temperature controls are controls that automatically adjust the 
speed of the variable speed drive in the pump continuously over the 
operating speed range to respond to a change in temperature of the 
operating fluid in the system. Typically, temperature controls are 
designed to achieve a fixed temperature differential between the supply 
and return lines and adjust the flow rate through the system by 
adjusting the speed to achieve the specified temperature differential. 
Similar to pressure controls, temperature controls are also designed 
primarily for hydronic heating applications. However, temperature 
controls may be installed in single- or multi-zone systems and will 
optimize the circulator pump's operating speed to provide the necessary 
flow rate based on the heat load in each zone. As there are no minimum 
head requirements inherent to the circulator pump control, temperature 
controls may have potential to use less energy than pressure-based 
controls to serve a given load.
    The CPWG recommended that for circulator pumps distributed in 
commerce with temperature controls, that PERCIRC should be 
calculated the same way and with the same weights as for pressure 
controls, as shown in Equation 3. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, 
No. 58 Recommendations #6A at pp. 4-5 and #7 at p. 6) The CPWG also 
recommended that circulator pumps with temperature controls be tested 
based on manual speed adjustment or with a simulated temperature signal 
to activate the temperature-based control to achieve the test point 
flow rates with a head at or above the reference curve. (Docket No. 
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
    DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test points, 
and weights for circulator pumps with temperature controls. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market 
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to 
warrant a different approach.
e. Manual Speed Control
    Manual speed controls are controls in which the speed of the pump 
is adjusted manually, typically to one of several pre-set speeds, by a 
dial or a control panel to fit the demand of the system within which it 
is installed. The CPWG discussed how circulator pumps installed with 
manual speed controls are typically only adjusted one time upon 
installation, if at all, and will operate at that set speed as if it 
were a single-speed circulator pump. That is, many manual speed control 
circulator pumps operate at full speed, while a portion of them may be 
set to a medium or low speed to suit the needs of the systems. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 65 at pp. 131-133) Therefore, the CPWG 
recommended to test circulator pumps with manual speed controls both: 
(1) Along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the test 
point flow rates for the maximum speed input power values, and (2) 
based on manual speed adjustment to the lowest speed setting that will 
achieve a head at or above the reference curve at the test point flow 
rate for the reduced speed input power values. (Docket No. EERE-2016-
BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7)
    To accomplish a single rating representative of the ``average'' 
energy use of a manual speed circulator, the CPWG recommended that for 
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with manual speed controls, 
the PERCIRC should be calculated as the weighted average of 
Pin,max (the weighted average input power at specific load 
points across the maximum speed curve) and Pin,reduced (the 
weighted average input power at specific load points at reduced speed), 
but recommended separate load points and speed factors, as shown in 
equations (4), (5), and (6):

PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)

Where:

PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.75;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum 
rotating speed of the circulator (hp), as specified in equation (5);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.25; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced 
rotating speed of the circulator (hp), as specified in equation (6).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.003

Where:

Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum speed 
of the circulator (hp);
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at maximum rotating 
speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
flow at BEP.

[[Page 24525]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.004

Where:

Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced 
speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at reduced 
rotating speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75 percent of the flow at 
BEP of max speed and head values at or above the reference curve.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #6B and 7 at 
pp. 5-6)

    DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method and the 
unique test points, weights, and speed factors for circulator pumps 
distributed in commerce with manual speed controls. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls 
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different 
approach.
f. External Input Signal Control
    The final control variety considered by the CPWG was external input 
signal controls. External input signal controls are controls in which 
the device that responds to the stimulus, or the primary control logic, 
is external to the circulator pump. Unlike pressure and temperature 
controls, the logic that defines how the circulator pump operating 
speed is selected in response to some measured variable (e.g., 
temperature, pressure, or boiler fire rate) is not part of the 
circulator, as distributed in commerce. Instead, it is part of another 
control system, such as a building management system or a boiler 
control system. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 76-84)
    For circulator pumps that have only an external input signal 
control, the CPWG recommended testing along the reference control curve 
to achieve the test point flow rates with a head at or above the 
reference system curve with the same weights as temperature and 
pressure controls. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 
Recommendations #9 at pp. 7-8).
    The CPWG recommended that, to ensure the rating would be 
representative of the performance of such pumps, the external input 
signal control must be the only control mode on the pump, and the pump 
must not be able to operate without an external input signal. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #9 at pp. 7-8)
    The CPWG asserted that if external input signal control is one of 
multiple options available on a circulator pump, or the pump is able to 
operate without an external input signal, it is less likely that the 
external input signal control option would be utilized in the field. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 72 at pp. 217-218). Therefore, 
to prevent the possibility of artificially improving the 
PEICIRC rating through the addition of an external input 
signal control mode, the CPWG recommended testing circulator pumps with 
external input signal controls similar to manual speed controls. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 47 at p. 480) The CPWG 
recommended testing a circulator pump sold with external input signal 
controls and another control variety with a simulated signal both: (1) 
Along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the test point 
flow rates for the maximum speed input power values, and (2) with speed 
adjustment using a simulated signal to the lowest speed setting that 
will achieve a head at or above the reference curve at the test point 
flow rates for the reduced speed input power values. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at pp. 7-8)
    As such, the CPWG recommended that for circulator pumps distributed 
in commerce with external input signal controls and at least one other 
control variety, the PERCIRC should be calculated as the 
weighted average of Pin,max (the weighted average input 
power at specific load points across the maximum speed curve) and 
Pin,reduced (the weighted average input power at specific 
load points at reduced speed), similar to circulator pumps with manual 
speed control, but with a different speed factor, as shown in equations 
(7), (8), and (9):

PERCIRC = zmax(Pinmax) + zreduced (Pinreduced)

Where:

PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
zmax = speed factor weight of 0.30;
Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum 
rotating speed of the circulator pump (hp);
zreduced = speed factor weight of 0.70; and
Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced 
rotating speed of the circulator (hp).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.005

Where:

Pin_max = weighted average input power at maximum speed 
of the circulator (hp);
wi_max = 0.25;
Pin,i_max = power input to the driver at maximum rotating 
speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
flow at BEP.

[[Page 24526]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.006

Where:

Pin_reduced = weighted average input power at reduced 
speeds of the circulator (hp);
wi_reduced = 0.3333;
Pin,i_reduced = power input to the driver at reduced 
rotating speed of the circulator at each test point i (hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, and 75 percent of the flow at 
BEP of max speed and head values at or above the reference curve.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #6B and #7 at 
pp. 5-6)

    The CPWG recommended the speed factors of 0.30 at maximum speed and 
0.70 at reduced speed in order to produce a rating on an equivalent 
basis as that of a circulator pump with a typical differential pressure 
control. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 at p. 6). In 
addition, these speed factors would represent the likelihood that a 
circulator pump with an external input signal control is selected to 
operate with that external input signal control, and whether the signal 
it receives results in the circulator pump reducing speed.
    DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method for 
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with only external input 
signal controls, as well as for those distributed in commerce with 
external input signal controls in addition to other control varieties. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market 
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to 
warrant a different approach.
g. No Controls
    For circulator pumps with no controls, the CPWG recommended testing 
the pump along the maximum speed circulator pump curve to achieve the 
test point flow rates of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow. 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #9 at p. 7) 
The CPWG also recommended that for circulator pumps distributed in 
commerce with no controls, PERCIRC should be calculated with 
the unique weights and test points as shown in equation (10):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.007

Where:

PERCIRC = circulator pump energy rating (hp);
wi = 0.25;
Pin,i = power input to the driver at each test point i 
(hp); and
i = test point(s), defined as 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the 
flow at BEP.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendation #6A at pp. 4-
5)

    The CPWG recommended the 0.25 weights at each test point (i.e., 25, 
50, 75, and 100 percent of the flow at BEP) in order to account for the 
variety of systems and operating points a single-speed circulator may 
encounter. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 70 at pp. 172-173)
    DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test methods, test 
points, and weights for circulator pumps with no controls.
2. Updates to Industry Standards
    As part of the September 2016 CPWG recommendations, the CPWG 
recommended that all test points be tested on a wire-to-water basis, in 
accordance with HI 40.6-2014, with minor modifications. The CPWG also 
recommended that if an updated version of HI 40.6 is published prior to 
publication of the test procedure final rule, DOE should review and 
incorporate the updated version. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 
58, Recommendation #10 at p. 8-9)
    In 2016, HI published an updated industry standard, HI 40.6-2016, 
``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-2016''). 
This update aligned the definitions and procedures described in HI 
Standard 40.6 with the DOE test procedure for pumps published in the 
January 2016 TP final rule. Appendix A to subpart Y to 10 CFR part 431. 
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI for pumps, DOE requested 
comment on the potential effect of incorporating HI 40.6-2016 by 
reference as the DOE test procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734, 60737. 
Grundfos, NEEA, and HI commented that HI expects to publish another 
standard update in 2021 (``HI 40.6-2021'') and urged DOE to incorporate 
by reference HI 40.6-2021 rather than HI 40.6-2016 (Grundfos, Docket 
No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No. 07 at p. 2; NEEA, Docket No. EERE-2020-
BT-TP-0032, No. 08 at p. 6; HI, Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No. 06 
at pp. 1, 3). HI specified that HI 40.6-2016 included updates to match 
DOE's test procedure for pumps, and that HI 40.6-2021 will further 
include editorial revisions and added circulator pump testing, and also 
would not impact measured values, burden, or representativeness. (HI, 
Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, No.06 at p. 3)
    At the time of this RFI publication, HI 40.6-2021 was not yet 
available. DOE expects to review and consider this updated industry 
standard when available.
    DOE seeks comment and feedback on whether HI 40.6-2016 or HI 40.6-
2021 is an appropriate test method for conducting wire-to-water testing 
of circulator pumps, as recommended by the CPWG. In addition, DOE seeks 
comment on whether the modifications in HI 40.6-2016 and/or HI 40.6-
2021 adequately capture the CPWG recommended modifications in 
Recommendation #10.
    Additionally, CPWG recommended several specifications for the 
circulator pump test procedure that are not included in either HI 40.6-
2014 or HI 40.6-2016, including test arrangements for twin-head 
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute:


[[Page 24527]]


     To test twin head circulator pumps, one of the two 
impeller assemblies is to be incorporated into an adequate, single 
impeller volute and casing. An adequate, single impeller volute and 
casing means a volute and casing for which any physical and 
functional characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy 
efficiency are essentially identical to their corresponding 
characteristics for a single impeller in the twin head circulator 
volute and casing.
     To test circulators-less-volute, pair the circulator-
less-volute with specific volute(s) with which the circulator is 
advertised to be paired, based on manufacturer's literature, to 
determine the PEI rating for each circulator-less-volute and volute 
combination.

(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 58 Recommendations #11 and #12 
at p. 9)

    DOE seeks comment on whether the recommendations for twin-head 
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute have been adequately 
addressed in HI 40.6-2021.

D. Metric and Test Procedure for SVIL Pumps

    The CPWG recommended evaluating SVIL pumps using the constant load 
pump energy index (PEICL) or variable load pump energy index 
(PEIVL) metric, similar to general pumps, and using the 
general pump test procedure to measure performance, with any additional 
modifications necessary as determined by DOE. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-
STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendations #1B at pp. 1-2) In the January 2016 TP 
final rule, DOE adopted a metric of PEICL for pumps 
distributed in commerce as bare pumps or as bare pumps with a motor 
(i.e., pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls) and a 
metric of PEIVL for pumps sold with either continuous or 
non-continuous controls. 81 FR 4086, 4150-4152 (Jan. 25, 2016)
    DOE identified the size and characteristics of the motor with which 
the SVIL pumps are rated as the primary difference between SVIL and IL 
pumps that affects the application of the DOE general pumps test 
procedure. Specifically, the general pumps test procedure establishes 
that testing-based methods are applicable to all pump configurations, 
while calculation-based methods are applicable only to (1) pumps sold 
with neither a motor nor controls (i.e., a bare pump), (2) pumps sold 
with motors that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for 
electric motors, as defined pursuant to 10 CFR 431.25(g), (with or 
without continuous controls), and (3) pumps sold with submersible 
motors (with or without continuous controls). This is because the 
calculation-based test methods presume motor efficiency and motor or 
motor and drive loss values based on the performance characteristics of 
motors that are subject to DOE's current energy conservation standards 
for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25. Table 1 to appendix A to subpart 
Y of 10 CFR part 431.
    SVIL pumps are often distributed in commerce with motors that are 
either subject to DOE's electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or 
DOE's small electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.466. Therefore, 
the calculation-based test methods may need to be modified to reference 
DOE's electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.25 or DOE's small 
electric motor regulations at 10 CFR 431.446, as applicable.
    DOE also notes that the general pumps test procedure includes the 
requirement that all pumps sold with single-phase motors be rated as 
bare pumps. Table 1 to appendix A to subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431. SVIL 
pumps sold with single-phase motors could instead be rated to reflect 
the performance of that single-phase motor, either through the testing 
or calculation-based methods.
    In addition, the general pumps test procedure relies on nominal 
motor losses to calculate the PERSTD and PERCL 
for the calculation-based method and nominal motor and drive losses to 
calculate PERVL. Both the motor and combined motor and drive 
loss curves were developed for the general pumps test procedure based 
on data from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
and from manufacturers of motors and drives, as well as data from DOE's 
own testing, for motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp gathered during the 
general pumps test procedure rulemaking. Since these losses were based 
on data for motors and drives from 1 to 250 hp, the nominal motor 
losses derived for the general pumps test procedure may not be 
appropriate for SVIL pumps. DOE researched typical losses for motors 
and combined motor and drive assemblies for motors that were less than 
1 hp. Based on the information DOE received, the part load loss curves, 
or the variation in efficiency as a function of load, does not vary 
significantly between 1 hp motors and drives and motors and drives that 
are less than 1 hp.
    DOE requests comment on the recommendation to test SVIL pumps with 
the test methods in the general pumps test procedure and additional 
provisions to account for the differences in size and characteristics 
of SVIL pump motors. In particular, DOE requests comment on the 
potential extension of the nominal full load motor efficiency values to 
reference DOE's small electric motor regulations, including certain 
single-phase motors, and the need for an exception for SVIL pumps so 
that those sold with single-phase motors do not have to be rated as 
bare pumps.
    DOE also requests comment on the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold with 
single-phase versus three-phase motors, and the prevalence of SVIL 
pumps sold with motors not covered by DOE's small electric motors and 
electric motors energy conservation standards for either single- or 
three-phase motors.
    DOE also requests comment on whether the equations used to 
establish the part load motor and drive losses in the general pumps 
test procedure are appropriate for SVIL pumps under one horsepower. If 
inappropriate, DOE requests data supporting the generation of 
alternative loss curves.

III. Request for Information and Comments Pertaining to Energy 
Conservation Standards

    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to 
inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to 
whether the Department should proceed with an energy conservation 
standards rulemaking. In the following sections, DOE has identified a 
variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of 
the technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for 
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps may be warranted.
    DOE seeks comment on whether establishing a standard for circulator 
pumps and SVIL pumps would be cost-effective, economically justified, 
technologically feasible, or would result in a significant savings of 
energy.
    For circulator pumps, the CPWG reached agreement on the 
methodology, data sources, and assumptions required to conduct the 
analyses and reach consensus on a recommended standard level. 
Therefore, DOE is requesting comment only on specific inputs to the 
analyses that may need to be updated due to technological or market 
changes since the CPWG proceedings. However, because the CPWG did not 
analyze SVIL pumps, DOE is requesting comment on several of the 
associated inputs to the analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the circulator pumps 
and SVIL pumps industry that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout 
the

[[Page 24528]]

rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information 
to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE 
identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses 
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy 
efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for 
efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of circulator 
pumps. DOE also reviews product literature, industry publications, and 
company websites. Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews 
with manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and 
available technologies for circulator pumps.
1. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of 
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 
making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors 
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE 
deems appropriate. (Id.)
    For circulator pumps, there are no current energy conservation 
standards and, thus, no equipment classes. However, the 2016 Term 
Sheets contained a recommendation related to establishing equipment 
classes for circulator pumps. Specifically, ``Recommendation #1'' of 
the December 2016 CPWG Recommendations suggests grouping all circulator 
pumps into a single equipment class, though with numerical energy 
conservation standard values that vary as a function of hydraulic 
output power. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation 
at p.1)
    DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG recommendation to include 
all circulator pumps within a single equipment class, especially 
regarding interim market changes since the recommendation that may 
warrant changes to that recommendation. DOE additionally seeks comment 
regarding whether the same recommendations should apply to SVIL pumps.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new energy conservation 
standards, DOE uses information about existing and past technology 
options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that 
manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of energy 
conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. An initial list of those options appears in 
Table III.1 of this document. Each technology option is then described 
separately in the sections.

     Table III.1--Potential Technology Options for Circulator Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Hydraulic Design
Improved Motor Efficiency
Ability to Reduce Speed
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Improved Hydraulic Design
    The performance characteristics of a pump, such as flow, head, and 
efficiency, are influenced by the pump's hydraulic design. For purposes 
of DOE's analysis, ``hydraulic design'' is a broad term used to 
describe the system design of the wetted components of a pump. Although 
hydraulic design focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of 
the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices 
related to bearings, seals, and other ancillary components.
    Impeller and volute/casing geometries, clearances, and associated 
components can be redesigned to a higher efficiency (at the same flow 
and head) using a combination of historical best practices and modern 
computer-aided design (CAD) and analysis methods. The wide availability 
of modern CAD packages and techniques now enables pump designers to 
more quickly reach designs with improved vane shapes, flow paths, and 
cutwater designs, all of which work to improve the efficiency of the 
pump. In confidential interviews, manufacturers indicated that the 
potential for additional efficiency improvements from improved 
hydraulic design were fairly small.
b. Improved Motor Efficiency
    Different varieties (or constructions) of a motor have different 
achievable efficiencies. Two general motor constructions are present in 
the circulator pump market: Induction motors, and electronically 
commutated motors (ECMs). Induction motors can have one of two 
configurations: Single-phase and three-phase. Single-phase induction 
motors may be further categorized to include split phase, capacitor-
start induction-run (CSIR), capacitor-start capacitor-run (CSCR), and 
permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors.
    The majority of circulator pumps currently available on the market 
use induction motors. The efficiency of an induction motor can be 
increased by redesigning the motor to reduce slip losses between the 
rotor and stator components, as well as reducing mechanical losses at 
seals and bearings. ECMs are generally more efficient than induction 
motors because their construction minimizes slip losses between the 
rotor and stator components. Unlike induction motors, ECMs require an 
electronic drive to function. This electronic drive consumes 
electricity, and variations in drive losses and mechanical designs lead 
to a range of ECM efficiencies.
    The performance standard for circulator pumps is based upon wire-
to-water efficiency, which is defined as the hydraulic output power of 
a circulator divided by its line input power. Wire-to-water efficiency 
is commonly expressed as a percentage. The achievable wire-to-water 
efficiency of circulator pumps is influenced by both hydraulic 
efficiency and motor efficiency. DOE assessed the range of attainable 
wire-to-water efficiencies for circulator pumps with induction motors, 
and circulator pumps with ECMs, over a range of hydraulic power 
outputs. Because circulator pump efficiency is measured on a wire-to-
water basis, it is difficult to fully separate differences due to motor 
efficiency from those due to hydraulic efficiency. In redesigning a 
pump model to attain greater efficiency levels, manufacturers would 
likely consider both hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency. 
However, manufacturers indicated in interviews that the energy savings 
potential of improving hydraulic efficiency is small compared to that 
of improving motor efficiency. Higher motor capacities are generally 
required for higher hydraulic power outputs, and as motor capacity 
increases, the attainable efficiency of the motor at full load also 
increases. Higher horsepower motors also operate close to their peak 
efficiency for a wider range of loading conditions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. DOE Building Technologies Office. Energy Savings 
Potential and Opportunities for High-Efficiency Electric Motors in 
Residential and Commercial Equipment. December 2013. Prepared for 
the DOE by Navigant Consulting. p. 4. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/Motor%20Energy%20Savings%20Potential%20Report%202013-12-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Circulator pumps manufacturers manufacture motors in-house or 
purchase complete or partial motors from motor manufacturers and/or 
distributors. As a result, manufacturers may select an entirely 
different motor,

[[Page 24529]]

or redesign an existing motor in order to improve a pump's motor 
efficiency.
c. Ability To Operate at Reduced Speeds
    Circulator pumps with the variable speed capability can reduce 
their energy consumption by reducing pump speed to match load 
requirements. As discussed in Section II.B, the PERCIRC 
metric is a weighted average of input powers at each test point 
relative to BEP flow. The circulator pumps test procedure agreed to by 
the CPWG allows: PERCIRC values for multi- and variable-
speed circulator pumps to be calculated as the weighted average of 
input powers at full speed BEP flow, and reduced speed at flow points 
less than BEP and PERCIRC for single-speed pumps to be 
calculated based only on input power at full speed. Due to pump 
affinity laws, variable-speed circulator pumps will achieve reduced 
power consumption at flow points less than BEP by reducing their 
rotational speed to more closely match required system head. As such, 
the PERCIRC metric grants benefits on circulator pumps 
capable of variable speed operation.
    Specifically, the pump affinity laws describe the relationship of 
pump operating speed, flow rate, head, and hydraulic power as shown in 
Equations (11), (12), and (13).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.010

Where:

Q1 and Q2 = volumetric flow rate at two operating points
H1 and H2 = pump total head at two operating points
N1 and N2 = pump rotational speed at two operating points
P1 and P2 = pump hydraulic power at two operating points

    This means that a pump operating at half speed will provide one 
half of the pump's full-speed flow and one eighth of the pump's full-
speed power.\11\ However, pump affinity laws do not account for changes 
in hydraulic and motor efficiency that may occur as a pump's rotational 
speed is reduced. Typically, hydraulic efficiency and motor efficiency 
will be reduced at lower operating speeds. Consequently, at reduced 
speeds, power consumption is not reduced as drastically as hydraulic 
output power. Even so, the efficiency losses at low-speed operation are 
typically outweighed by the exponential reduction in hydraulic output 
power at low-speed operation; this results in a lower input power at 
low speed operation at flow points lower than BEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A discussion of reduced-speed pump dynamics is available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Circulator speed controls may be discrete or continuous, as well as 
manual or automatic. Circulator pumps with discrete speed controls vary 
the pump's rotational speed in a step-wise manner. Discrete controls 
are found mostly on circulator pumps with induction motors, and have 
several speed settings that are can be used to allow contractors 
greater installation flexibility with a single circulator model. For 
these circulator pumps, the pump's speed is set manually with a dial or 
buttons by the installer or user and operate at a constant speed once 
the installation is complete.
    Circulator pumps equipped with automatic speed controls can adjust 
the circulator's rotational speed based on a signal from differential 
pressure or temperature sensors, or an external input signal from a 
boiler. The variable frequency drives required for ECMs makes them 
fairly amenable to the addition of variable speed control logic. 
Currently, the vast majority of circulator pumps with automatic 
continuously variable speed controls also have ECM motors. However, 
some circulator models with induction motors also come equipped with 
automatic continuous variable speed controls. Automatic controls can 
reduce energy consumption either by allowing circulator speed to 
dynamically respond to changes in system conditions or simply by 
reducing speed to a single value optimal for the specific application. 
Automatic controls can be broadly categorized into two groups: 
Pressure-based controls, and temperature-based controls.
    Pressure-based controls vary the circulator speed based on changes 
in the system pressure. These pressure changes are typically induced by 
a thermostatically controlled zone valve that monitors the space 
temperature in different zones and calls for heat (i.e., opens the 
valve) when the space/zone temperature is below the set-point, similar 
to a thermostat. In this type of control, a pressure sensor internal to 
the circulator determines the amount of pressure in the system and 
adjusts the circulator speed to achieve the desired system pressure.
    Temperature-based controls monitor the supply and return 
temperature to the circulator and modulate the circulator speed to 
maintain a fixed temperature drop across the system. Circulator pumps 
with temperature-based controls are able to serve the heat

[[Page 24530]]

loads of a conditioned space at a lower speed, and therefore lower 
input power, than those with differential pressure controls. This is 
because they can account for the differential temperature between the 
space and supplied hot water, delivering a constant BTU/hr load to the 
space when less heat is needed even in a given zone or zones.
    DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table III.1 
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of circulator pumps as measured 
according to the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
that are currently available for each technology option.
    DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table III.1 
regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with 
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, 
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation 
issues, etc.).
    DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should 
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may 
impact product features or consumer utility.

B. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:

    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will 
not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it 
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial 
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 
market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, 
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as 
equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it 
will not be considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined 
that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or 
safety, it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b)
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five screening 
criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology 
options listed in Table III.1 with respect to circulator pumps. 
Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria 
would affect any other technology options not already identified in 
this document with respect to their potential use in circulator pumps.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of circulator pumps. There 
are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: The selection 
of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations 
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE 
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and 
payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill'' 
levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency 
levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in 
cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level 
currently available on the market).
    Although DOE has not developed a formal engineering analysis, DOE 
supported the CPWG by providing some engineering-like analysis based on 
the efficiency-level approach. The analysis was presented over a series 
of working sessions, transcripts and accompanying material for which is 
available in the rulemaking docket. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004)
    For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model 
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common 
or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one 
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and 
provides basic consumer utility.
    DOE requests feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency levels for 
DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether to establish 
energy conservation standards for these products.
    DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels 
for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently in 
place or for the

[[Page 24531]]

contemplated combined equipment classes, as discussed in section 
III.A.1 of this document. For newly analyzed equipment classes, DOE 
requests energy use data to characterize the baseline efficiency level.
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE 
also defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the theoretical 
maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are 
incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE would 
only include those that are compatible with each other that when 
combined would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency. 
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially 
available because it is not economically feasible.
    DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency levels 
are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential 
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for circulator 
pumps--and if not, why not.
    DOE also requests feedback on which maximum efficiencies are 
representative of those for the other circulator pumps not included 
within the scope of the Term Sheets. If the range of possible 
efficiencies is different for such other equipment, what alternative 
approaches should DOE consider using for those equipment classes and 
why?
    DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at 
a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those 
levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to 
whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of 
design options.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the 
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer 
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer 
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The 
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The 
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer 
production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency products for the analyzed equipment 
classes.
    DOE requests feedback on whether, and if so how, manufacturers 
would incorporate the technology options listed in Table III.1 to 
increase energy efficiency in circulator pumps beyond the baseline. 
This includes information in which manufacturers would incorporate the 
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of 
products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy 
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur 
otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any 
potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to 
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer 
demand.
    DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with 
incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests 
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be 
applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment classes.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce.
    DOE requests feedback on what manufacturer markups are appropriate 
for non-built-in and built-in products, respectively.

D. Markups Analysis

    DOE derives customer prices by applying a multiplier called a 
``markup'' to the MSP. In deriving markups, DOE determines the major 
distribution channels for product sales, the markup associated with 
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and 
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline products 
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency products (``incremental 
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the 
products are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and 
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in 
generating end-user price inputs for the LCC and PBP analyses and the 
national impact analysis (``NIA'').
    During the CPWG meetings, the CPWG identified distribution channels 
for circulator pumps and estimated their respective shares of shipments 
by sector (residential and commercial), based on manufacturer feedback 
(Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 49 at p. 51), as shown in Table 
III.2:

   Table III.2--Circulator Pumps Distribution Channels and Respective
                              Market Shares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Residential     Commercial
       Channel: From manufacturer            shipments       shipments
                                             share (%)       share (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Rep [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End    ..............              37
 User...................................

[[Page 24532]]

 
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr]                   73              36
 Contractor [rarr] End User.............
Distributor [rarr] End User.............  ..............               2
Sales Rep [rarr] Distributor [rarr] End                2  ..............
 User...................................
OEM [rarr] Contractor [rarr] End User...              12              12
OEM [rarr] Distributor [rarr] Contractor              13              13
 [rarr] End User........................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             100             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information on whether there have been market changes 
since the CPWG that would affect the distribution channels and the 
percentage of circulator pump shipments in each channel and sector, as 
shown in Table III.2, and if so, how such market changes would affect 
the circulator pump distribution channels. DOE also requests 
information on whether the same distribution channels and associated 
breakdowns across sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if not, DOE 
requests relevant data on the SVIL distribution channels and their 
market shares.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how products are used by consumers, and thereby 
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. DOE will base the energy consumption of circulator pumps 
and SVIL pumps on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by 
the DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is 
meant to represent typical energy consumption in the field.
1. Consumer Samples and Market Breakdowns
    To estimate the energy use of products in field operating 
conditions, DOE typically develops consumer samples that are 
representative of installation and operating characteristics of how 
such products are used in the field, as well as distributions of annual 
energy use by application and market segment. According to manufacturer 
feedback, there are two main applications for circulator pumps: 
Hydronic heating and hot water recirculation. DOE estimated the market 
share of these two applications based on manufacturer-provided 
circulator pump shipments data for 2015, as well as the market 
distribution of circulator pumps in the residential and commercial 
sectors based on the horsepower ratings of the shipments data and 
industry expert input.
    To develop consumer samples, the CPWG relied on the Energy 
Information Administration's (EIA) 2009 residential energy consumption 
survey (RECS) and the 2012 commercial buildings energy consumption 
survey (CBECS), for the residential and commercial sectors, 
respectively. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 46 at p. 158) In a 
potential energy conservation standards rulemaking for circulator pumps 
and SVIL pumps, DOE may utilize the most current versions of the RECS 
and CBECS consumer samples, currently the 2015 RECS and the upcoming 
2018 CBECS.
    DOE requests data and information on whether the breakdowns of 
circulator pumps by sector and application have changed since the CPWG 
proceedings, and if so, how. DOE also requests information on the 
market applications of SVIL pumps and how those are broken down by 
sector.
    As discussed in section II.A.1.b of this document, the CPWG 
recommended a definition for ``on-demand circulator pumps''. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Non-Binding Recommendation #1 at pp. 
4-5) In order to consider analyzing on-demand circulator pumps, DOE 
requires information to characterize their market size. The CPWG 
reported that on-demand circulator pumps comprise 5 percent of the hot 
water recirculation market. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 46 
at p. 168)
    DOE requests feedback on whether there have been market changes 
since the CPWG meetings that would warrant a different estimate of the 
fraction of circulator pumps sold with on-demand controls, and if so, 
what that fraction is.
2. Operating Hours
    To develop annual energy use estimates, the CPWG reviewed the 
operating hours of circulator pumps by sector (residential and 
commercial) and application (hydronic heating and hot water 
recirculation). For hydronic heating applications in the residential 
sector, operating hours per year (``HPY'') were estimated based on two 
field metering studies: A 2015 Vermont study and a 2012-2013 metering 
study in Ithaca, NY.\12\ Based on these metering studies, the CPWG 
suggested establishing a relationship between residential sector 
heating degree days (``HDDs'') and circulator pump HPY to develop 
operating hour estimates for the hydronic heating application. For the 
residential sector, this scaling factor was 0.33 HPY/HDD. (Docket No. 
EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 54, 108). For the commercial 
sector, the CPWG recommended a scaling factor of 0.45 HPY/HDD. (Docket 
No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 122-123). These scaling 
factors were used to develop distributions of circulator pump operating 
hours across the consumer samples. The weighted average HPY for the 
hydronic heating application were estimated at approximately 1,970 and 
2,200 for the residential and commercial sector, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For more information on the Ithaca, NY study, see https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60200.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For circulator pumps used in hot water recirculation applications, 
the CPWG agreed to HPY estimates based on their associated control 
types (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 60 at p. 74), as shown in 
Table III.3.

[[Page 24533]]



                     Table III.3--Circulator Pump Operating Hours in Hot Water Recirculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fraction of
           Control type                   Sector           consumers          HPY                 Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Control.......................  Residential........             50%           8,760  Constant Operation.
                                   Commercial.........
Timer............................  Residential........             25%           7,300  50% operate constantly
                                                                                         and 50% operate 16
                                                                                         hours/day.
                                   Commercial.........                           6,570  50% operate constantly
                                                                                         and 50% operate 12
                                                                                         hours/day.
Aquastat.........................  Residential........             20%           1,095  3 hours per day.
                                   Commercial.........
On Demand *......................  Residential........              5%              61  10 minutes per day *.
                                   Commercial.........                             122  20 minutes per day *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assuming that circulator pumps operate for 30 seconds for each demand ``push''

    DOE requests information on any updated or recent data sources, 
such as circulator pump field metering studies, to inform and validate 
the circulator pump operating hours in the residential and commercial 
sectors and across all applications. DOE also requests comment on 
whether there have been any technology or market changes since the term 
sheet to warrant a different approach on the circulator pump operating 
hours.
    DOE requests input on the operating hours for SVIL pumps by sector 
and application, and specifically, whether a similar approach should be 
followed for SVIL pumps, as the one used to estimate operating hours 
for circulator pumps.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic 
effects of potential energy conservation standards for circulator pumps 
and SVIL pumps on individual customers. For any given efficiency level, 
DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated 
baseline level. The LCC is the total customer expense over the life of 
the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating 
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the 
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes the MSP, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--
and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
    DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended 
standards, and uses efficiency market shares to characterize the ``no-
new-standards'' case equipment mix. By accounting for consumers who 
already purchase more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the 
potential benefits from potential standards. For circulator pumps, the 
CPWG reviewed the market efficiency distribution for circulator pumps 
by efficiency level, circulator variety (e.g., CP1, CP2, CP3), 
horsepower rating, and application. The data used to develop the no-
new-standards case were confidential manufacturer shipments data from 
2015. Table III.4 shows the no-new-standards efficiency distribution in 
2015, as agreed by the CPWG. (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 99 
at pp. 206-208). Note that due to confidentiality concerns, the actual 
market shares are not shown, and instead market availability is 
depicted by 'X'.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY21.011

    DOE requests feedback and data on whether any changes in the 
circulator pump market since 2015 have affected the market efficiency 
distribution of circulator pumps, and if so, how. DOE also requests 
information on the current efficiency distribution of SVIL pumps.
    DOE requests data and information on the installation costs of SVIL 
pumps,

[[Page 24534]]

and whether those vary by motor type, control type, or any other factor 
affecting their efficiency. DOE also requests input on SVIL repair and 
maintenance costs and frequencies, and SVIL lifetimes, including 
average and maximum service lifetimes.

G. Shipments

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of equipment to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on 
energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future 
manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are typically based 
on available historical data broken out by equipment class, capacity, 
and efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model 
that captures recent trends in the market.
    For circulator pumps, DOE utilized manufacturer-provided 
confidential historical shipments data up to the year 2015 to estimate 
future circulator pump shipments, which were broken down by circulator 
pump variety (CP1, CP2, CP3), horsepower rating, and circulator pump 
housing material.
    DOE requests circulator pump annual sales data (i.e., number of 
shipments) from 2016 to 2020 broken out by circulator pump category, 
horsepower rating, and circulator pump housing material. If 
disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available, DOE requests 
more aggregated fractions of annual sales. DOE also requests annual 
historical shipments data for SVILs for the past 10 years, if possible 
disaggregated by horsepower rating, motor type, housing material, or 
any other differentiating factor used in the industry.
    To project future shipments, DOE typically uses new housing starts 
projections and floorspace projections from the Annual Energy Outlook 
(AEO) as market drivers for the residential and commercial sectors, 
respectively. In addition to the aforementioned drivers, for hydronic 
heating applications in the residential sector, the CPWG also agreed to 
utilize Department of Commerce historical data (from 1973 to 2015), 
which showed a declining saturation for new construction. Based on 
these inputs and resulting projections, the CPWG agreed that circulator 
pump shipments would remain constant at approximately 1.8 million units 
per year throughout the analysis period (2022-2051). (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 100 at pp. 19-21).
    To project future shipments of circulator pumps, DOE plans to 
utilize the market drivers and saturation trends agreed by the CPWG and 
to update the data sources with the most current ones, if available.
    DOE requests information on any market changes since 2015 that 
would justify using market drivers and saturation trends that are 
different than those recommended by the CPWG. DOE also requests input 
on the market drivers and saturation trends that would help project 
shipments for SVIL pumps.

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of circulator pumps, and to evaluate the potential 
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing 
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. 
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted 
for each product in this analysis, with the key output of industry net 
present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the 
potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing 
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product 
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and 
important market and product trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\13\ Manufacturing of circulator pumps is classified 
under NAICS 333914, ``Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping 
Equipment Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small 
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business' 
parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information 
of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute 
circulator pumps or SVILs in the United States.
    DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that 
could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small 
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of 
circulator pumps or SVILs that manufacture products in the United 
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer 
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential 
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden 
impacts on manufacturers of circulator pumps and SVILs associated with 
(1) other DOE standards applying to different products that these 
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology 
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any 
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while 
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

I. Other Issues

    The CPWG analyzed four ELs (ELs 1 through 4) as potential standard 
levels for circulator pumps.\14\ The CPWG recommended standard level #2 
as the

[[Page 24535]]

proposed standard level, with a compliance date of four years following 
the publication of a circulator pumps final rule. (Docket No. EERE-
2016-BT-STD-0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1 at p. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The CPWG did not analyze SVILs, therefore no standard 
levels were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on whether there have been any market or 
technology changes since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would 
make the CPWG's EL 2 recommendation no longer valid.

IV. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters 
addressed in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's 
consideration of test procedures and energy conservation standards for 
circulator pumps and small vertical in-line pumps. These comments and 
information will aid in the development of test procedure and energy 
conservation standards NOPRs for circulator pumps and small vertical 
in-line pumps if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be 
appropriate for this equipment.
    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 also 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 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].

A. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE requests comment on the CPWG's recommended definitions for 
wet rotor circulator pump; dry rotor, two-piece circulator pump; dry 
rotor, three-piece circulator pump; and horizontal motor. Specifically, 
DOE requests comment regarding whether changes in the market since the 
CPWG's recommendation would affect the recommended definitions and 
scope.
    (2) DOE requests comment regarding whether the market changes in 
the intervening years since the CPWG's recommendation of a definition 
for ``header pump'' warrant modification of that recommended 
definition.
    (3) DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG-recommended definition 
of ``on-demand circulator pump'' and whether it is appropriate to 
retain on-demand circulator pumps within the scope of future analysis.
    (4) DOE seeks comment and feedback on the scope and definitions 
recommended by the CPWG, including whether anything has changed in the 
market since the conclusion of the

[[Page 24536]]

CPWG that would impact the recommended scope and definitions for SVIL 
pumps.
    (5) DOE seeks feedback and information regarding whether it may be 
appropriate to include SVIL pumps in the circulator pumps rulemaking, 
in the commercial and industrial pumps rulemaking, or in a separate 
rulemaking.
    (6) DOE seeks comment regarding any other topics related to scope 
and definitions for circulator pumps and SVIL pumps.
    (7) DOE requests comment on the CPWG recommendation to adopt 
PEICIRC as the metric to characterize the energy use of 
certain circulator pumps and on the recommended equation for 
PEICIRC, including whether anything in the technology or 
market has changed since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would 
lead to this metric no longer being appropriate.
    (8) DOE requests comment on the recommended definitions for manual 
speed control, pressure control, adaptive pressure control, temperature 
control, and external input signal control. Additionally, DOE requests 
comment on a possible definition for adaptive pressure control.
    (9) DOE requests comment on whether any additional control variety 
is now currently on the market and if it should be considered in this 
rulemaking.
    (10) DOE requests comment on whether the CPWG-recommended reference 
system curve shape, including the static offset, is reasonable for 
circulator pumps.
    (11) DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test 
points, and weights for circulator pumps with pressure controls, 
including circulator pumps with adaptive pressure controls. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market 
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to 
warrant a different approach.
    (12) DOE requests comment on the recommended test methods, test 
points, and weights for circulator pumps with temperature controls. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market 
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to 
warrant a different approach.
    (13) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method and 
the unique test points, weights, and speed factors for circulator pumps 
distributed in commerce with manual speed controls. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment on whether the technology or market for such controls 
has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to warrant a different 
approach.
    (14) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test method for 
circulator pumps distributed in commerce with only external input 
signal controls, as well as for those distributed in commerce with 
external input signal controls in addition to other control varieties. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether the technology or market 
for such controls has changed sufficiently since the term sheet to 
warrant a different approach.
    (15) DOE requests comment on the CPWG-recommended test methods, 
test points, and weights for circulator pumps with no controls.
    (16) DOE seeks comment and feedback on whether HI 40.6-2016 or HI 
40.6-2021 is an appropriate test method for conducting wire-to-water 
testing of circulator pumps, as recommended by the CPWG. In addition, 
DOE seeks comment on whether the modifications in HI 40.6-2016 and/or 
HI 40.6-2021 adequately capture the CPWG recommended modifications in 
Recommendation #10.
    (17) DOE seeks comment on whether the recommendations for twin-head 
circulator pumps and circulators-less-volute have been adequately 
addressed in HI 40.6-2021.
    (18) DOE requests comment on the recommendation to test SVIL pumps 
with the test methods in the general pumps test procedure and 
additional provisions to account for the differences in size and 
characteristics of SVIL pump motors. In particular, DOE requests 
comment on the potential extension of the nominal full load motor 
efficiency values to reference DOE's small electric motor regulations, 
including certain single-phase motors, and the need for an exception 
for SVIL pumps so that those sold with single-phase motors do not have 
to be rated as bare pumps.
    (19) DOE also requests comment on the prevalence of SVIL pumps sold 
with single-phase versus three-phase motors, and the prevalence of SVIL 
pumps sold with motors not covered by DOE's small electric motors and 
electric motors energy conservation standards for either single- or 
three-phase motors.
    (20) DOE also requests comment on whether the equations used to 
establish the part load motor and drive losses in the general pumps 
test procedure are appropriate for SVIL pumps under one horsepower. If 
inappropriate, DOE requests data supporting the generation of 
alternative loss curves.
    (21) DOE seeks comment on whether establishing a standard for 
circulator pumps and SVIL pumps would be cost-effective, economically 
justified, technologically feasible, or would result in a significant 
savings of energy.
    (22) DOE requests comment regarding the CPWG recommendation to 
include all circulator pumps within a single equipment class, 
especially regarding interim market changes since the recommendation 
that may warrant changes to that recommendation. DOE additionally seeks 
comment regarding whether the same recommendations should apply to SVIL 
pumps.
    (23) DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
III.1 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of circulator pumps as measured 
according to the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
that are currently available for each technology option.
    (24) DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
III.1 regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with 
incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, 
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation 
issues, etc.).
    (25) DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should 
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may 
impact product features or consumer utility.
    (26) DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in Table III.1 with respect to circulator 
pumps. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same 
criteria would affect any other technology options not already 
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in 
circulator pumps.
    (27) DOE requests feedback on appropriate baseline efficiency 
levels for DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether 
to establish energy conservation standards for these products.
    (28) DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency 
levels for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently 
in place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, as 
discussed in section III.A.1 of this document. For newly analyzed 
equipment classes, DOE requests energy use data to characterize the 
baseline efficiency level.
    (29) DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency 
levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for potential 
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for circulator 
pumps--and if not, why not.

[[Page 24537]]

    (30) DOE also requests feedback on which maximum efficiencies are 
representative of those for the other circulator pumps not included 
within the scope of the Term Sheets. If the range of possible 
efficiencies is different for such other equipment, what alternative 
approaches should DOE consider using for those equipment classes and 
why?
    (31) DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options.
    (32) DOE requests feedback on whether, and if so how, manufacturers 
would incorporate the technology options listed in Table III.1 to 
increase energy efficiency in circulator pumps beyond the baseline. 
This includes information in which manufacturers would incorporate the 
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of 
products. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy 
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur 
otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any 
potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to 
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer 
demand.
    (33) DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with 
incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests 
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    (34) DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not 
be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment classes.
    (35) DOE requests feedback on what manufacturer markups are 
appropriate for non-built-in and built-in products, respectively.
    (36) DOE requests information on whether there have been market 
changes since the CPWG that would affect the distribution channels and 
the percentage of circulator pump shipments in each channel and sector, 
as shown in Table III.2, and if so, how such market changes would 
affect the circulator pump distribution channels. DOE also requests 
information on whether the same distribution channels and associated 
breakdowns across sectors apply for SVIL pumps, and if not, DOE 
requests relevant data on the SVIL distribution channels and their 
market shares.
    (37) DOE requests data and information on whether the breakdowns of 
circulator pumps by sector and application have changed since the CPWG 
proceedings, and if so, how. DOE also requests information on the 
market applications of SVIL pumps and how those are broken down by 
sector.
    (38) DOE requests feedback on whether there have been market 
changes since the CPWG meetings that would warrant a different estimate 
of the fraction of circulator pumps sold with on-demand controls, and 
if so, what that fraction is.
    (39) DOE requests information on any updated or recent data 
sources, such as circulator pump field metering studies, to inform and 
validate the circulator pump operating hours in the residential and 
commercial sectors and across all applications. DOE also requests 
comment on whether there have been any technology or market changes 
since the term sheet to warrant a different approach on the circulator 
pump operating hours.
    (40) DOE requests input on the operating hours for SVIL pumps by 
sector and application, and specifically, whether a similar approach 
should be followed for SVIL pumps, as the one used to estimate 
operating hours for circulator pumps.
    (41) DOE requests feedback and data on whether any changes in the 
circulator pump market since 2015 have affected the market efficiency 
distribution of circulator pumps, and if so, how. DOE also requests 
information on the current efficiency distribution of SVIL pumps.
    (42) DOE requests data and information on the installation costs of 
SVIL pumps, and whether those vary by motor type, control type, or any 
other factor affecting their efficiency. DOE also requests input on 
SVIL repair and maintenance costs and frequencies, and SVIL lifetimes, 
including average and maximum service lifetimes.
    (43) DOE requests circulator pump annual sales data (i.e., number 
of shipments) from 2016 to 2020 broken out by circulator category, 
horsepower rating, and circulator housing material. If disaggregated 
fractions of annual sales are not available, DOE requests more 
aggregated fractions of annual sales. DOE also requests annual 
historical shipments data for SVILs for the past 10 years, if possible 
disaggregated by horsepower rating, motor type, housing material, or 
any other differentiating factor used in the industry.
    (44) DOE requests information on any market changes since 2015 that 
would justify using market drivers and saturation trends that are 
different than those recommended by the CPWG. DOE also requests input 
on the market drivers and saturation trends that would help project 
shipments for SVIL pumps.
    (45) To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute circulator pumps or SVILs in the United States.
    (46) DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers 
that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small 
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of 
circulator pumps or SVILs that manufacture products in the United 
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer 
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential 
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    (47) DOE requests comment on whether there have been any market or 
technology changes since publication of the 2016 Term Sheets that would 
make the CPWG's EL 2 recommendation no longer valid.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 27, 
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 28, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-09242 Filed 5-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P