Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review; Commercial and Industrial Pumps, 43430-43437 [2021-16936]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43430
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
time for interested parties to submit
comments.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on August 2, 2021,
by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 3,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–16828 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0018]
RIN 1904–AE54
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment;
Early Assessment Review; Commercial
and Industrial Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early
assessment review for amended energy
conservation standards for commercial
and industrial pumps (‘‘pumps’’) to
determine whether to amend applicable
energy conservation standards for this
equipment. Specifically, through this
request for information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE
seeks data and information to evaluate
whether amended energy conservation
standards would result in a significant
savings of energy; be technologically
feasible; and be economically justified.
DOE welcomes written comments from
the public on any subject within the
scope of this document (including those
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
topics not specifically raised in this
RFI), as well as the submission of data
and other relevant information
concerning this early assessment
review.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 8,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to Pumps2021STD0018@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018 in the
subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public
comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds
that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance
Standards Program staff at (202) 586–
1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the Covid–19
pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and
hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
B. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
2. Energy Use
3. National Energy Savings
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
2. Representative Units
3. Efficiency Levels
D. Economic Justification
1. Distribution Channels
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early
assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based
on statutory criteria, whether a new or
amended energy conservation standard
is warranted. Based on the information
received in response to the RFI and
DOE’s own analysis, DOE will
determine whether to proceed with a
rulemaking for a new or amended
energy conservation standard. If DOE
makes an initial determination that a
new or amended energy conservation
standard would satisfy the applicable
statutory criteria or DOE’s analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to
issue a new or amended energy
conservation standard. If DOE makes an
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
initial determination based upon
available evidence that a new or
amended energy conservation standard
would not meet the applicable statutory
criteria, DOE would engage in notice
and comment rulemaking before issuing
a final determination that new or
amended energy conservation standards
are not warranted.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among
other things, authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added
by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes pumps, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of federal
preemption in limited instances for
particular state laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under 42
U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment. EPCA
requires that any new or amended
energy conservation standard prescribed
by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’)
be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy or water
efficiency that is technologically
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)).
The Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard that will not
result in significant conservation of
energy, or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA also requires that, not later than
6 years after the issuance of any Final
Rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for each type of
covered equipment, including those at
issue here, and publish either a notice
of determination that the standards do
not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that
includes new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
Final Rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
B. Rulemaking History
DOE published a framework
document for pumps on January 25,
2013. 78 FR 7304. This document
described the procedural and analytical
approaches DOE anticipated using to
evaluate potential new energy
conservation standards for pumps. DOE
solicited comment on this document
and invited stakeholders to a public
meeting to discuss the document.
A commercial and industrial pumps
working group (‘‘CIP working group’’)
was established in 2013 under the
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act. (5 U.S.C. App.; 5
U.S.C. 561–570). See also 78 FR 44036.
The purpose of the CIP working group
was to discuss and, if possible, reach
consensus on proposed standards for
pump energy efficiency. On June 19,
2014, the CIP working group reached
consensus on proposed energy
conservation standards for specific
rotodynamic, clean water pumps 3 used
in a variety of commercial, industrial,
agricultural, and municipal
applications. The CIP working group
assembled their recommendations into a
Term Sheet (See Docket EERE–2013–
BT–NOC–0039–0092).4
The Term Sheet contained
recommendations on the definitions
3 Clean water pumps are designed for pumping
water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid
content of 0.016 pounds per cubic foot, with a
maximum dissolved solid content of 3.1 pounds per
cubic foot, provided that the total gas content of the
water does not exceed the saturation volume, and
disregarding any additives necessary to maintain
the water above 14 °F.
4 CIP working group Term Sheet, https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTNOC-0039-0092.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43431
relevant to all pumps, the scope for
commercial and industrial pumps,
energy conservation standards for
pumps within scope, and the test metric
for commercial and industrial pumps.
Consequently, DOE initiated both an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking and a test procedure
rulemaking to implement these
recommendations.
On January 26, 2016, DOE published
a final rule adopting energy
conservation standards for commercial
and industrial pumps manufactured on
or after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368
(‘‘January 2016 ECS Final Rule’’). The
energy conservation standards
established in the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule were consistent with those
recommended by the CIP working group
and approved by ASRAC. 81 FR 4368,
4375. The current energy conservation
standards for pumps are codified at 10
CFR 431.465. Additionally, DOE
established a test procedure for
determining pump energy efficiency
published in a Final Rule on January 25,
2016. 81 FR 4086 (‘‘January 2016 TP
Final Rule’’).5 The current test
procedures for pumps are codified at 10
CFR 431.464 and in Appendix A to
Subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431
(‘‘Appendix A’’).
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information during the early
assessment review process to inform its
decision, consistent with its obligations
under EPCA, as to whether the
Department should proceed with an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking. Below DOE has identified
certain topics for which information and
data are requested to assist in the
evaluation of the potential for amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
also welcomes comments on other
issues relevant to its early assessment
that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
This RFI covers equipment meeting
the pump definition codified in 10 CFR
431.462. ‘‘Pump’’ means equipment
designed to move liquids (which may
include entrained gases, free solids, and
totally dissolved solids) by physical or
mechanical action and includes a bare
pump 6 and, if included by the
5 On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction
to the January 2016 ECS Final Rule to correct the
placement of the product-specific enforcement
provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134
at paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
6 A ‘‘bare pump’’ is exclusive of mechanical
equipment, driver, and controls. See 10 CFR
431.462.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
43432
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
manufacturer at the time of sale,
mechanical equipment,7 driver,8 and
controls.9 10 CFR 431.462.
As part of the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule, DOE established energy
conservation standards for five
categories of clean water pumps: End
suction close-coupled (‘‘ESCC’’); end
suction frame mounted/own bearings
(‘‘ESFM’’); in-line (‘‘IL’’); radially split,
multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser
casing (‘‘RSV’’); and submersible turbine
(‘‘ST’’) pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i).
Each of these categories is limited to
pumps that have a shaft input power
greater than or equal to 1 horsepower
(‘‘hp’’) and less than or equal to 200 hp
at the best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) 10
and full impeller diameter. DOE defines
each of these categories in 10 CFR
431.462. DOE provides additional
specifications regarding the
applicability of the test procedure, and
therefore the energy conservation
standards, at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii).11
Pumps are further delineated into
equipment classes based on nominal
speed of rotation and operating mode.
10 CFR 431.465. All pump equipment
classes are summarized in Table II.1.
TABLE II.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR PUMPS
Nominal driver
speed
(rpm)
Basic pump equipment category
ESCC .................................................................................................................................
ESFM .................................................................................................................................
IL ........................................................................................................................................
RSV ....................................................................................................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ST .......................................................................................................................................
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
1,800
3,600
Constant or
variable load
(CL or VL)
CL
CL
VL
VL
CL
CL
VL
VL
CL
CL
VL
VL
CL
CL
VL
VL
CL
CL
VL
VL
Equipment class
ESCC.1800.CL
ESCC.3600.CL
ESCC.1800.VL
ESCC.3600.VL
ESFM.1800.CL
ESFM.3600.CL
ESFM.1800.VL
ESFM.3600.VL
IL.1800.CL
IL.3600.CL
IL.1800.VL
IL.3600.VL
RSV.1800.CL
RSV.3600.CL
RSV.1800.VL
RSV.3600.VL
ST.1800.CL
ST.3600.CL
ST.1800.VL
ST.3600.VL
In a test procedure RFI published on
April 16, 2021, DOE requested comment
on whether it should expand or remove
some of the limitations in 10 CFR
431.464(a)(ii) for pumps. 86 FR 20075.
In developing its recommendations,
and in consideration of time constraints,
the CIP working group further limited
its scope to clean water pumps. (Term
Sheet, recommendation #8). The CIP
working group also recommended that
pump energy efficiency standards not
apply to (1) fire pumps, (2) self-priming
pumps, (3) prime-assist pumps, (4)
magnet driven pumps, (5) pumps
designed to be used in nuclear facilities,
and (6) pumps meeting design and
construction requirements in various
military specifications. Id. Consistent
with the CIP working group
recommendations, DOE established
energy conservation standards for clean
water pumps (10 CFR 431.465(b)(2)) and
excluded from the scope of the energy
conservation standards the pumps listed
above (10 CFR 431.465(c)).
Additionally, consistent with the
recommendation from the CIP working
group (See Term Sheet,
recommendation #6), DOE excluded
from coverage under the standards
positive displacement pumps, axial/
mixed flow pumps, double suction
pumps, multistage axially split pumps,
multistage radial-split horizontal
pumps, multistage radial split vertical
immersible pumps, and vertical turbine
(non-submersible) pumps. 81 FR 4368,
4376.
Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on
whether to consider energy conservation
standards for pumps other than clean
water pumps. Additionally, DOE seeks
comment on whether energy
conservation standards should be
considered for positive displacement,
axial/mixed flow, double suction,
multistage axially split, multistage
radial-split horizontal, multistage radial
split vertical immersible, or nonsubmersible vertical turbine pumps, fire
pumps, self-priming pumps, primeassist pumps, magnet driven pumps,
pumps used in nuclear facilities, or
pumps specified for certain military
uses. Specifically, DOE is interested in
information and data on the industries
in which these pumps are typically
used, shipment data for these products
(or the relative shipments for these
products compared to clean water
pumps currently with the scope of
DOE’s efficiency standards), and
7 ‘‘Mechanical equipment’’ is any component of a
pump that transfers energy from the driver to the
bare pump. See 10 CFR 431.462.
8 A ‘‘driver’’ provides mechanical input to drive
a bare pump directly or through the use of
mechanical equipment. Electric motors, internal
combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are
examples of drivers. See 10 CFR 431.462.
9 A ‘‘control’’ is used to operate a driver. See 10
CFR 431.462.
10 Best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’) is the pump
hydraulic power operating point consisting of both
flow and head conditions of a pump that results in
the maximum efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.462.
11 The test procedure applies to the established
categories of pumps that have the following
characteristics: (a) Flow rate of 25 gallons per
minute (gpm) or greater at BEP and full impeller
diameter; (b) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and
full impeller diameter and the number of stages
required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of appendix
A of this subpart); (c) Design temperature range
from 14 to 248 °F; (d) Designed to operate with
either: (1) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or (2) A
non-induction motor with a speed of rotation
operating range that includes speeds of rotation
between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute
(rpm) and/or 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, and in either
case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the
same speed; (e) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller
bowl diameter; and (f) For ESCC and ESFM pumps,
a specific speed less than or equal to 5,000 when
calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
additional safety or performance
standards that these pump types must
meet.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Significant Savings of Energy
The January 2016 ECS Final Rule
estimated that the established energy
conservation standard for pumps would
result in 0.10 quadrillion British
thermal units (‘‘quads’’) of site energy
savings in site energy use over a 30-year
period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally,
in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule,
DOE estimated that an energy
conservation standard established at an
energy efficiency level equivalent to that
achieved using the maximum available
technology (‘‘max-tech’’) would have
resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site
energy savings. 81 FR 4368, 4415.
As a preliminary step in evaluating
potential energy savings, DOE updated
its energy savings estimates from the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule. DOE’s
current estimate indicates that an
amended energy conservation standard
established at the same max-tech as the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule would
result in 0.25 quads of site energy
savings (0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle
energy savings) which is a reduction
from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for
the reduced estimate is a revised
estimate of the base case efficiency
distribution. In preparation for this RFI,
DOE reviewed its Compliance
Certification database 12 and found that
the efficiency distribution by basic
model in the marketplace in 2020
exceeded that assumed in the January
2016 ECS Final Rule for the adopted
standard level (i.e., there are fewer
models at baseline,13 indicating that
manufacturers redesigned pump models
to surpass, rather than just meet, the
current Federal standard).14
While DOE’s request for information
is not limited to the following issues,
DOE is particularly interested in
comment, information, and data on the
following topics to inform whether
potential amended energy conservation
standards would result in a significant
savings of energy.
12 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database, https://
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS4-Pumps_-_General_Pumps.html#q=Product_
Group_s%3A%22Pumps%20%20General%20Pumps%22, Accessed February 24,
2020.
13 The baseline efficiency level was set to
represent the lowest efficiency hydraulic designs on
the market. 81 FR 4368, 4382.
14 While DOE does not have updated information
on efficiency distribution by shipment as it did in
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE compared
the efficiency distributions by model and shipment
gathered for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule and
determined that model distribution is a reasonable
proxy for shipment distribution.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
43433
1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
DOE uses base case efficiency
distributions to calculate life cycle cost
(‘‘LCC’’) savings resulting from each
considered energy efficiency level. In
the analysis supporting the January
2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE developed
the base case efficiency distributions
based on the shipments data provided
by manufacturers 15 and used base case
efficiency distribution specific to
equipment class, shaft input power and
flow.16
Issue 2: DOE seeks data and
information on the distribution of pump
efficiencies. To the extent available,
DOE requests the data, in terms of pump
energy index (‘‘PEI’’); by pump
shipments at the equipment class level;
and disaggregated by shaft input power
and flow, for bare pumps only. DOE
seeks comment on how the shipments
efficiency distribution might differ
across ranges of flow and shaft input
power for each equipment class.
from a subject matter expert and
feedback from the CIP working group. In
addition, in the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate
within 75 percent to 110 percent of their
BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390.
Issue 3: DOE requests data and
information on whether, and if so, how,
the field energy use of pumps has
changed since the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is
interested in any information and data
related to whether there have been
changes in duty points (i.e., flow, head,
and shaft input power required for a
given application), annual hours of
operation, and load profiles since the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on
whether the characterization of pump
sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule remains appropriate. If not,
DOE requests data and information on
how pump sizing practices have
changed since the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule.
2. Energy Use
3. National Energy Savings
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
shipments analysis, DOE developed
shipment projections for pumps and, in
turn, calculated equipment stock from
2020 through 2049, starting with the
2012 shipment estimates from the
Hydraulics Institute (‘‘HI’’) (Docket
EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039–0068). To
project shipments of pumps, DOE relied
primarily on Annual Energy Outlook
2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments
projection and the equipment stock to
determine the National Energy Savings
(‘‘NES’’).
Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 (or the
most recent year available) annual sales
data (i.e., number of shipments) for
pumps by equipment class, as shown in
10 CFR 431.465(b)(4). If disaggregated
fractions of annual sales are not
available at the equipment class level,
DOE requests more aggregated fractions
of annual sales at the category level (i.e.,
ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST). If available,
DOE requests annual sales data by
equipment class for the previous five
years (2015–2019).
Consumer inputs to the energy use
analysis are based on operational
demands that are independent of the
pump efficiency, while equipment
inputs to the analysis are based on the
efficiency of the pump. Consumer
inputs include consumer duty point that
is defined by the flow and head, annual
load profile, and annual operating
hours. With limited data available with
respect to the duty point in the January
2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE
developed a distribution of duty points
(i.e., operating shaft input power and
flow) based on shipments data provided
by manufacturers. DOE developed four
representative load profiles,
characterized by different weights at 50
percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, and
110 percent of the flow at the duty
point. The load profiles were developed
to represent a range of pump loading
conditions within an annual cycle. For
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
estimated statistical distributions and
average values of annual operating
hours by application based on inputs
15 DOE’s shipment estimates for the January 2016
ECS Final Rule (and carried through to the updated
energy savings estimate presented in this section)
relied on annual shipments data for 2012 provided
by industry. 81 FR 4368, 4391. See discussion in
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule Technical Support
Document (‘‘TSD’’), Section 8.3.3 of Chapter 8,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
16 In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE used
performance data for bare pumps to represent the
performance of all pump equipment classes. 81 FR
4368, 4382. In addition, DOE considered improved
hydraulic design to be the only technology option
suitable for further consideration in a standards
rulemaking. 81 FR 4368, 4383–4384.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Technological Feasibility
During the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule, DOE considered a number of
technology options that manufacturers
could use to reduce energy consumption
in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks
comment on any changes to these
technology options that could affect
whether DOE could propose a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ determination, such as an
insignificant increase in the range of
efficiencies and performance
characteristics of these technologies.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
43434
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
While DOE’s request for information
is not limited to the following issues,
DOE is particularly interested in
comment, information, and data on the
following.
1. Technology Options
presented in Table II.2. 81 FR 4368,
4383.
A complete list of technology options
evaluated for pumps in preparation for
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule is
TABLE II.2—PUMPS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE JANUARY 2016 ECS FINAL RULE
Technology Options
Improved Hydraulic Design
Improved surface finish on wetted components
Reduced running clearances
Reduced mechanical friction in seals
Reduction of other volumetric losses
Addition of variable speed drive (‘‘VSD’’)
Improvement of VSD efficiency
Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule,
DOE determined that most of the
technology options listed in Table II.2
had limited potential to improve pump
efficiency. 81 FR 4368, 4383.
Specifically, DOE received
manufacturer feedback that certain
technologies (a) did not significantly
improve efficiency; (b) were not
applicable to the equipment for which
standards were being considered; (c) did
not significantly improve efficiency
across the entire scope of each
equipment class; or (d) benefits
degraded quickly over time. Id.
Table II.3 summarizes the pump
technology options that DOE screened
from its analysis in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule, and the applicable
screening criteria.
TABLE II.3—PUMPS TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS SCREENED FROM THE JANUARY 2016 ECS FINAL RULE
EPCA criteria
Screened technology option
Improved surface finish on wetted components—smoothing operations .......................
Improved surface finish on wetted components—coating or plating .............................
Improved surface finish on wetted components—casting ..............................................
Reduced running clearances ...........................
Reduced mechanical friction in seals ..............
Reduction of other volumetric losses ..............
Addition of variable speed drive ......................
Improvement of VSD efficiency .......................
Reduced VSD standby and off mode power
usage ............................................................
Technological
feasibility
Practicability to
manufacture,
install, and
service
Adverse impact
on product utility
or availability
Adverse impacts
on health and
safety
Other reasons
for not
considering the
technology
............................
X
............................
............................
X*
............................
............................
X
............................
X*
............................
X
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
X
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
X††
X†, X††
X†, X*
............................
X*
X*
............................
............................
............................
............................
X*
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
* DOE screened out these technology options because they were not applicable to the equipment for which standards were being considered
or did not significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class.
† DOE screened out these technology options because they did not significantly improve efficiency.
†† DOE screened out these technology options because efficiency improvements from these technologies degrade quickly.
Ultimately, hydraulic redesign was
the only design option incorporated into
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
engineering analysis. 81 FR 4368, 4385.
Hydraulic redesign is a broad term used
to describe the system design of a bare
pump’s wetted components. Although
hydraulic redesign focuses on the
specific hydraulic characteristics of the
impeller and the volute/casing, it also
includes design choices related to
clearances, seals, and other volumetric
losses.17
17 See Section 3.6.1 Chapter 3 of the TSD for the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–2011–
BT–STD–0031–0056.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on if
there are additional technology options
that were not considered during the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may
have a significant potential for
improving pump energy use beyond
hydraulic redesign. Additionally, DOE
requests feedback on whether, and if so,
how, technologically feasible design
options might vary by equipment class.
DOE also seeks comment on how any of
the listed technologies in Table II.3 may
have changed since the January 2016
ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is
interested in data that support whether
DOE should continue to screen-out the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
technologies listed in Table II.3 from its
engineering analysis.
2. Representative Units
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule,
DOE identified representative
configurations that were based on
typical product offerings for each of the
five equipment classes. 81 FR 4368,
4385. For the ESCC, ESFM, and IL
equipment classes, the representative
configuration was a pump fitted with a
cast bronze impeller, a cast-iron volute
and a mechanical seal. Id. For RSV and
ST equipment classes, the
representative configuration was a
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
pump fitted with sheet metal-based
fabricated stainless-steel impeller(s),
and sheet metal-based fabricated
stainless-steel casing and internal static
components. Id. DOE is aware that
many manufacturers redesigned their
pump models in order to meet the
standards set forth in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule (see discussion in
Section II.B).
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on
whether the representative
configurations used in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule analysis for ESCC,
ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute
and mechanical seal, and for RSV and
ST impeller and bowl/casing continue
to provide an accurate representation of
the current market.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3. Efficiency Levels
DOE uses a standardized, minimally
compliant bare pump, inclusive of a
minimally compliant motor, as a
reference pump. The efficiency of the
minimally compliant pump is defined
as a function of certain physical
properties of the bare pump, such as
flow at BEP and specific speed.18
Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The
terms in the efficiency model (i.e., BEP
flow rate at full impeller diameter and
nominal speed of rotation, specific
speed) can be measured or calculated
using the physical properties of the
pump, except for the ‘‘C-value’’. The ‘‘Cvalue’’ is a constant based on the speed
of rotation and equipment category of
the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377–
4378.
This pump hydraulic efficiency
model is an adaptation of the European
Union’s (‘‘EU’’) model equation,19
modified to use United States customary
units and 60 Hz electrical input power.
81 FR 4368, 4377. DOE defined pump
efficiency levels using efficiency
percentile ranges. Id. As an example, at
the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump
models are less efficient than the
defined efficiency model.20
The C-values specified in 10 CFR
431.465 correspond to the lower 25th
percentile of efficiency for the ESCC,
ESFM and IL equipment classes. 81 FR
4368, 4370. For the ST equipment
classes, C-values for pumps at 3600 rpm
18 Section II of Appendix A prescribes how to
compare a tested pump to the standard minimally
compliant bare pump for each equipment class.
19 Council of the European Union. 2012.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25
June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council with
regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps.
Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26
June 2012, pp. 28–36.
20 See Section 5.8.1 of Chapter 5 of the TSD for
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–
2011–BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
correspond to the lower 25th percentile
of efficiency, while C-values for pumps
at 1800 rpm represent the baseline
efficiency evaluated for the January
2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a lack
of available data for ST pumps at 1800
rpm, DOE used data from the ST 3600
rpm analysis to set the C-value standard
for ST pumps at 1800 rpm. 81 FR 4368,
4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST
pumps at 1800 rpm was set to the
baseline efficiency C-value established
for ST pumps at 3600 rpm. Id. Because
of a lack of available data for all RSV
pumps, DOE harmonized the C-values
for the RSV equipment classes with the
EU 40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368,
4370.
Issue 8: DOE requests data for all
pump equipment classes that would
enable DOE to conduct an efficiency
level analysis similar to that conducted
for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To
the extent available, DOE requests data
grouped by equipment class and shaft
power, and that includes pump energy
rating (‘‘PER’’), pump hydraulic
efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60
Hz, and the BEP flow rate at full
impeller diameter and nominal speed of
rotation. If these data are not available,
DOE requests test data that would allow
for the calculation of these values
according to Appendix A (e.g., pump
hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be
calculated from bare pump PER at
constant load, bare pump hydraulic
output power and part load motor losses
at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110
percent of BEP flow 21).
In its analysis supporting the January
2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assigned the
max-tech efficiency level as the
maximum available efficiency already
offered in the marketplace. DOE
established a max-tech level at the 70th
efficiency percentile for all equipment
classes. 81 FR 4368, 4386. At this maxtech level there were existing pumps
available in the market that met this
level for all shaft powers between 1 and
200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the
opportunity for efficiency improvement
is not equal across the entire range of
shaft powers, specifically, DOE’s
analysis supporting the January 2016
ECS Final Rule indicated that
application of the design options listed
in Table II.2 resulted in greater
efficiency improvement for smaller
pumps compared to larger pumps.22
Issue 9: DOE requests information on
whether conducting a max-tech analysis
21 As
described in sections II.E and II.B of
Appendix A.
22 See Section 3 of Chapter 3.6 of the TSD for the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–2011–
BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43435
based on size (for example, developing
small and large shaft power
designations) or specific speed would be
more representative of the pumps
market and provide an opportunity for
additional energy savings.
D. Economic Justification
In determining whether a proposed
energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes,
among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers,
manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE
seeks comment on whether there are
economic barriers to the adoption of
more-stringent energy conservation
standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any aspects of its economic
justification analysis from the January
2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate
whether a more-stringent energy
conservation standard would be
economically justified or cost effective.
While DOE’s request for information
is not limited to the following issues,
DOE is particularly interested in
comment, information, and data on the
following.
1. Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for
the LCC analysis and the National
Impacts Analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE
identified distribution channels (i.e.,
how the equipment are distributed from
the manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimated relative sales volumes
through each channel. Table II.5
presents the distribution channels
identified by the CIP working group
with their corresponding share of total
pump sales that were used in the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis.
81 FR 4368, 4389.
TABLE II.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
MARKET SHARES FOR PUMPS
Distribution channel
Manufacturer to distributor to
contractor to end-user .......
Manufacturer to distributor to
end-users ..........................
Manufacturer to original
equipment manufacturer to
end-users ..........................
Manufacturer to end-users ...
Manufacturer to contractor to
end-users ..........................
Other .....................................
Percentage of
total pump
sales
(%)
70
17
8
2
1
2
Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether
the distribution channels described, and
the percentage of shipments in each
channel, as shown in Table II.5, reflect
the current market.
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
43436
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
analysis, DOE conducted a LCC and
payback period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis to
estimate the economic impacts of
potential new standards on individual
consumers of pump equipment. The
analysis included, among others, the
inputs further elaborated below.
a. Installation, Repair and Maintenance
Costs
In generating end-user price inputs for
the LCC analysis and NIA in the January
2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assumed that
installation, maintenance, and repair
costs remain identical across efficiency
levels. With the market efficiency
moving beyond what was projected in
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, there
may be additional or different data
available to represent the relationship
between installation, repair, and
maintenance costs and efficiency.
Issue 11: DOE requests feedback and
data on whether installation costs at
higher efficiency levels differ in
comparison to baseline installation
costs. To the extent that these costs
differ, DOE seeks supporting data and
the reasons for those differences.
Issue 12: DOE requests feedback and
data on whether repair and maintenance
costs at higher efficiency levels differ in
comparison to repair and maintenance
costs at baseline levels, respectively,
both in terms of value and frequency of
occurrence during the equipment
lifetime. To the extent that these costs
differ, DOE seeks supporting data and
the reasons for those differences.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
b. Equipment Lifetimes
The lifetime energy use of a pump is
calculated as the annual energy use
multiplied by the equipment economic
lifetime. DOE considers economic
lifetime, also called service lifetime, as
the total number of years that the
equipment is in service (from initial
equipment installation until its final
retirement), and the mechanical
lifetime, as the total number of
operating hours from initial equipment
installation until its final retirement. In
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
estimated the pump equipment lifetimes
to range between 4 and 40 years, with
an average lifetime of 15 years across all
equipment classes, based on estimates
from market experts and input from the
CIP working group. The analysis
conducted for the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule used Weibull lifetime
distribution per equipment class, and
included variability by pump rotation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
speed, and lifetime extensions through
repairs.23
Issue 13: DOE requests comment and
data on whether any market and
technology changes since the January
2016 ECS Final Rule would affect its
equipment lifetime estimates for pumps
for which DOE currently has standards,
and if so, how. DOE additionally
requests equipment lifetime data for any
pump types discussed through Section
II.A that are not currently subject to
energy conservation standards.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date under the
DATES heading, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
notification and on other matters
relevant to DOE’s early assessment of
whether more-stringent energy
conservation standards are warranted
for pumps.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies staff only. Your contact
information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment. If
this instruction is followed, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such
as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) to https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments
submitted through https://
23 See Section 8.3.2.5 of Chapter 8 of the TSD for
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE–
2011–BT–STD–0031–0056 p. 5–13.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will not be protected under CBI.
For information on submitting CBI, see
the Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that is generated
through https://www.regulations.gov
after you have successfully uploaded
your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. Faxes
will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide only unsecured
documents in English, and free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should
not contain special characters or any
form of encryption and, if possible, they
should carry the electronic signature of
the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on August 2, 2021,
by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 4,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–16936 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Aug 06, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2021–0621; Project
Identifier MCAI–2020–01517–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018–25–16, which applies to certain
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model
CN–235, CN–235–200, and CN–235–300
airplanes. AD 2018–25–16 requires
revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations. Since the
FAA issued AD 2018–25–16, the FAA
has determined that additional new or
more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, including inspections for
discrepancies (cracking) of certain
structural elements, are necessary. This
proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate
new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, and repetitive inspections
for discrepancies (cracking) of certain
structural elements and corrective
actions, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is 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 September 23,
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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43437
For EASA material that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-AdenauerUfer 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
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–
0621.
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–
0621; 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:
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax 206–231–
3220; email shahram.daneshmandi@
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–2021–0621; Project Identifier
MCAI–2020–01517–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
E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM
09AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43430-43437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0018]
RIN 1904-AE54
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review;
Commercial and Industrial Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking an
early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for
commercial and industrial pumps (``pumps'') to determine whether to
amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment.
Specifically, through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation
standards would result in a significant savings of energy; be
technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including those topics not specifically raised in this
RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information
concerning this early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 8, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2021-BT-
STD-0018, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail
and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents
in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0018. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
B. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
2. Energy Use
3. National Energy Savings
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
2. Representative Units
3. Efficiency Levels
D. Economic Justification
1. Distribution Channels
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis,
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If
DOE makes an
[[Page 43431]]
initial determination based upon available evidence that a new or
amended energy conservation standard would not meet the applicable
statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking
before issuing a final determination that new or amended energy
conservation standards are not warranted.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)).
The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will
not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any Final Rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a Final Rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
B. Rulemaking History
DOE published a framework document for pumps on January 25, 2013.
78 FR 7304. This document described the procedural and analytical
approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate potential new energy
conservation standards for pumps. DOE solicited comment on this
document and invited stakeholders to a public meeting to discuss the
document.
A commercial and industrial pumps working group (``CIP working
group'') was established in 2013 under the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. (5
U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570). See also 78 FR 44036. The purpose of
the CIP working group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus
on proposed standards for pump energy efficiency. On June 19, 2014, the
CIP working group reached consensus on proposed energy conservation
standards for specific rotodynamic, clean water pumps \3\ used in a
variety of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and municipal
applications. The CIP working group assembled their recommendations
into a Term Sheet (See Docket EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Clean water pumps are designed for pumping water with a
maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.016 pounds per cubic
foot, with a maximum dissolved solid content of 3.1 pounds per cubic
foot, provided that the total gas content of the water does not
exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any additives
necessary to maintain the water above 14 [deg]F.
\4\ CIP working group Term Sheet, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Term Sheet contained recommendations on the definitions
relevant to all pumps, the scope for commercial and industrial pumps,
energy conservation standards for pumps within scope, and the test
metric for commercial and industrial pumps. Consequently, DOE initiated
both an energy conservation standards rulemaking and a test procedure
rulemaking to implement these recommendations.
On January 26, 2016, DOE published a final rule adopting energy
conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps manufactured
on or after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368 (``January 2016 ECS Final
Rule''). The energy conservation standards established in the January
2016 ECS Final Rule were consistent with those recommended by the CIP
working group and approved by ASRAC. 81 FR 4368, 4375. The current
energy conservation standards for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.465.
Additionally, DOE established a test procedure for determining pump
energy efficiency published in a Final Rule on January 25, 2016. 81 FR
4086 (``January 2016 TP Final Rule'').\5\ The current test procedures
for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.464 and in Appendix A to Subpart Y
of 10 CFR part 431 (``Appendix A'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On March 23, 2016, DOE published a correction to the January
2016 ECS Final Rule to correct the placement of the product-specific
enforcement provisions related to pumps under 10 CFR 429.134 at
paragraph (i). 81 FR 15426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during
the early assessment review process to inform its decision, consistent
with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should
proceed with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Below DOE has
identified certain topics for which information and data are requested
to assist in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy
conservation standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues
relevant to its early assessment that may not specifically be
identified in this document.
A. Scope and Equipment Classes
This RFI covers equipment meeting the pump definition codified in
10 CFR 431.462. ``Pump'' means equipment designed to move liquids
(which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved
solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump \6\
and, if included by the
[[Page 43432]]
manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment,\7\ driver,\8\
and controls.\9\ 10 CFR 431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A ``bare pump'' is exclusive of mechanical equipment,
driver, and controls. See 10 CFR 431.462.
\7\ ``Mechanical equipment'' is any component of a pump that
transfers energy from the driver to the bare pump. See 10 CFR
431.462.
\8\ A ``driver'' provides mechanical input to drive a bare pump
directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Electric
motors, internal combustion engines, and gas/steam turbines are
examples of drivers. See 10 CFR 431.462.
\9\ A ``control'' is used to operate a driver. See 10 CFR
431.462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE established energy
conservation standards for five categories of clean water pumps: End
suction close-coupled (``ESCC''); end suction frame mounted/own
bearings (``ESFM''); in-line (``IL''); radially split, multi-stage,
vertical, in-line diffuser casing (``RSV''); and submersible turbine
(``ST'') pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i). Each of these categories is
limited to pumps that have a shaft input power greater than or equal to
1 horsepower (``hp'') and less than or equal to 200 hp at the best
efficiency point (``BEP'') \10\ and full impeller diameter. DOE defines
each of these categories in 10 CFR 431.462. DOE provides additional
specifications regarding the applicability of the test procedure, and
therefore the energy conservation standards, at 10 CFR
431.464(a)(ii).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Best efficiency point (``BEP'') is the pump hydraulic power
operating point consisting of both flow and head conditions of a
pump that results in the maximum efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.462.
\11\ The test procedure applies to the established categories of
pumps that have the following characteristics: (a) Flow rate of 25
gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at BEP and full impeller
diameter; (b) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller
diameter and the number of stages required for testing (see section
1.2.2 of appendix A of this subpart); (c) Design temperature range
from 14 to 248 [deg]F; (d) Designed to operate with either: (1) A 2-
or 4-pole induction motor; or (2) A non-induction motor with a speed
of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between
2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm) and/or 1,440 and 2,160
rpm, and in either case, the driver and impeller must rotate at the
same speed; (e) For ST pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter; and
(f) For ESCC and ESFM pumps, a specific speed less than or equal to
5,000 when calculated using U.S. customary units. 10 CFR
431.464(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumps are further delineated into equipment classes based on
nominal speed of rotation and operating mode. 10 CFR 431.465. All pump
equipment classes are summarized in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Equipment Classes for Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal driver Constant or variable load
Basic pump equipment category speed (rpm) (CL or VL) Equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESCC................................ 1,800 CL ESCC.1800.CL
3,600 CL ESCC.3600.CL
1,800 VL ESCC.1800.VL
3,600 VL ESCC.3600.VL
ESFM................................ 1,800 CL ESFM.1800.CL
3,600 CL ESFM.3600.CL
1,800 VL ESFM.1800.VL
3,600 VL ESFM.3600.VL
IL.................................. 1,800 CL IL.1800.CL
3,600 CL IL.3600.CL
1,800 VL IL.1800.VL
3,600 VL IL.3600.VL
RSV................................. 1,800 CL RSV.1800.CL
3,600 CL RSV.3600.CL
1,800 VL RSV.1800.VL
3,600 VL RSV.3600.VL
ST.................................. 1,800 CL ST.1800.CL
3,600 CL ST.3600.CL
1,800 VL ST.1800.VL
3,600 VL ST.3600.VL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a test procedure RFI published on April 16, 2021, DOE requested
comment on whether it should expand or remove some of the limitations
in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii) for pumps. 86 FR 20075.
In developing its recommendations, and in consideration of time
constraints, the CIP working group further limited its scope to clean
water pumps. (Term Sheet, recommendation #8). The CIP working group
also recommended that pump energy efficiency standards not apply to (1)
fire pumps, (2) self-priming pumps, (3) prime-assist pumps, (4) magnet
driven pumps, (5) pumps designed to be used in nuclear facilities, and
(6) pumps meeting design and construction requirements in various
military specifications. Id. Consistent with the CIP working group
recommendations, DOE established energy conservation standards for
clean water pumps (10 CFR 431.465(b)(2)) and excluded from the scope of
the energy conservation standards the pumps listed above (10 CFR
431.465(c)). Additionally, consistent with the recommendation from the
CIP working group (See Term Sheet, recommendation #6), DOE excluded
from coverage under the standards positive displacement pumps, axial/
mixed flow pumps, double suction pumps, multistage axially split pumps,
multistage radial-split horizontal pumps, multistage radial split
vertical immersible pumps, and vertical turbine (non-submersible)
pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4376.
Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on whether to consider energy
conservation standards for pumps other than clean water pumps.
Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether energy conservation
standards should be considered for positive displacement, axial/mixed
flow, double suction, multistage axially split, multistage radial-split
horizontal, multistage radial split vertical immersible, or non-
submersible vertical turbine pumps, fire pumps, self-priming pumps,
prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps used in nuclear
facilities, or pumps specified for certain military uses. Specifically,
DOE is interested in information and data on the industries in which
these pumps are typically used, shipment data for these products (or
the relative shipments for these products compared to clean water pumps
currently with the scope of DOE's efficiency standards), and
[[Page 43433]]
additional safety or performance standards that these pump types must
meet.
B. Significant Savings of Energy
The January 2016 ECS Final Rule estimated that the established
energy conservation standard for pumps would result in 0.10 quadrillion
British thermal units (``quads'') of site energy savings in site energy
use over a 30-year period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally, in the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated that an energy conservation
standard established at an energy efficiency level equivalent to that
achieved using the maximum available technology (``max-tech'') would
have resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site energy savings. 81 FR
4368, 4415.
As a preliminary step in evaluating potential energy savings, DOE
updated its energy savings estimates from the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule. DOE's current estimate indicates that an amended energy
conservation standard established at the same max-tech as the January
2016 ECS Final Rule would result in 0.25 quads of site energy savings
(0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle energy savings) which is a reduction
from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for the reduced estimate is a
revised estimate of the base case efficiency distribution. In
preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification
database \12\ and found that the efficiency distribution by basic model
in the marketplace in 2020 exceeded that assumed in the January 2016
ECS Final Rule for the adopted standard level (i.e., there are fewer
models at baseline,\13\ indicating that manufacturers redesigned pump
models to surpass, rather than just meet, the current Federal
standard).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Pumps_-_General_Pumps.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Pumps%20-%20General%20Pumps%22, Accessed February 24, 2020.
\13\ The baseline efficiency level was set to represent the
lowest efficiency hydraulic designs on the market. 81 FR 4368, 4382.
\14\ While DOE does not have updated information on efficiency
distribution by shipment as it did in the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule, DOE compared the efficiency distributions by model and
shipment gathered for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule and determined
that model distribution is a reasonable proxy for shipment
distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy
conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.
1. Base Case Efficiency Distribution
DOE uses base case efficiency distributions to calculate life cycle
cost (``LCC'') savings resulting from each considered energy efficiency
level. In the analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
developed the base case efficiency distributions based on the shipments
data provided by manufacturers \15\ and used base case efficiency
distribution specific to equipment class, shaft input power and
flow.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DOE's shipment estimates for the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule (and carried through to the updated energy savings estimate
presented in this section) relied on annual shipments data for 2012
provided by industry. 81 FR 4368, 4391. See discussion in the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule Technical Support Document (``TSD''),
Section 8.3.3 of Chapter 8, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
\16\ In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE used performance
data for bare pumps to represent the performance of all pump
equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4382. In addition, DOE considered
improved hydraulic design to be the only technology option suitable
for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. 81 FR 4368,
4383-4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 2: DOE seeks data and information on the distribution of pump
efficiencies. To the extent available, DOE requests the data, in terms
of pump energy index (``PEI''); by pump shipments at the equipment
class level; and disaggregated by shaft input power and flow, for bare
pumps only. DOE seeks comment on how the shipments efficiency
distribution might differ across ranges of flow and shaft input power
for each equipment class.
2. Energy Use
Consumer inputs to the energy use analysis are based on operational
demands that are independent of the pump efficiency, while equipment
inputs to the analysis are based on the efficiency of the pump.
Consumer inputs include consumer duty point that is defined by the flow
and head, annual load profile, and annual operating hours. With limited
data available with respect to the duty point in the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule analysis, DOE developed a distribution of duty points (i.e.,
operating shaft input power and flow) based on shipments data provided
by manufacturers. DOE developed four representative load profiles,
characterized by different weights at 50 percent, 75 percent, 100
percent, and 110 percent of the flow at the duty point. The load
profiles were developed to represent a range of pump loading conditions
within an annual cycle. For the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
estimated statistical distributions and average values of annual
operating hours by application based on inputs from a subject matter
expert and feedback from the CIP working group. In addition, in the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate within 75
percent to 110 percent of their BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390.
Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on whether, and if so,
how, the field energy use of pumps has changed since the January 2016
ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in any information and
data related to whether there have been changes in duty points (i.e.,
flow, head, and shaft input power required for a given application),
annual hours of operation, and load profiles since the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on whether the characterization of
pump sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule remains
appropriate. If not, DOE requests data and information on how pump
sizing practices have changed since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule.
3. National Energy Savings
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule shipments analysis, DOE
developed shipment projections for pumps and, in turn, calculated
equipment stock from 2020 through 2049, starting with the 2012 shipment
estimates from the Hydraulics Institute (``HI'') (Docket EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0039-0068). To project shipments of pumps, DOE relied primarily on
Annual Energy Outlook 2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments projection
and the equipment stock to determine the National Energy Savings
(``NES'').
Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 (or the most recent year available)
annual sales data (i.e., number of shipments) for pumps by equipment
class, as shown in 10 CFR 431.465(b)(4). If disaggregated fractions of
annual sales are not available at the equipment class level, DOE
requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the category
level (i.e., ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST). If available, DOE requests
annual sales data by equipment class for the previous five years (2015-
2019).
C. Technological Feasibility
During the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE considered a number of
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy
consumption in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks comment on any
changes to these technology options that could affect whether DOE could
propose a ``no-new-standards'' determination, such as an insignificant
increase in the range of efficiencies and performance characteristics
of these technologies.
[[Page 43434]]
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following.
1. Technology Options
A complete list of technology options evaluated for pumps in
preparation for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule is presented in Table
II.2. 81 FR 4368, 4383.
Table II.2--Pumps Technology Options Considered for the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Options
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Hydraulic Design
Improved surface finish on wetted components
Reduced running clearances
Reduced mechanical friction in seals
Reduction of other volumetric losses
Addition of variable speed drive (``VSD'')
Improvement of VSD efficiency
Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE determined that most of the
technology options listed in Table II.2 had limited potential to
improve pump efficiency. 81 FR 4368, 4383. Specifically, DOE received
manufacturer feedback that certain technologies (a) did not
significantly improve efficiency; (b) were not applicable to the
equipment for which standards were being considered; (c) did not
significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each
equipment class; or (d) benefits degraded quickly over time. Id.
Table II.3 summarizes the pump technology options that DOE screened
from its analysis in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, and the
applicable screening criteria.
Table II.3--Pumps Technology Options Screened From the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practicability to
Screened technology option Technological manufacture, Adverse impact on Adverse impacts Other reasons for
feasibility install, and product utility on health and not considering
service or availability safety the technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved surface finish on wetted components--smoothing ................. X ................. ................. X*
operations..............................................
Improved surface finish on wetted components--coating or ................. ................. X ................. X*
plating.................................................
Improved surface finish on wetted components--casting.... ................. ................. ................. ................. X[dagger][dagger]
Reduced running clearances............................... X ................. ................. ................. X[dagger],
X[dagger][dagger]
Reduced mechanical friction in seals..................... ................. ................. ................. ................. X[dagger], X*
Reduction of other volumetric losses..................... ................. ................. X ................. .................
Addition of variable speed drive......................... ................. ................. ................. ................. X*
Improvement of VSD efficiency............................ ................. ................. ................. ................. X*
Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage............. ................. ................. ................. ................. X*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE screened out these technology options because they were not applicable to the equipment for which standards were being considered or did not
significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class.
[dagger] DOE screened out these technology options because they did not significantly improve efficiency.
[dagger][dagger] DOE screened out these technology options because efficiency improvements from these technologies degrade quickly.
Ultimately, hydraulic redesign was the only design option
incorporated into the January 2016 ECS Final Rule engineering analysis.
81 FR 4368, 4385. Hydraulic redesign is a broad term used to describe
the system design of a bare pump's wetted components. Although
hydraulic redesign focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of
the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices
related to clearances, seals, and other volumetric losses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Section 3.6.1 Chapter 3 of the TSD for the January 2016
ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on if there are additional technology
options that were not considered during the January 2016 ECS Final Rule
that may have a significant potential for improving pump energy use
beyond hydraulic redesign. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on
whether, and if so, how, technologically feasible design options might
vary by equipment class. DOE also seeks comment on how any of the
listed technologies in Table II.3 may have changed since the January
2016 ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in data that
support whether DOE should continue to screen-out the technologies
listed in Table II.3 from its engineering analysis.
2. Representative Units
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE identified representative
configurations that were based on typical product offerings for each of
the five equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4385. For the ESCC, ESFM, and
IL equipment classes, the representative configuration was a pump
fitted with a cast bronze impeller, a cast-iron volute and a mechanical
seal. Id. For RSV and ST equipment classes, the representative
configuration was a
[[Page 43435]]
pump fitted with sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel
impeller(s), and sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel casing
and internal static components. Id. DOE is aware that many
manufacturers redesigned their pump models in order to meet the
standards set forth in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule (see discussion
in Section II.B).
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative
configurations used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis for
ESCC, ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute and mechanical seal, and for
RSV and ST impeller and bowl/casing continue to provide an accurate
representation of the current market.
3. Efficiency Levels
DOE uses a standardized, minimally compliant bare pump, inclusive
of a minimally compliant motor, as a reference pump. The efficiency of
the minimally compliant pump is defined as a function of certain
physical properties of the bare pump, such as flow at BEP and specific
speed.\18\ Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The terms in the
efficiency model (i.e., BEP flow rate at full impeller diameter and
nominal speed of rotation, specific speed) can be measured or
calculated using the physical properties of the pump, except for the
``C-value''. The ``C-value'' is a constant based on the speed of
rotation and equipment category of the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377-
4378.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Section II of Appendix A prescribes how to compare a tested
pump to the standard minimally compliant bare pump for each
equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This pump hydraulic efficiency model is an adaptation of the
European Union's (``EU'') model equation,\19\ modified to use United
States customary units and 60 Hz electrical input power. 81 FR 4368,
4377. DOE defined pump efficiency levels using efficiency percentile
ranges. Id. As an example, at the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump
models are less efficient than the defined efficiency model.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation
(EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to
ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the
European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 28-36.
\20\ See Section 5.8.1 of Chapter 5 of the TSD for the January
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The C-values specified in 10 CFR 431.465 correspond to the lower
25th percentile of efficiency for the ESCC, ESFM and IL equipment
classes. 81 FR 4368, 4370. For the ST equipment classes, C-values for
pumps at 3600 rpm correspond to the lower 25th percentile of
efficiency, while C-values for pumps at 1800 rpm represent the baseline
efficiency evaluated for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a
lack of available data for ST pumps at 1800 rpm, DOE used data from the
ST 3600 rpm analysis to set the C-value standard for ST pumps at 1800
rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST pumps at 1800
rpm was set to the baseline efficiency C-value established for ST pumps
at 3600 rpm. Id. Because of a lack of available data for all RSV pumps,
DOE harmonized the C-values for the RSV equipment classes with the EU
40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368, 4370.
Issue 8: DOE requests data for all pump equipment classes that
would enable DOE to conduct an efficiency level analysis similar to
that conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To the extent
available, DOE requests data grouped by equipment class and shaft
power, and that includes pump energy rating (``PER''), pump hydraulic
efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60 Hz, and the BEP flow rate at
full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation. If these data are
not available, DOE requests test data that would allow for the
calculation of these values according to Appendix A (e.g., pump
hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be calculated from bare pump PER at
constant load, bare pump hydraulic output power and part load motor
losses at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of BEP flow \21\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As described in sections II.E and II.B of Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE
assigned the max-tech efficiency level as the maximum available
efficiency already offered in the marketplace. DOE established a max-
tech level at the 70th efficiency percentile for all equipment classes.
81 FR 4368, 4386. At this max-tech level there were existing pumps
available in the market that met this level for all shaft powers
between 1 and 200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the opportunity for
efficiency improvement is not equal across the entire range of shaft
powers, specifically, DOE's analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS
Final Rule indicated that application of the design options listed in
Table II.2 resulted in greater efficiency improvement for smaller pumps
compared to larger pumps.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Section 3 of Chapter 3.6 of the TSD for the January
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE requests information on whether conducting a max-tech
analysis based on size (for example, developing small and large shaft
power designations) or specific speed would be more representative of
the pumps market and provide an opportunity for additional energy
savings.
D. Economic Justification
In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any aspects of its economic justification analysis from the
January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent
energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost
effective.
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following.
1. Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the
National Impacts Analysis (``NIA''), DOE identified distribution
channels (i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer
to the consumer), and estimated relative sales volumes through each
channel. Table II.5 presents the distribution channels identified by
the CIP working group with their corresponding share of total pump
sales that were used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis. 81 FR
4368, 4389.
Table II.5--Distribution Channels Market Shares for Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Distribution channel total pump
sales (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer to distributor to contractor to end-user... 70
Manufacturer to distributor to end-users................ 17
Manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer to end- 8
users..................................................
Manufacturer to end-users............................... 2
Manufacturer to contractor to end-users................. 1
Other................................................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels
described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in
Table II.5, reflect the current market.
[[Page 43436]]
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE conducted a LCC
and payback period (``PBP'') analysis to estimate the economic impacts
of potential new standards on individual consumers of pump equipment.
The analysis included, among others, the inputs further elaborated
below.
a. Installation, Repair and Maintenance Costs
In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA in
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assumed that installation,
maintenance, and repair costs remain identical across efficiency
levels. With the market efficiency moving beyond what was projected in
the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, there may be additional or different
data available to represent the relationship between installation,
repair, and maintenance costs and efficiency.
Issue 11: DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation
costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to baseline
installation costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks
supporting data and the reasons for those differences.
Issue 12: DOE requests feedback and data on whether repair and
maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to
repair and maintenance costs at baseline levels, respectively, both in
terms of value and frequency of occurrence during the equipment
lifetime. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting
data and the reasons for those differences.
b. Equipment Lifetimes
The lifetime energy use of a pump is calculated as the annual
energy use multiplied by the equipment economic lifetime. DOE considers
economic lifetime, also called service lifetime, as the total number of
years that the equipment is in service (from initial equipment
installation until its final retirement), and the mechanical lifetime,
as the total number of operating hours from initial equipment
installation until its final retirement. In the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule, DOE estimated the pump equipment lifetimes to range between 4 and
40 years, with an average lifetime of 15 years across all equipment
classes, based on estimates from market experts and input from the CIP
working group. The analysis conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final
Rule used Weibull lifetime distribution per equipment class, and
included variability by pump rotation speed, and lifetime extensions
through repairs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Section 8.3.2.5 of Chapter 8 of the TSD for the January
2016 ECS Final Rule. Docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0056 p. 5-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 13: DOE requests comment and data on whether any market and
technology changes since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule would affect
its equipment lifetime estimates for pumps for which DOE currently has
standards, and if so, how. DOE additionally requests equipment lifetime
data for any pump types discussed through Section II.A that are not
currently subject to energy conservation standards.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are
warranted for pumps.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit information for which disclosure is restricted by
statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information
(hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) to
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will not be protected under CBI. For information on
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is
generated through https://www.regulations.gov after you have
successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide only unsecured
documents in English, and free of any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if
possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information
[[Page 43437]]
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 2,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16936 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
