Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial & Industrial Pumps, 20075-20086 [2021-07701]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20075
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
stack and flue gases for vented heaters to
determine the concentration by volume of
carbon dioxide present in the dry gas with
instrumentation which will result in a
reading having an accuracy of ±0.1
percentage point.
2.8 Energy flow instrumentation. Install
one or more instruments, which measure the
rate of gas flow or fuel oil supplied to the
vented heater, and if appropriate, the
electrical energy with an error no greater than
one percent.
2.9 Room ambient temperature. The room
ambient temperature shall be the arithmetic
average temperature of the test area,
determined by measurement with four No. 24
AWG bead-type thermocouples with
junctions shielded against radiation using
shielding meeting the material and minimum
thickness requirements from section 8.14.1 of
ANSI Z21.86–2016, located approximately at
90-degree positions on a circle
circumscribing the heater or heater enclosure
under test, in a horizontal plane
approximately at the vertical midpoint of the
appliance or test enclosure, and with the
junctions approximately 24 inches from sides
of the heater or test enclosure and located so
as not to be affected by other than room air.
The value TRA is the room ambient
temperature measured at the last of the three
successive readings taken 15 minutes apart
described in section 3.1.1 or 3.1.2 as
applicable. During the time period required
to perform all the testing and measurement
procedures specified in section 3.0 of this
appendix, maintain the room ambient
temperature within ±5 °F (±2.8 C) of the value
TRA. At no time during these tests shall the
room ambient temperature exceed 100 °F
(37.8 C) or fall below 65 °F (18.3 C).
Locate a thermocouple at each elevation of
draft relief inlet opening and combustion air
inlet opening at a distance of approximately
24 inches from the inlet openings. The
temperature of the air for combustion and the
air for draft relief shall not differ more than
±5 °F from the room ambient temperature as
measured above at any point in time. This
requirement for combustion air inlet
temperature does not need to be met once the
burner is shut off during the testing described
in sections 3.3 and 3.6 of this appendix.
2.10 Equipment used to measure mass
flow rate in flue and stack. The tracer gas
chosen for this task should have a density
which is less than or approximately equal to
the density of air. Use a gas unreactive with
the environment to be encountered. Using
instrumentation of either the batch or
continuous type, measure the concentration
of tracer gas with an error no greater than 2
percent of the value of the concentration
measured.
2.11 Equipment with multiple control
modes.
2.11.1 For equipment that has both
manual and automatic thermostat control
modes, test the unit according to the
procedure for its automatic control mode, i.e.
single-stage, two-stage, or step-modulating.
2.11.2 For equipment that has multiple
automatic thermostat control modes, test in
the default mode (or similarly-named mode
identified for normal operation) as defined by
the manufacturer in its I&O manual. If a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
default mode is not defined in the I&O
manual, test in the mode that the equipment
operates in as shipped from the
manufacturer.
*
*
*
*
*
3.1.2 Oil-fueled vented home heating
equipment (including direct vent systems).
Set up and adjust the vented heater as
specified in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.4 of this
appendix. Begin the steady-state performance
test by operating the burner and the
circulating air blower, on units so equipped,
with the adjustments specified by sections
2.4.2 and 2.5 of this appendix, until steadystate conditions are attained as indicated by
a temperature variation of not more than
±5 °F (2.8 C) in the flue gas temperature in
three successive readings taken 15 minutes
apart. The measurements described in this
section are to coincide with the last of these
15 minutes readings.
For units equipped with power burners, do
not allow smoke in the flue to exceed a No.
1 smoke during the steady-state performance
test as measured by the procedure described
in ASTM D2156–09 (RA 2018). Maintain the
average draft over the fire and in the
breeching during the steady-state
performance test at that recommended by the
manufacturer ±0.005 inches of water gauge.
Measure the room temperature (TRA) as
described in section 2.9 of this appendix.
Measure the steady-state flue gas temperature
(TF,SS) using nine thermocouples located in
the flue pipe as described in section 2.6.2 of
this appendix. From the plane where TF,SS
was measured, collect a sample of the flue
gas and determine the concentration by
volume of CO2 (XCO2F) present in dry flue
gas. Measure and record the steady-state heat
input rate (Qin).
For manually controlled oil fueled vented
heaters, determine the steady-state efficiency
at a fuel input rate that is within ±5 percent
of 50 percent of the maximum fuel input rate;
or, if the design of the heater is such that the
fuel input rate cannot be set to ±5 percent of
50 percent of the maximum rated fuel input
rate, determine the steady-state efficiency at
the minimum rated fuel input rate as
measured in section 3.1.2 of this appendix
for manually controlled oil fueled vented
heaters.
*
*
*
*
*
3.2 Jacket loss measurement. Conduct a
jacket loss test for vented floor furnaces.
Measure the jacket loss (Lj) in accordance
with ASHRAE 103–2017 section 8.6,
applying the provisions for furnaces and not
the provisions for boilers.
*
*
*
*
*
3.6.2.4.2 If absolutely no smoke is drawn
into the combustion air intake, the vented
heater meets the requirements to allow use of
the default draft factor of 0.05.
*
*
*
*
*
3.8.2 Cyclic condensate collection tests. If
existing controls do not allow for cyclical
operation of the tested unit, install control
devices to allow cyclical operation of the
vented heater. Run three consecutive test
cycles. For each cycle, operate the unit until
flue gas temperatures at the end of each oncycle, rounded to the nearest whole number,
are within 5 °F of each other for two
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consecutive cycles. On-cycle and off-cycle
times are 4 minutes and 13 minutes
respectively. Control of ON and OFF
operation actions shall be within ±6 seconds
of the scheduled time. For fan-type vented
heaters, maintain circulating air adjustments
as specified in section 2.5 of this appendix.
Begin condensate collection at one minute
before the on-cycle period of the first test
cycle. Remove the container one minute
before the end of each off-cycle period.
Measure condensate mass for each test-cycle.
The error associated with the mass
measurement instruments shall not exceed
±0.5 percent of the quantity measured.
Record fuel input during the entire test
period starting at the beginning of the ontime period of the first cycle to the beginning
of the on-time period of the second cycle,
from the beginning of the on-time period of
the second cycle to the beginning of the ontime period of the third cycle, etc., for each
of the test cycles. Record fuel HHV,
temperature, and pressure necessary for
determining fuel energy input, QC. Determine
the mass of condensate for each cycle, MC,
in pounds. If at the end of three cycles, the
sample standard deviation is less than or
equal to 20 percent of the mean value for
three cycles, use total condensate collected in
the three cycles as Mc; if not, continue
collection for an additional three cycles and
use the total condensate collected for the six
cycles as MC. Determine the fuel energy
input, QC, during the three or six test cycles,
expressed in Btu.
For units with step-modulating controls,
conduct the cyclic condensate collection test
at reduced input rate only. For units with
two-stage controls, the cyclic condensate
collection test is conducted at both maximum
and reduced input rates unless the balancepoint temperature (TC) as determined in
section 4.1.10 of this Appendix O is equal to
or less than the typical outdoor design
temperature of 5 °F (¥5 °C), in which case
test at reduced input rate only.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–07137 Filed 4–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032]
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Commercial & Industrial
Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to
consider amendments to the test
procedure for Commercial and
Industrial Pumps (‘‘pumps’’). Through
this request for information (‘‘RFI’’),
DOE seeks data and information
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20076
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
regarding issues pertinent to whether
amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the
requirement that the test procedure
produces results that measure energy
use during a representative average use
cycle for the product without being
unduly burdensome to conduct, or that
reduce testing burden. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this
document (including topics not raised
in this RFI), as well as the submission
of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To Pumps2020TP0032@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2020–BT–TP–0032 in the subject
line of the message.
No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, email,
postal mail, or hand delivery/courier,
the Department has found it necessary
to make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public
comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds
that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance
Standards Program staff at (202) 586–
1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the Covid–19
pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and
hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket. See
section III for information on how to
submit comments through 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:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
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:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
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:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) DOE’s
test procedures for pumps are
prescribed in title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), subpart Y
of part 431. Relevant to this document,
DOE has established a test procedure for
pumps at 10 CFR 431.464 and appendix
A to subpart Y of part 431 (‘‘Appendix
A’’). The following sections discuss
DOE’s authority to establish and amend
test procedures for pumps, as well as
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for this equipment.
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,2
added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Public Law
95–619 (Nov. 9, 1978), Title IV, § 441(a)
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317 as codified),
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve
industrial equipment energy efficiency.
The equipment addressed under these
provisions include pumps, the subject
of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C.
6297). DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance
with the procedures and other
provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment
must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying
Commercial and industrial pumps
(collectively, ‘‘pumps’’) are among the
industrial equipment for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend test
procedures and energy conservation
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Pump and Related Component
Definitions
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
2. Pump Characteristics
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
C. Test Procedure
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
2. Testing and Calculation Options
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only
Motors
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
5. Rounding and Represented Values
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
2. Labeling Requirement
3. Any Additional Information
III. Submission of Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and
(2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered equipment.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results that reflect the
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
given type of covered equipment during
a representative average use cycle and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE review test
procedures for all types of covered
equipment, including pumps, to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements that
the test procedures be reasonably
designed to produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle and to
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if the
Secretary determines that a test
procedure amendment is warranted, the
Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register, and
afford interested persons an opportunity
(of not less than 45 days’ duration) to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI
to collect data and information to
inform its decision in satisfaction of the
7-year review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
B. Rulemaking History
DOE’s test procedure for determining
pump energy efficiency was established
in a final rule published on January 25,
2016. 81 FR 4086 (‘‘January 2016 Final
Rule’’).3 The January 2016 Final Rule
established definitions for the terms
‘‘pump,’’ ‘‘driver,’’ 4 and ‘‘controls,’’ 5
and described several categories and
configurations of pumps. The pumps
20077
test procedure currently incorporates by
reference the Hydraulic Institute (‘‘HI’’)
Standard 40.6–2014, ‘‘Methods for
Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing’’
(‘‘HI 40.6–2014’’), along with several
modifications to that testing method
related to measuring the hydraulic
power, shaft power, and electric input
power of pumps, inclusive of electric
motors and any continuous or noncontinuous controls.6
On September 28, 2020, DOE
published an early assessment review
RFI in which it sought data and
information pertinent to whether
amended test procedures would (1)
more accurately or fully comply with
the requirement that the test procedure
produces results that measure energy
use during a representative average use
cycle for the equipment without being
unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2)
reduce testing burden. 85 FR 60734
(‘‘September 2020 Early Assessment
RFI’’). DOE received comments in
response to the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI from the interested
parties listed in Table I.1. A
parenthetical reference at the end of a
comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.7
TABLE I.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 2020 EARLY ASSESSMENT RFI
Organization(s)
Reference in this RFI
California Investor-Owned Utilities ..........................................................
Grundfos Americas Corporation ..............................................................
Hydraulic Institute ....................................................................................
National Electrical Manufacturers Association ........................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .....................................................
People’s Republic of China .....................................................................
CA IOUs ........................................
Grundfos ........................................
HI ...................................................
NEMA ............................................
NEEA .............................................
PRC ...............................................
Utility.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Efficiency Organization.
Nation/Government.
In the following sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to determine whether, and
if so how, an amended test procedure
for pumps would (1) more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements in
EPCA that test procedures be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy use during a
representative average use cycle,
without being unduly burdensome to
conduct, or (2) reduce testing burden.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Further, DOE issued an Early
Assessment RFI (85 FR 60734) to seek
more general information on whether its
test procedures are reasonably designed,
as required by EPCA, to produce results
that measure the energy use or
efficiency of equipment during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use. See also 84 FR 9721
(March 18, 2019) (RFI seeking public
comment on the measurement of
average use cycles or periods of use in
DOE’s test procedures). DOE seeks
comment on this issue as it pertains to
the test procedure for pumps.
3 On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction
to the January 2016 Final Rule to correct the
placement of the product-specific enforcement
provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134
at paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
4 A ‘‘driver’’ provides mechanical input to drive
a bare pump directly or through the use of
mechanical equipment. Electric motors, internal
combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are
examples of drivers. (10 CFR 431.462)
5 A ‘‘control’’ is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR
431.462)
6 A ‘‘continuous control’’ is a control that adjusts
the speed of the pump driver continuously over the
driver operating speed range in response to
incremental changes in the required pump flow,
head, or power output. A ‘‘non-continuous control’’
is a control that adjusts the speed of a driver to one
of a discrete number of non-continuous preset
operating speeds, and does not respond to
incremental reductions in the required pump flow,
head, or power output. 10 CFR 431.462.
7 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in DOE’s test procedure
rulemaking docket. (Docket No. EERE–2020–BT–
TP–0032, which is maintained at https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020BT-TP-0032). The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
Based on DOE’s review of the test
procedure for pumps and the comments
received, DOE has determined it is
appropriate to continue the test
procedure rulemaking after the early
assessment process. See 10 CFR 431.4;
10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A
section 8(b). Specific comments are
discussed in the sections that follow.
II. Request for Information
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Organization type
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
20078
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
As stated previously, DOE received
multiple comments to the 2020 Early
Assessment RFI. These comments are
summarized in this RFI and DOE asks
for additional information and comment
on these issues. In addition, DOE notes
that since publication of the January
2016 Final Rule, as well as the
subsequent energy conservation
standards final rule,8 it has received
inquiries from stakeholders related to
implementation of and compliance with
the regulatory requirements for pumps.
This RFI discusses these issues and
notes the additional information that
would be needed if DOE decided to
propose amending its current test
procedure.
A. Pump and Related Component
Definitions
This RFI covers pumps and relevant
components of pumps, such as the ‘‘bare
pump’’, ‘‘mechanical equipment’’,
‘‘driver’’, and ‘‘control’’, all of which are
defined at 10 CFR 431.462.
Some manufacturers distribute kits of
unassembled components that
customers (including end users or
distributors) may purchase and
assemble into finished equipment that
meets the definition of a pump or a bare
pump (see additional discussion in
section II.D.2 of this RFI). Manufacturers
may also otherwise distribute various
pump parts together in commerce.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the
definitions of ‘‘pump’’ and its
components and whether any of the
terms should be amended, and if so,
how the terms should be amended. In
particular, DOE requests comment on
whether the terms are sufficient to
identify which equipment is subject to
the test procedure and whether any test
procedure amendments are required to
ensure that all such equipment can be
appropriately tested in accordance with
the test procedure.
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
The following sections address in
detail various elements related to the
scope of the test procedure. DOE seeks
input regarding these elements to help
determine what specific changes, if any,
might be needed to improve the current
test procedure’s ability to determine
pump energy efficiency in a manner
consistent with the requirements set out
in 42 U.S.C. 6314.
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
The current DOE test procedure for
pumps applies only to certain
8 See Docket EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031, at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011BT-STD-0031.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
rotodynamic pumps 9 that are defined as
‘‘clean water pumps’’. 10 CFR 431.462.
Specifically, it applies to five categories
of clean water pumps with specific
characteristics. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1).
Pumps are further delineated into
equipment classes based on nominal
speed of rotation and operating mode
(i.e., constant load or variable load). 10
CFR 431.465.
The five categories of clean water
pumps to which the test procedure
applies are: End suction close-coupled
(‘‘ESCC’’); end suction frame mounted/
own bearings (‘‘ESFM’’); in-line (‘‘IL’’);
radially split, multi-stage, vertical, inline diffuser casing (‘‘RSV’’); and
submersible turbine (‘‘ST’’) pumps. 10
CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i). DOE defines each
of these five categories in 10 CFR
431.462.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on
whether DOE’s five pump categories
sufficiently represent the market and
technology available for clean water
pumps; whether these categories are
sufficiently defined in order to ensure
that the categories are mutually
exclusive; or whether any of these
categories or descriptions should be
amended.
Definitions relevant to the pump
categories listed above and applicable to
this test procedure include ‘‘closecoupled pump,’’ ‘‘end suction pump,’’
‘‘mechanically-coupled pump,’’ and
‘‘single axis flow pump,’’ See 10 CFR
431.462 (defining each of these terms).
Determining the applicability of the
pump categories relies in part on the
defined terms ‘‘close-coupled pump’’
and ‘‘mechanically-coupled pump’’
DOE defines a close-coupled pump as a
pump having a motor shaft that also acts
as the impeller shaft, while a
mechanically-coupled pump is one that
has its own impeller shaft and bearings
separate from the motor shaft. (Id.) DOE
is aware that certain pumps may have
their own shaft, but with no bearings to
support that shaft. Additionally, DOE
notes that while its close-coupled pump
definition describes a pump in which
the motor shaft also serves as the pump
shaft, the definition does not provide
any detail on how the motor and pump
shaft may be connected. DOE has
observed that some manufacturers
describe close-coupled pumps as using
an adapter to mount the impeller
9 A rotodynamic pump is one in which energy is
continuously imparted to the pumped fluid by
means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. 10
CFR 431.462. This kind of pump (also known as a
‘‘centrifugal pump’’) is in contrast to a positive
displacement pump, which has an expanding cavity
on the suction side and a decreasing cavity on the
discharge side that moves a constant volume of
fluid for each cycle of operation.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
directly to the motor shaft. The coupling
type is the only differentiator between
end suction close-coupled pumps,
which are ‘‘close-coupled pumps’’, and
end suction frame mounted/own
bearings pumps, which are
‘‘mechanically-coupled pumps’’. In the
January 2016 Final Rule, DOE noted that
it intended for the equipment category
definitions for ESFM and ESCC pumps
to be mutually exclusive, to ensure that
pumps that are close-coupled to the
motor and have a single impeller and
motor shaft would be part of the ESCC
equipment category while all other end
suction pumps that are mechanicallycoupled to the motor and for which the
bare pump and motor have separate
shafts would be part of the ESFM
equipment category. 81 FR 4096.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the
definitions of ‘‘close-coupled pump’’
and ‘‘mechanically-coupled pump’’ and
whether the terms should be revised to
achieve the differentiation described
above—and if so, how. DOE also
requests comment on whether the terms
themselves are specific enough to
ensure that end suction close-coupled
pumps and end suction frame mounted/
own bearings pumps remain mutually
exclusive. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on whether there are pumps
being sold in commerce that may not
meet the ‘‘close-coupled’’ or
‘‘mechanically-coupled’’ definitions but
would otherwise meet the definition for
an ‘‘end suction’’ pump.
Determining the applicability of the
pump categories also relies in part on
the defined terms ‘‘single axis flow
pump’’ and ‘‘end suction pump.’’ IL
pumps are defined as single axis flow
pumps, and ESCC pumps are defined as
end suction pumps. The definition of
single axis flow pump does not
explicitly state whether the axis is
defined by the suction opening to the
volute 10 or the suction opening at the
perimeter of the pump. A close-coupled
pump can be designed with a tangential
discharge volute (i.e., a design in which
the suction and discharge openings do
not share a common axis).
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on
how manufacturers are currently
categorizing close-coupled pumps with
tangential discharge volutes relative to
the five pump categories defined at 10
CFR 431.464.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on
whether it should provide additional
detail in the definitions of single-axis
flow pumps and/or end suction pumps
regarding tangential discharge volute
configurations, or whether the existing
10 A volute may also be referred to as a ‘‘housing’’
or ‘‘casing.’’
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
definitions are sufficient to determine
individual pump classifications.
2. Pump Characteristics
The applicable scope for the test
procedure is limited to the five pump
categories discussed previously, with
flow rate, maximum head, design
temperature range, motor type, bowl
diameter, and speed additionally
specified in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii).
The applicable scope for the test
procedure also excludes fire pumps,
self-priming pumps, prime-assist
pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps
for nuclear facilities, and pumps
meeting certain military specifications.
10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(iii).
In response to the September 2020
Early Assessment RFI, NEEA
commented that while the test
procedure scope covers a large portion
of the U.S. commercial and industrial
pump market, pumps with similar
characteristics may be subject to the
DOE test procedure and standards while
some are not. NEEA stated that this may
create market confusion and
inconsistency in ratings (NEEA, No. 8 at
p. 8). NEEA specifically highlighted
small vertical inline pumps (‘‘SVIL’’)
below 1 horsepower as recommended
by DOE’s Circulator Working Group,11
pumps operating with motors at speeds
different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm,
and submersible turbine pumps with a
bowl diameter greater than 6 inches as
examples of pumps that DOE should
consider including as part of an
expanded scope. (Id.)
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on the
percentage of manufacturer pump
models that fall within the scope of the
current test procedure and those models
that fall outside the scope of the
procedure. DOE also seeks information
regarding how manufacturers address
this situation when communicating
performance in catalogs and other
related literature.
Issue 7: DOE requests shipment and
market performance data for SVIL
pumps below 1 horsepower (‘‘hp’’);
pumps operating with motors at speeds
different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm
(e.g., non-induction motors with a range
of speed of rotation starting above 4,320
revolutions per minute, as further
discussed in section II.C.3); submersible
turbine pumps with a bowl diameter
greater than 6 inches; and other pumps
that are currently excluded from scope
based on the pump characteristics
provided at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii)
(e.g., pumps designed to operate with
11 See
docket EERE–2013–BT–STD–0039, at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013BT-NOC-0039.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
greater than 4 pole induction motors)
that should be considered for inclusion
in the test procedure scope.
NEEA also supported the Circulator
Working Group recommendation to
adopt test procedures for Circulator
Pumps (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8). DOE notes
that it may consider the testing of
circulator pumps in a separate
rulemaking. DOE also notes that the
Circulator Working Group characterized
SVIL pumps as potential substitutes for
circulator pumps and recommended
using the pumps test procedure to
measure the performance of SVIL
pumps, with necessary modifications
made as determined by DOE (EERE–
2016–BT–STD–0004–0058,
recommendation #1B).
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
HI and the American Petroleum
Institute (‘‘API’’) publish standards that
include design criteria for different
pump configurations. Section 2.1.3.4 of
ANSI/HI 12 Standard 2.1–2.2,
‘‘Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial,
Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for
Nomenclature and Definitions,’’
describes vertically separate discharge
sump pumps, a category of pump that
includes line shaft (‘‘VS4’’) pumps and
cantilever (‘‘VS5’’) pumps. Section 9.3
of API Standard 610, ‘‘Centrifugal
Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical,
and Natural Gas Industries’’ 13 also
provides a description of VS4 and VS5
pumps. Both VS4 and VS5 pumps are
vertically suspended, volute pumps
with a single casing and with a
discharge column that is separate from
the shaft column. The line shaft of a
VS4 pump is supported by one or more
bearings throughout the center column,
while the line shaft of a VS5 pump is
cantilevered and has no support bearing
within the shaft column. The pump
equipment categories defined by DOE
do not explicitly reference VS4 or VS5
pumps, and some pumps may
simultaneously fit the DOE definition of
an ESFM pump and the API definition
of a VS4 or VS5 pump. However, the
scope of the current DOE test procedure
includes only clean water pumps (see
10 CFR 431.464(a)(i)) and most VS4 and
VS5 pumps are not designed for clean
water. To the extent that a VS4 or VS5
pump is a ‘‘clean water pump’’ that
meets the definition of ESFM and the
other applicable criteria, it would be
within the scope of equipment subject
to DOE’s Appendix A test procedure.
12 ‘‘ANSI’’ refers to American National Standards
Institute.
13 API standards are available for purchase from
the API website at: https://www.api.org/Standards/.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20079
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on
whether the test procedure should be
amended to explicitly address line shaft
pumps and cantilever pumps such as
VS4 and VS5 pumps as described in the
HI and API standards, and if so, how the
definition should be amended.
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
Section 1.2.9.2 of ANSI/HI Standard
1.1–1.2, ‘‘Rotodynamic Centrifugal
Pumps for Nomenclature and
Definitions’’ and section 9.2 of API
Standard 610 describe between-bearing
(‘‘BB’’) pumps with bearings on both
ends of the rotating assembly. ‘‘BB1’’
pumps are axially-split, one- or twostage pumps that are mounted to a
baseplate and driven by a motor via a
flexible coupling. BB1 pumps are not
explicitly excluded from the scope of
coverage and the definition of IL pumps
could be understood to include BB1
pumps. However, BB1 pumps are not
typically designed for clean water (the
scope of the current DOE test procedure
includes only clean water pumps) and
have horsepower ratings greater than the
200 hp limit of pumps currently within
the scope of the DOE test procedure.
In addition, BB1 pumps do not have
an ‘‘overhung impeller.’’ An ‘‘overhung
impeller’’ generally is an impeller that
is mounted on the end of a shaft and
that is cantilevered or ‘‘overhung’’ from
the bearing supports. Although not
included in the definition of ‘‘in-line
pump,’’ IL pumps that are single-stage
generally have an overhung impeller.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on
whether any pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described
in the HI and API standards) are
designed for clean water use and are
rated below 200 hp.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on
whether pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described
in the HI and API standards) may be
tested according to the DOE test
procedure for pumps, or if special
instructions or accommodations would
be needed to test BB1 pumps.
C. Test Procedure
DOE specifies the constant load pump
energy index (‘‘PEICL’’) as the test metric
for pumps sold without continuous or
non-continuous controls, and the
variable load pump energy index
(‘‘PEIVL’’) as the test metric for pumps
sold with continuous or non-continuous
controls. 10 CFR 431.465. As noted, a
‘‘continuous control’’ is a control that
adjusts the speed of the pump driver
continuously over the driver operating
speed range in response to incremental
changes in the required pump flow,
head, or power output. 10 CFR 431.462.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
20080
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
A ‘‘non-continuous control’’ is a control
that adjusts the speed of a driver to one
of a discrete number of non-continuous
preset operating speeds, and does not
respond to incremental reductions in
the required pump flow, head, or power
output. Id.
Generally, the PEI metric is a ratio of
the pump energy rating (‘‘PER’’) of the
tested pump to the PER of a minimally
compliant pump (‘‘PERSTD’’). The pump
energy rating for constant load pumps
(‘‘PERCL’’) represents an average of
driver power input at 75%, 100%, and
110% of flow at the best efficiency point
(‘‘BEP’’),14 in which the flows are
achieved by varying the operating head
to follow the pump performance curve.
The pump energy rating for variable
load pumps (‘‘PERVL’’) represents an
average of driver power input at 25, 50,
75, and 100 percent of flow at BEP, in
which the flows are achieved by speed
reduction to follow a specified system
curve. As noted, BEP is defined as the
pump hydraulic power operating point
(consisting of both flow and head
conditions) that results in the maximum
efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
DOE’s established practice is to adopt
industry standards as DOE test
procedures unless such methodology
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, water use (as specified in
EPCA) or estimated operating costs of
that product during a representative
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C Appendix A section
8(c). In cases where the industry testing
standard does not meet the EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures,
DOE will make any necessary
modifications to these testing standards
through the rulemaking process when
adopting them for inclusion into DOE’s
regulations.
DOE sought comment in the
September 2020 Early Assessment RFI
on whether another consensus-based
test procedure could be adopted, with or
without modification, and meet the
criteria in EPCA related to
representativeness and test burden (85
FR 60736–60737). HI noted that it was
not aware of any consensus-based test
procedures that could be adopted (HI,
No. 6, p. 3). NEEA stated that it was not
aware of any test procedure that would
improve on the DOE test procedure and
that they found DOE’s test procedure to
14 Best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) means the pump
hydraulic power operating point (consisting of both
flow and head conditions) that results in the
maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
be the only one that satisfies the criteria
in EPCA related to representativeness
and test burden (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6).
a. HI Standard 40.6
DOE’s test procedure for pumps
generally incorporates HI 40.6–2014. 10
CFR 431.463. Since publication of the
January 2016 Final Rule, the Hydraulics
Institute updated HI 40.6–2014 with the
publication of HI Standard 40.6–2016,
‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump
Efficiency Testing’’ (‘‘HI 40.6–2016’’),
The 2016 update aligned the definitions
and procedures described in HI
Standard 40.6–2014 with the DOE test
procedure for pumps published in the
January 2016 Final Rule. HI 40.6–2016
revisions to HI 40.6–2014 are
summarized below, with the referenced
sections noted in parentheses:
• Clarified that the standard covers
efficiency testing of rotodynamic pumps
that are included in DOE regulations for
energy conservation. (Section 40.6.1
‘‘Scope’’)
• Updated the calculation of bare
pump efficiency to match the current
DOE test procedure requirements for
plotting test data to determine the BEP
rate of flow. (Section 40.6.6.3
‘‘Performance curve’’)
• Updated the description and
requirements of the pressure tap
configuration for measurement sections
at inlet and outlet of the pump. (Section
A.3.1.3 ‘‘Pressure taps’’)
• Expanded the requirements for
measurement of driver power input
with power quality and measurement
requirements that meet the requirements
of the current DOE test procedure.
(Section C.4.3 ‘‘Electric power
measurements,’’ and section C.4.3.1
‘‘Additional requirements for
measurement of driver power input to
the motor and controls’’)
• Added an informative appendix
with examples regarding the
determination of systematic uncertainty
of the devices for measurement of
required quantities on test. (Appendix G
‘‘Determination, application, and
calculation of instrument (systematic)
uncertainty (informative)’’)
DOE is aware that HI plans to publish
another updated version of HI 40.6,
‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump
Efficiency Testing’’ (‘‘HI 40.6–2021’’). HI
40.6–2021 contains the following
modifications to HI 40.6–2014, in
addition to the HI 40.6–2016 changes
listed previously:
• References ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2
‘‘Rotodynamic Pumps for Nomenclature
and Definitions’’ (‘‘ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2’’)
which supersedes ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–
2014 ‘‘American National Standard for
Rotodynamic Centrifugal Pumps for
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Nomenclature and Definitions’’ and
ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 ‘‘Rotodynamic
Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed and
Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and
Definitions’’. (Section 40.6.4.1
‘‘Vertically suspended pumps’’; Section
40.6.4.3 ‘‘All other pump types’’)
• Includes a new appendix
(Appendix E) for the testing of circulator
pumps. (Appendix E ‘‘Testing Circulator
Pumps’’)
In the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, DOE asked
stakeholders to comment on the
potential effect of incorporating HI
40.6–2016 by reference as the DOE test
procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734,
60737. Specifically, DOE requested
information on whether the updates in
HI 40.6–2016 impact the measured
values, and if so, to what extent. Id.
DOE also requested information on the
impact of the updates in HI 40.6–2016
to the test burden and the
representativeness of the test results. Id.
In response, Grundfos, NEEA, and HI
urged DOE to incorporate by reference
HI 40.6–2021 rather than HI 40.6–2016
(Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p.
6; HI, No. 6, p. 1). HI stated that HI
40.6–2016 included updates to match
DOE’s test procedure and did not
impact measured values, burden or
representativeness (HI, No. 6 at p. 3).
Both HI and NEEA stated that HI 40.6–
2021 further includes editorial revisions
and adds circulator pump testing, that
also would not impact measured values,
burden, or representativeness. (HI, No. 6
at p. 3; NEEA, No. 8, p. 6) Grundfos
agreed that HI 40.6–2021 does not affect
overall implementation of the standard,
but stated that if DOE decides not to
incorporate HI 40.6–2021 by reference,
then it should at least incorporate HI
40.6–2016 by reference (Grundfos, No.
7, p. 2). More generally, NEMA
indicated that it would be unduly
burdensome to require manufacturers to
switch from using the current HI testing
standard to a different method of testing
and evaluation in light of the relatively
short time that the current method has
been in place. (NEMA, No. 4, p. 2).
Issue 12: DOE requests comments on
whether it should adopt HI 40.6–2016 or
HI 40.6–2021 as the DOE test procedure
for pumps, and requests that
stakeholders provide specific
information as to why one version of HI
40.6 should be incorporated by
reference over the other. DOE also seeks
information on whether the
incorporation by reference of HI 40.6–
2016 or HI 40.6–2021 would impact
measured values, and if so, by how
much. Additionally, the current DOE
test procedure currently incorporates by
reference ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2014 which
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
was replaced by ANSI/HI 14.1–14.2.
DOE seeks comment on ANSI/HI 14.1–
14.2, referenced by HI 40.6–2021,
including whether, and if so how, it
would affect the scope of DOE’s test
procedures and energy consumption
standards for commercial and industrial
pumps.
b. IEC 61800–9–2:2017 and Other
Industry Test Standards Related to
Motor and Control Combinations
In the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, DOE noted that while
its test procedure for pumps
incorporates by reference HI 40.6–2014,
DOE also includes additional provisions
related to measuring the hydraulic
power, shaft power, and electric input
power of pumps, inclusive of electric
motors and any continuous or noncontinuous controls. 85 FR 60734,
60737. Since publication of the January
2016 Final Rule, the International
Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’)
published standard IEC 61800–9–2:2017
‘‘Adjustable speed electrical power
drive systems—Part 9–2: Ecodesign for
power drive systems, motor starters,
power electronics and their driven
applications—Energy efficiency
indicators for power drive systems and
motor starters,’’ (‘‘IEC 61800–9–2:2017’’)
which addresses test methods and
reference losses for ‘‘power drive
systems’’ (i.e., motors and their
associated controllers). Specifically,
Annex A of IEC 61800–9–2:2017
describes reference losses for complete
drive modules (i.e. controls) and power
drive systems at different operating
points comparable to the approach
already presented in section VII.E.1.2 of
Appendix A of that testing standard.
DOE requested comments on whether it
should consider substituting the model
in Annex A of IEC 61800–9–2:2017 for
the current calculations in section VII of
Appendix A, or whether any
considerations for updates should be
postponed until the second edition of
IEC 61800–9–2 is published. Id. A
second edition of this standard is
expected to be published in March 2022
to further address the test method and
reference losses.15
In response to DOE’s request for
comment, the majority of commenters
urged DOE to maintain the current test
approach in section VII.E.1.2 of
Appendix A. (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 5, p.
4; HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2).
Grundfos, NEEA, the Hydraulic
Institute, and NEMA all asserted that
substituting IEC 61800–9–2 for the
current approach would add burden
15 See
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/31527.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
without achieving additional energy
savings (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA,
No. 8, p. 7;; HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No.
4, p. 2). However, NEMA stated that it
is an active participant in efforts to
revise IEC 61800–9–2 and that
consideration of this standard may be
warranted for future test procedure
development for equipment classes not
yet covered by DOE regulation (NEMA,
No. 4, p. 2). The PRC requested that
DOE consider incorporating IEC 61800–
9–2 as a consensus-based standard to
facilitate international trade (PRC, No. 3,
p. 2). The CA IOUs stated that
substituting IEC 61800–9–2 for the
current approach would overstate motor
losses. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 4)
Since publication of the January 2016
Final Rule, the Air Movement and
Control Association (‘‘AMCA’’)
published AMCA 207–17 ‘‘Fan System
Efficiency and Fan System Input Power
Calculation’’ (‘‘AMCA 207–17’’).16
AMCA 207–17 provides default values
and equations to calculate the
performance of various motors and
control combinations, including
currently regulated motors and control
combinations (i.e., variable frequency
drives (‘‘VFD’’), variable-speed drives,
inverter drives). See AMCA 207–17
section 4.1.3.1, ‘‘Regulated polyphase
induction motors controlled by a VFD’’.
In response to the September 2020
Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
suggested that DOE reconsider the
combined VFD and motor loss equations
created for section VII, ‘‘CalculationBased Approach for Pumps Sold With
Motors and Controls,’’ of Appendix A in
favor of the methods in AMCA 207–17.
(CA IOUs, No. 5, pp. 1–4). Specifically,
the CA IOUs stated that the efficiency of
a motor/control combination
determined using the calculations in
section VII of Appendix A showed more
variation as a function of horsepower
than values predicted by AMCA 207–17.
(CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2). The CA IOUs
also stated that the full-load efficiency
of the motor and control combination
calculated using section VII of
Appendix A led to lower efficiency
values than those predicted by AMCA
207–17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3). The CA
IOUs further commented that updating
the calculations in section VII of
Appendix A with relevant equations
from AMCA 2017–17 should not require
any repeat testing, but the change would
impact the PEI calculation and might
impact pump compliance with the
pump energy conservation standards.
(CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 4).
16 See https://www.techstreet.com/amca/
standards/amca-207-17?product_id=1949776.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20081
DOE notes that the calculations in
section VII of Appendix A were
developed during the 2015 Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’)
negotiations and were voted on by the
members of the working group,
including the CA IOUs (Docket EERE–
2013–BT–NOC–0039–0092). As noted
by the CA IOUs, the equations in section
VII of Appendix A were considered the
best available method of calculation at
the time (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2).
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on
the applicability of the VFD/motor
efficiencies in AMCA 207–17 to pumps,
and whether DOE should consider
replacing the calculations in section VII
of Appendix A with those in AMCA
207–17. DOE also requests comment on
whether adoption of the AMCA 207–17
approach would be representative for
pumps. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on whether such a change
would impact PEI ratings (and if so,
how), manufacturer testing burden, or
manufacturer pump designs.
c. ISO/ASME 14414
In response to DOE’s September 2020
Early Assessment RFI, the PRC
recommended that DOE incorporate by
reference ISO/ASME 14414 ‘‘Pumps
System Energy Assessment’’ (‘‘ISO/
ASME 14414’’) in order to facilitate
international trade (PRC, No. 3, p. 3).
DOE understands that ISO/ASME 14414
(the most recent version of which was
published in January 2019) provides a
method for evaluating pump system
energy consumption, including the
effects of heat, noise and vibration on
over-sizing of pump system components
(i.e., pumps, process components, and
control valves), and provides methods
for identifying and documenting
opportunities for improvement in
energy use.17 Consequently, ISO/ASME
14414’s scope appears to go beyond
determining the representative energy
use of individual bare pumps or pumps
sold with motors and/or controls.
Issue 14: DOE requests comment on
whether DOE should consider
incorporating any aspect of ISO/ASME
14414 into its test procedure for
pumps—and if so, which aspects and
why.
2. Testing and Calculation Options
DOE’s test procedure for pumps
includes calculation-based and testingbased options that apply based on pump
configuration (including style of motor
and control) as distributed in commerce.
17 A summary of ISO/ASME 14414–2019 is
available at: https://www.asme.org/codesstandards/find-codes-standards/iso-asme-14414pump-system-energy-assessment.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20082
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
See Appendix A, Table 1. The
calculation-based options rely on a bare
pump test and are described in sections
III, V, and VII of Appendix A. The
testing-based options rely on a ‘‘wire-towater’’ test and are prescribed in
sections IV and VI of Appendix A. The
calculation-based options may reduce
test burden by allowing a manufacturer
to test a sample of bare pumps and use
that data to rate multiple pump
configurations using calculation-based
methods. Although testing-based
methods require wire-to-water testing of
individual pump configurations, they
may allow manufacturers to more
accurately represent pump, motor, or
control performance if so desired. DOE’s
definition of a ‘‘basic model’’ for pumps
provides additional options for reducing
test burden within the parameters of
Table 1 (see section II.D.1 of this RFI).
In the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, DOE noted that its
calculations of testing costs assumed
that the majority of pump basic models
would be certified based on the bare
pump configuration and that subsequent
ratings for the same bare pump sold
with any number of applicable motors
and continuous controls could be
generated using the calculation-based
approach. DOE also sought comment on
whether any modifications to the test
procedure could reduce test burden
while still allowing for accurate
determinations of energy use during a
representative average use cycle. 85 FR
60734, 60736.
In response, HI stated that, based on
a survey of HI members, industry testing
costs significantly exceeded DOE’s
estimates, and that wire-to-water testing
represented 20 percent of total industry
testing (HI, No. 6, p. 2). Grundfos
commented that approximately 45
percent of its testing was wire-to-water
testing—specifically, for pumps sold
with motors that can only operate when
driven by an inverter (i.e., inverter-only
motors) (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2). HI,
Grundfos, NEEA, and NEMA stated that
in order to reduce test burden, DOE
should work with stakeholders to
develop a calculation method for pumps
sold with inverter-only motors (HI, No.
6 at p. 1–2; Grundfos No. 7 at p. 1;
NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 5–6; NEMA, No. 4
at p. 2). The potential for development
of a calculation-based method for
pumps sold with inverter-only motors is
further discussed in section II.C.3 of this
RFI.
Grundfos, HI and NEEA further
recommended that DOE make no
additional changes to the test procedure
that would require re-testing. HI
commented that such changes would
add industry burden and result in no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
additional energy savings, while NEEA
added that the current test procedure
provides a sufficiently accurate
indicator of energy consumption
(Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; HI, No. 6 at p.
2; NEEA, No. 8 at p. 1).
Issue 15: In order to further assess
opportunity for reducing burden, DOE
requests additional information on how
manufacturers are implementing Table 1
of Appendix A (aside from inverter-only
motors). Specifically, DOE seeks
comment on the extent to which pumps
sold with multiple motor and control
configurations are tested multiple times
using testing-based methods; the extent
to which pumps sold with single-phase
motors are being rated as bare pumps
(using a calculation-based approach)
rather than by a testing-based approach;
and the extent to which pumps sold
with motors (other than inverter-only
motors) are being tested with a
calculation-based approach as opposed
to a testing-based approach.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on
whether any revisions to Table 1 of
Appendix A could be considered to
maintain or improve the information
derived from the test procedure while
reducing burden with no impact on the
PEI rating for currently regulated
pumps.
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only
Motors
This section addresses how DOE
could consider amending the test
procedure for pumps sold with inverteronly motors to reduce test burden.
Inverter-only motors are currently not
subject to DOE’s electric motor energy
conservation standards, and as such,
based on Table 1, currently require
wire-to-water testing. As discussed in
section II.C.2 of this RFI, commenters
requested that DOE work with
stakeholders to develop a calculationbased method for pumps sold with
inverter-only motors. In addition, based
on Table 1, pumps sold with inverteronly motors but without controls must
use a testing-based approach resulting
in a PEICL rating, rather than a PEIVL
rating. HI and Grundfos commented that
a calculation method for pumps sold
with inverter-only motors and without
controls should allow for a PEIVL rating
in order to appropriately represent
energy use to the consumer (HI, No. 6
at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 7 at p.1). HI and
NEEA, noted that a calculation-based
method resulting in a PEIVL rating for
inverter-only motors would help
encourage the expanded use of this
more efficient equipment. (HI, No. 6 at
p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
In consideration of developing such a
method, DOE is contemplating
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
constructing a table (or tables) 18 similar
to Table 2—‘‘Default Nominal Full Load
Submersible Motor Efficiency by Motor
Horsepower and Pole,’’ as well as a table
(or tables) similar to Table 4—‘‘Motor
and Control Part Load Loss Factor
Equation Coefficients for Section
VII.E.1.2.2 of Appendix A.’’ This
strategy was suggested by NEEA, HI,
and NEMA (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; HI, No.
6, p. 2; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). More
generally, Grundfos recommended that
DOE work with stakeholders to establish
a calculation-based method for pumps
with inverter-only motors. (Grundfos,
No. 7, p. 1)
Issue 17: DOE requests information
and feedback on the categories of motors
for which DOE should consider
allowing the use of a calculation-based
method. Specifically, DOE requests
information on the categories of
inverter-only motors (e.g., electronically
commutated motors, permanent magnet
alternative current motors (‘‘PMACs’’),
or other AC induction motors) that
should evaluate using a calculationbased method.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback and
comments on the general approach for
including default values and equations
to represent inverter-only motor
performance. DOE requests data and
information to support the development
of default values for inverter-only
motors (similar to the values developed
for submersible motors in Table 2 of
Appendix A) as well as equations that
would represent the part-load efficiency
or losses of these motors (similar to the
equations developed for certain motor
and drive combinations in Table 4 of
Appendix A). To the extent DOE should
consider a different approach, DOE
requests information on the
methodology it should consider and
supporting data.
Issue 19: DOE requests information on
the percentage of pumps sold with
inverter-only motors without controls
(and thus would be impacted by a
change in rating from PEICL to PEIVL).
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
As previously discussed, in response
to the September 2020 Early Assessment
RFI, Grundfos, HI, and NEEA
commented that the current test
procedure produces results that
sufficiently measure energy use during
a representative average use cycle and
recommended that DOE make no
substantial changes to the current test
approach (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; HI, No.
6, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, pp. 1–2). However,
the following sections discuss two
18 The different categories of inverter-only motors
may require separate models.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
specific topics raised by stakeholders
that may impact the representative
average use cycle.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
a. Load Profile
The current test procedure requires
that constant load PER be determined
using 75%, 100% and 110% of BEP
flow, with each value multiplied by 0.33
and the results summed to determine
PERCL (See Appendix A, sections III.E,
IV.E, V.E). Similarly, for variable load
pumps, energy ratings are determined at
25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of BEP flow
with each point weighted by 0.25 and
summed to obtain a value for PERVL
(See Appendix A, sections VI.E, VII.E).
In response to the September 2020
Early Assessment RFI, NEEA referenced
its pumps database that was developed
through the Regional Technical
Forum 19 and suggested that DOE use
the database to evaluate the impact of
pump load profile on estimated energy
savings (NEEA, No. 8, p. 3). In its
comments, NEEA provided constant
speed load profile data for pumps at
25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 110% and
greater than 110% of BEP flow, which
indicate that real-world operating hours
may be different than those assumed in
the DOE test procedure (NEEA, No. 8,
pp. 3–4). NEEA observed that while the
data may be representative of load
profiles in commercial application, they
stated that modifying the load profile for
either constant or variable load pumps
would likely increase burden while
having little impact on final PEI values.
(NEEA, No. 8, pp. 4–5). NEEA
recommended that DOE maintain the
current load profiles in the test
procedure (NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
Issue 20: DOE seeks additional
comment on the load profile
distribution for constant and variable
load pumps and the effect of the
distribution on PEI value.
b. Nominal Speed
The scope of the test procedure is
limited to pumps designed to operate
with either a 2- or 4-pole induction
motor or a non-induction motor with a
speed of rotation operating range
between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm and/or
1,440 and 2,160 rpm. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(1)(ii). Section I.C.1 of
Appendix A specifies selection of
nominal speed of rotation of either
1,800 or 3,600 rpm, depending on the
number of poles of the motor or the
operating range of non-induction
motors.
19 The Regional Technical Forum (‘‘RTF’’) is a
technical advisory committee to the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council established to
develop standards and evaluate energy efficiency
savings. See https://rtf.nwcouncil.org.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
In response to the 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE evaluate
whether rating pumps at nominal
speeds higher than 3600 rpm, when
paired with a variable-speed drive,
would provide consumer value and be
cost effective. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs stated that incorporating
a higher nominal speed(s) in the test
procedure would require retesting and
urged DOE to consider if ratings for
pumps at higher nominal speeds might
be determined by calculation rather
than wire-to-water testing. Id. NEEA
also commented that the energy use of
pumps capable of operating with motors
at speeds higher than 3600 rpm, such as
high-speed permanent magnet motors,
may not be appropriately represented by
the current DOE test procedure (NEEA,
No. 8, p. 8–9).
DOE notes that pumps with speeds
higher than 3600 rpm have historically
made up a small percentage of the
market, and DOE has had limited access
to shipment and efficiency data for this
equipment (See Docket No. EERE–2013–
BT–NOC–0039–0060, at p. 4, which
provides a summary of the fourth
negotiated rulemaking working group
meeting for commercial and industrial
pumps held on March 26–27, 2014).
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on
whether the nominal motor speeds of
1800 rpm and 3600 rpm used in the
current DOE test procedure
appropriately represent the operation
and energy use of pumps that are
capable of higher speeds. If these motor
speeds are not representative, DOE
requests comment on which speeds
would be representative and whether a
testing-based or calculation-based
approach would provide more
representative energy use values and the
expected cost burden of each.
Additionally, DOE requests test data at
speeds other than the nominal speeds
specified in the current test procedure
in order to determine if a calculationbased method is appropriate.
5. Rounding and Represented Values
The DOE test procedure includes
provisions for calculations and
rounding in Section I.D.3 of Appendix
A. Generally, all measured data must be
normalized such that it represents
performance at nominal speed of
rotation in accordance with HI 40.6–
2014, and all calculations must be
carried out using raw measured values
without rounding. See Appendix A,
section I.D.3. PER is rounded to three
significant digits and PEI is rounded to
the hundredths place. Id. Explicit
rounding directions are not provided for
other parameters.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20083
In addition, 10 CFR 429.59(a)
includes requirements for determining
the represented value of PEI based on a
tested sample. DOE’s certification
requirements include reporting of other
parameters that are derived from the test
procedure, including pump total head
in feet at BEP and nominal speed;
volume per unit time (i.e., flow rate) in
gallons per minute at BEP and nominal
speed; and calculated driver power
input at each load point i.e., corrected
to nominal speed in horsepower. 10
CFR 429.59(b)(2).
DOE is considering whether to
propose that these values be represented
by the mean of the value for each tested
unit in the sample, or whether there is
a more appropriate approach. DOE is
also considering specifying rounding
requirements for these values in the test
procedure (for a given tested unit) and/
or in the requirements for determination
of represented values (for a sample of
tested units).
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on
whether the test procedure should
specify rounding requirements for
parameters other than PER and PEI; and
if so, what those rounding requirements
should be.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on
whether it should specify an approach
for determining represented values for
parameters other than PEI, and if so,
what approach should be established
and why.
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
DOE’s certification regulations for
pumps at 10 CFR 429.59 require that
manufacturers determine the
represented value for each basic model
through testing in accordance with the
sampling provisions specified in that
section. As applied to pumps, DOE
defines the term ‘‘basic model’’ in 10
CFR 431.462.
Pump manufacturers may elect to
group similar individual pump models
within the same equipment class into
the same basic model to reduce testing
burden, provided all representations
regarding the energy use of pumps
within that basic model are identical
and based on the most consumptive
unit. 81 FR 4086, 4093. Accordingly,
manufacturers may pair a given bare
pump with several different motors (or
motor and controls) and can include all
combinations under the same basic
model if the certification of energy use
and all representations made by the
manufacturer are based on the most
consumptive bare pump/motor (or
motor and controls) combination for
each basic model and all individual
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20084
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
models are in the same equipment class.
Id.
In addition, clauses (1) and (2) of the
basic model definition align the scope of
the ‘‘basic model’’ definition for pumps
with the requirements that testing be
conducted at a certain number of stages
for RSV and ST pumps and at full
impeller diameter).20 10 CFR 431.462.
Clause (3) of the definition addresses
basic models inclusive of pump models
for which the bare pump differs in
number of stages or impeller diameter.
(Id.) Specifically, variation in motor
sizing (i.e., variation in the horsepower
rating of the paired motor as a result of
different impeller trims or stages within
a basic model) is not a basis for
requiring units to be rated as unique
basic models. However, variation in
motor sizing may also be associated
with variation in motor efficiency,
which is a performance characteristic;
typically, larger motors are more
efficient than smaller motors.
In order to group pumps sold with
motors into a single basic model, clause
(3)(i) provides that for basic models
inclusive of pump models for which the
bare pump differs in number of stages
or impeller diameter, each motor offered
in a pump included in that basic model
must have a full-load efficiency at the
Federal minimum for NEMA Design B
electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) or the
same number of bands above the
Federal minimum for each respective
motor horsepower as described in Table
3 of Appendix A. (Id.) Clause (3)(ii)
provides a similar allowance for
submersible turbine pumps, where, in
order to group pumps sold with motors
into a single basic model, each motor
offered in a pump included in that basic
model must have a full load motor
efficiency at the default nominal full
load submersible motor efficiency
shown in Table 2 of Appendix A, or the
same number of bands above the default
nominal full load submersible motor
efficiency for each respective motor
horsepower as described in Table 3 of
Appendix A. (Id.)
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on
how manufacturers are currently
making use of the basic model grouping
provisions when rating their pumps,
and whether any general clarifications
or modifications are needed.
DOE has received several inquiries
related to application of the basic model
definition to pumps sold with VFDs of
varying phase, voltage, and/or
efficiency; pumps sold with inverteronly motors such as PMAC motors; and
20 ‘‘Full impeller diameter’’ means the maximum
diameter impeller with which a given pump basic
model is distributed in commerce. 10 CFR 431.462.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
pumps sold with both single-phase and
polyphase motors.
For pumps sold with motors, when
determining how to group models
within a basic model, manufacturers
must consider clause (3), which
currently allows grouping of models
based on the number of bands above
‘‘nominal full load motor efficiency
rated at the Federal minimum (see the
current table for NEMA Design B
electric motors at § 431.25)’’, or for
submersible turbine pumps, based on
the number of bands above the default
nominal full load submersible motor
efficiency. DOE may consider inclusion
of explicit language that applies this
clause to pumps sold with specific
kinds of motors, or to pumps sold with
VFDs. For example, inverter-only
motors may have a rated efficiency (i.e.,
nameplate efficiency) that exceeds the
Federal minimum for NEMA Design B
electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) (based
on hp, poles, and enclosure
construction of that motor), as might
certain single-phase motors subject to
the energy efficiency standards in 10
CFR 431.446 and tested in accordance
with 10 CFR 431.444.21 In addition, as
discussed in section II.C.3. of this RFI,
stakeholders have recommended that
DOE develop default nominal full load
efficiency values for inverter-only
motors, which could also provide a
baseline for grouping pumps sold with
those motors. (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6;
Grundfos, No. 7, p. 1; HI, No. 6, p. 2;
NEMA, No. 4, p. 2).
DOE notes that for motors not
currently subject to the DOE test
procedure for electric motors, it is not
clear how manufacturers would
determine the full-load efficiency of a
given motor, or specifically, determine
the number of bands above the Federal
minimum or above the default
efficiency. For inverter-only motors,
DOE notes that IEC recently published
an industry test procedure that provides
test methods for measuring the
efficiency of these motors: IEC 60034–2–
3:2020, ‘‘Rotating electrical machines—
Part 2–3: Specific test methods for
determining losses and efficiency of
converter-fed AC motors’’ (‘‘IEC 60034’’)
and IEC 61800–9–2:2017 (discussed in
section II.C.1.b of this RFI).
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on
whether to amend clause (3) in the basic
model definition for pumps to provide
additional detail regarding pumps sold
21 DOE notes that this discussion is relevant only
to the option in Table 1 to Appendix A to rate
pumps sold with single-phase motors using a
testing-based method. Per Table 1, manufacturers
also have the option to rate pumps sold with singlephase motors as bare pumps, regardless of the
single-phase motor’s efficiency.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with inverter-only motors, single-phase
motors, or other non-NEMA Design B
electric motors.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment on
which motor categories not currently
subject to DOE’s test procedure and
standards are commonly combined with
pumps, as well as their relative
efficiency compared to regulated NEMA
Design B electric motors, and which
corresponding industry test procedure
(if any) should be used to establish their
‘‘rated’’ efficiency.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment on
how VFDs are typically paired with
pumps and motors; for example,
whether motors of various sizes are
paired with the same VFD. DOE further
requests comment on whether a pump
manufacturer would know which VFD
commonly paired with its pumps would
result in the most consumptive rating.
DOE notes that in order to group
pumps sold with both single-phase
motors and pumps sold with polyphase
motors into a single basic model,
manufacturers would need to utilize a
testing-based approach on the most
consumptive configuration, as pumps
sold with polyphase motors cannot be
rated as bare pumps, and pumps sold
with single-phase motors cannot be
rated using a calculation-based
approach (see Table 1 to Appendix A).
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on
whether the allowed grouping under the
same basic model for pumps sold with
both single phase and polyphase motors
requires more explicit direction in 10
CFR part 431.
2. Labeling Requirement
The test procedure for pumps
provides the basis for the labeling
requirement at 10 CFR 431.466. The
following specific information must be
included on the nameplate and in
marketing materials: PEICL or PEIVL, as
applicable; bare pump model number;
and if transferred directly to an end
user, the impeller diameter. 10 CFR
431.466(a)(1)(i). The representations
included on the nameplate and in
marketing materials must be based on
testing of the pump in accordance with
Appendix A and the representation
must fairly disclose the results of such
testing. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
DOE is aware of certain situations in
which the test procedure and labeling
requirements do not explicitly address
how the results of testing are to be
included on the nameplate or in
marketing materials. One example is a
bare pump distributed as a pump kit
that could be assembled as either an
ESCC or ESFM pump. As required by
Appendix A, this pump kit would be
tested as a bare pump, if distributed
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
without a motor (see Table 1 to
Appendix A). As part of the DOE test
procedure, PERSTD is calculated based
on the category and nominal speed of
rotation of the tested pump. Appendix
A, Sections I.C.1 and II.B. In this case,
the pump kit would be ‘‘tested’’ twice,
once using a calculation based on ESCC
and once based on ESFM, and must be
labeled with the most consumptive PEI
relevant to the kit. Another example is
that pumps distributed with motors
(and rated as such in accordance with
Table 1 to Appendix A) may be more
appropriately labeled with the
manufacturer’s individual model
number than with a bare pump model
number.
An additional example would be a
pump distributed in commerce with
multiple stages—including different
sized impellers in different stages. As
required by Appendix A, this pump
would be tested at full impeller
diameter (i.e., the maximum diameter
impeller with which a given pump basic
model is distributed in commerce).
Appendix A, Section I.C. In this case
manufacturers may include on the
nameplate the largest impeller diameter
only, as well as sufficient identifying
information in the individual model
number to identify inclusion of reduced
impeller sizes.
Issue 29: DOE requests comment on
whether the test procedure should
explicitly specify how to determine the
information required to be marked on a
label in accordance with 10 CFR
431.466, and if so, how.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment on
whether the term ‘‘full impeller
diameter’’ should be modified to
explicitly address pumps with multiple
stages and varying impeller diameters,
and if so, how.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Any Additional Information
In addition to the issues identified
earlier in this document, DOE welcomes
comment on any other aspect of the
existing test procedures for pumps.
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on
whether the existing test procedures
limit a manufacturer’s ability to provide
additional features to consumers on
pumps. DOE particularly seeks
information on how the test procedures
could be amended to reduce the cost of
new or additional features and make it
more likely that such features are
included on pumps, while still meeting
the requirements of EPCA.
Issue 32: DOE requests comments on
any potential amendments to the
existing test procedures that would
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
Finally, DOE published an RFI on the
emerging smart technology appliance
and equipment market. 83 FR 46886
(Sep. 17, 2018) (‘‘September 2018 RFI’’).
In that RFI, DOE sought information to
better understand market trends and
issues in the emerging market for
consumer appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart
technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the
RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in
setting efficiency standards for covered
products and equipment.
Issue 33: DOE seeks, as part of this
RFI, comments, data and information on
the issues presented in the September
2018 RFI as they may be applicable to
pumps.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date under the
DATES heading comments and
information on matters addressed in this
RFI and on other matters relevant to
DOE’s early assessment of whether more
stringent energy conservation standards
are not warranted for commercial and
industrial pumps.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Following this instruction, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20085
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through 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 https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email will be posted to 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 on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. Faxes
will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit via email two wellmarked copies: One copy of the
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
20086
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 72 / Friday, April 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
document marked confidential
including all the information believed to
be confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’
with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of this
process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on April 9, 2021, by
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 12,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–07701 Filed 4–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Apr 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2021–0303; Project
Identifier MCAI–2020–01367–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350–941
and –1041 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that
new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed
AD would require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in two European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) ADs,
which are proposed for incorporation by
reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For material that will be incorporated
by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu;
internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may
find this IBR material on the EASA
website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
It is also available in the AD docket on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–
0303.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–
0303; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, any
comments received, and other
information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax 206–231–3218; email
kathleen.arrigotti@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2021–0303; Project Identifier
MCAI–2020–01367–T’’ at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of
the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend the proposal
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed
AD.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20075-20086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07701]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032]
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial &
Industrial Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to consider amendments to the test
procedure for Commercial and Industrial Pumps (``pumps''). Through this
request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information
[[Page 20076]]
regarding issues pertinent to whether amended test procedures would
more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test
procedure produces results that measure energy use during a
representative average use cycle for the product without being unduly
burdensome to conduct, or that reduce testing burden. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including topics not raised in this RFI), as well as the
submission of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-
TP-0032, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimilies (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking
Portal, email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, the Department
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment
submission process in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and
hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an
undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at 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 https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments
through 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 and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Pump and Related Component Definitions
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
2. Pump Characteristics
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
C. Test Procedure
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
2. Testing and Calculation Options
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only Motors
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
5. Rounding and Represented Values
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
2. Labeling Requirement
3. Any Additional Information
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Commercial and industrial pumps (collectively, ``pumps'') are among
the industrial equipment for which DOE is authorized to establish and
amend test procedures and energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(A)) DOE's test procedures for pumps are prescribed in title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''), subpart Y of part 431.
Relevant to this document, DOE has established a test procedure for
pumps at 10 CFR 431.464 and appendix A to subpart Y of part 431
(``Appendix A''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to
establish and amend test procedures for pumps, as well as relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for this equipment.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ added by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619 (Nov. 9, 1978), Title IV,
Sec. 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317 as codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve industrial equipment energy
efficiency. The equipment addressed under these provisions include
pumps, the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297). DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying
[[Page 20077]]
to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review
test procedures for all types of covered equipment, including pumps, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements that the test procedures be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle and to not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if the Secretary
determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary
must publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register, and
afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days'
duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the
proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)). If DOE determines that
test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this
RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
B. Rulemaking History
DOE's test procedure for determining pump energy efficiency was
established in a final rule published on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086
(``January 2016 Final Rule'').\3\ The January 2016 Final Rule
established definitions for the terms ``pump,'' ``driver,'' \4\ and
``controls,'' \5\ and described several categories and configurations
of pumps. The pumps test procedure currently incorporates by reference
the Hydraulic Institute (``HI'') Standard 40.6-2014, ``Methods for
Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-2014''), along with
several modifications to that testing method related to measuring the
hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps,
inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous
controls.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction to the January
2016 Final Rule to correct the placement of the product-specific
enforcement provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134 at
paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
\4\ A ``driver'' provides mechanical input to drive a bare pump
directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Electric
motors, internal combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are
examples of drivers. (10 CFR 431.462)
\5\ A ``control'' is used to operate a driver. (10 CFR 431.462)
\6\ A ``continuous control'' is a control that adjusts the speed
of the pump driver continuously over the driver operating speed
range in response to incremental changes in the required pump flow,
head, or power output. A ``non-continuous control'' is a control
that adjusts the speed of a driver to one of a discrete number of
non-continuous preset operating speeds, and does not respond to
incremental reductions in the required pump flow, head, or power
output. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2020, DOE published an early assessment review RFI
in which it sought data and information pertinent to whether amended
test procedures would (1) more accurately or fully comply with the
requirement that the test procedure produces results that measure
energy use during a representative average use cycle for the equipment
without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2) reduce testing
burden. 85 FR 60734 (``September 2020 Early Assessment RFI''). DOE
received comments in response to the September 2020 Early Assessment
RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.1. A parenthetical
reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the
location of the item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in DOE's test procedure rulemaking docket.
(Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0032). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the September 2020
Early Assessment RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Organization(s) RFI Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utility.
Utilities.
Grundfos Americas Corporation... Grundfos.......... Manufacturer.
Hydraulic Institute............. HI................ Trade Association.
National Electrical NEMA.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
People's Republic of China...... PRC............... Nation/Government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's review of the test procedure for pumps and the
comments received, DOE has determined it is appropriate to continue the
test procedure rulemaking after the early assessment process. See 10
CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 8(b). Specific
comments are discussed in the sections that follow.
II. Request for Information
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to determine whether, and if so how, an amended
test procedure for pumps would (1) more accurately or fully comply with
the requirements in EPCA that test procedures be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy use during a representative
average use cycle, without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or (2)
reduce testing burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
Further, DOE issued an Early Assessment RFI (85 FR 60734) to seek
more general information on whether its test procedures are reasonably
designed, as required by EPCA, to produce results that measure the
energy use or efficiency of equipment during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. See also 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019) (RFI
seeking public comment on the measurement of average use cycles or
periods of use in DOE's test procedures). DOE seeks comment on this
issue as it pertains to the test procedure for pumps.
[[Page 20078]]
As stated previously, DOE received multiple comments to the 2020
Early Assessment RFI. These comments are summarized in this RFI and DOE
asks for additional information and comment on these issues. In
addition, DOE notes that since publication of the January 2016 Final
Rule, as well as the subsequent energy conservation standards final
rule,\8\ it has received inquiries from stakeholders related to
implementation of and compliance with the regulatory requirements for
pumps. This RFI discusses these issues and notes the additional
information that would be needed if DOE decided to propose amending its
current test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Pump and Related Component Definitions
This RFI covers pumps and relevant components of pumps, such as the
``bare pump'', ``mechanical equipment'', ``driver'', and ``control'',
all of which are defined at 10 CFR 431.462.
Some manufacturers distribute kits of unassembled components that
customers (including end users or distributors) may purchase and
assemble into finished equipment that meets the definition of a pump or
a bare pump (see additional discussion in section II.D.2 of this RFI).
Manufacturers may also otherwise distribute various pump parts together
in commerce.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the definitions of ``pump'' and
its components and whether any of the terms should be amended, and if
so, how the terms should be amended. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether the terms are sufficient to identify which equipment
is subject to the test procedure and whether any test procedure
amendments are required to ensure that all such equipment can be
appropriately tested in accordance with the test procedure.
B. Applicable Scope for Test Procedure
The following sections address in detail various elements related
to the scope of the test procedure. DOE seeks input regarding these
elements to help determine what specific changes, if any, might be
needed to improve the current test procedure's ability to determine
pump energy efficiency in a manner consistent with the requirements set
out in 42 U.S.C. 6314.
1. Pump Categories and Definitions
The current DOE test procedure for pumps applies only to certain
rotodynamic pumps \9\ that are defined as ``clean water pumps''. 10 CFR
431.462. Specifically, it applies to five categories of clean water
pumps with specific characteristics. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1). Pumps are
further delineated into equipment classes based on nominal speed of
rotation and operating mode (i.e., constant load or variable load). 10
CFR 431.465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A rotodynamic pump is one in which energy is continuously
imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller,
propeller, or rotor. 10 CFR 431.462. This kind of pump (also known
as a ``centrifugal pump'') is in contrast to a positive displacement
pump, which has an expanding cavity on the suction side and a
decreasing cavity on the discharge side that moves a constant volume
of fluid for each cycle of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five categories of clean water pumps to which the test
procedure applies are: End suction close-coupled (``ESCC''); end
suction frame mounted/own bearings (``ESFM''); in-line (``IL'');
radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing
(``RSV''); and submersible turbine (``ST'') pumps. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(1)(i). DOE defines each of these five categories in 10 CFR
431.462.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether DOE's five pump categories
sufficiently represent the market and technology available for clean
water pumps; whether these categories are sufficiently defined in order
to ensure that the categories are mutually exclusive; or whether any of
these categories or descriptions should be amended.
Definitions relevant to the pump categories listed above and
applicable to this test procedure include ``close-coupled pump,'' ``end
suction pump,'' ``mechanically-coupled pump,'' and ``single axis flow
pump,'' See 10 CFR 431.462 (defining each of these terms).
Determining the applicability of the pump categories relies in part
on the defined terms ``close-coupled pump'' and ``mechanically-coupled
pump'' DOE defines a close-coupled pump as a pump having a motor shaft
that also acts as the impeller shaft, while a mechanically-coupled pump
is one that has its own impeller shaft and bearings separate from the
motor shaft. (Id.) DOE is aware that certain pumps may have their own
shaft, but with no bearings to support that shaft. Additionally, DOE
notes that while its close-coupled pump definition describes a pump in
which the motor shaft also serves as the pump shaft, the definition
does not provide any detail on how the motor and pump shaft may be
connected. DOE has observed that some manufacturers describe close-
coupled pumps as using an adapter to mount the impeller directly to the
motor shaft. The coupling type is the only differentiator between end
suction close-coupled pumps, which are ``close-coupled pumps'', and end
suction frame mounted/own bearings pumps, which are ``mechanically-
coupled pumps''. In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE noted that it
intended for the equipment category definitions for ESFM and ESCC pumps
to be mutually exclusive, to ensure that pumps that are close-coupled
to the motor and have a single impeller and motor shaft would be part
of the ESCC equipment category while all other end suction pumps that
are mechanically-coupled to the motor and for which the bare pump and
motor have separate shafts would be part of the ESFM equipment
category. 81 FR 4096.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the definitions of ``close-coupled
pump'' and ``mechanically-coupled pump'' and whether the terms should
be revised to achieve the differentiation described above--and if so,
how. DOE also requests comment on whether the terms themselves are
specific enough to ensure that end suction close-coupled pumps and end
suction frame mounted/own bearings pumps remain mutually exclusive.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on whether there are pumps being
sold in commerce that may not meet the ``close-coupled'' or
``mechanically-coupled'' definitions but would otherwise meet the
definition for an ``end suction'' pump.
Determining the applicability of the pump categories also relies in
part on the defined terms ``single axis flow pump'' and ``end suction
pump.'' IL pumps are defined as single axis flow pumps, and ESCC pumps
are defined as end suction pumps. The definition of single axis flow
pump does not explicitly state whether the axis is defined by the
suction opening to the volute \10\ or the suction opening at the
perimeter of the pump. A close-coupled pump can be designed with a
tangential discharge volute (i.e., a design in which the suction and
discharge openings do not share a common axis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A volute may also be referred to as a ``housing'' or
``casing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers are currently
categorizing close-coupled pumps with tangential discharge volutes
relative to the five pump categories defined at 10 CFR 431.464.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on whether it should provide
additional detail in the definitions of single-axis flow pumps and/or
end suction pumps regarding tangential discharge volute configurations,
or whether the existing
[[Page 20079]]
definitions are sufficient to determine individual pump
classifications.
2. Pump Characteristics
The applicable scope for the test procedure is limited to the five
pump categories discussed previously, with flow rate, maximum head,
design temperature range, motor type, bowl diameter, and speed
additionally specified in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii).
The applicable scope for the test procedure also excludes fire
pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps,
pumps for nuclear facilities, and pumps meeting certain military
specifications. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(iii).
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEEA
commented that while the test procedure scope covers a large portion of
the U.S. commercial and industrial pump market, pumps with similar
characteristics may be subject to the DOE test procedure and standards
while some are not. NEEA stated that this may create market confusion
and inconsistency in ratings (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8). NEEA specifically
highlighted small vertical inline pumps (``SVIL'') below 1 horsepower
as recommended by DOE's Circulator Working Group,\11\ pumps operating
with motors at speeds different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm, and
submersible turbine pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches as
examples of pumps that DOE should consider including as part of an
expanded scope. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See docket EERE-2013-BT-STD-0039, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on the percentage of manufacturer pump
models that fall within the scope of the current test procedure and
those models that fall outside the scope of the procedure. DOE also
seeks information regarding how manufacturers address this situation
when communicating performance in catalogs and other related
literature.
Issue 7: DOE requests shipment and market performance data for SVIL
pumps below 1 horsepower (``hp''); pumps operating with motors at
speeds different than 1800 rpm or 3600 rpm (e.g., non-induction motors
with a range of speed of rotation starting above 4,320 revolutions per
minute, as further discussed in section II.C.3); submersible turbine
pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches; and other pumps that
are currently excluded from scope based on the pump characteristics
provided at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii) (e.g., pumps designed to operate
with greater than 4 pole induction motors) that should be considered
for inclusion in the test procedure scope.
NEEA also supported the Circulator Working Group recommendation to
adopt test procedures for Circulator Pumps (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 8). DOE
notes that it may consider the testing of circulator pumps in a
separate rulemaking. DOE also notes that the Circulator Working Group
characterized SVIL pumps as potential substitutes for circulator pumps
and recommended using the pumps test procedure to measure the
performance of SVIL pumps, with necessary modifications made as
determined by DOE (EERE-2016-BT-STD-0004-0058, recommendation #1B).
3. Inline Shaft and Cantilever Pumps
HI and the American Petroleum Institute (``API'') publish standards
that include design criteria for different pump configurations. Section
2.1.3.4 of ANSI/HI \12\ Standard 2.1-2.2, ``Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps
of Radial, Mixed, and Axial Flow Types for Nomenclature and
Definitions,'' describes vertically separate discharge sump pumps, a
category of pump that includes line shaft (``VS4'') pumps and
cantilever (``VS5'') pumps. Section 9.3 of API Standard 610,
``Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas
Industries'' \13\ also provides a description of VS4 and VS5 pumps.
Both VS4 and VS5 pumps are vertically suspended, volute pumps with a
single casing and with a discharge column that is separate from the
shaft column. The line shaft of a VS4 pump is supported by one or more
bearings throughout the center column, while the line shaft of a VS5
pump is cantilevered and has no support bearing within the shaft
column. The pump equipment categories defined by DOE do not explicitly
reference VS4 or VS5 pumps, and some pumps may simultaneously fit the
DOE definition of an ESFM pump and the API definition of a VS4 or VS5
pump. However, the scope of the current DOE test procedure includes
only clean water pumps (see 10 CFR 431.464(a)(i)) and most VS4 and VS5
pumps are not designed for clean water. To the extent that a VS4 or VS5
pump is a ``clean water pump'' that meets the definition of ESFM and
the other applicable criteria, it would be within the scope of
equipment subject to DOE's Appendix A test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``ANSI'' refers to American National Standards Institute.
\13\ API standards are available for purchase from the API
website at: https://www.api.org/Standards/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
be amended to explicitly address line shaft pumps and cantilever pumps
such as VS4 and VS5 pumps as described in the HI and API standards, and
if so, how the definition should be amended.
4. Between-Bearing Pumps
Section 1.2.9.2 of ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, ``Rotodynamic
Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions'' and section 9.2 of
API Standard 610 describe between-bearing (``BB'') pumps with bearings
on both ends of the rotating assembly. ``BB1'' pumps are axially-split,
one- or two-stage pumps that are mounted to a baseplate and driven by a
motor via a flexible coupling. BB1 pumps are not explicitly excluded
from the scope of coverage and the definition of IL pumps could be
understood to include BB1 pumps. However, BB1 pumps are not typically
designed for clean water (the scope of the current DOE test procedure
includes only clean water pumps) and have horsepower ratings greater
than the 200 hp limit of pumps currently within the scope of the DOE
test procedure.
In addition, BB1 pumps do not have an ``overhung impeller.'' An
``overhung impeller'' generally is an impeller that is mounted on the
end of a shaft and that is cantilevered or ``overhung'' from the
bearing supports. Although not included in the definition of ``in-line
pump,'' IL pumps that are single-stage generally have an overhung
impeller.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on whether any pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described in the HI and API standards) are
designed for clean water use and are rated below 200 hp.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on whether pumps that meet the
description of BB1 pumps (as described in the HI and API standards) may
be tested according to the DOE test procedure for pumps, or if special
instructions or accommodations would be needed to test BB1 pumps.
C. Test Procedure
DOE specifies the constant load pump energy index
(``PEICL'') as the test metric for pumps sold without
continuous or non-continuous controls, and the variable load pump
energy index (``PEIVL'') as the test metric for pumps sold
with continuous or non-continuous controls. 10 CFR 431.465. As noted, a
``continuous control'' is a control that adjusts the speed of the pump
driver continuously over the driver operating speed range in response
to incremental changes in the required pump flow, head, or power
output. 10 CFR 431.462.
[[Page 20080]]
A ``non-continuous control'' is a control that adjusts the speed of a
driver to one of a discrete number of non-continuous preset operating
speeds, and does not respond to incremental reductions in the required
pump flow, head, or power output. Id.
Generally, the PEI metric is a ratio of the pump energy rating
(``PER'') of the tested pump to the PER of a minimally compliant pump
(``PERSTD''). The pump energy rating for constant load pumps
(``PERCL'') represents an average of driver power input at
75%, 100%, and 110% of flow at the best efficiency point (``BEP''),\14\
in which the flows are achieved by varying the operating head to follow
the pump performance curve. The pump energy rating for variable load
pumps (``PERVL'') represents an average of driver power
input at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of flow at BEP, in which the flows
are achieved by speed reduction to follow a specified system curve. As
noted, BEP is defined as the pump hydraulic power operating point
(consisting of both flow and head conditions) that results in the
maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Best efficiency point (``BEP'') means the pump hydraulic
power operating point (consisting of both flow and head conditions)
that results in the maximum efficiency. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Updates to Industry Test Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt industry standards as DOE
test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated
operating costs of that product during a representative average use
cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430 subpart C Appendix A section 8(c).
In cases where the industry testing standard does not meet the EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make any necessary
modifications to these testing standards through the rulemaking process
when adopting them for inclusion into DOE's regulations.
DOE sought comment in the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI on
whether another consensus-based test procedure could be adopted, with
or without modification, and meet the criteria in EPCA related to
representativeness and test burden (85 FR 60736-60737). HI noted that
it was not aware of any consensus-based test procedures that could be
adopted (HI, No. 6, p. 3). NEEA stated that it was not aware of any
test procedure that would improve on the DOE test procedure and that
they found DOE's test procedure to be the only one that satisfies the
criteria in EPCA related to representativeness and test burden (NEEA,
No. 8, p. 6).
a. HI Standard 40.6
DOE's test procedure for pumps generally incorporates HI 40.6-2014.
10 CFR 431.463. Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the
Hydraulics Institute updated HI 40.6-2014 with the publication of HI
Standard 40.6-2016, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing''
(``HI 40.6-2016''), The 2016 update aligned the definitions and
procedures described in HI Standard 40.6-2014 with the DOE test
procedure for pumps published in the January 2016 Final Rule. HI 40.6-
2016 revisions to HI 40.6-2014 are summarized below, with the
referenced sections noted in parentheses:
Clarified that the standard covers efficiency testing of
rotodynamic pumps that are included in DOE regulations for energy
conservation. (Section 40.6.1 ``Scope'')
Updated the calculation of bare pump efficiency to match
the current DOE test procedure requirements for plotting test data to
determine the BEP rate of flow. (Section 40.6.6.3 ``Performance
curve'')
Updated the description and requirements of the pressure
tap configuration for measurement sections at inlet and outlet of the
pump. (Section A.3.1.3 ``Pressure taps'')
Expanded the requirements for measurement of driver power
input with power quality and measurement requirements that meet the
requirements of the current DOE test procedure. (Section C.4.3
``Electric power measurements,'' and section C.4.3.1 ``Additional
requirements for measurement of driver power input to the motor and
controls'')
Added an informative appendix with examples regarding the
determination of systematic uncertainty of the devices for measurement
of required quantities on test. (Appendix G ``Determination,
application, and calculation of instrument (systematic) uncertainty
(informative)'')
DOE is aware that HI plans to publish another updated version of HI
40.6, ``Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing'' (``HI 40.6-
2021''). HI 40.6-2021 contains the following modifications to HI 40.6-
2014, in addition to the HI 40.6-2016 changes listed previously:
References ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2 ``Rotodynamic Pumps for
Nomenclature and Definitions'' (``ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2'') which supersedes
ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 ``American National Standard for Rotodynamic
Centrifugal Pumps for Nomenclature and Definitions'' and ANSI/HI 2.1-
2.2-2014 ``Rotodynamic Vertical Pumps of Radial, Mixed and Axial Flow
Types for Nomenclature and Definitions''. (Section 40.6.4.1
``Vertically suspended pumps''; Section 40.6.4.3 ``All other pump
types'')
Includes a new appendix (Appendix E) for the testing of
circulator pumps. (Appendix E ``Testing Circulator Pumps'')
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE asked stakeholders
to comment on the potential effect of incorporating HI 40.6-2016 by
reference as the DOE test procedure for pumps. 85 FR 60734, 60737.
Specifically, DOE requested information on whether the updates in HI
40.6-2016 impact the measured values, and if so, to what extent. Id.
DOE also requested information on the impact of the updates in HI 40.6-
2016 to the test burden and the representativeness of the test results.
Id.
In response, Grundfos, NEEA, and HI urged DOE to incorporate by
reference HI 40.6-2021 rather than HI 40.6-2016 (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; HI, No. 6, p. 1). HI stated that HI 40.6-2016
included updates to match DOE's test procedure and did not impact
measured values, burden or representativeness (HI, No. 6 at p. 3). Both
HI and NEEA stated that HI 40.6-2021 further includes editorial
revisions and adds circulator pump testing, that also would not impact
measured values, burden, or representativeness. (HI, No. 6 at p. 3;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 6) Grundfos agreed that HI 40.6-2021 does not affect
overall implementation of the standard, but stated that if DOE decides
not to incorporate HI 40.6-2021 by reference, then it should at least
incorporate HI 40.6-2016 by reference (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2). More
generally, NEMA indicated that it would be unduly burdensome to require
manufacturers to switch from using the current HI testing standard to a
different method of testing and evaluation in light of the relatively
short time that the current method has been in place. (NEMA, No. 4, p.
2).
Issue 12: DOE requests comments on whether it should adopt HI 40.6-
2016 or HI 40.6-2021 as the DOE test procedure for pumps, and requests
that stakeholders provide specific information as to why one version of
HI 40.6 should be incorporated by reference over the other. DOE also
seeks information on whether the incorporation by reference of HI 40.6-
2016 or HI 40.6-2021 would impact measured values, and if so, by how
much. Additionally, the current DOE test procedure currently
incorporates by reference ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2014 which
[[Page 20081]]
was replaced by ANSI/HI 14.1-14.2. DOE seeks comment on ANSI/HI 14.1-
14.2, referenced by HI 40.6-2021, including whether, and if so how, it
would affect the scope of DOE's test procedures and energy consumption
standards for commercial and industrial pumps.
b. IEC 61800-9-2:2017 and Other Industry Test Standards Related to
Motor and Control Combinations
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE noted that while
its test procedure for pumps incorporates by reference HI 40.6-2014,
DOE also includes additional provisions related to measuring the
hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps,
inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous
controls. 85 FR 60734, 60737. Since publication of the January 2016
Final Rule, the International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
published standard IEC 61800-9-2:2017 ``Adjustable speed electrical
power drive systems--Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor
starters, power electronics and their driven applications--Energy
efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,''
(``IEC 61800-9-2:2017'') which addresses test methods and reference
losses for ``power drive systems'' (i.e., motors and their associated
controllers). Specifically, Annex A of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 describes
reference losses for complete drive modules (i.e. controls) and power
drive systems at different operating points comparable to the approach
already presented in section VII.E.1.2 of Appendix A of that testing
standard. DOE requested comments on whether it should consider
substituting the model in Annex A of IEC 61800-9-2:2017 for the current
calculations in section VII of Appendix A, or whether any
considerations for updates should be postponed until the second edition
of IEC 61800-9-2 is published. Id. A second edition of this standard is
expected to be published in March 2022 to further address the test
method and reference losses.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/31527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to DOE's request for comment, the majority of
commenters urged DOE to maintain the current test approach in section
VII.E.1.2 of Appendix A. (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p. 7; CA
IOUs, No. 5, p. 4; HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). Grundfos, NEEA,
the Hydraulic Institute, and NEMA all asserted that substituting IEC
61800-9-2 for the current approach would add burden without achieving
additional energy savings (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, p. 7;;
HI, No. 6, p. 3; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). However, NEMA stated that it is an
active participant in efforts to revise IEC 61800-9-2 and that
consideration of this standard may be warranted for future test
procedure development for equipment classes not yet covered by DOE
regulation (NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). The PRC requested that DOE consider
incorporating IEC 61800-9-2 as a consensus-based standard to facilitate
international trade (PRC, No. 3, p. 2). The CA IOUs stated that
substituting IEC 61800-9-2 for the current approach would overstate
motor losses. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 4)
Since publication of the January 2016 Final Rule, the Air Movement
and Control Association (``AMCA'') published AMCA 207-17 ``Fan System
Efficiency and Fan System Input Power Calculation'' (``AMCA 207-
17'').\16\ AMCA 207-17 provides default values and equations to
calculate the performance of various motors and control combinations,
including currently regulated motors and control combinations (i.e.,
variable frequency drives (``VFD''), variable-speed drives, inverter
drives). See AMCA 207-17 section 4.1.3.1, ``Regulated polyphase
induction motors controlled by a VFD''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See https://www.techstreet.com/amca/standards/amca-207-17?product_id=1949776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
suggested that DOE reconsider the combined VFD and motor loss equations
created for section VII, ``Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold
With Motors and Controls,'' of Appendix A in favor of the methods in
AMCA 207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, pp. 1-4). Specifically, the CA IOUs
stated that the efficiency of a motor/control combination determined
using the calculations in section VII of Appendix A showed more
variation as a function of horsepower than values predicted by AMCA
207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2). The CA IOUs also stated that the full-
load efficiency of the motor and control combination calculated using
section VII of Appendix A led to lower efficiency values than those
predicted by AMCA 207-17. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3). The CA IOUs further
commented that updating the calculations in section VII of Appendix A
with relevant equations from AMCA 2017-17 should not require any repeat
testing, but the change would impact the PEI calculation and might
impact pump compliance with the pump energy conservation standards. (CA
IOUs, No. 5, p. 4).
DOE notes that the calculations in section VII of Appendix A were
developed during the 2015 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') negotiations and were voted on by the
members of the working group, including the CA IOUs (Docket EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0039-0092). As noted by the CA IOUs, the equations in section
VII of Appendix A were considered the best available method of
calculation at the time (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 2).
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on the applicability of the VFD/
motor efficiencies in AMCA 207-17 to pumps, and whether DOE should
consider replacing the calculations in section VII of Appendix A with
those in AMCA 207-17. DOE also requests comment on whether adoption of
the AMCA 207-17 approach would be representative for pumps.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether such a change would
impact PEI ratings (and if so, how), manufacturer testing burden, or
manufacturer pump designs.
c. ISO/ASME 14414
In response to DOE's September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the PRC
recommended that DOE incorporate by reference ISO/ASME 14414 ``Pumps
System Energy Assessment'' (``ISO/ASME 14414'') in order to facilitate
international trade (PRC, No. 3, p. 3). DOE understands that ISO/ASME
14414 (the most recent version of which was published in January 2019)
provides a method for evaluating pump system energy consumption,
including the effects of heat, noise and vibration on over-sizing of
pump system components (i.e., pumps, process components, and control
valves), and provides methods for identifying and documenting
opportunities for improvement in energy use.\17\ Consequently, ISO/ASME
14414's scope appears to go beyond determining the representative
energy use of individual bare pumps or pumps sold with motors and/or
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A summary of ISO/ASME 14414-2019 is available at: https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/iso-asme-14414-pump-system-energy-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 14: DOE requests comment on whether DOE should consider
incorporating any aspect of ISO/ASME 14414 into its test procedure for
pumps--and if so, which aspects and why.
2. Testing and Calculation Options
DOE's test procedure for pumps includes calculation-based and
testing-based options that apply based on pump configuration (including
style of motor and control) as distributed in commerce.
[[Page 20082]]
See Appendix A, Table 1. The calculation-based options rely on a bare
pump test and are described in sections III, V, and VII of Appendix A.
The testing-based options rely on a ``wire-to-water'' test and are
prescribed in sections IV and VI of Appendix A. The calculation-based
options may reduce test burden by allowing a manufacturer to test a
sample of bare pumps and use that data to rate multiple pump
configurations using calculation-based methods. Although testing-based
methods require wire-to-water testing of individual pump
configurations, they may allow manufacturers to more accurately
represent pump, motor, or control performance if so desired. DOE's
definition of a ``basic model'' for pumps provides additional options
for reducing test burden within the parameters of Table 1 (see section
II.D.1 of this RFI).
In the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, DOE noted that its
calculations of testing costs assumed that the majority of pump basic
models would be certified based on the bare pump configuration and that
subsequent ratings for the same bare pump sold with any number of
applicable motors and continuous controls could be generated using the
calculation-based approach. DOE also sought comment on whether any
modifications to the test procedure could reduce test burden while
still allowing for accurate determinations of energy use during a
representative average use cycle. 85 FR 60734, 60736.
In response, HI stated that, based on a survey of HI members,
industry testing costs significantly exceeded DOE's estimates, and that
wire-to-water testing represented 20 percent of total industry testing
(HI, No. 6, p. 2). Grundfos commented that approximately 45 percent of
its testing was wire-to-water testing--specifically, for pumps sold
with motors that can only operate when driven by an inverter (i.e.,
inverter-only motors) (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2). HI, Grundfos, NEEA, and
NEMA stated that in order to reduce test burden, DOE should work with
stakeholders to develop a calculation method for pumps sold with
inverter-only motors (HI, No. 6 at p. 1-2; Grundfos No. 7 at p. 1;
NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 5-6; NEMA, No. 4 at p. 2). The potential for
development of a calculation-based method for pumps sold with inverter-
only motors is further discussed in section II.C.3 of this RFI.
Grundfos, HI and NEEA further recommended that DOE make no
additional changes to the test procedure that would require re-testing.
HI commented that such changes would add industry burden and result in
no additional energy savings, while NEEA added that the current test
procedure provides a sufficiently accurate indicator of energy
consumption (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 2; HI, No. 6 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 8 at
p. 1).
Issue 15: In order to further assess opportunity for reducing
burden, DOE requests additional information on how manufacturers are
implementing Table 1 of Appendix A (aside from inverter-only motors).
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the extent to which pumps sold with
multiple motor and control configurations are tested multiple times
using testing-based methods; the extent to which pumps sold with
single-phase motors are being rated as bare pumps (using a calculation-
based approach) rather than by a testing-based approach; and the extent
to which pumps sold with motors (other than inverter-only motors) are
being tested with a calculation-based approach as opposed to a testing-
based approach.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on whether any revisions to Table 1
of Appendix A could be considered to maintain or improve the
information derived from the test procedure while reducing burden with
no impact on the PEI rating for currently regulated pumps.
3. Calculation Method for Inverter-Only Motors
This section addresses how DOE could consider amending the test
procedure for pumps sold with inverter-only motors to reduce test
burden.
Inverter-only motors are currently not subject to DOE's electric
motor energy conservation standards, and as such, based on Table 1,
currently require wire-to-water testing. As discussed in section II.C.2
of this RFI, commenters requested that DOE work with stakeholders to
develop a calculation-based method for pumps sold with inverter-only
motors. In addition, based on Table 1, pumps sold with inverter-only
motors but without controls must use a testing-based approach resulting
in a PEICL rating, rather than a PEIVL rating. HI
and Grundfos commented that a calculation method for pumps sold with
inverter-only motors and without controls should allow for a
PEIVL rating in order to appropriately represent energy use
to the consumer (HI, No. 6 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 7 at p.1). HI and
NEEA, noted that a calculation-based method resulting in a
PEIVL rating for inverter-only motors would help encourage
the expanded use of this more efficient equipment. (HI, No. 6 at p. 2;
NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
In consideration of developing such a method, DOE is contemplating
constructing a table (or tables) \18\ similar to Table 2--``Default
Nominal Full Load Submersible Motor Efficiency by Motor Horsepower and
Pole,'' as well as a table (or tables) similar to Table 4--``Motor and
Control Part Load Loss Factor Equation Coefficients for Section
VII.E.1.2.2 of Appendix A.'' This strategy was suggested by NEEA, HI,
and NEMA (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; HI, No. 6, p. 2; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2). More
generally, Grundfos recommended that DOE work with stakeholders to
establish a calculation-based method for pumps with inverter-only
motors. (Grundfos, No. 7, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The different categories of inverter-only motors may
require separate models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 17: DOE requests information and feedback on the categories
of motors for which DOE should consider allowing the use of a
calculation-based method. Specifically, DOE requests information on the
categories of inverter-only motors (e.g., electronically commutated
motors, permanent magnet alternative current motors (``PMACs''), or
other AC induction motors) that should evaluate using a calculation-
based method.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback and comments on the general
approach for including default values and equations to represent
inverter-only motor performance. DOE requests data and information to
support the development of default values for inverter-only motors
(similar to the values developed for submersible motors in Table 2 of
Appendix A) as well as equations that would represent the part-load
efficiency or losses of these motors (similar to the equations
developed for certain motor and drive combinations in Table 4 of
Appendix A). To the extent DOE should consider a different approach,
DOE requests information on the methodology it should consider and
supporting data.
Issue 19: DOE requests information on the percentage of pumps sold
with inverter-only motors without controls (and thus would be impacted
by a change in rating from PEICL to PEIVL).
4. Representative Average Use Cycle
As previously discussed, in response to the September 2020 Early
Assessment RFI, Grundfos, HI, and NEEA commented that the current test
procedure produces results that sufficiently measure energy use during
a representative average use cycle and recommended that DOE make no
substantial changes to the current test approach (Grundfos, No. 7, p.
2; HI, No. 6, p. 2; NEEA, No. 8, pp. 1-2). However, the following
sections discuss two
[[Page 20083]]
specific topics raised by stakeholders that may impact the
representative average use cycle.
a. Load Profile
The current test procedure requires that constant load PER be
determined using 75%, 100% and 110% of BEP flow, with each value
multiplied by 0.33 and the results summed to determine PERCL
(See Appendix A, sections III.E, IV.E, V.E). Similarly, for variable
load pumps, energy ratings are determined at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of
BEP flow with each point weighted by 0.25 and summed to obtain a value
for PERVL (See Appendix A, sections VI.E, VII.E).
In response to the September 2020 Early Assessment RFI, NEEA
referenced its pumps database that was developed through the Regional
Technical Forum \19\ and suggested that DOE use the database to
evaluate the impact of pump load profile on estimated energy savings
(NEEA, No. 8, p. 3). In its comments, NEEA provided constant speed load
profile data for pumps at 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 110% and greater than
110% of BEP flow, which indicate that real-world operating hours may be
different than those assumed in the DOE test procedure (NEEA, No. 8,
pp. 3-4). NEEA observed that while the data may be representative of
load profiles in commercial application, they stated that modifying the
load profile for either constant or variable load pumps would likely
increase burden while having little impact on final PEI values. (NEEA,
No. 8, pp. 4-5). NEEA recommended that DOE maintain the current load
profiles in the test procedure (NEEA, No. 8, p. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Regional Technical Forum (``RTF'') is a technical
advisory committee to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
established to develop standards and evaluate energy efficiency
savings. See https://rtf.nwcouncil.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 20: DOE seeks additional comment on the load profile
distribution for constant and variable load pumps and the effect of the
distribution on PEI value.
b. Nominal Speed
The scope of the test procedure is limited to pumps designed to
operate with either a 2- or 4-pole induction motor or a non-induction
motor with a speed of rotation operating range between 2,880 and 4,320
rpm and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(ii). Section I.C.1
of Appendix A specifies selection of nominal speed of rotation of
either 1,800 or 3,600 rpm, depending on the number of poles of the
motor or the operating range of non-induction motors.
In response to the 2020 Early Assessment RFI, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE evaluate whether rating pumps at nominal speeds
higher than 3600 rpm, when paired with a variable-speed drive, would
provide consumer value and be cost effective. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs stated that incorporating a higher nominal speed(s) in the
test procedure would require retesting and urged DOE to consider if
ratings for pumps at higher nominal speeds might be determined by
calculation rather than wire-to-water testing. Id. NEEA also commented
that the energy use of pumps capable of operating with motors at speeds
higher than 3600 rpm, such as high-speed permanent magnet motors, may
not be appropriately represented by the current DOE test procedure
(NEEA, No. 8, p. 8-9).
DOE notes that pumps with speeds higher than 3600 rpm have
historically made up a small percentage of the market, and DOE has had
limited access to shipment and efficiency data for this equipment (See
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0060, at p. 4, which provides a
summary of the fourth negotiated rulemaking working group meeting for
commercial and industrial pumps held on March 26-27, 2014).
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on whether the nominal motor speeds
of 1800 rpm and 3600 rpm used in the current DOE test procedure
appropriately represent the operation and energy use of pumps that are
capable of higher speeds. If these motor speeds are not representative,
DOE requests comment on which speeds would be representative and
whether a testing-based or calculation-based approach would provide
more representative energy use values and the expected cost burden of
each. Additionally, DOE requests test data at speeds other than the
nominal speeds specified in the current test procedure in order to
determine if a calculation-based method is appropriate.
5. Rounding and Represented Values
The DOE test procedure includes provisions for calculations and
rounding in Section I.D.3 of Appendix A. Generally, all measured data
must be normalized such that it represents performance at nominal speed
of rotation in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and all calculations must
be carried out using raw measured values without rounding. See Appendix
A, section I.D.3. PER is rounded to three significant digits and PEI is
rounded to the hundredths place. Id. Explicit rounding directions are
not provided for other parameters.
In addition, 10 CFR 429.59(a) includes requirements for determining
the represented value of PEI based on a tested sample. DOE's
certification requirements include reporting of other parameters that
are derived from the test procedure, including pump total head in feet
at BEP and nominal speed; volume per unit time (i.e., flow rate) in
gallons per minute at BEP and nominal speed; and calculated driver
power input at each load point i.e., corrected to nominal speed in
horsepower. 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2).
DOE is considering whether to propose that these values be
represented by the mean of the value for each tested unit in the
sample, or whether there is a more appropriate approach. DOE is also
considering specifying rounding requirements for these values in the
test procedure (for a given tested unit) and/or in the requirements for
determination of represented values (for a sample of tested units).
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
specify rounding requirements for parameters other than PER and PEI;
and if so, what those rounding requirements should be.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on whether it should specify an
approach for determining represented values for parameters other than
PEI, and if so, what approach should be established and why.
D. Other Test Procedure Topics
1. Basic Model
DOE's certification regulations for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59 require
that manufacturers determine the represented value for each basic model
through testing in accordance with the sampling provisions specified in
that section. As applied to pumps, DOE defines the term ``basic model''
in 10 CFR 431.462.
Pump manufacturers may elect to group similar individual pump
models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to
reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the
energy use of pumps within that basic model are identical and based on
the most consumptive unit. 81 FR 4086, 4093. Accordingly, manufacturers
may pair a given bare pump with several different motors (or motor and
controls) and can include all combinations under the same basic model
if the certification of energy use and all representations made by the
manufacturer are based on the most consumptive bare pump/motor (or
motor and controls) combination for each basic model and all individual
[[Page 20084]]
models are in the same equipment class. Id.
In addition, clauses (1) and (2) of the basic model definition
align the scope of the ``basic model'' definition for pumps with the
requirements that testing be conducted at a certain number of stages
for RSV and ST pumps and at full impeller diameter).\20\ 10 CFR
431.462. Clause (3) of the definition addresses basic models inclusive
of pump models for which the bare pump differs in number of stages or
impeller diameter. (Id.) Specifically, variation in motor sizing (i.e.,
variation in the horsepower rating of the paired motor as a result of
different impeller trims or stages within a basic model) is not a basis
for requiring units to be rated as unique basic models. However,
variation in motor sizing may also be associated with variation in
motor efficiency, which is a performance characteristic; typically,
larger motors are more efficient than smaller motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Full impeller diameter'' means the maximum diameter
impeller with which a given pump basic model is distributed in
commerce. 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to group pumps sold with motors into a single basic model,
clause (3)(i) provides that for basic models inclusive of pump models
for which the bare pump differs in number of stages or impeller
diameter, each motor offered in a pump included in that basic model
must have a full-load efficiency at the Federal minimum for NEMA Design
B electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) or the same number of bands above the
Federal minimum for each respective motor horsepower as described in
Table 3 of Appendix A. (Id.) Clause (3)(ii) provides a similar
allowance for submersible turbine pumps, where, in order to group pumps
sold with motors into a single basic model, each motor offered in a
pump included in that basic model must have a full load motor
efficiency at the default nominal full load submersible motor
efficiency shown in Table 2 of Appendix A, or the same number of bands
above the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency for
each respective motor horsepower as described in Table 3 of Appendix A.
(Id.)
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers are currently
making use of the basic model grouping provisions when rating their
pumps, and whether any general clarifications or modifications are
needed.
DOE has received several inquiries related to application of the
basic model definition to pumps sold with VFDs of varying phase,
voltage, and/or efficiency; pumps sold with inverter-only motors such
as PMAC motors; and pumps sold with both single-phase and polyphase
motors.
For pumps sold with motors, when determining how to group models
within a basic model, manufacturers must consider clause (3), which
currently allows grouping of models based on the number of bands above
``nominal full load motor efficiency rated at the Federal minimum (see
the current table for NEMA Design B electric motors at Sec. 431.25)'',
or for submersible turbine pumps, based on the number of bands above
the default nominal full load submersible motor efficiency. DOE may
consider inclusion of explicit language that applies this clause to
pumps sold with specific kinds of motors, or to pumps sold with VFDs.
For example, inverter-only motors may have a rated efficiency (i.e.,
nameplate efficiency) that exceeds the Federal minimum for NEMA Design
B electric motors (10 CFR 431.25) (based on hp, poles, and enclosure
construction of that motor), as might certain single-phase motors
subject to the energy efficiency standards in 10 CFR 431.446 and tested
in accordance with 10 CFR 431.444.\21\ In addition, as discussed in
section II.C.3. of this RFI, stakeholders have recommended that DOE
develop default nominal full load efficiency values for inverter-only
motors, which could also provide a baseline for grouping pumps sold
with those motors. (NEEA, No. 8, p. 6; Grundfos, No. 7, p. 1; HI, No.
6, p. 2; NEMA, No. 4, p. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ DOE notes that this discussion is relevant only to the
option in Table 1 to Appendix A to rate pumps sold with single-phase
motors using a testing-based method. Per Table 1, manufacturers also
have the option to rate pumps sold with single-phase motors as bare
pumps, regardless of the single-phase motor's efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that for motors not currently subject to the DOE test
procedure for electric motors, it is not clear how manufacturers would
determine the full-load efficiency of a given motor, or specifically,
determine the number of bands above the Federal minimum or above the
default efficiency. For inverter-only motors, DOE notes that IEC
recently published an industry test procedure that provides test
methods for measuring the efficiency of these motors: IEC 60034-2-
3:2020, ``Rotating electrical machines--Part 2-3: Specific test methods
for determining losses and efficiency of converter-fed AC motors''
(``IEC 60034'') and IEC 61800-9-2:2017 (discussed in section II.C.1.b
of this RFI).
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on whether to amend clause (3) in
the basic model definition for pumps to provide additional detail
regarding pumps sold with inverter-only motors, single-phase motors, or
other non-NEMA Design B electric motors.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment on which motor categories not
currently subject to DOE's test procedure and standards are commonly
combined with pumps, as well as their relative efficiency compared to
regulated NEMA Design B electric motors, and which corresponding
industry test procedure (if any) should be used to establish their
``rated'' efficiency.
Issue 27: DOE requests comment on how VFDs are typically paired
with pumps and motors; for example, whether motors of various sizes are
paired with the same VFD. DOE further requests comment on whether a
pump manufacturer would know which VFD commonly paired with its pumps
would result in the most consumptive rating.
DOE notes that in order to group pumps sold with both single-phase
motors and pumps sold with polyphase motors into a single basic model,
manufacturers would need to utilize a testing-based approach on the
most consumptive configuration, as pumps sold with polyphase motors
cannot be rated as bare pumps, and pumps sold with single-phase motors
cannot be rated using a calculation-based approach (see Table 1 to
Appendix A).
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on whether the allowed grouping
under the same basic model for pumps sold with both single phase and
polyphase motors requires more explicit direction in 10 CFR part 431.
2. Labeling Requirement
The test procedure for pumps provides the basis for the labeling
requirement at 10 CFR 431.466. The following specific information must
be included on the nameplate and in marketing materials:
PEICL or PEIVL, as applicable; bare pump model
number; and if transferred directly to an end user, the impeller
diameter. 10 CFR 431.466(a)(1)(i). The representations included on the
nameplate and in marketing materials must be based on testing of the
pump in accordance with Appendix A and the representation must fairly
disclose the results of such testing. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
DOE is aware of certain situations in which the test procedure and
labeling requirements do not explicitly address how the results of
testing are to be included on the nameplate or in marketing materials.
One example is a bare pump distributed as a pump kit that could be
assembled as either an ESCC or ESFM pump. As required by Appendix A,
this pump kit would be tested as a bare pump, if distributed
[[Page 20085]]
without a motor (see Table 1 to Appendix A). As part of the DOE test
procedure, PERSTD is calculated based on the category and
nominal speed of rotation of the tested pump. Appendix A, Sections
I.C.1 and II.B. In this case, the pump kit would be ``tested'' twice,
once using a calculation based on ESCC and once based on ESFM, and must
be labeled with the most consumptive PEI relevant to the kit. Another
example is that pumps distributed with motors (and rated as such in
accordance with Table 1 to Appendix A) may be more appropriately
labeled with the manufacturer's individual model number than with a
bare pump model number.
An additional example would be a pump distributed in commerce with
multiple stages--including different sized impellers in different
stages. As required by Appendix A, this pump would be tested at full
impeller diameter (i.e., the maximum diameter impeller with which a
given pump basic model is distributed in commerce). Appendix A, Section
I.C. In this case manufacturers may include on the nameplate the
largest impeller diameter only, as well as sufficient identifying
information in the individual model number to identify inclusion of
reduced impeller sizes.
Issue 29: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure should
explicitly specify how to determine the information required to be
marked on a label in accordance with 10 CFR 431.466, and if so, how.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment on whether the term ``full impeller
diameter'' should be modified to explicitly address pumps with multiple
stages and varying impeller diameters, and if so, how.
3. Any Additional Information
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures
for pumps.
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on whether the existing test
procedures limit a manufacturer's ability to provide additional
features to consumers on pumps. DOE particularly seeks information on
how the test procedures could be amended to reduce the cost of new or
additional features and make it more likely that such features are
included on pumps, while still meeting the requirements of EPCA.
Issue 32: DOE requests comments on any potential amendments to the
existing test procedures that would address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
Finally, DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sep. 17, 2018)
(``September 2018 RFI''). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better
understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for consumer
appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology.
DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory
obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and
equipment.
Issue 33: DOE seeks, as part of this RFI, comments, data and
information on the issues presented in the September 2018 RFI as they
may be applicable to pumps.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading comments and information on matters addressed
in this RFI and on other matters relevant to DOE's early assessment of
whether more stringent energy conservation standards are not warranted
for commercial and industrial pumps.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Following this instruction, persons viewing comments will see
only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through 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 https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email will be posted to 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 on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the
[[Page 20086]]
document marked confidential including all the information believed to
be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 9,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-07701 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
