[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43430-43437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16936]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0018]
RIN 1904-AE54


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review; 
Commercial and Industrial Pumps

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking an 
early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for 
commercial and industrial pumps (``pumps'') to determine whether to 
amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment. 
Specifically, through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks 
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation 
standards would result in a significant savings of energy; be 
technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE welcomes 
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of 
this document (including those topics not specifically raised in this 
RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information 
concerning this early assessment review.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before September 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2021-BT-
STD-0018, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number 
EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018 in the subject line of the message.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including 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 suspending receipt of 
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a 
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please 
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss 
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic 
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its 
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail 
and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents 
in the docket are listed in the https://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: http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments 
through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
    A. Scope and Equipment Classes
    B. Significant Savings of Energy
    1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
    2. Energy Use
    3. National Energy Savings
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. Technology Options
    2. Representative Units
    3. Efficiency Levels
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Distribution Channels
    2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a 
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether 
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on 
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, 
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or 
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial 
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would 
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is 
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a 
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If 
DOE makes an

[[Page 43431]]

initial determination based upon available evidence that a new or 
amended energy conservation standard would not meet the applicable 
statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking 
before issuing a final determination that new or amended energy 
conservation standards are not warranted.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
among other things, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program 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 (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver 
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
    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))
    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any Final Rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a Final Rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

B. Rulemaking History

    DOE published a framework document for pumps on January 25, 2013. 
78 FR 7304. This document described the procedural and analytical 
approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate potential new energy 
conservation standards for pumps. DOE solicited comment on this 
document and invited stakeholders to a public meeting to discuss the 
document.
    A commercial and industrial pumps working group (``CIP working 
group'') was established in 2013 under the Appliance Standards and 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. (5 
U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570). See also 78 FR 44036. The purpose of 
the CIP working group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus 
on proposed standards for pump energy efficiency. On June 19, 2014, the 
CIP working group reached consensus on proposed energy conservation 
standards for specific rotodynamic, clean water pumps \3\ used in a 
variety of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and municipal 
applications. The CIP working group assembled their recommendations 
into a Term Sheet (See Docket EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Clean water pumps are designed for pumping water with a 
maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.016 pounds per cubic 
foot, 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 maintain the water above 14 [deg]F.
    \4\ CIP working group Term Sheet, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Term Sheet contained recommendations on the definitions 
relevant to all pumps, the scope for commercial and industrial pumps, 
energy conservation standards for pumps within scope, and the test 
metric for commercial and industrial pumps. Consequently, DOE initiated 
both an energy conservation standards rulemaking and a test procedure 
rulemaking to implement these recommendations.
    On January 26, 2016, DOE published a final rule adopting energy 
conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps manufactured 
on or after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368 (``January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule''). The energy conservation standards established in the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule were consistent with those recommended by the CIP 
working group and approved by ASRAC. 81 FR 4368, 4375. The current 
energy conservation standards for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.465. 
Additionally, DOE established a test procedure for determining pump 
energy efficiency published in a Final Rule on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 
4086 (``January 2016 TP Final Rule'').\5\ The current test procedures 
for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.464 and in Appendix A to Subpart Y 
of 10 CFR part 431 (``Appendix A'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction to the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule to correct the placement of the product-specific 
enforcement provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134 at 
paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Information

    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during 
the early assessment review process to inform its decision, consistent 
with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should 
proceed with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Below DOE has 
identified certain topics for which information and data are requested 
to assist in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues 
relevant to its early assessment that may not specifically be 
identified in this document.

A. Scope and Equipment Classes

    This RFI covers equipment meeting the pump definition codified in 
10 CFR 431.462. ``Pump'' means equipment designed to move liquids 
(which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved 
solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump \6\ 
and, if included by the

[[Page 43432]]

manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment,\7\ driver,\8\ 
and controls.\9\ 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``bare pump'' is exclusive of mechanical equipment, 
driver, and controls. See 10 CFR 431.462.
    \7\ ``Mechanical equipment'' is any component of a pump that 
transfers energy from the driver to the bare pump. See 10 CFR 
431.462.
    \8\ A ``driver'' provides mechanical input to drive a bare pump 
directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Electric 
motors, internal combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are 
examples of drivers. See 10 CFR 431.462.
    \9\ A ``control'' is used to operate a driver. See 10 CFR 
431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE established energy 
conservation standards for five categories of clean water pumps: End 
suction close-coupled (``ESCC''); end suction frame mounted/own 
bearings (``ESFM''); in-line (``IL''); radially split, multi-stage, 
vertical, in-line diffuser casing (``RSV''); and submersible turbine 
(``ST'') pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i). Each of these categories is 
limited to pumps that have a shaft input power greater than or equal to 
1 horsepower (``hp'') and less than or equal to 200 hp at the best 
efficiency point (``BEP'') \10\ and full impeller diameter. DOE defines 
each of these categories in 10 CFR 431.462. DOE provides additional 
specifications regarding the applicability of the test procedure, and 
therefore the energy conservation standards, at 10 CFR 
431.464(a)(ii).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Best efficiency point (``BEP'') is the pump hydraulic power 
operating point consisting of both flow and head conditions of a 
pump that results in the maximum efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.462.
    \11\ The test procedure applies to the established categories of 
pumps that have the following characteristics: (a) Flow rate of 25 
gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at BEP and full impeller 
diameter; (b) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller 
diameter and the number of stages required for testing (see section 
1.2.2 of appendix A of this subpart); (c) Design temperature range 
from 14 to 248 [deg]F; (d) 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; (e) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and 
(f) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to 
5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR 
431.464(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pumps are further delineated into equipment classes based on 
nominal speed of rotation and operating mode. 10 CFR 431.465. All pump 
equipment classes are summarized in Table II.1.

                                     Table II.1--Equipment Classes for Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Nominal driver    Constant or variable load
    Basic pump equipment category       speed (rpm)            (CL or VL)                  Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESCC................................           1,800  CL                            ESCC.1800.CL
                                               3,600  CL                            ESCC.3600.CL
                                               1,800  VL                            ESCC.1800.VL
                                               3,600  VL                            ESCC.3600.VL
ESFM................................           1,800  CL                            ESFM.1800.CL
                                               3,600  CL                            ESFM.3600.CL
                                               1,800  VL                            ESFM.1800.VL
                                               3,600  VL                            ESFM.3600.VL
IL..................................           1,800  CL                            IL.1800.CL
                                               3,600  CL                            IL.3600.CL
                                               1,800  VL                            IL.1800.VL
                                               3,600  VL                            IL.3600.VL
RSV.................................           1,800  CL                            RSV.1800.CL
                                               3,600  CL                            RSV.3600.CL
                                               1,800  VL                            RSV.1800.VL
                                               3,600  VL                            RSV.3600.VL
ST..................................           1,800  CL                            ST.1800.CL
                                               3,600  CL                            ST.3600.CL
                                               1,800  VL                            ST.1800.VL
                                               3,600  VL                            ST.3600.VL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a test procedure RFI published on April 16, 2021, DOE requested 
comment on whether it should expand or remove some of the limitations 
in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii) for pumps. 86 FR 20075.
    In developing its recommendations, and in consideration of time 
constraints, the CIP working group further limited its scope to clean 
water pumps. (Term Sheet, recommendation #8). The CIP working group 
also recommended that pump energy efficiency standards not apply to (1) 
fire pumps, (2) self-priming pumps, (3) prime-assist pumps, (4) magnet 
driven pumps, (5) pumps designed to be used in nuclear facilities, and 
(6) pumps meeting design and construction requirements in various 
military specifications. Id. Consistent with the CIP working group 
recommendations, DOE established energy conservation standards for 
clean water pumps (10 CFR 431.465(b)(2)) and excluded from the scope of 
the energy conservation standards the pumps listed above (10 CFR 
431.465(c)). Additionally, consistent with the recommendation from the 
CIP working group (See Term Sheet, recommendation #6), DOE excluded 
from coverage under the standards positive displacement pumps, axial/
mixed flow pumps, double suction pumps, multistage axially split pumps, 
multistage radial-split horizontal pumps, multistage radial split 
vertical immersible pumps, and vertical turbine (non-submersible) 
pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4376.
    Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on whether to consider energy 
conservation standards for pumps other than clean water pumps. 
Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether energy conservation 
standards should be considered for positive displacement, axial/mixed 
flow, double suction, multistage axially split, multistage radial-split 
horizontal, multistage radial split vertical immersible, or non-
submersible vertical turbine pumps, fire pumps, self-priming pumps, 
prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps used in nuclear 
facilities, or pumps specified for certain military uses. Specifically, 
DOE is interested in information and data on the industries in which 
these pumps are typically used, shipment data for these products (or 
the relative shipments for these products compared to clean water pumps 
currently with the scope of DOE's efficiency standards), and

[[Page 43433]]

additional safety or performance standards that these pump types must 
meet.

B. Significant Savings of Energy

    The January 2016 ECS Final Rule estimated that the established 
energy conservation standard for pumps would result in 0.10 quadrillion 
British thermal units (``quads'') of site energy savings in site energy 
use over a 30-year period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally, in the 
January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated that an energy conservation 
standard established at an energy efficiency level equivalent to that 
achieved using the maximum available technology (``max-tech'') would 
have resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site energy savings. 81 FR 
4368, 4415.
    As a preliminary step in evaluating potential energy savings, DOE 
updated its energy savings estimates from the January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule. DOE's current estimate indicates that an amended energy 
conservation standard established at the same max-tech as the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule would result in 0.25 quads of site energy savings 
(0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle energy savings) which is a reduction 
from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for the reduced estimate is a 
revised estimate of the base case efficiency distribution. In 
preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification 
database \12\ and found that the efficiency distribution by basic model 
in the marketplace in 2020 exceeded that assumed in the January 2016 
ECS Final Rule for the adopted standard level (i.e., there are fewer 
models at baseline,\13\ indicating that manufacturers redesigned pump 
models to surpass, rather than just meet, the current Federal 
standard).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification 
Database, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Pumps_-_General_Pumps.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Pumps%20-%20General%20Pumps%22, Accessed February 24, 2020.
    \13\ The baseline efficiency level was set to represent the 
lowest efficiency hydraulic designs on the market. 81 FR 4368, 4382.
    \14\ While DOE does not have updated information on efficiency 
distribution by shipment as it did in the January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule, DOE compared the efficiency distributions by model and 
shipment gathered for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule and determined 
that model distribution is a reasonable proxy for shipment 
distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following 
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and 
data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy 
conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.
1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
    DOE uses base case efficiency distributions to calculate life cycle 
cost (``LCC'') savings resulting from each considered energy efficiency 
level. In the analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE 
developed the base case efficiency distributions based on the shipments 
data provided by manufacturers \15\ and used base case efficiency 
distribution specific to equipment class, shaft input power and 
flow.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DOE's shipment estimates for the January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule (and carried through to the updated energy savings estimate 
presented in this section) relied on annual shipments data for 2012 
provided by industry. 81 FR 4368, 4391. See discussion in the 
January 2016 ECS Final Rule Technical Support Document (``TSD''), 
Section 8.3.3 of Chapter 8, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
    \16\ In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE used performance 
data for bare pumps to represent the performance of all pump 
equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4382. In addition, DOE considered 
improved hydraulic design to be the only technology option suitable 
for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. 81 FR 4368, 
4383-4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 2: DOE seeks data and information on the distribution of pump 
efficiencies. To the extent available, DOE requests the data, in terms 
of pump energy index (``PEI''); by pump shipments at the equipment 
class level; and disaggregated by shaft input power and flow, for bare 
pumps only. DOE seeks comment on how the shipments efficiency 
distribution might differ across ranges of flow and shaft input power 
for each equipment class.
2. Energy Use
    Consumer inputs to the energy use analysis are based on operational 
demands that are independent of the pump efficiency, while equipment 
inputs to the analysis are based on the efficiency of the pump. 
Consumer inputs include consumer duty point that is defined by the flow 
and head, annual load profile, and annual operating hours. With limited 
data available with respect to the duty point in the January 2016 ECS 
Final Rule analysis, DOE developed a distribution of duty points (i.e., 
operating shaft input power and flow) based on shipments data provided 
by manufacturers. DOE developed four representative load profiles, 
characterized by different weights at 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 
percent, and 110 percent of the flow at the duty point. The load 
profiles were developed to represent a range of pump loading conditions 
within an annual cycle. For the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE 
estimated statistical distributions and average values of annual 
operating hours by application based on inputs from a subject matter 
expert and feedback from the CIP working group. In addition, in the 
January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate within 75 
percent to 110 percent of their BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390.
    Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on whether, and if so, 
how, the field energy use of pumps has changed since the January 2016 
ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in any information and 
data related to whether there have been changes in duty points (i.e., 
flow, head, and shaft input power required for a given application), 
annual hours of operation, and load profiles since the January 2016 ECS 
Final Rule.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on whether the characterization of 
pump sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule remains 
appropriate. If not, DOE requests data and information on how pump 
sizing practices have changed since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule.
3. National Energy Savings
    In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule shipments analysis, DOE 
developed shipment projections for pumps and, in turn, calculated 
equipment stock from 2020 through 2049, starting with the 2012 shipment 
estimates from the Hydraulics Institute (``HI'') (Docket EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039-0068). To project shipments of pumps, DOE relied primarily on 
Annual Energy Outlook 2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments projection 
and the equipment stock to determine the National Energy Savings 
(``NES'').
    Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 (or the most recent year available) 
annual sales data (i.e., number of shipments) for pumps by equipment 
class, as shown in 10 CFR 431.465(b)(4). If disaggregated fractions of 
annual sales are not available at the equipment class level, DOE 
requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the category 
level (i.e., ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST). If available, DOE requests 
annual sales data by equipment class for the previous five years (2015-
2019).

C. Technological Feasibility

    During the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE considered a number of 
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy 
consumption in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks comment on any 
changes to these technology options that could affect whether DOE could 
propose a ``no-new-standards'' determination, such as an insignificant 
increase in the range of efficiencies and performance characteristics 
of these technologies.

[[Page 43434]]

    While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following 
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and 
data on the following.
1. Technology Options
    A complete list of technology options evaluated for pumps in 
preparation for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule is presented in Table 
II.2. 81 FR 4368, 4383.

Table II.2--Pumps Technology Options Considered for the January 2016 ECS
                               Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Technology Options
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Improved Hydraulic Design
              Improved surface finish on wetted components
                       Reduced running clearances
                  Reduced mechanical friction in seals
                  Reduction of other volumetric losses
               Addition of variable speed drive (``VSD'')
                      Improvement of VSD efficiency
              Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE determined that most of the 
technology options listed in Table II.2 had limited potential to 
improve pump efficiency. 81 FR 4368, 4383. Specifically, DOE received 
manufacturer feedback that certain technologies (a) did not 
significantly improve efficiency; (b) were not applicable to the 
equipment for which standards were being considered; (c) did not 
significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each 
equipment class; or (d) benefits degraded quickly over time. Id.
    Table II.3 summarizes the pump technology options that DOE screened 
from its analysis in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, and the 
applicable screening criteria.

                                   Table II.3--Pumps Technology Options Screened From the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   EPCA criteria
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Practicability to
                Screened technology option                   Technological       manufacture,    Adverse impact on   Adverse impacts   Other reasons for
                                                              feasibility        install, and     product utility     on health and     not considering
                                                                                   service        or availability         safety         the technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved surface finish on wetted components--smoothing    .................                 X   .................  .................                X*
 operations..............................................
Improved surface finish on wetted components--coating or   .................  .................                 X   .................                X*
 plating.................................................
Improved surface finish on wetted components--casting....  .................  .................  .................  .................  X[dagger][dagger]
Reduced running clearances...............................                 X   .................  .................  .................        X[dagger],
                                                                                                                                       X[dagger][dagger]
Reduced mechanical friction in seals.....................  .................  .................  .................  .................     X[dagger], X*
Reduction of other volumetric losses.....................  .................  .................                 X   .................  .................
Addition of variable speed drive.........................  .................  .................  .................  .................                X*
Improvement of VSD efficiency............................  .................  .................  .................  .................                X*
Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage.............  .................  .................  .................  .................                X*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE screened out these technology options because they were not applicable to the equipment for which standards were being considered or did not
  significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class.
[dagger] DOE screened out these technology options because they did not significantly improve efficiency.
[dagger][dagger] DOE screened out these technology options because efficiency improvements from these technologies degrade quickly.

    Ultimately, hydraulic redesign was the only design option 
incorporated into the January 2016 ECS Final Rule engineering analysis. 
81 FR 4368, 4385. Hydraulic redesign is a broad term used to describe 
the system design of a bare pump's wetted components. Although 
hydraulic redesign focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of 
the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices 
related to clearances, seals, and other volumetric losses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section 3.6.1 Chapter 3 of the TSD for the January 2016 
ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on if there are additional technology 
options that were not considered during the January 2016 ECS Final Rule 
that may have a significant potential for improving pump energy use 
beyond hydraulic redesign. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on 
whether, and if so, how, technologically feasible design options might 
vary by equipment class. DOE also seeks comment on how any of the 
listed technologies in Table II.3 may have changed since the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in data that 
support whether DOE should continue to screen-out the technologies 
listed in Table II.3 from its engineering analysis.
2. Representative Units
    In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE identified representative 
configurations that were based on typical product offerings for each of 
the five equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4385. For the ESCC, ESFM, and 
IL equipment classes, the representative configuration was a pump 
fitted with a cast bronze impeller, a cast-iron volute and a mechanical 
seal. Id. For RSV and ST equipment classes, the representative 
configuration was a

[[Page 43435]]

pump fitted with sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel 
impeller(s), and sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel casing 
and internal static components. Id. DOE is aware that many 
manufacturers redesigned their pump models in order to meet the 
standards set forth in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule (see discussion 
in Section II.B).
    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative 
configurations used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis for 
ESCC, ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute and mechanical seal, and for 
RSV and ST impeller and bowl/casing continue to provide an accurate 
representation of the current market.
3. Efficiency Levels
    DOE uses a standardized, minimally compliant bare pump, inclusive 
of a minimally compliant motor, as a reference pump. The efficiency of 
the minimally compliant pump is defined as a function of certain 
physical properties of the bare pump, such as flow at BEP and specific 
speed.\18\ Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The terms in the 
efficiency model (i.e., BEP flow rate at full impeller diameter and 
nominal speed of rotation, specific speed) can be measured or 
calculated using the physical properties of the pump, except for the 
``C-value''. The ``C-value'' is a constant based on the speed of 
rotation and equipment category of the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377-
4378.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section II of Appendix A prescribes how to compare a tested 
pump to the standard minimally compliant bare pump for each 
equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This pump hydraulic efficiency model is an adaptation of the 
European Union's (``EU'') model equation,\19\ modified to use United 
States customary units and 60 Hz electrical input power. 81 FR 4368, 
4377. DOE defined pump efficiency levels using efficiency percentile 
ranges. Id. As an example, at the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump 
models are less efficient than the defined efficiency model.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 
ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the 
European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 28-36.
    \20\ See Section 5.8.1 of Chapter 5 of the TSD for the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The C-values specified in 10 CFR 431.465 correspond to the lower 
25th percentile of efficiency for the ESCC, ESFM and IL equipment 
classes. 81 FR 4368, 4370. For the ST equipment classes, C-values for 
pumps at 3600 rpm correspond to the lower 25th percentile of 
efficiency, while C-values for pumps at 1800 rpm represent the baseline 
efficiency evaluated for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a 
lack of available data for ST pumps at 1800 rpm, DOE used data from the 
ST 3600 rpm analysis to set the C-value standard for ST pumps at 1800 
rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST pumps at 1800 
rpm was set to the baseline efficiency C-value established for ST pumps 
at 3600 rpm. Id. Because of a lack of available data for all RSV pumps, 
DOE harmonized the C-values for the RSV equipment classes with the EU 
40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368, 4370.
    Issue 8: DOE requests data for all pump equipment classes that 
would enable DOE to conduct an efficiency level analysis similar to 
that conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To the extent 
available, DOE requests data grouped by equipment class and shaft 
power, and that includes pump energy rating (``PER''), pump hydraulic 
efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60 Hz, and the BEP flow rate at 
full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation. If these data are 
not available, DOE requests test data that would allow for the 
calculation of these values according to Appendix A (e.g., pump 
hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be calculated from bare pump PER at 
constant load, bare pump hydraulic output power and part load motor 
losses at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of BEP flow \21\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As described in sections II.E and II.B of Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE 
assigned the max-tech efficiency level as the maximum available 
efficiency already offered in the marketplace. DOE established a max-
tech level at the 70th efficiency percentile for all equipment classes. 
81 FR 4368, 4386. At this max-tech level there were existing pumps 
available in the market that met this level for all shaft powers 
between 1 and 200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the opportunity for 
efficiency improvement is not equal across the entire range of shaft 
powers, specifically, DOE's analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS 
Final Rule indicated that application of the design options listed in 
Table II.2 resulted in greater efficiency improvement for smaller pumps 
compared to larger pumps.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Section 3 of Chapter 3.6 of the TSD for the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 9: DOE requests information on whether conducting a max-tech 
analysis based on size (for example, developing small and large shaft 
power designations) or specific speed would be more representative of 
the pumps market and provide an opportunity for additional energy 
savings.

D. Economic Justification

    In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential 
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks 
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and 
data on any aspects of its economic justification analysis from the 
January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent 
energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost 
effective.
    While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following 
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and 
data on the following.
1. Distribution Channels
    In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the 
National Impacts Analysis (``NIA''), DOE identified distribution 
channels (i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer 
to the consumer), and estimated relative sales volumes through each 
channel. Table II.5 presents the distribution channels identified by 
the CIP working group with their corresponding share of total pump 
sales that were used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis. 81 FR 
4368, 4389.

        Table II.5--Distribution Channels Market Shares for Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Percentage of
                  Distribution channel                      total pump
                                                             sales (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer to distributor to contractor to end-user...              70
Manufacturer to distributor to end-users................              17
Manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer to end-                8
 users..................................................
Manufacturer to end-users...............................               2
Manufacturer to contractor to end-users.................               1
Other...................................................               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels 
described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in 
Table II.5, reflect the current market.

[[Page 43436]]

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE conducted a LCC 
and payback period (``PBP'') analysis to estimate the economic impacts 
of potential new standards on individual consumers of pump equipment. 
The analysis included, among others, the inputs further elaborated 
below.
a. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
    In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA in 
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assumed that installation, 
maintenance, and repair costs remain identical across efficiency 
levels. With the market efficiency moving beyond what was projected in 
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, there may be additional or different 
data available to represent the relationship between installation, 
repair, and maintenance costs and efficiency.
    Issue 11: DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation 
costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to baseline 
installation costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks 
supporting data and the reasons for those differences.
    Issue 12: DOE requests feedback and data on whether repair and 
maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to 
repair and maintenance costs at baseline levels, respectively, both in 
terms of value and frequency of occurrence during the equipment 
lifetime. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting 
data and the reasons for those differences.
b. Equipment Lifetimes
    The lifetime energy use of a pump is calculated as the annual 
energy use multiplied by the equipment economic lifetime. DOE considers 
economic lifetime, also called service lifetime, as the total number of 
years that the equipment is in service (from initial equipment 
installation until its final retirement), and the mechanical lifetime, 
as the total number of operating hours from initial equipment 
installation until its final retirement. In the January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule, DOE estimated the pump equipment lifetimes to range between 4 and 
40 years, with an average lifetime of 15 years across all equipment 
classes, based on estimates from market experts and input from the CIP 
working group. The analysis conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final 
Rule used Weibull lifetime distribution per equipment class, and 
included variability by pump rotation speed, and lifetime extensions 
through repairs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section 8.3.2.5 of Chapter 8 of the TSD for the January 
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 13: DOE requests comment and data on whether any market and 
technology changes since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule would affect 
its equipment lifetime estimates for pumps for which DOE currently has 
standards, and if so, how. DOE additionally requests equipment lifetime 
data for any pump types discussed through Section II.A that are not 
currently subject to energy conservation standards.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed 
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early 
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are 
warranted for pumps.
    Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires 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. If this instruction is followed, 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 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)) to 
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through 
the website will not be protected under CBI. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through https://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 is 
generated through https://www.regulations.gov after you have 
successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to https://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 in 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 only unsecured 
documents 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. Pursuant 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

[[Page 43437]]

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation 
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of 
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. 
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced 
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices 
and information about this process should contact Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 2, 
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 August 4, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16936 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P