Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps, 22658-22661 [C1-2015-06945]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22658
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 78
Thursday, April 23, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0055]
RIN 1905–AD50
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Pumps
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Correction
In proposed rule document 2015–
06945 beginning on page 17585 in the
issue of Wednesday, April 1, 2015,
make the following correction:
On page 17637, in the first column,
beginning with the third paragraph
under the section heading ‘‘E. Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ and
continuing through to the third column,
on page 17639 up to the heading
entitled ‘‘VI. Approval of the Office of
the Secretary’’, revise the existing text to
read as follows:
(2) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions for ‘‘pump,’’ ‘‘bare
pump,’’ ‘‘mechanical equipment,’’
‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘control.’’
(3) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions for ‘‘continuous
control’’ and ‘‘non-continuous control.’’
(4) DOE also requests comment and
information regarding how often pumps
with continuous or non-continuous
controls are packaged and distributed in
commerce, by manufacturers, with
integrated sensors and feedback logic
that would allow such pumps to
automatically actuate.
(5) DOE also requests comment on the
likelihood of pumps with continuous
and non-continuous controls being
distributed in commerce, but never
paired with any sensor or feedback
mechanisms that would enable energy
savings.
(6) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definition for ‘‘basic model’’
as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE
is interested in comments on DOE’s
proposal to allow manufacturers the
option of rating pumps with trimmed
impellers as a single basic model or
separate basic models, provided the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
rating for each pump model is based on
the maximum impeller diameter for that
model.
(7) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definition for ‘‘full impeller.’’
(8) DOE requests comment on the
proposal to require that all pump
models be rated in a full impeller
configuration only.
(9) DOE requests comment on any
other characteristics of pumps that are
unique from other commercial and
industrial equipment and may require
modifications to the definition of ‘‘basic
model,’’ as proposed.
(10) DOE requests comment on the
proposed applicability of the test
procedure to the five pump equipment
classes noted above, namely ESCC,
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
(11) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions for end suction
pump, end suction frame mounted
pump, end suction close-coupled pump,
in-line pump, radially split multi-stage
vertical in-line casing diffuser pump,
rotodynamic pump, single axis flow
pump, and vertical turbine submersible
pump.
(12) DOE requests comment on
whether the references to ANSI/HI
nomenclature are necessary as part of
the equipment definitions in the
regulatory text, are likely to cause
confusion due to inconsistencies, and
whether discussing the ANSI/HI
nomenclature in this preamble would
provide sufficient reference material for
manufacturers when determining the
appropriate equipment class for their
pump models.
(13) DOE requests comment on
whether it needs to clarify the flow
direction to distinguish RSV pumps
from other similar pumps when
determining test procedure and
standards applicability.
(14) DOE requests comment on
whether any additional language is
necessary in the proposed RSV
definition to make the exclusion of
immersible pumps clearer.
(15) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to exclude circulators and pool
pumps from the scope of this test
procedure rulemaking.
(16) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definitions for circulators and
dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
(17) DOE requests comment on the
extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and
RSV pumps require attachment to a
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rigid foundation to function as
designed.
Specifically, DOE is interested to
know if any pumps commonly referred
to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not
require attachment to a rigid foundation.
(18) DOE requests comment on its
initial determination that axial/mixed
flow and PD pumps are implicitly
excluded from this rulemaking based on
the proposed definitions and scope
parameters. In cases where commenters
suggest a more explicit exclusion be
used, DOE requests comment on the
appropriate changes to the proposed
definitions or criteria that would be
needed to appropriately differentiate
axial/mixed flow and/or PD pumps from
the specific rotodynamic pumps
equipment classes proposed for
coverage in this NOPR.
(19) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definition for ‘‘clean water
pump.’’
(20) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to incorporate by reference the
definition for ‘‘clear water’’ in HI 40.6–
2014 to describe the testing fluid to be
used when testing pumps in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
(21) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definition for ‘‘fire pump,’’
‘‘selfpriming pump,’’ ‘‘prime-assisted
pump,’’ and ‘‘sealless pump.’’
(22) Regarding the proposed
definition of a self-priming pump, DOE
notes that such pumps typically include
a liquid reservoir above or in front of the
impeller to allow recirculating water
within the pump during the priming
cycle. DOE requests comment on any
other specific design features that
enable the pump to operate without
manual re-priming, and whether such
specificity is needed in the definition
for clarity.
(23) DOE requests comment on the
proposed specifications and criteria to
determine if a pump is designed to meet
a specific Military Specification and if
Military Specifications other than MIL–
P–17639F should be referenced.
(24) DOE requests comment on
excluding the following pumps from the
test procedure: fire pumps, self-priming
pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless
pumps, pumps designed to be used in
a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part
50—Domestic Licensing of Production
and Utilization Facilities, and pumps
meeting the design and construction
requirements set forth in Military
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Specification MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps,
Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service,
Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as amended).
(25) DOE requests comment on the
listed design characteristics (power,
flow, head, design temperature, design
speed, and bowl diameter) as limitations
on the scope of pumps to which the
proposed test procedure would apply.
(26) DOE requests comment on the
proposed definition for ‘‘bowl diameter’’
as it would apply to VTS pumps.
(27) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to test pumps sold with nonelectric drivers as bare pumps.
(28) DOE requests comment on its
proposal that any pump distributed in
commerce with a single-phase induction
motor be tested and rated in the bare
pump configuration, using the
calculation method.
(29) DOE requests comment from
interested party on any categories of
electric motors, except submersible
motors, that: (1) Are used with pumps
considered in this rulemaking and (2)
typically have efficiencies lower than
the default nominal full load motor
efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA
Design B, or IEC Design N motors. . . .
(30) DOE requests comment on the
proposed load points and weighting for
PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold
with motors and PEIVL for pumps
inclusive of motors and continuous or
non-continuous controls.
(31) DOE requests comments on the
proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric
architecture.
(32) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to base the default motor
horsepower for the minimally compliant
pump on that of the pump being
evaluated. That is, the motor
horsepower for the minimally compliant
pump would be based on the calculated
pump shaft input power of the pump
when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP
flow for bare pumps and the horsepower
of the motor with which that pump is
sold for pumps sold with motors and
controls (with or without continuous or
non-continuous controls).
(33) DOE requests comment on using
HI 40.6–2014 as the basis of the DOE
test procedure for pumps.
(34) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to not incorporate by reference
section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and
appendix B of HI 40.6–2014 as part of
the DOE test procedure.
(35) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to require that data be
collected at least every 5 seconds for all
measured quantities.
(36) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to allow dampening devices, as
described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with
the proviso noted above (i.e., permitted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
to integrate up to the data collection
interval, or 5 seconds).
(37) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to require data collected at the
pump speed measured during testing to
be normalized to the nominal speeds of
1,800 and 3,600.
(38) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to adopt the requirements in
HI 40.6–2014 regarding the deviation of
tested speed from nominal speed and
the variation of speed during the test.
Specifically, DOE is interested if
maintaining tested speed within ±1
percent of the nominal speed is feasible
and whether this approach would
produce more accurate and repeatable
test results.
(39) DOE requests comment on the
proposed voltage, frequency, voltage
unbalance, total harmonic distortion,
and impedance requirements that are
required when performing a wire-towater pump test or when testing a bare
pump with a calibrated motor.
Specifically, DOE requests comments on
whether these tolerances can be
achieved in typical pump test labs, or
whether specialized power supplies or
power conditioning equipment would
be required.
(40) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in
their 3- and 9-stage versions,
respectively, or the next closest number
of stages if the pump model is not
distributed in commerce with that
particular number of stages.
(41) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to use a linear regression of the
pump shaft input power with respect to
flow rate at all the tested flow points
greater than or equal to 60 percent of
expected BEP flow to determine the
pump shaft input power at the specific
load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent
of BEP flow. DOE is especially
interested in any pump models for
which such an approach would yield
inaccurate measurements.
(42) DOE requests comment on its
proposal that for pumps with BEP at
run-out, the BEP would be determined
at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent
of expected BEP flow instead of the
seven data points described in section
40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2014 and that the
constant load points for pumps with
BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65
percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100,
and 75 percent of BEP flow.
(43) DOE requests comment on the
type and accuracy of required
measurement equipment, especially the
equipment required for electrical power
measurements for pumps sold with
motors having continuous or
noncontinuous controls.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22659
(44) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to conduct all calculations and
corrections to nominal speed using raw
measured values and that the PERCL
and PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL, as
applicable, be reported to the nearest
0.01.
(45) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to determine the default motor
horsepower for rating bare pumps based
on the pump shaft input power at 120
percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially
interested in any pumps for which the
120 percent of BEP flow load point
would not be an appropriate basis to
determine the default motor horsepower
(e.g., pumps for which the 120 percent
of BEP flow load point is a significantly
lower horsepower than the BEP flow
load point).
(46) DOE requests comment on its
proposal that would specify the default,
minimally compliant nominal full load
motor efficiency based on the applicable
minimally allowed nominal full load
motor efficiency specified in DOE’s
energy conservation standards for
NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and
IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25
for all pumps except pumps sold with
submersible motors.
(47) DOE requests comment on the
proposed default minimum full load
motor efficiency values for submersible
motors.
(48) DOE requests comment on
defining the proposed default minimum
motor full load efficiency values for
submersible motors relative to the most
current minimum efficiency standards
levels for regulated electric motors,
through the use of ‘‘bands’’ as presented
in Table III.6.
(49) DOE requests comment on the
proposal to allow the use of the default
minimum submersible motor full load
efficiency values presented in Table III.6
to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps
sold with submersible motors, and (3)
pumps sold with submersible motors
and continuous or noncontinuous
controls as an option instead of wire-towater testing.
(50) DOE requests comment on the
development and use of the motor part
load loss factor curves to describe part
load performance of covered motors and
submersible motors including the
default motor specified in section III.D.1
for bare pumps and calculation of
PERSTD.
(51) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to determine the part load
losses of motors covered by DOE’s
electric motor energy conservation
standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of
BEP flow based on the nominal full load
efficiency of the motor, as determined in
accordance with DOE’s electric motor
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
22660
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
test procedure, and the same default
motor part load loss curve applied to the
default motor in test method A.1 for the
bare pump.
(52) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to determine the PERCL of
pumps sold with submersible motors
using the proposed default minimum
efficiency values for submersible motors
and applying the same default motor
part load loss curve to the default motor
in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
(53) DOE also requests comment on
its proposal that pumps sold with
motors that are not addressed by DOE’s
electric motors test procedure (except
submersible motors) would be rated
based on a wire-to-water, testing-based
approach.
(54) DOE requests comment on the
proposed system curve shape to use, as
well as whether the curve should go
through the origin instead of the
statically loaded offset.
(55) DOE requests comment on the
proposed calculation approach for
determining pump shaft input power for
pumps sold with motors and continuous
controls when rated using the
calculation-based method.
(56) DOE requests comment on the
proposal to adopt four part load loss
factor equations expressed as a function
of the load on the motor (i.e., motor
brake horsepower) to calculate the
losses of a combined motor and
continuous controls, where the four
curves would correspond to different
horsepower ratings of the continuous
control.
(57) DOE also requests comment on
the accuracy of the proposed equation
compared to one that accounts for
multiple performance variables (speed
and torque).
(58) DOE requests comment on the
proposed 5 percent scaling factor that
was applied to the measured VSD
efficiency data to generate the proposed
coefficients of the four part load loss
curves. Specifically, DOE seeks
comment on whether another scaling
factor or no scaling factor would be
more appropriate in this context.
(59) DOE requests comment on the
variability of control horsepower ratings
that might be distributed in commerce
with a given pump and motor
horsepower.
(60) DOE requests comment and data
from interested parties regarding the
extent to which the assumed default
part load loss curve would represent
minimum efficiency motor and
continuous control combinations.
(61) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to require testing of each
individual bare pump as the basis for a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:57 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
certified PEICL or PEIVL rating for one
or more pump basic models.
(62) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to limit the use of calculations
and algorithms in the determination of
pump performance to the calculationbased methods proposed in this NOPR.
(63) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to determine BEP for pumps
rated with a testing-based method by
using the ratio of input power to the
driver or continuous control, if any,
over pump hydraulic output. DOE also
seeks input on the degree to which this
method may yield significantly different
BEP points from the case where BEP is
determined based on pump efficiency.
(64) DOE requests comment on the
proposed testing-based method for
pumps sold with motors and continuous
or non-continuous controls.
(65) DOE requests comment on the
proposed testing-based method for
determining the input power to the
pump for pumps sold with motors and
non-continuous controls.
(66) DOE requests comment on any
other type of non-continuous control
that may be sold with a pump and for
which the proposed test procedure
would not apply.
(67) DOE requests comment on its
proposal to establish calculation-based
test methods as the required test method
for bare pumps and testing-based
methods as the required test method for
pumps sold with motors that are not
regulated by DOE’s electric motor
energy conservation standards, except
for submersible motors, or for pumps
sold with any motors and with
noncontinuous controls.
(68) DOE also requests comment on
the proposal to allow either testingbased methods or calculation-based
methods to be used to rate pumps sold
with continuous control-equipped
motors that are either (1) regulated by
DOE’s electric motor standards or (2)
submersible motors.
(69) DOE requests comment on the
level of burden to include with any
certification requirements the reporting
of the test method used by a
manufacturer to certify a given pump
basic model as compliant with any
energy conservation standards DOE may
set.
(70) DOE requests comment on the
proposed sampling plan for certification
of commercial and industrial pump
models.
(71) DOE requests comment regarding
the size of pump manufacturing entities
and the number of manufacturing
businesses represented by this market.
(72) DOE requests comment on its
assumption that, for most pump models,
only physical testing of the underlying
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
bare pump model is required, and
subsequent ratings for that bare pump
sold with a motor or motor and
continuous control can be based on
calculations only.
(73) DOE requests information on the
percentage of pump models for which
the rating of the bare pump, pump sold
with a motor, and pump sold with a
motor and controls cannot be based on
the same fundamental physical test of
the bare pump. For example, DOE is
interested in the number of pump
models sold with motors that are not
covered by DOE’s energy conservation
standards for electric motors or the
number of pump models sold with
controls that would not meet DOE’s
definition of continuous control.
(74) DOE requests comment on the
testing currently conducted by pump
manufacturers and the magnitude of
incremental changes necessary to
transform current test facilities to
conduct the DOE test procedure as
described in this NOPR.
(75) DOE requests comment on its
assumption that using a non-calibrated
test motor and VFD would be the most
common and least costly approach for
testing bare pumps in accordance with
the proposed DOE test procedure.
(76) DOE requests comment on the
estimates of materials and costs to build
a pump testing facility as presented.
(77) DOE requests comment on the
test facility description and
measurement equipment assumed in
DOE’s estimate of burden.
(78) DOE requests comment and
information regarding the burden
associated with achieving the power
quality requirements proposed in the
NOPR.
(79) DOE requests comment on the
number of pump models per
manufacturer that would be required to
use the wire-to-water test method to
certify pump performance.
(80) DOE requests comment on the
estimation of the portion of pumps that
would need to be newly certified or
recertified annually.
(81) DOE requests comment on the
use of annual sales as the financial
indicator for this analysis and whether
another financial indicator would be
more representative to assess the burden
upon the pump manufacturing industry.
(82) DOE requests comment on its
conclusion that the proposed rule may
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
DOE is particularly interested in
feedback on the assumptions and
estimates made in the analysis of
burden associated with implementing
the proposed DOE test procedure.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(83) DOE requests comment on the
burden estimate to comply with the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
[FR Doc. C1–2015–06945 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 361, 363, and 397
[Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0001]
State Vocational Rehabilitation
Services Program; State Supported
Employment Services Program;
Limitations on Use of Subminimum
Wage
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
The Secretary announces
plans to hold two public meetings to
seek comments about the proposed
regulatory changes contained in a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
was published in the Federal Register
on April 16, 2015, which would
implement statutory changes to the
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
and the State Supported Employment
Services programs, as well as provisions
governing Limitations on the Use of
Subminimum Wage that fall under the
Secretary’s purview. The statutory
changes made by the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA), which amended the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), form the basis for
this NPRM. In addition, the Secretary
proposes to update, clarify, and improve
the current regulations.
DATES: The meetings will take place on
April 30, 2015, and May 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: We will hold two public
meetings about the NPRM:
1. April 30, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. EDT, Washington-Lyndon Baines
Johnson (LBJ), U.S. Department of
Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave.
SW., Barnard Auditorium, Washington,
DC 20202.
2. May 20, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. PDT, Sacramento—California
Department of Rehabilitation, 721
Capitol Mall, Room 242, Sacramento,
CA 95814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet LaBreck, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
room 5086, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–2800.
Telephone: (202) 245–7488 or by email:
Janet.LaBreck@ed.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
The Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113–
128), signed into law on July 22, 2014,
made significant changes to the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act). As a result, in the
separate NPRM (80 FR 21059, April 16,
2015), the Secretary proposes to amend
parts 361 and 363 of title 34 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). These
parts, respectively, implement the:
• State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR)
Services program; and
• State Supported Employment
Services program.
In addition, WIOA added section 511
to title V of the Act. Section 511 limits
the payment of subminimum wages to
individuals with disabilities by
employers holding special wage
certificates under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). Although the
Department of Labor administers the
FLSA, some requirements of section 511
fall under the purview of the
Department of Education. Therefore, the
Secretary proposes to add a new part
397 to title 34 of the CFR to implement
those particular provisions.
The proposed changes are further
described under the Summary of
Proposed Changes and Significant
Proposed Regulations sections of the
separate NPRM related to 34 CFR parts
361, 363, and 397.
Announcement of Public Meetings:
The Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services will hold two
public meetings during April and May
of 2015. The meetings will provide the
public with the opportunity to present
public comments on only the separate
NPRM amending 34 CFR parts 361, 363,
and 397, which is the NPRM associated
with Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0001.
It is likely that each participant will be
limited to five minutes. Speakers may
also submit written comments at the
public meetings. In addition, the
Department will accept written
comments through
www.regulations.gov, as explained in
the separate NPRM. This notice
provides specific information about
dates, locations, and times of these
meetings in the ADDRESSES section.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities may obtain this document in
an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22661
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities at the Public Meetings: The
meeting sites are accessible to
individuals with disabilities, and sign
language interpreters will be available.
If you will need an accommodation or
auxiliary aid other than a sign language
interpreter in order to participate in the
meeting (e.g., other interpreting service
such as oral, cued speech, or tactile
interpreter; assistive listening device; or
materials in accessible format), please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least
two weeks before the scheduled meeting
date. Although we will attempt to meet
a request we receive after this date, we
may not be able to make available the
requested accommodation or auxiliary
aid because of insufficient time to
arrange it.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at this site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature of this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 13, 2015.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2015–09318 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 501
Revisions to the Requirements for
Authority To Manufacture and
Distribute Postage Evidencing
Systems
Postal Service.TM
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Postal Service is
proposing to revise the rules concerning
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22658-22661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-06945]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22658]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0055]
RIN 1905-AD50
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps
Correction
In proposed rule document 2015-06945 beginning on page 17585 in the
issue of Wednesday, April 1, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 17637, in the first column, beginning with the third
paragraph under the section heading ``E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' and continuing through to the third column, on page 17639 up
to the heading entitled ``VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary'', revise the existing text to read as follows:
(2) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for ``pump,''
``bare pump,'' ``mechanical equipment,'' ``driver,'' and ``control.''
(3) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for
``continuous control'' and ``non-continuous control.''
(4) DOE also requests comment and information regarding how often
pumps with continuous or non-continuous controls are packaged and
distributed in commerce, by manufacturers, with integrated sensors and
feedback logic that would allow such pumps to automatically actuate.
(5) DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of pumps with
continuous and non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce,
but never paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would
enable energy savings.
(6) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``basic
model'' as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in
comments on DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating
pumps with trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic
models, provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum
impeller diameter for that model.
(7) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``full
impeller.''
(8) DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump
models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
(9) DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that
are unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may
require modifications to the definition of ``basic model,'' as
proposed.
(10) DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test
procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC,
ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
(11) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end
suction pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled
pump, in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing
diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical
turbine submersible pump.
(12) DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI
nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the
regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies,
and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would
provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when
determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
(13) DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow
direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when
determining test procedure and standards applicability.
(14) DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is
necessary in the proposed RSV definition to make the exclusion of
immersible pumps clearer.
(15) DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators
and pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.
(16) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for
circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
(17) DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL,
and RSV pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as
designed.
Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly
referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a
rigid foundation.
(18) DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/
mixed flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking
based on the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where
commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests
comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or
criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/
mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pumps
equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
(19) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``clean
water pump.''
(20) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference the definition for ``clear water'' in HI 40.6-2014 to
describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance
with the DOE test procedure.
(21) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``fire
pump,'' ``selfpriming pump,'' ``prime-assisted pump,'' and ``sealless
pump.''
(22) Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE
notes that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in
front of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump
during the priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific
design features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-
priming, and whether such specificity is needed in the definition for
clarity.
(23) DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and
criteria to determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military
Specification and if Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F
should be referenced.
(24) DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the
test procedure: fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps,
sealless pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject
to 10 CFR part 50--Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities, and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements
set forth in Military
[[Page 22659]]
Specification MIL-P-17639F, ``Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous
Service, Naval Shipboard Use'' (as amended).
(25) DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics
(power, flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl
diameter) as limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed
test procedure would apply.
(26) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for ``bowl
diameter'' as it would apply to VTS pumps.
(27) DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with
non-electric drivers as bare pumps.
(28) DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed
in commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in
the bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
(29) DOE requests comment from interested party on any categories
of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with
pumps considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have efficiencies
lower than the default nominal full load motor efficiency for NEMA
Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors. . . .
(30) DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting
for PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors and PEIVL for pumps
inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
(31) DOE requests comments on the proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric
architecture.
(32) DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor
horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being
evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant
pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the
pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the
horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold
with motors and controls (with or without continuous or non-continuous
controls).
(33) DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the
DOE test procedure for pumps.
(34) DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by
reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014
as part of the DOE test procedure.
(35) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be
collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
(36) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening
devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted
above (i.e., permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval,
or 5 seconds).
(37) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected
at the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the
nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
(38) DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements
in HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal
speed and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is
interested if maintaining tested speed within 1 percent of
the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce
more accurate and repeatable test results.
(39) DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency,
voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance
requirements that are required when performing a wire-to-water pump
test or when testing a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically,
DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in
typical pump test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power
conditioning equipment would be required.
(40) DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps
in their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest
number of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with
that particular number of stages.
(41) DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear
regression of the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at
all the tested flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of
expected BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the
specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is
especially interested in any pump models for which such an approach
would yield inaccurate measurements.
(42) DOE requests comment on its proposal that for pumps with BEP
at run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and
100 percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points
described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant
load points for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65
percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
(43) DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required
measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical
power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or
noncontinuous controls.
(44) DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all
calculations and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values
and that the PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL, as applicable, be
reported to the nearest 0.01.
(45) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default
motor horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input
power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an
appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (e.g.,
pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point is a
significantly lower horsepower than the BEP flow load point).
(46) DOE requests comment on its proposal that would specify the
default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based
on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency
specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A,
NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps
except pumps sold with submersible motors.
(47) DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load
motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
(48) DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum
motor full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to
the most current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated
electric motors, through the use of ``bands'' as presented in Table
III.6.
(49) DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the
default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented
in Table III.6 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with
submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and
continuous or noncontinuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-
water testing.
(50) DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor
part load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of
covered motors and submersible motors including the default motor
specified in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PERSTD.
(51) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part
load losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy
conservation standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on
the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in
accordance with DOE's electric motor
[[Page 22660]]
test procedure, and the same default motor part load loss curve applied
to the default motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
(52) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the PERCL of
pumps sold with submersible motors using the proposed default minimum
efficiency values for submersible motors and applying the same default
motor part load loss curve to the default motor in test method A.1 for
the bare pump.
(53) DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with
motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure
(except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water,
testing-based approach.
(54) DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to
use, as well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead
of the statically loaded offset.
(55) DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for
determining pump shaft input power for pumps sold with motors and
continuous controls when rated using the calculation-based method.
(56) DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load
loss factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor
(i.e., motor brake horsepower) to calculate the losses of a combined
motor and continuous controls, where the four curves would correspond
to different horsepower ratings of the continuous control.
(57) DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed
equation compared to one that accounts for multiple performance
variables (speed and torque).
(58) DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor
that was applied to the measured VSD efficiency data to generate the
proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically,
DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling
factor would be more appropriate in this context.
(59) DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower
ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and
motor horsepower.
(60) DOE requests comment and data from interested parties
regarding the extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve
would represent minimum efficiency motor and continuous control
combinations.
(61) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of
each individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEICL or PEIVL
rating for one or more pump basic models.
(62) DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of
calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to
the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
(63) DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for
pumps rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input
power to the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic
output. DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may
yield significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is
determined based on pump efficiency.
(64) DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for
pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
(65) DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for
determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and
non-continuous controls.
(66) DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous
control that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test
procedure would not apply.
(67) DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-
based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and
testing-based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with
motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy
conservation standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps
sold with any motors and with noncontinuous controls.
(68) DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either
testing-based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate
pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1)
regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
(69) DOE requests comment on the level of burden to include with
any certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by
a manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with
any energy conservation standards DOE may set.
(70) DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for
certification of commercial and industrial pump models.
(71) DOE requests comment regarding the size of pump manufacturing
entities and the number of manufacturing businesses represented by this
market.
(72) DOE requests comment on its assumption that, for most pump
models, only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is
required, and subsequent ratings for that bare pump sold with a motor
or motor and continuous control can be based on calculations only.
(73) DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for
which the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump
sold with a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental
physical test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the
number of pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's
energy conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump
models sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of
continuous control.
(74) DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by
pump manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary
to transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure
as described in this NOPR.
(75) DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-
calibrated test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly
approach for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE
test procedure.
(76) DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs
to build a pump testing facility as presented.
(77) DOE requests comment on the test facility description and
measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
(78) DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden
associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in
the NOPR.
(79) DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per
manufacturer that would be required to use the wire-to-water test
method to certify pump performance.
(80) DOE requests comment on the estimation of the portion of pumps
that would need to be newly certified or recertified annually.
(81) DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the
financial indicator for this analysis and whether another financial
indicator would be more representative to assess the burden upon the
pump manufacturing industry.
(82) DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule
may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions
and estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with
implementing the proposed DOE test procedure.
[[Page 22661]]
(83) DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
[FR Doc. C1-2015-06945 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
