This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register49537 
Vol. 87, No. 154 
Thursday, August 11, 2022 
1All 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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact parts A and A–1 of EPCA. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
10 CFR Part 431 
[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018] 
RIN 1904–AE54 
Energy Conservation Program: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps 
AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 
ACTION : Notification of data availability 
(‘‘NODA’’). 
SUMMARY : On August 9, 2021, the U.S. 
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a request for information regarding energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps (‘‘pumps’’). In this notice of data availability (‘‘NODA’’), DOE is publishing an overview of potential technology/design options and associated estimated national energy savings with preliminary industry net 
present value estimates for certain pump equipment classes in order to provide stakeholders with additional information and to assist DOE in determining how to proceed with the rulemaking. The analysis presented in this NODA is consistent with the scope that DOE proposed in a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial and industrial pumps published on April 11, 2022. DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding its analysis. 
DATES : Written comments and 
information will be accepted on or before, September 26, 2022. 
ADDRESSES : Interested persons are 
encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE– 2021–BT–STE–0018, by any of the following methods: (1) Email: Pumps2021STD0018@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
EERE–2021–BT–STD–0018 in the subject line of the message. 
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 
accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document. 
To inform interested parties and to 
facilitate this rulemaking process, DOE has prepared a technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 
Docket: The docket for this activity, 
which includes Federal Register notices, comments, public meeting transcripts, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the 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 
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 IV.A of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, 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, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 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. Deviation From Appendix A 
II. Background 
A. Current Standards B. Current Process 
III. Discussion 
A. Scope 
B. Technology Options 1. Hydraulic Redesign 2. Advanced Motors 3. Variable-Speed Drives a. Potential Disruption to Pumps Market b. Potential Issues With the Replacement 
Market 
c. Potential Energy Use Impacts d. Potential Cost Impacts C. Analysis 1. Screening a. Methodology b. Hydraulic Redesign Approach c. Motors and Controls Approach 2. National Energy Savings a. Energy Use Analysis b. Shipments Analysis c. National Energy Savings 3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis a. Small Business Impacts 
IV. Public Participation 
A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 
I. Introduction 
A. Authority 
The Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1authorizes 
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149538 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, part C was redesignated part A–1. 6291–6317) Title III, Part C2of EPCA, 
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 
section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This covered equipment includes pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 
EPCA provides that, not later than 6 
years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification 
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including 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)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 
Under EPCA, any new or amended 
energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
DOE is publishing this NODA to 
collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA. 
B. Deviation From Appendix A 
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 
(‘‘appendix A’’), which applies to commercial and industrial pumps under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the length of comment periods for the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for pre- NOPR rulemaking documents will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NODA, DOE has opted instead to provide a 45-day comment period. DOE requested comment in an early assessment request for information published on August 9, 2021 (‘‘August 2021 RFI’’) on the analysis conducted in 
support of the previous energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps. 86 FR 43430, 43431. The August 2021 RFI provided 30 days for submitting written comment, data, and information. In response to comment received from stakeholders, DOE extended the comment period for the August 2021 RFI another 30 days. Given that the analysis will largely remain the same, and in light of the 60-day comment associated with the August 2021 RFI, DOE has determined that a 45-day comment period is sufficient to enable interested parties to review the data and accompanying analysis and develop meaningful comments in 
response to the NODA. 
II. Background A. Current Standards 
In a final rule published on January 
26, 2016 (‘‘January 2016 Final Rule’’), 
DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for pumps manufactured on and after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368. These standards are set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.465 and are reproduced in Table II.1. DOE set standards for equipment classes which were divided based on pump category, nominal speed of rotation (rpm), and load type (constant and variable). Equipment class labels are structured as pump category acronym, rpm, constant-load (‘‘CL’’) or variable-load (‘‘VL’’). CL and VL equipment classes were not analyzed separately in the January 2016 Final Rule and therefore were not assigned different standards. 
TABLE II.1—F EDERAL ENERGY CON-
SERVATION STANDARDS FOR PUMPS  
Equipment class Maximum 
PEI C-value 
ESCC.1800.CL .................... 1 128.47 
ESCC.3600.CL .................... 1 130.42 
ESCC.1800.VL .................... 1 128.47 
ESCC.3600.VL .................... 1 130.42 
ESFM.1800.CL .................... 1 128.85 
ESFM.3600.CL .................... 1 130.99 
ESFM.1800.VL .................... 1 128.85 
ESFM.3600.VL .................... 1 130.99 
IL.1800.CL ........................... 1 129.3 
IL.3600.CL ........................... 1 133.84 
IL.1800.VL ........................... 1 129.3 
IL.3600.VL ........................... 1 133.84 
RSV.1800.CL ...................... 1 129.63 
RSV.3600.CL ...................... 1 133.2 
RSV.1800.VL ....................... 1 129.63 
RSV.3600.VL ....................... 1 133.2 
ST.1800.CL ......................... 1 138.78 
ST.3600.CL ......................... 1 134.85 
ST.1800.VL ......................... 1 138.78 
ST.3600.VL ......................... 1 134.85 
B. Current Process 
In the August 2021 RFI, DOE sought 
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation 
standards for pumps would result in a significant savings of energy; be technologically feasible; and be economically justified. 86 FR 43430. Comments received to date as part of the current process have helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the preliminary analyses. Chapter 1 of the TSD accompanying this NODA summarizes and addresses the comments received. 
III. Discussion 
The goal of this NODA is to provide 
an overview of potential design options 
and associated national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and preliminary industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’) estimates for the various commercial and industrial pump equipment classes, as well as associated qualitative information. Following comments received on this NODA, DOE would determine how to proceed with the rulemaking. 
The contents of this NODA are based 
on the scope proposed in a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking for pumps published on April 11, 2022 (‘‘April 2022 TP NOPR’’). 87 FR 21268, 21273. DOE acknowledges that stakeholder comments in response to the April 2022 TP NOPR include scope-related comments, which DOE will consider in determining the scope of any final test procedure and any subsequent energy conservation standards analyses. 
This NODA includes an abbreviated 
set of analyses as compared to a full preliminary analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking: market and 
technology assessment; screening analysis; engineering analysis; energy use analysis and shipments analysis to calculate national energy savings; and a preliminary manufacturer impact analysis. 
This NODA does not include a life 
cycle cost analysis (‘‘LCC’’) or the national net present value portion of the national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’). In the January 2016 Final Rule, all LCC results based on hydraulic redesign were positive since there was no increase in manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’), and the energy cost savings significantly outweighed the increase in manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) that DOE calculated by assuming manufacturers recouped conversion costs. 81 FR 4368, 4406–4409. At this time, DOE does not have data that would indicate the results would be different from those presented in the January 2016 Final Rule, and as discussed in section III.B.1 of this document, manufacturers were unable to recoup any conversion costs resulting 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149539 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
3A 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 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 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, www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013- 
BT-NOC-0039-0092). from the current standard. However, if 
updated data were provided, DOE could evaluate MPC increases for additional hydraulic redesign and these values could be incorporated into a future LCC or NIA analysis, along with MPC increases for other technology options as discussed in section III.C.2.c. of this document. 
The analyses in this NODA are 
primarily based on data from the previous rulemaking, except for updated efficiency distributions, conversion costs, estimated motors and controls performances and costs, and performance data for pumps not currently subject to standards. In addition, due to limited data, the analysis for pumps not currently subject to standards is based largely on proxies from the current scope. Overviews of the analyses can be found in section III.C of this document, with detailed methodology available in the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
A. Scope 
In this NODA, DOE conducted 
analyses for pump categories currently subject to DOE standards, in addition to 
some pump categories that are not currently subject to standards, but were included in the April 2022 TP NOPR. 87 FR 21268. Pump categories currently subject to standards include end suction frame mounted (‘‘ESFM’’) pumps, end suction close-coupled (‘‘ESCC’’) pumps, in-line (‘‘IL’’) pumps, radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing (‘‘RSV’’) pumps, and submersible turbine (‘‘ST’’) pumps. Pump categories not currently subject to standards that were included in the April 2022 TP NOPR include between bearing (‘‘BB’’) pumps, vertical turbine (‘‘VT’’) pumps, small vertical in-line (‘‘SVIL’’) pumps, radially split horizontal (‘‘RSH’’) pumps, pumps with a nominal speed of rotation of 1,200 rpm, and ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches. During the pumps negotiations in 2014,
3DOE collected data on BB, VT, 
and SVIL pumps. DOE combined these data with data from a recent round of 
manufacturer interviews for this NODA analysis. DOE did not have sufficient data to evaluate RSH pumps and ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches in this NODA. In addition, as 
there are so few models of ST.1800 pumps, DOE only evaluated ST.3600 pumps as part of this NODA, consistent with the January 2016 Final Rule. 
Table III.1 compares shipments and 
average horsepower (‘‘HP’’) for pumps not currently, and currently, subject to standards based on available data. Based on stakeholder feedback through public comments and manufacturer interviews, DOE has tentatively determined that the pumps not currently subject to standards are, on average, rated at a higher HP than the pumps currently subject to DOE standards—and as a result, total shipments for these pumps within the scope limitations of 200 HP and 459 feet of head tend to be smaller than for the pump categories that DOE 
currently regulates. As noted, DOE will address stakeholder comments received on the April 2022 TP NOPR related to those pumps that are not currently subject to standards, including the application of the current scope limitations, in subsequent test procedure rulemaking documents. 
TABLE III.1—S HIPMENTS AND AVERAGE HP BYEQUIPMENT CLASS FOR PUMPS NOTCURRENTLY , ANDNOTCURRENTLY , 
SUBJECT TO STANDARDS AND PUMPS NOTCURRENTLY SUBJECT TO STANDARDS  
Equipment category 2021 Shipments 
estimates 
(units) Average HP 
Currently subject to standards: 
ESCC ............................................................................................................................................................a206,215 a9 
ESFM ............................................................................................................................................................a52,894 a20 
IL ...................................................................................................................................................................a60,566 a10 
ST .................................................................................................................................................................a128,893 a7 
RSV ..............................................................................................................................................................a60,019 b14 
Not currently subject to standards 
BB .................................................................................................................................................................a6,379 c21 
VT .................................................................................................................................................................a7,179 c7 
SVIL ..............................................................................................................................................................c10,212 c0.5 
RSH ............................................................................................................................ .................................. N/A N/A 
1200 rpm (ESCC, ESFM, and IL categories) ....................................................................................... .......c7,874 c13 
ST and VT > 6inch .............................................................................................................. ......................... N/A N/A 
Total .......................................................................................................................... ............................. 540,231 10 
aYear 2012 shipments based on an HI survey (www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0068), projected forward to year 
2021 based on the shipments methodology (discussed in section III.C.3.b of this document). 
bDOE’s Compliance Certification Database, see www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Pumps_ -_General_
Pumps.html#q=Product_ Group_ s%3A%22Pumps%20-%20General%20Pumps%22 accessed on March 20, 2022. 
cBased on both manufacturer data collection conducted for this analysis and for the January 2016 Final Rule while applying equipment class 
similarity (discussed in section III.C.3.a of this document) and the shipments methodology (discussed in section III.C.3.b of this document). 
Issue 1: DOE seeks individual model 
level data or industry aggregated data to 
update its shipment and average horsepower estimate for pump categories that are currently subject to standards and those pump categories that are currently not subject to standards. As discussed previously, DOE intends 
to use this NODA as a step toward determining how to proceed with a rulemaking for pumps. DOE 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149540 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
4C-value is the translational component of a 
three-dimensional polynomial equation that 
describes the attainable hydraulic efficiency of pumps as a function of flow at best efficiency point (‘‘BEP’’), specific speed, and C-value. The C-value is used to define an efficiency level that a pump can readily attain across the entire regulated scope of flow and specific speed for that particular pump. 
5DOE notes that the baseline for RSV pumps was 
equivalent to the EU’s 40th percentile standard, as all RSV pumps had already been designed to meet that standard. 6Karrasik, Messina, Cooper, and Heald. ‘‘Pump 
Handbook,’’ 4th Edition, pp. 2.55–2.57. acknowledges that if pump classes that 
are not currently within scope of the test procedure were included in the scope of the test procedure final rule, but were not included in the scope of the energy conservation standard, these classes would not have assigned C-values.
4In 
this case, the pump energy rating (‘‘PER’’) for a minimally compliant pump (‘‘PER
STD’’) could not be 
calculated, making it impossible to determine a pump energy index (‘‘PEI’’) rating for these classes. To address this issue, DOE could consider issuing a supplemental NOPR for the test procedure to establish C-values for the categories currently subject to standards at a baseline level that would enable calculation of PEI for these categories and facilitate rebate or other efficiency programs for pumps not currently subject to standards. 
Issue 2: DOE requests comments on 
potential benefits or drawbacks of proposing a change to the test procedure to allow calculation of PEI for pumps not subject to energy conservation standards. 
B. Technology Options 
For this NODA analysis, DOE 
evaluated hydraulic redesign, advanced 
motors, and variable-speed drives (‘‘VSDs’’) as potential technologies for reducing pump energy consumption. These technologies are discussed in the following sections. 
1. Hydraulic Redesign 
DOE evaluated five efficiency levels 
(‘‘EL’’) in the January 2016 Final Rule; 
each EL was developed according to efficiency percentiles (10th, 25th, 40th, 55th, and 70th percentile) and each percentile for each equipment class was assigned a C-value. 81 FR 4368, 4386. Ultimately, the pumps energy conservation standard was established at C-values corresponding to EL 2 for all equipment classes except for RSV pumps and ST pumps with a specific speed of 1,800 rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4369 and 4386 (see Table IV.2 of the January 2016 Final Rule detailing the adopted efficiency levels). Standards for these pump equipment classes were established at baseline, or EL 0.
5Id. During interviews, manufacturers 
stated that additional hydraulic redesign 
might be possible to reach EL 3 as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule; however, they pointed out that any such redesign would be as or more expensive than the previous redesign and energy savings would likely be 
minimal. In order to meet the standards set in the January 2016 Final Rule, many manufacturers redesigned their pumps to be as efficient as possible given pump family and certain technology limitations; most manufacturers did not redesign their pumps to just meet the standard. Therefore, for redesigned pumps that did not reach EL 4 or EL 5 as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule, manufacturers expressed concern that reaching these levels with a hydraulic redesign would be extremely difficult and costly. In particular, manufacturers commented that: 
•MPC would begin to increase at EL 
4 and EL 5 as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule due to finer part tolerances and manual surface finishing; 
•Utility could be compromised. 
Some manufacturers stated that they had observed a warranty claim increase for redesigned pumps. Additionally, several manufacturers commented that they had to flatten the pump curve in order to achieve higher efficiency levels. A flatter pump curve can limit controllability and cause operational problems in some applications.
6 
•In some cases, manufacturers were 
or would be unable to maintain flange positions on some models during redesign. This means that a new pump cannot easily replace an older pump without changing piping into and out of the pump, which in turn may result in loss of business for that manufacturer or increase installation costs for end users in replacement situations. 
•Manufacturers may choose not to 
redesign to EL 4 and EL 5, resulting in gaps in a product family, and the possibility that a consumer would then purchase a pump that was less efficient for their application than they would have purchased without such a standard. 
•Manufacturers reported that they 
did not recoup the conversion costs incurred due to the redesigns required by the current DOE standards due to market pressures. Manufacturers expect the same outcome if DOE were to set more stringent standards. 
DOE acknowledges that there are 
many pumps already on the market that meet EL 4 and EL 5 as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule. There are several reasons why this may be 
possible, even with manufacturers stating that meeting these ELs are not feasible for all pumps: 
•Choices to limit the impacts listed 
previously (increased MPC and labor/ staffing needs, loss of utility for certain applications, potential loss of replacement business due to changed flange positions); 
•Choosing to stay within the 
constraints of a product family in order to take advantage of shared common parts, as opposed to a substantially more expensive redesign of an entire product family or a redesign that would make a model(s) different from the rest of the family; 
•Variability in designer skill and 
experience with computational fluid 
dynamics; 
•Irregularities in the three- 
dimensional surface that sets the standard level as a function of flow and specific speed. To harmonize with the European Union (‘‘EU’’), the surface used to determine DOE energy conservation standards is based on EU data and not data specific to the U.S. market. (See January 2016 Final Rule 
TSD Appendix 3B p. 5, EERE–2011–BT– STD–0031–0056) This means that there may be some points of flow or specific speed where EL 4 or EL 5, as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule, may be easier to achieve than at other points. 
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the 
percentage of basic models that would be impacted by the following factors if manufacturers were to redesign their pumps to EL 4 and EL 5 (as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule): (1) need to flatten the pump curve beyond potentially acceptable levels for the existing market for a given model or any reported issues with controllability; (2) increased warranty claims; and (3) increased MPCs for pumps redesigned to higher efficiencies. Additionally, DOE requests comment on which EL (as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule) and for which pump classes (or hp ranges) these issues would first appear. 
Issue 4: DOE also seeks comment on 
the availability of designers skilled enough to design a pump that can reach EL 4 and EL 5 and be readily manufactured. 
Issue 5: Additionally, DOE requests 
comment on any other issues that may prevent manufacturers from redesigning pumps to reach higher efficiency levels, including other utility issues. 
Issue 6: DOE requests comment on the 
fraction of installations in which consumers would have to make piping changes as a result of a change in flange position (as opposed to purchasing another model with the desired flange 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149541 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
7DOE acknowledges that pump manufacturers 
may be able to hydraulically redesign a bare pump 
to reach the same PEI level as a minimally compliant bare pump sold with a more efficient motor. In this case, the issues discussed in section III.B.1 might apply. DOE would consider an appropriate ordering of any design options for the engineering analysis after conducting a screening analysis, which it has not done for this NODA. (See discussion in section III.C.1. of this document). 
8Some motors paired with pumps subject to this 
and other pump rulemakings (e.g., dedicated 
purpose pool pumps, circulator pumps) are covered by the DOE appliance standards program as small electric motors (subpart X to 10 CFR part 431). Small electric motors that are components of another piece of covered equipment do not have to comply with standards prescribed for this equipment. (See 10 CFR 431.466(a). See also 42 
U.S.C. 6317(b)(3)). As such, the problem of overlapping regulation may not apply to covered products and equipment that are only paired with small electric motors (as defined in 10 CFR 431.462). 
9Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 
‘‘Extended Motor Products Savings Validation Research on Clear Water Pumps and Circulators,’’ August 29, 2029. See www.neea.org/img/ documents/XMP-Savings-Validation-Research-on- Clean-Water-Pumps-and-Circulators.pdf. positions), and the cost of such piping 
changes. 
2. Advanced Motors 
Advanced motors were not 
considered as a technology option in 
support of the January 2016 Final Rule. However, based on feedback from stakeholders, DOE is including advanced motors as a technology option in this NODA analysis. In this NODA, advanced motors refer to any motor paired with a pump that has a greater efficiency than the default motor referenced in the pumps test procedure. If DOE were to set an energy conservation standard that is stringent enough to require more efficient motors, some pumps may need to be paired with a motor in order to be sold in the U.S.
7 
DOE has identified several potential issues with this technology option, which are listed below: 
•Replacement pumps. If all pumps 
must be paired with motor for distribution into commerce, it is not clear how the replacement market for bare pumps would work. 
•Potential market disruption. The 
majority of sales for most manufacturers are from bare pumps; distributors may then pair the pump with a motor (and possibly controls). Requiring that pumps be sold with a motor (by the pump’s original equipment manufacturer) would likely have a negative impact on pump distributors and result in substantial disruption to the pumps market. 
•Potential consequences. Larger 
stock in the field of older, more inefficient pumps. Requiring pumps to be paired with a motor for distribution in commerce is expected to increase the cost of the pump. Some end users may opt to repair rather than replace older, inefficient pumps. Additionally, if a motor fails before the pump fails, end users may choose a less efficient motor as a replacement. 
•Overlapping regulation. The vast 
majority of motors paired with pumps subject to this rulemaking are already covered equipment (as electric motors) within the DOE appliance standards program. (subpart B to 10 CFR part 431)
8DOE is currently undertaking an energy conservation rulemaking to 
consider amended standards for electric motors (see Docket No. EERE–2020–BT– 
STD–0007). This prevents DOE from determining how much energy savings would result from a pumps design option related to motor efficiency without potentially double-counting energy savings also accounted for in the electric motors rulemaking. 
These issues (excluding overlapping 
regulation) are discussed in more detail in section III.B.3 of this document in the context of VSDs, but apply similarly to motors. 
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on 
how a standard that requires an advanced motor to be paired with a bare pump would impact: (1) the bare pump replacement market; (2) the distributor market and business model; (3) the repair of pumps rather than their replacement and (4) the replacement of failed motors with less efficient motors. DOE also requests feedback on any potential consistency concerns with a standard that requires an advanced motor to be paired with a bare pump and current or future energy conservation standards for electric motors. 
3. Variable-Speed Drives 
Variable-speed drives were 
considered as a technology option in the 
January 2016 Final Rule. (See Chapter 3 
of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, 
EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031–0056, pp. 3–29 to 3–35) VSDs were screened out of the January 2016 Final Rule analysis because DOE determined the technology may not significantly improve efficiency for all pumps within each equipment class. (See Chapter 4 of the January 2016 
Final Rule TSD, EERE–2011–BT–STD– 0031–0056, pp. 4–5) In fact, DOE determined that energy use would increase for many applications. Id. 
As discussed in chapter 1 of the TSD 
accompanying this NODA, DOE received comments from stakeholders recommending that VSDs be considered as a technology option in the current pumps analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 12; ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 11 at p. 6) These stakeholders referenced a recent study by NEEA that reported significant savings for both constant-load and variable-load pump applications.
9If 
DOE were to set an energy conservation standard that is stringent enough to require VSDs, all pumps would have to be paired with a motor and VSD in order to be sold in the U.S. 
During interviews, manufacturers 
shared multiple concerns about requiring pumps to be sold with a VSD. However, many manufacturers also acknowledged that it would be ideal for DOE to incentivize applications to use controls with their pumps and suggested that a rebate program would be the best way to do this since it would limit all of the potential unintended consequences discussed. On April 27, 2022, DOE published a Notice of Availability and Solicitation of Public Comment on the Draft Implementation Guidance Pertaining to the Extended Product System Rebate Program and Energy Efficient Transformer Rebate Program. 87 FR 25006. This draft implementation guidance includes a rebate program for pumps designed to incentivize adding controls to existing facilities (by specifying a maximum qualifying variable-load PEI (‘‘PEI
VL’’)), 
with maximum rebate payments to a given entity of up to $25,000 per calendar year. For more information, refer to the guidance web page: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/draft- implementation-guidance-pertaining- extended-product-system-rebate- program-and. 
a. Potential Disruption to Pumps Market 
The primary concern shared by most 
manufacturers was how disruptive a 
requirement to sell pumps with controls would be for the overall pumps market. Manufacturers stated that end users typically have specific controller requirements, meaning they have one controller brand for their facility, primarily to simplify maintenance and operation. Because pump manufacturers typically stock one to two controller brands, distributors often buy the pump or pump and motor from the pump manufacturer but buy the controls from the controls manufacturer. Additionally, if pumps were required to be sold with motors and VSDs, pump manufacturers would have to greatly increase their floor space, inventory, and unique model numbers in order to satisfy end users who would currently work through a distributor. In this case, there could be significantly large impacts to 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149542 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
10The document discusses the possibility of 
covering the ‘‘extended product’’ referring to the 
pump, motor, and VSD as one unit. See 
www.ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have- your-say/initiatives/12831-Ecodesign-requirements- for-water-pumps-review-_ en. 
11Europump is the European Association of 
Pump Manufacturer Associations. See Comments at 
www.ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have- your-say/initiatives/12831-Ecodesign-requirements- for-water-pumps-review-/F2822271_ en. 
12See comments from ECOS, coolproducts, and 
the European Environmental Bureau, available at www.ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have- your-say/initiatives/12831-Ecodesign-requirements- for-water-pumps-review-/F2878588_ en. distributors, who would provide less 
added value. 
Manufacturers also commented that 
there are supply chain constraints. Specifically, pump manufacturers were skeptical about the ability of VSD manufacturers to be able to meet the increased demand that an energy conservation standard requiring VSDs would cause. Manufacturers also stated that the VSD technology for higher horsepower motors is not as mature as that for lower horsepower motors, and that, in some cases, they already had trouble obtaining VSDs of acceptable quality for higher horsepower motors. 
Issue 8: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which pump consumers specify only a single controller brand, as well as on the number of controller brands typically stocked by a pump manufacturer. 
Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on how 
a VSD requirement for pumps would impact distributors. 
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 
whether there would be sufficient quantity and quality of VSDs available if there were a VSD requirement for pumps. 
b. Potential Issues With the 
Replacement Market 
The EU is evaluating its current 
standard for pumps and issued a call of evidence on January 21, 2022, that included a recommendation for evaluating an extended product approach for pumps.
10In its comments, 
EuroPump11supported the extended 
product approach as a means to capture savings that were not captured by the current EU regulation. However, while efficiency organizations provided general support for the extended product approach, they also stated that VSDs should only be required as needed to minimize material waste, while commenting that around 50 percent of pump systems benefit from a VSD.
12 
During interviews, manufacturers also 
voiced concerns about how a replacement parts market would work if pumps were required to be sold with motors and controls. If a bare pump is sold as a replacement part, that practice 
would eliminate the waste associated with replacing an entire pump system. However, selling a bare pump as a replacement part without controls opens a loophole where end users could purchase the bare pump and operate it without controls. This is also an issue for advanced motors, although to a lesser degree since only the motor and bare pump would have to be replaced, not the controller. 
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on 
possible methods to retain a replacement market for bare pumps while preventing a loophole where bare pumps could be purchased for current and new installations. 
c. Potential Energy Use Impacts 
Through interviews conducted with 
manufacturers, DOE has also identified 
several ways that VSDs may impact pump energy use (if pumps must be sold with advanced motors or VSDs) that are not accounted for in this NODA’s energy use analysis but would need to be to justify new or amended standards that DOE may decide to adopt. 
First, if a motor sold with a pump 
fails, the customer could replace the failed motor with a less efficient motor since current DOE standards for electric motors do not require advanced technology and/or controls. This issue is the reason why stakeholders requested that DOE conduct a rulemaking using its direct final rule authority to establish standards for dedicated-purpose pool pump (‘‘DPPP’’) motors. In their view, because the adopted DPPP standards 
require DPPPs (at least in certain cases) to be sold with a VSD. Establishing DPPP motor standards would ensure that the expected savings from the DPPP standards would occur. 83 FR 45851, 45853 (September 11, 2018). In the case of DPPPs, there are motors specific to DPPPs, such that adopting a motor standard specific to DPPPs would be feasible. In the case of pumps, the motors used with this equipment are used in multiple applications, so DOE cannot adopt motor standards, as it did for DPPPs, that are specific to pumps. This issue also applies to the advanced motors design option discussed previously. 
Second, requiring all pumps to be 
sold with controls could cause an increase in repairs of inefficient pumps because replacement pumps would have the added cost of a VSD. This would delay the purchase of a new pump with motor and controls. This issue also applies to the advanced motors design option discussed previously, although to a lesser extent since a motor is less expensive than a motor-plus-VSD 
combination. 
Third, pumps designed for integrated 
controls may have a lower efficiency if installed in properly-sized constant-load applications since there are additional electrical inefficiencies when a controller is added to a motor. If a system operates at a constant load with an appropriately-sized pump, these additional losses become greater than the benefits of a VSD. 
Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers would replace an inverter-only motor and 
control with an induction motor upon the end of the lifetime of the motor originally purchased with the pump. 
Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on how 
bare pump repair frequency may change if customers delay purchasing a more expensive pump with motor and controls. For example, in its DPPP motors analysis, DOE assumed that in the standards case, a greater percentage of consumers would repair their pump as compared to the no-new-standards case. 
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on the 
percentage of pump models that would be redesigned for controls if they were required to be sold with them, and of those, what percentage would have worse efficiency in constant-load applications than the current pump model, and by how much the efficiency or energy use would be impacted. 
d. Potential Cost Impacts 
During interviews, manufacturers 
identified potential cost impacts that 
have not been accounted for in this analysis but would need to be in any analysis to justify new or amended standards. Specifically, there could be significant installation difficulties or costs for some applications in which electrical upgrades or filters may be required. In addition, there could be a need for re-piping since, in this scenario, pump manufacturers may not offer the same bare pumps. Re-piping is discussed previously in relation to hydraulic redesign. Finally, there could be downtime for facilities while they re- pipe or perform electrical upgrades. 
Issue 15: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers who would be required to buy a pump with a VSD would need to add filters or perform electrical upgrades, and the estimated cost of such equipment and installation. 
Issue 16: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers might need to re-pipe to accommodate a pump with motor and controls rather than a drop-in replacement pump, and the estimated cost of re-piping. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149543 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
Issue 17: DOE seeks quantitative data 
on the overall installation costs of 
pumps with VSDs compared to bare pumps, as well as any differences in lifetime or repair and maintenance costs for pumps sold with VSDs as compared to bare pumps. 
C. Analysis 
The following sections provide a brief 
overview of the results from the 
analyses DOE conducted for this NODA. Full details of the methodology can be found in chapters 2 through 6 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. Summaries of comments received from the August 2021 RFI responses related to analytical methodologies are included in chapter 1 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
1. Screening 
DOE uses the following five screening 
criteria to determine which technology 
options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking: 
(1) Technological feasibility. 
Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further. 
(2) Practicability to manufacture, 
install, and service. If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. 
(3) Impacts on product utility or 
product availability. If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. 
(4) Adverse impacts on health or 
safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. 
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies. If a design option utilizes 
proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 
A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 
If DOE determines that a technology, 
or a combination of technologies, fails to 
meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. 
DOE did not conduct a screening 
analysis for this NODA and instead is presenting analyses for the three technologies discussed in section III.B of this document (i.e., hydraulic 
redesign, advanced motors, and VSDs) in order to receive stakeholder feedback. In a future analysis to support this rulemaking, based on many of the issues listed in section III.B of this document, DOE may screen out some or all of the listed technologies based on one or more of the screening criteria. 
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on if 
or how the five screening criteria may limit application of hydraulic redesign, 
advanced motors, or VSDs as design options in the current rulemaking analysis. 
2. Engineering 
The purpose of the engineering 
analysis is to determine the incremental 
manufacturing cost associated with producing products at higher efficiency levels. The primary considerations in the engineering analysis are the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 
determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 
analysis’’). 
DOE conducts the efficiency analysis 
using either an efficiency-level approach, a design-option approach, or a combination of both. Under the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels to be considered in the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, observing the range of efficiency and efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the market). This approach typically starts with compiling a comprehensive list of products available on the market, such as from DOE’s product certification database. Next, the list of models is ranked by efficiency level from lowest to highest, and DOE typically creates a scatter plot to visualize the distribution of efficiency levels. From these rankings and visual plots, efficiency levels can be identified by examining clusters of models around common efficiency levels. The maximum efficiency level currently available on the market can also be identified. 
Under the design option approach, 
the efficiency levels to be considered in the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or 
computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. In an iterative fashion, design options can also be identified during product teardowns as described. The design option approach is typically used when a comprehensive database of certified models is unavailable (for example, if a product is not yet regulated)—making the efficiency-level approach unusable. 
In certain rulemakings, the efficiency- 
level approach (based on actual products on the market) will be extended using the design option approach to interpolate between levels to define ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the ‘‘max tech’’ level (the level that DOE determines is the maximum achievable efficiency level), particularly in cases where the ‘‘max tech’’ level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market. 
The cost analysis portion of the 
engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of the cost approach depends on a variety of factors such as the availability and reliability of information on product features and pricing, the physical characteristics of 
the regulated product, and the practicability of purchasing the product on the market. DOE generally uses the following cost approaches: 
•Physical teardown: Under this 
approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for the product. 
•Catalog teardown: In lieu of 
physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the BOM for the product. 
•Price surveys: If neither a physical 
nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly-integrated products that are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable), DOE conducts retail price surveys by scanning retailer websites and other marketing materials. This approach must be coupled with assumptions regarding distributor markups and retailer markups in order to estimate the actual manufacturing cost of the product. 
The engineering analysis conducted 
for this NODA used an efficiency level approach consistent with that used in the January 2016 Final Rule analysis 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149544 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
13On February 3, 2016, DOE published its 
intention to establish a working group under the 
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) to negotiate a test procedure and energy conservation standards for circulator pumps. 81 FR 5658. Throughout this document this working group shall be referred to as ‘‘the Circulator Pumps Working Group.’’ along with a new design option 
approach. The cost analysis relied on physical and catalog tear downs and confidential information provided by manufacturers. 
a. Methodology 
DOE conducted two engineering 
analyses for this NODA. The first 
analysis is consistent with that performed to support the January 2016 Final Rule in which only hydraulic redesign was considered as a design option. 81 FR 4368, 4384. This approach developed conversion costs that DOE expected industry to incur when redesigning non-compliant pumps to meet a potential new standard. Discussions with manufacturers indicated that MPC would not increase as efficiency increases. The second analysis examined the 
possibility of motors and controls as 
technologies to improve pump efficiency. This analysis developed MPC versus efficiency (i.e., PEI) curves. DOE 
assumed the motors and controls approach would not result in 
conversion costs for manufacturers. DOE separated these analyses into a ‘‘branched’’ approach that assumes that no hydraulic redesign would occur relative to the current baseline if a motors or controls standard were adopted, and no pumps would shift towards only being sold with motors or controls in a hydraulic redesign scenario. This assumption allowed DOE to separate conversion costs from increases in MPC. DOE performed both of these analyses for pumps larger than 1 horsepower and for SVILs. Details of these analyses are discussed in sections 
III.C.2.b and III.C.2.c of this document. 
Assumptions 
Since DOE had limited data for 
pumps that are not currently subject to 
standards, the Department used similar pump categories that are currently subject to standards as a proxy to estimate costs and performance metrics for pumps that are not currently subject to standards. Table III.2 summarizes the pump categories used as proxies for the pump categories where DOE had insufficient data to conduct an analysis. The specific instances where DOE used these proxies are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this TSD accompanying this NODA. 
TABLE III.2—P UMP CATEGORY SIMILARITIES USEDTHROUGHOUT ANALYSIS  
Pump category with insufficient data Pump category used as proxy 
Between Bearing ...................................................................................... End-Suction. 
Small Vertical In-Line ............................................................................... In-Line. 
Radially Split Horizontal ........................................................................... Radially Split Vertical. 
Vertical Turbine ........................................................................................ Submersible Turbine. 
End Suction 1200 rpm .............................................................................. End-Suction 1800 rpm and 3600 rpm. 
In-Line 1200 rpm ...................................................................................... In-Line 1800 rpm and 3600 rpm. 
Additionally, to make use of older 
performance data, DOE assumed that for 
pumps that are not currently subject to standards, performance data obtained during the 2014 pumps negotiations would provide an accurate summary of the performance of these pump models on the market today. 
Issue 19: If DOE’s assumptions are not 
appropriate, DOE requests updated shipments and performance data for BB, SVIL, RSH, and VT pumps. DOE also requests updated shipments and performance data for pumps sold at a specific speed of 1,200 rpm and for ST pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches. 
Constant-Load and Variable-Load 
Pumps 
In the analysis for the January 2016 
Final Rule, DOE conducted one analysis to encompass both CL and VL equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4382. Constant-load pumps are sold without controls and variable-load pumps are sold with controls. 10 CFR 431.466. Since only one analysis was performed for both constant- and variable-load pump classes, the standards for these classes are the same. Setting the PEI metric in this way was intended to incentivize manufacturers to sell pumps with controls as an alternative to hydraulic redesign. As discussed in chapter 1 of the TSD accompanying this 
NODA, some stakeholders requested that DOE establish a separate set of C- values for VL pumps so that standards for VL pumps could be raised to require that any bare pumps sold with controls would also meet the PEI
CLfor bare 
pump efficiency before adding controls. During manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers observed that some 
companies were selling pumps with controls that do not meet the bare pump standard; however, DOE notes the current standard is silent as to how a pump distributed into commerce can meet the energy conservation standard. 
DOE is concerned that increasing the 
standard for VL classes may increase their cost relative to CL classes. This may result in equipment class switching, where consumers who would have purchased a pump with a motor and control may purchase a bare pump or a bare pump with only a motor in order to reduce their first costs. However, DOE also acknowledges that sales of pumps with motors and controls do not seem to have been driven by the option for manufacturers to sell only into the VL class and instead is limited by market demand. 
Issue 20: DOE seeks comment on the 
likelihood of equipment class switching or other unintended consequences if DOE were to set a higher standard for 
VL equipment classes. 
For this NODA, DOE’s analysis is 
consistent with its approach supporting the January 2016 Final Rule. However, DOE did evaluate VSDs as a potential technology for reducing energy consumption in this NODA. This analysis could be applied differently to CL and VL classes in future rulemaking analyses. 
SVILs 
As discussed in the April 2022 TP 
NOPR, stakeholders universally 
supported addressing SVILs as part of the commercial and industrial pump rulemaking. 87 FR 21268, 21275. This support aligns with recommendations from the Circulators Working group.
13 
(Docket No. EERE–2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 58, Recommendation #1B at pp. 1– 2) However, during interviews, manufacturers provided conflicting suggestions for how DOE should conduct its SVIL analysis. One group of manufacturers suggested evaluating hydraulic redesign only for SVILs, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149545 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
14Other technologies hydraulic redesign may 
encompass are clearances, seals, and other 
volumetric losses. similar to the approach taken in the 
January 2016 Final Rule for IL pumps. In this case, any new SVIL standards would be consistent with IL pump standards. A subset of manufacturers viewed this approach as appropriate since many SVILs are a 4-pole version of a 2-pole IL pump. Another group of manufacturers suggested that potential SVIL standards should be equivalent to any future standards for circulator pumps. Manufacturers expect that the circulators analysis will be based on motor and controls design options, consistent with recommendations by the Circulators Working Group to set a standard at EL 2 that would essentially require a single-speed electronically commutated motor. (Docket No. EERE– 2016–BT–STD–0004, No. 98 Recommendation #1 at p. 1 and No. 97 at p. 2). In this case, SVILs would be a potentially less efficient and less costly substitute for circulators. Additionally, DOE received conflicting feedback on 
whether circulators and SVILs would compete with, or act as substitutes for, each other. Some manufacturers stated that an SVIL would never be substituted for a circulator, while others said that it was possible. 
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 
specific applications for which SVILs could be used instead of circulators and how an SVIL would need to be modified for use in these applications. 
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on 
the portion of the SVIL market whose bare pumps are already subject to DOE’s IL pump standards. Specifically, what portion of SVIL bare pumps are a different pole version of IL pumps, and what portion of SVIL pumps are a separate product family? 
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 
the potential benefits and drawbacks of setting standards for SVILs that align with circulator pumps versus setting standards for SVILs that align with IL pumps. 
b. Hydraulic Redesign Approach 
In this NODA, DOE evaluated 
hydraulic redesign using the same 
approach that it used in the January 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 4368. In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE assumed that hydraulic redesign would be the only design option used by 
manufacturers to meet the energy conservation standard.
1481 FR 4368, 
4416. Conversations with manufacturers indicated that this assumption was appropriate in order for most pump families to meet the current energy conservation standard. The conversion costs presented in the January 2016 Final Rule assumed that every pump not meeting the energy conservation standard would either be redesigned to just meet the prescribed standard or removed from the market. However, during interviews, many manufacturers stated that they redesigned their pumps to be as efficient as possible with the technology and resources available at the time. DOE analyzed its Compliance Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’) to confirm this assertion. Table III.3 summarizes the estimated distribution, by equipment class, over the ELs 2, 3, 
4, and 5, as defined in the January 2016 Final Rule. Table III.4 shows the current distribution efficiency distribution from the CCD, by pump equipment class, over ELs 0, 1, 2 and 3. 
TABLE III.3—P ROJECTED EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS AS PRESENTED IN THE JANUARY 2016 F INAL 
RULE 
Product class 2016 
EL 2 
(%) 2016 
EL 3 
(%) 2016 
EL 4 
(%) 2016 
EL 5 
(%) Total 
(%) 
ESCC, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 52 11 13 24 100 
ESCC, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 27 3 4 67 100 
ESFM, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 39 24 10 27 100 
ESFM, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 44 16 11 29 100 
IL, 1800 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 41 11 11 38 100 
IL, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 41 5 12 43 100 
ST, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... ................... 46 6 6 43 100 
TABLE III.4—CCMS E FFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS USING MANUFACTURER DATA FROM THE JANUARY  
2016 F INAL RULEPOWER BINDISTRIBUTIONS  
Product class NODA 
EL 0 
(%) NODA 
EL 1 
(%) NODA 
EL 2 
(%) NODA 
EL 3 
(%) Total 
(%) 
ESCC, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 42 6 7 45 100 
ESCC, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 20 3 3 74 100 
ESFM, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 32 17 8 43 100 
ESFM, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ................ 29 8 10 53 100 
IL, 1800 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 33 8 8 52 100 
IL, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 36 1 10 52 100 
ST, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... ................... 47 5 4 44 100 
The hydraulic redesign approach was 
conducted in the same manner as the 
January 2016 Final Rule’s analysis. 81 FR 4368, 4387. (See also Chapter 5 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, EERE– 2011–BT–STD–0031–0056, pp. 5–30 to 5–42) 
For currently regulated pumps, DOE 
set the baseline efficiency at the standard. In the January 2016 Final Rule, the pumps energy conservation standard was set at EL 2 for all equipment classes except for RSV pumps and ST pumps with a specific speed of 1,800 rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4369 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149546 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
15The data collected in the 2014 pump 
negotiations is described in detail in the 2016 final rule TSD (see Chapter 5 for the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031–0056, pp. 5– 
6 to 5–8). and 4386. Standards for RSV pumps and 
ST pumps with a specific speed of 1,000 rpm were set at baseline, or EL 0. Id. DOE did not redefine efficiency levels for those pumps whose standard was set at EL 2 for this NODA; instead, DOE shifted ELs 2 through 5 so that EL 2 became EL 0 (or baseline) in this NODA analysis. The new nomenclature is summarized in Table III.5 and is used in the rest of this NODA and in the TSD accompanying this NODA. EL 1, EL 2, and EL 3 have the same C-values as EL 
3, EL 4, and EL 5, respectively, as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule. 
TABLE III.5—E FFICIENCY LEVEL NOMENCLATURE CHANGES FOR PUMPS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO STANDARDS  
January 2016 Final Rule efficiency level Current NODA efficiency level 
EL 0 ..........................................................................................................
EL 1 ..........................................................................................................
EL 2 .......................................................................................................... EL 0 (Baseline). 
EL 3 .......................................................................................................... EL 1. 
EL 4 .......................................................................................................... EL 2. 
EL 5 .......................................................................................................... EL 3. 
For pumps that were not analyzed in 
the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 
defined new efficiency levels based on C-values from pump performance data. DOE had model level performance data available for some BB, VT, and SVIL pumps. DOE did not have data available for pumps with nominal speeds of rotation at 1,200 rpm, RSH pumps, or ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches. For this reason, DOE did not develop C-values for these pump categories in this analysis. 
DOE developed preliminary C-values 
for BB and VT pumps using the same procedure used in the January 2016 Final Rule. (See Chapter 5 of the January 
2016 Final Rule TSD, EERE–2011–BT– STD–0031–0056, pp. 5–15 to 5–16) Each efficiency level corresponded to a 
percentile of pump performance. The C- value calculated for the efficiency level was the C-value for the minimally compliant pump at the prescribed performance percentile. 
DOE set the baseline for pumps not 
currently subject to standards at the 5th percentile of pump performance, just as was done for pumps in the January 2016 Final Rule. (See Chapter 5 of the January 
2016 Final Rule TSD, EERE–2011–BT– 
STD–0031–0056, pp. 5–16 to 5–19) The reasons for using the 5th instead of the 0th percentile are discussed in Chapter 5, section 5.8.6 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD. (EERE–2011–BT–STD– 0031–0056) 
Conversion costs are based on those 
used in the January 2016 Final Rule, manufacturer interviews, data from the DOE CCD, and data collected during the 2014 pump negotiations.
1581 FR 4368, 
4388. A more detailed description of the development of these costs is included in chapter 2 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. As stated previously, DOE assumed that hydraulic redesign did not increase the MPC of pumps but may consider MPC increases in future analyses. The estimated total conversion costs and estimated per model conversion costs for pumps currently subject to standards are summarized in Table III.6 and Table III.7, respectively. Estimated total conversion costs and estimated per model conversion costs for pumps not currently subject to 
standards are summarized in Table III.8 and Table III.9, respectively. Based on 
conversations with manufacturers, the per model costs are higher than those estimated in the January 2016 Final Rule. The conversion costs are used as inputs to the manufacturer impact analysis, presented in section III.C.4 of this document. As previously discussed, DOE accounted for conversion costs in the LCC in the January 2016 Final Rule but DOE has not conducted an LCC for this NODA. 
Due to a lack of performance data for 
the pumps that were not analyzed in the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE was unable to conduct the national energy savings analysis using the C-values developed for this NODA and relied instead on the proxy equipment classes that were analyzed in the January 2016 Final Rule discussed in section III.C.3 of this document. As a result, the national energy savings associated with each EL analyzed may not directly correspond to the manufacturer impacts associated with each EL. DOE would address this inconsistency in any future analyses. 
TABLE III.6—E STIMATED TOTAL CONVERSION COSTS FOR CURRENTLY REGULATED PUMPS  
Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 
ESCC ........................................................................................................................... ................ $28,771,000 $97,667,000 $177,414,000 
ESFM ........................................................................................................................... ................ 65,068,000 204,491,000 390,974,000 
IL ............................................................................................................................. ..................... 38,456,000 78,965,000 148,440,000 
ST ............................................................................................................................. ................... 42,046,000 106,922,000 169,737,000 
TABLE III.7—E STIMATED PER MODEL CONVERSION COSTS FOR CURRENTLY REGULATED PUMPS  
Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 
ESCC ........................................................................................................................... ................ $167,000 $235,000 $301,000 
ESFM ........................................................................................................................... ................ 167,000 235,000 301,000 
IL ............................................................................................................................. ..................... 201,000 283,000 363,000 
ST ............................................................................................................................. ................... 203,000 288,000 374,000 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149547 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
16ES.1200 and IL.1200 refer to end suction and 
in-line pumps with nominal speeds of 1,200 rpm. TABLE III.8—E STIMATED TOTAL INDUSTRY CONVERSION COSTS FOR NOTCURRENTLY REGULATED PUMPS  
Pump category EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 
BB ........................................................................................ $3,356,000 $14,057,000 $26,832,000 $4 7,273,000 $85,095,000 
VT ......................................................................................... 252,000 988,000 1,774,000 3,122,000 5,625,000 
ES.1200 ............................................................................... 4,253,000 12,291,000 21,547,000 38,884,00 0 60,316,000 
IL.1200 ................................................................................. 767,000 2,782,000 4,126,000 7,284,000 1 1,279,000 
SVIL ..................................................................................... 1,055,000 4,419,000 8,461,000 14,941,0 00 26,917,000 
TABLE III.9—E STIMATED PER MODEL CONVERSION COSTS FOR NOTCURRENTLY REGULATED PUMPS  
Pump category EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 
BB ........................................................................................ $156,000 $245,000 $275,000 $388,000 $ 498,000 
VT ......................................................................................... 105,000 165,000 185,000 260,000 335, 000 
ES.120016............................................................................ 105,000 165,000 185,000 260,000 335,000 
IL.1200 ................................................................................. 107,000 149,000 167.000 260,000 301,000  
SVIL ..................................................................................... 101,000 159,000 179,000 253,000 325,00 0 
Issue 24: DOE requests shipment and 
performance data for (1) pumps with a 
nominal speed of rotation at 1,200 rpm; (2) RSH pumps; and (3) ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches. 
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on 
its conversion cost approach for evaluating hydraulic redesign. 
c. Motors and Controls Approach 
The January 2016 Final Rule 
engineering analysis evaluated one 
representative configuration per equipment class. For this NODA analysis, DOE instead selected 3 representative units per equipment class to assess motor and control technologies and their effect on the efficiency of a pump as measured by the DOE test procedure. These representative units are described by head flow pairings. The three representative units were selected to cover the most common head and flow areas in a given equipment class based on unit shipments, which were determined from unit performance and shipment data DOE collected during the 2014 pumps negotiations. The process of selecting representative units is described in more detail in chapter 2 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
As discussed in section III.C.2.a of 
this document, DOE assumed no hydraulic redesign would be conducted if motors and controls were used to meet a potential new energy conservation standard. Therefore, DOE assumed that the baseline for each representative unit is a minimally compliant pump according to the current pump standard and the current DOE electric motor standards summarized in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25, effective as of June 1, 2016. For pumps currently subject to standards, PEI is equal to 1. For pumps not currently subject to standards, DOE used the preliminary EL 0 C-value for all PEI calculations, which means that pumps not currently subject to standards were assumed to have a PEI of 1. 
DOE defined the efficiency levels for 
the motors and controls approach based on the technologies applied to the representative unit. DOE analyzed single-speed induction motors, improved single-speed induction motors, and VSDs for pumps larger than 1 hp. Therefore, each representative unit had three efficiency levels: baseline (EL 0) with a bare pump paired to a minimally compliant single-speed induction motor, EL 1 with the same bare pump paired to a more efficient single-speed induction motor, and EL 2 with the same configuration as EL 1 paired with a VSD. These efficiency levels are consistent with the efficiency levels used for SVIL pumps except DOE included electronically commutated motors (‘‘ECM’’) as a technology for SVILs. DOE has tentatively determined that ECMs are not produced at hp ratings large enough for commercial industrial pumps. DOE maintained similar efficiency levels across SVILs and larger pumps to ensure consistency in any potential standards. The efficiency levels for all pumps are summarized in Table III.10. 
TABLE III.10—M OTOR AND CONTROLS APPROACH EFFICIENCY LEVEL SUMMARY  
Pump category EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 
Pumps Larger Than 1 HP ......... Single-speed induction motor ... Improved single-speed induction motor ........ VSD 
SVILs ......................................... Single-speed induction motor ... Improved single-speed induction motor ........ ECM .. .......... VSD 
The motor and controls approach 
evaluated MPCs with data from the 
prior standards rulemaking, electric motor teardowns, and VSD teardowns. The analysis evaluated efficiency with pump performance data, motor efficiency data, and default VSD performance from the DOE pumps test procedure. Results from this analysis are not used 
in any of the downstream analyses in this NODA but could be considered in future analyses if the technology options pass the screening criteria. Additional analysis details and results are included in chapter 2 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. Issue 26: DOE requests comment on 
its approach for evaluating pump efficiency and costs with the addition of advanced motors and/or VSDs for pumps larger than 1 hp. 
Issue 27: DOE requests comment on 
its approach for evaluating pump efficiency and costs with the addition of 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149548 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
advanced motors and/or VSDs for 
SVILs. 
For future analyses, DOE may choose 
to convert MPCs to MSPs using manufacturer markups. DOE has tentatively determined that the markups used in the 2016 analysis and summarized in Table III.11 remain accurate. DOE has used similar assumptions between classes, as discussed in section III.C.2.a of this 
document, to estimate markups for pump classes not currently subject to standards. 
TABLE III.11—I NDUSTRY -AVERAGE MARKUPS BY PUMP CATEGORY  
Efficiency level Equipment class group 
ESCC ESFM IL ST BB VT SVIL 
EL 0 .......................................................... 1.387 1.380 1.472 1.372 1.330 1.350 1.425 
EL 1 .......................................................... 1.387 1.387 1.472 1.397 1.368 1.369 1.462 
EL 2 .......................................................... 1.387 1.387 1.472 1.397 1.380 1.372 1.472 
EL 3 .......................................................... 1.387 1.387 1.472 1.397 1.387 1.397 1.472 
EL 4 .......................................................... N/A 1.387 1.397 1.472 
EL 5 .......................................................... 1.387 1.397 1.472 
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on 
the accuracy of the manufacturer 
markups presented in Table III.11. 
2. National Energy Savings 
DOE estimated national energy 
savings for hydraulic redesign only. 
DOE is not assessing national energy savings for the advanced motor technology option given the concurrent electric motor rulemaking noted in section III.B.2 of this document. DOE acknowledges that the potential national energy savings resulting from a VSD technology option could be substantially higher than for any hydraulic redesign efficiency level if such a technology option could be successfully implemented. However, DOE did not estimate national energy savings for this technology option given 
the significant hurdles discussed in section III.B.3 of this document, as well as current lack of information on how to factor some of these issues into the analysis (specifically, the potential inability of the supply chain to meet required demand as discussed in section 
III.B.3.a of this document, as well as the potential energy use impacts discussed in section III.B.3.c of this document.). 
In order to estimate national energy 
savings from hydraulic redesign, DOE first conducted an energy use analysis and a shipments analysis, which are described in the following sections. 
a. Energy Use Analysis 
To conduct the energy use analysis for 
the current scope of pumps, DOE relied 
primarily on the methodology, 
efficiency levels, and energy use inputs from the January 2016 Final Rule (assuming EL 2 from the January 2016 Final Rule is now EL 0, and EL 5 is now EL 3, as discussed previously). Consumer inputs to the energy use analysis are based on operational demands that are independent of the pump’s efficiency, while equipment inputs to the analysis are based on the efficiency of the pump. Consumer inputs include the consumer duty point (defined by the flow and head), annual load profile, and annual operating 
hours. For this NODA, DOE updated the energy use analysis based on efficiency distributions from the CCD and integration of a load profile from the January 2016 Final Rule VSD consumer subgroup analysis with revised load profile weighting. Further details can be 
found in chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
For pumps not currently subject to 
standards, DOE relied on proxy pump classes within the current scope of pumps, with the range and frequency of horsepower bins constrained based on data collected in manufacturer interviews. See Table III.12 of this document. The sample weights (sector, application, and power bin correlations) were also developed based on the proxy classes. For these pumps, DOE evaluated five (5) levels of hydraulic redesign (ELs 0–5), consistent with those analyzed for the proxy pump categories in the January 2016 Final Rule. 
TABLE III.12—E QUIPMENT CLASS SUBSTITUTES FOR PUMPS NOTCURRENTLY SUBJECT TO STANDARDS  
Equipment class not currently subject to 
standards Substitute equipment class Additional constraint 
ESCC, 1200 ....................................................... ESCC, 1800. 
ESFM, 1200 ....................................................... ESFM, 1800. 
IL, 1200 .............................................................. IL, 1800. 
BBa..................................................................... ESCC, 1800 ..................................................... Above power bin 4 (>10.53 HP). 
SVIL .................................................................... IL, 1800 and IL, 3600 ...................................... Lowest power bin only (1–1.79 HP). 
VT ....................................................................... VT–S, 3600. 
aWhere the design speed is not specified, the equipment category represents aggregated design speeds at 1200, 1800, and 3600 rpm . 
In addition, as discussed in chapter 1 
of the TSD accompanying this NODA, 
NEEA suggested that DOE re-evaluate the load profiles used in its analysis. 
DOE undertook two sensitivities by conducting the energy use analysis using: (1) DOE’s load profiles with BEP offset from NEEA and (2) NEEA load profiles with no BEP offset. This 
sensitivity is discussed in appendix 3A of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
Issue 29: DOE seeks model level 
performance data for all pumps not currently subject to standards as well as RSV pumps. b. Shipments Analysis 
In the shipments analysis for the 
January 2016 Final Rule, DOE developed shipment projections for pumps and, in turn, calculated equipment stock from 2020 through 2049, using the 2012 shipment estimates 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:48 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149549 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
from the Hydraulics Institute (Docket 
EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039–0068). To project pump shipments, DOE relied primarily on Annual Energy Outlook 2014 forecasts. 
For this NODA, DOE based the 
shipments analysis on the methodology used for the January 2016 Final Rule. DOE updated the AEO trends on which the shipment growth was based to reflect the most recent AEO—and for pumps not currently subject to standards, DOE used initial year shipments data from 2012, as discussed in section II.A. of this document. DOE projected shipments for the period 2028–2057. For more details on the shipments methodology, refer to chapter 4 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
Issue 30: DOE seeks comment on the 
total shipments of pump categories not currently subject to standards as well as RSV pumps. 
c. National Energy Savings 
To calculate national energy savings 
over the lifetime of equipment shipped 
from 2028–2057, DOE relied on the energy use inputs and shipments analysis discussed previously and added data reflecting the penetration of VSDs in the no-new-standards case and standards cases starting at 18.5% in 2021, with an additional 0.67% penetration per year. See chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying this NODA for more details on DOE’s derivation of these numbers. Although DOE did not 
analyze RSVs directly in the energy use 
and shipments analysis in this NODA or the 2016 Final Rule, due to lack of available data, DOE added scaler factors in the national energy savings analysis to account for potential energy savings from these pumps. These factors were based on a consideration of the distribution of power bins and efficiencies obtained from DOE’s CCMS data. Refer to chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying this NODA for more detail. Table III.13 shows the full fuel cycle results. 
DOE notes that this NES analysis 
relies on a technology option that DOE has not yet determined would be technologically feasible or would pass the screening analysis as a result of the issues discussed in section III.B of this document. In addition, as discussed in the previous sections, for pumps not currently subject to standards, the analysis relies on efficiency levels and data inputs from the 2016 rulemaking and proxy equipment classes. For RSVs, the analysis relies on scalers based on proxy class assumptions, and only includes two efficiency levels, baseline and max-tech. For both pumps not currently, and currently, subject to standards, the NES analysis does not account for the potential loss of utility, as discussed in section III.B.1 of this document, which could reduce savings. In addition, DOE does not have robust 
information on a nationally 
representative sample of load profiles for pumps across the United States. DOE acknowledges that while load profile selection could significantly impact energy savings estimates for variable- speed drives if analyzed, it does not significantly impact results for ELs based on hydraulic redesign. This can be seen in the sensitivity conducted based on NEEA load profiles, which results on average in increased NES of only 1 to 2 percent for TSLs 1 and 2. The full results for the sensitivity are shown in appendix 5A of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
For all of these listed reasons, the 
savings in Table III.13 should be viewed as an order-of-magnitude estimate for savings across different equipment categories rather than an indication of a specific outcome should a full analysis be conducted. As noted previously, DOE has not conducted an LCC or national net present value analysis for this NODA; such analyses would be assessed, if needed, along with the manufacturer impact analysis (discussed in section III.C.4 of this document) when determining whether new or amended standards would be economically justified at the considered levels, should any considered technology options pass the screening analysis. 
TABLE III.13—E STIMATES OF CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL-CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (QUADS ) BYTSL 
[30 years of shipments] 
Equipment class Trial standard level * 
1 2 3 4 5 
Quads ** 
Currently Subject to Standards: 
ESCC, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 
ESCC, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.04 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 
ESFM, 1800 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.08 0.22 0.34 0.34 0.34 
ESFM, 3600 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 
IL, 800 ........................................................................................................................ ............... 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.13 
IL, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... .............. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 
RSV ............................................................................................................................ ............... 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 
ST, 3600 ....................................................................................................................... ............ 0.08 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.23 
Sub-Total ...................................................................................................................... ..... 0.50 0.89 1.31 1.31 1.31 
Not Currently Subject to Standards: 
BB ............................................................................................................................. ................ 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 
ESCC, 1200 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 
ESFM, 1200 ..................................................................................................................... ......... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 
IL, 1200 ....................................................................................................................... .............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 
SVIL ........................................................................................................................... ............... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
VT ............................................................................................................................. ................ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 
Sub-Total ...................................................................................................................... ..... 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.10 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149550 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
17See www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1/BILLS- 
115hr1enr.pdf. 18The tax rate used in the 2016 Final Rule was 
32 percent. TABLE III.13—E STIMATES OF CUMULATIVE FULL-FUEL-CYCLE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (QUADS ) BYTSL—Continued 
[30 years of shipments] 
Equipment class Trial standard level * 
1 2 3 4 5 
Quads ** 
Total .......................................................................................................................... .. 0.51 0.92 1.35 1.38 1.40 
* Trial Standard Levels (‘‘TSLs’’) refer to standards case scenarios. In this analysis, each TSL corresponds to the same EL for each equipment 
category (i.e., TSL 1 includes EL 1 for each pump category), with a few exceptions. For pumps currently subject to standards, DOE only exam-
ined 3 ELs; as such the results for TSL 4 and TSL 5 for those pumps are equivalent to those for TSL3. In addition, for the RSV class, which has 
models only at EL 0 and EL 3, TSL 1 and TSL 2 correspond to EL 3. Results for each TSL account for the base case efficiency dis tribution 
shown in Table III.4. DOE assumes that all pumps below a given EL ‘‘roll-up’’ to that EL, and all pumps at ELs above the given EL remain un-changed. 
** The results are rounded to two decimals. All values showing 0.00 are non-zero values, with savings at the thousandths place or less. 
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on 
the applicability of load profiles found 
in the NEEA data to the full sample of pumps in this analysis. 
3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 
DOE has conducted an initial analysis 
on the potential impacts to 
manufacturers resulting from the analysis discussed in this NODA. In developing its analysis of the industry, DOE began with the financial parameters used in the January 2016 Final Rule. These financial parameters were, prior to the January 2016 Final Rule and during interviews preceding this rulemaking, vetted by multiple manufacturers and are the most robust equipment-specific estimates that are publicly available. DOE noted that tax rate estimates from before 2018 are not 
relevant for modeling future cash-flows due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,
17which was signed into law in 
December 2017 and changed the maximum Federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Table III.14 reflects these initial financial parameters. 
TABLE III.14—I NITIAL FINANCIAL METRICS  
Financial metric Initial estimate 
Tax Rate (% of Taxable Income)18.................................................................................................................................... 21.0 
Working Capital (% of Revenue) ......................................................................................................................................... 18.6 
SG&A (% of Revenue) ........................................................................................................................................................ 21.6 
R&D (% of Revenues) ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.6 
Depreciation (% of Revenues) ............................................................................................................................................ 2.6 
Capital Expenditures (% of Revenues) ............................................................................................................................... 2.4 
Net Property, Plant, and Equipment (% of Revenues) ....................................................................................................... 15.0 
During interviews, manufacturers 
generally commented that their markups 
were similar to what was presented by the interviewers (see Table III.11), taking into account different product lines and distribution channels. However, manufacturers did state that markups did not change substantially across efficiency levels and that they were largely unable to recoup investments made to comply with the existing energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE proceeded with the previously adopted standard level estimated markup across all ELs—which is EL 0 in Table III.11. For pumps not currently subject to standards, DOE assumed that BB pumps and ESFM pumps, ST and VT pumps, and IL and SVIL pumps have respectively similar markups. DOE did not include RSV pumps due to a lack of available data. Initial financial parameters, estimates 
of product markups and conversion costs (discussed in III.C.2 of this document), shipment estimates (discussed in III.C.3.b of this document), and the MPC estimates—adjusted for inflation from the January 2016 Final Rule—form the primary inputs for the Government Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’) that DOE uses to assess impacts of industry and industry subgroup cashflows. As in the January 2016 Final Rule, the MPC estimates remain the same across efficiency levels. In the tables that follow, DOE compares the GRIM results for each evaluated EL against the results for the no-new- standards case, in which energy conservation standards are not established or amended. In this preliminary GRIM, consistent with the NES, DOE only considers efficiency levels that can be accomplished by hydraulic redesign—corresponding to EL 1 to EL 3 for currently in-scope pumps and EL 1 to EL 5 for pumps that are not currently subject to standards. Results examine a single markup scenario where manufacturers are assumed to preserve the same gross margin percentage in the standards cases as in the no-new-standards case. Table III.18 presents the results for the entire scope considered in this NODA, whereas Table III.19 and Table III.20 present results for pumps not currently, and currently, subject to standards, respectively. These results are similar to the flat markup scenario results presented in the January 2016 Final Rule, which are included in Table III.21. 
Further details on the manufacturer 
impact analysis are included in chapter 6 of the TSD accompanying this NODA. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149551 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE III.18—P RELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PUMPS NOTCURRENTLY , ANDCURRENTLY , SUBJECT  
TOSTANDARDS —PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO  
Units No-new- 
standards 
case Trial standard level 
1 2 3 4 5 
INPV ............................................. 2020$ MM ......... 237.5 144.92 (44.1) (283.1) (910.8) (961.9) 
Change in INPV ............................ 2020$ MM ......... ........................ (92.6) (281.6) (520.6) (1,148.2) (1,199.3) 
%....................... ........................ (39.0) (118.6) (219.2) (483.5) (505.1) 
Product Conversion Costs ............ 2020$ MM ......... ........................ 126.9 360.3 654.23 687.3 740.2 
Capital Conversion Costs ............. 2020$ MM ......... ........................ 57.7 164.0 297.6 315.4 342.8 
Total Investment Required ........... 2020$ MM ......... ........................ 184.6 524.2 951.8 1,002.7 1,083.0 
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative numbers. 
TABLE III.19—P RELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PUMPS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO STANDARDS — 
PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO  
Units No-new- 
standards 
case Trial standard level 
1 2 3 
INPV .............................................................................. 2021$ MM ........................ 211.2 123.4 (51.5) (274.1) 
Change in INPV ............................................................ 2021$ MM ........................ ........................ (87.8) (262.7) (485.3) 
%...................................... ........................ (41.6) (124.1) (229.8) 
Product Conversion Costs ............................................ 2021$ MM ........................ ........................ 120.3 336.9 611.7 
Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. 2021$ MM ........................ ........................ 54.1 151.3 274.8 
Total Investment Required ........................................... 2021$ MM ........................ ........................ 174.4 488.2 886.5 
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative numbers. 
** EL 3, arrived at in TSL 3, represents max-tech for pumps currently subject to standards. 
TABLE III.20— P RELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PUMPS NOTCURRENTLY SUBJECT TO STANDARDS — 
PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO  
Units No-new- 
standards 
case Trial standard level 
1 2 3 4 5 
INPV ............................................. 2021$ MM ......... 26.28 21.35 7.4 (9.0) (37.4) (88.5) 
Change in INPV ............................ 2021$ MM ......... ........................ (4.9) (18.9) (35.3) (63.7) (114.8) 
%....................... ........................ (18.8) (71.8) (134.1) (242.3) (436.9) 
Product Conversion Costs ............ 2021$ MM ......... ........................ 6.5 23.4 42.5 75.6 128.5 
Capital Conversion Costs ............. 2021$ MM ......... ........................ 3.7 12.6 22.8 40.6 68.0 
Total Investment Required ........... 2021$ MM ......... ........................ 10.2 36.0 65.3 116.2 196.5 
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative numbers. 
TABLE III.21—2016 F INAL RULEMANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS —FLATMARKUP SCENARIO  
[Equivalent to preservation of gross margin scenario] 
Units No-new- 
standards 
case Trial standard level (old rulemaking) 
1 2 3 4 5 
INPV ............................................. 2014$ MM ......... 120.0 110.3 80.5 20.9 (86.1) (229.0) 
Change in INPV ............................ 2014$ MM ......... ........................ (9.7) (39.5) (99.1) (206.1) (349.0) 
%....................... ........................ (8.1) (32.9) (82.6) (171.8) (290.9) 
Product Conversion Costs ............ 2014$ MM ......... ........................ 16.6 56.9 123.1 234.0 380.8 
Capital Conversion Costs ............. 2014$ MM ......... ........................ 6.2 24.3 54.0 103.9 169.8 
Total Investment Required ........... 2014$ MM ......... ........................ 22.8 81.2 177.2 337.9 550.6 
* Values in parenthesis indicate negative numbers. ** TSL 2 represents the adopted standard level. 
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on 
the financial parameters used, the 
product markups used, whether DOE’s 
assumption that markups do not or will not (in the case of standards being applied) change across efficiency levels, 
the conversion costs used, what—if any—additional markup scenarios should be considered, and the estimated industry impacts presented in this analysis. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149552 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
a. Small Business Impacts 
Throughout the rulemaking process, 
DOE will examine the impacts of 
potential energy conservation standards on small business manufacturers and how those impacts may be different or disproportionate to the industry as a whole. Further details on the small business industry subgroup analysis are included in chapter 6 of the TSD 
accompanying this NODA. 
Issue 33: DOE requests comment on 
whether and how small businesses may be disproportionately affected by amended energy conservation standards. 
IV. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments 
DOE will accept comments, data, and 
information regarding this NODA before 
or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the 
DATES  
section at the beginning of this document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this document. 
Submitting comments via 
www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will 
require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. 
However, your contact information 
will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself 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. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. 
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 
as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. 
DOE processes submissions made 
through 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 www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. 
Submitting comments via email, hand 
delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to 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. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. 
Comments, data, and other 
information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are 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 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). 
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 
Issue 1: DOE seeks individual model 
level data or industry aggregated data to 
update its shipment and average horsepower estimate for pump categories that are currently subject to standards and those pump categories that are currently not subject to standards. 
Issue 2: DOE requests comments on 
potential benefits or drawbacks of proposing a change to the test procedure to allow calculation of PEI for pumps not subject to energy conservation standards. 
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the 
percentage of basic models that would be impacted by the following factors if manufacturers were to redesign their pumps to EL 4 and EL 5 (as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule): (1) need to flatten the pump curve beyond potentially acceptable levels for the existing market for a given model or any reported issues with controllability; (2) increased warranty claims; and (3) increased MPCs for pumps redesigned to higher efficiencies. Additionally, DOE requests comment on which EL (as presented in the January 2016 Final Rule) and for which pump classes (or hp ranges) these issues would first appear. 
Issue 4: DOE also seeks comment on 
the availability of designers skilled enough to design a pump that can reach EL 4 and EL 5 and be readily manufactured. 
Issue 5: Additionally, DOE requests 
comment on any other issues that may prevent manufacturers from redesigning pumps to reach higher efficiency levels, including other utility issues. 
Issue 6: DOE requests comment on the 
fraction of installations in which consumers would have to make piping changes as a result of a change in flange position (as opposed to purchasing another model with the desired flange 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149553 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
positions), and the cost of such piping 
changes. 
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on 
how a standard that requires an advanced motor to be paired with a bare pump would impact: (1) the bare pump replacement market; (2) the distributor market and business model; (3) the repair of pumps rather than their replacement and (4) the replacement of failed motors with less efficient motors. DOE also requests feedback on any potential consistency concerns with a standard that requires an advanced motor to be paired with a bare pump and current or future energy conservation standards for electric motors. 
Issue 8: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which pump consumers specify only a single controller brand, as well as on the number of controller brands typically stocked by a pump manufacturer. 
Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on how 
a VSD requirement for pumps would impact distributors. 
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 
whether there would be sufficient quantity and quality of VSDs available if there were a VSD requirement for pumps. 
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on 
possible methods to retain a replacement market for bare pumps while preventing a loophole where bare pumps could be purchased for current and new installations. 
Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers would replace an inverter-only motor and control with an induction motor upon the end of the lifetime of the motor originally purchased with the pump. 
Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on how 
bare pump repair frequency may change if customers delay purchasing a more expensive pump with motor and controls. For example, in its DPPP motors analysis, DOE assumed that in the standards case, a greater percentage of consumers would repair their pump as compared to the no-new-standards case. 
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on the 
percentage of pump models that would be redesigned for controls if they were required to be sold with them, and of those, what percentage would have worse efficiency in constant-load applications than the current pump model, and by how much the efficiency or energy use would be impacted. 
Issue 15: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers who would be required to buy a pump with a VSD would need to add filters or perform electrical upgrades, and the estimated cost of such equipment and installation. 
Issue 16: DOE seeks comment on the 
frequency with which customers might need to re-pipe to accommodate a pump with motor and controls rather than a drop-in replacement pump, and the estimated cost of re-piping. 
Issue 17: DOE seeks quantitative data 
on the overall installation costs of pumps with VSDs compared to bare pumps, as well as any differences in lifetime or repair and maintenance costs for pumps sold with VSDs as compared to bare pumps. 
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on if 
or how the five screening criteria may limit application of hydraulic redesign, advanced motors, or VSDs as design options in the current rulemaking analysis. 
2. Engineering 
Issue 19: If DOE’s assumptions are not 
appropriate, DOE requests updated 
shipments and performance data for BB, SVIL, RSH, and VT pumps. DOE also requests updated shipments and performance data for pumps sold at a specific speed of 1,200 rpm and for ST pumps with a bowl diameter greater than 6 inches. 
Issue 20: DOE seeks comment on the 
likelihood of equipment class switching or other unintended consequences if DOE were to set a higher standard for VL equipment classes. 
Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 
specific applications for which SVILs could be used instead of circulators and how an SVIL would need to be modified for use in these applications. 
Issue 22: DOE requests comment on 
the portion of the SVIL market whose bare pumps are already subject to DOE’s IL pump standards. Specifically, what portion of SVIL bare pumps are a different pole version of IL pumps, and what portion of SVIL pumps are a separate product family? 
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 
the potential benefits and drawbacks of setting standards for SVILs that align with circulator pumps versus setting standards for SVILs that align with IL pumps. 
Issue 24: DOE requests shipment and 
performance data for (1) pumps with a nominal speed of rotation at 1,200 rpm; (2) RSH pumps; and (3) ST pumps with bowl diameters greater than 6 inches. 
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on 
its conversion cost approach for evaluating hydraulic redesign. 
Issue 26: DOE requests comment on 
its approach for evaluating pump efficiency and costs with the addition of advanced motors and/or VSDs for pumps larger than 1 hp. Issue 27: DOE requests comment on 
its approach for evaluating pump 
efficiency and costs with the addition of advanced motors and/or VSDs for SVILs. 
Issue 28: DOE requests comment on 
the accuracy of the manufacturer markups presented in Table III.11. 
Issue 29: DOE seeks model level 
performance data for all pumps not currently subject to standards as well as RSV pumps. 
Issue 30: DOE seeks comment on the 
total shipments of pump categories not currently subject to standards as well as RSV pumps. 
Issue 31: DOE requests comment on 
the applicability of load profiles found in the NEEA data to the full sample of pumps in this analysis. 
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on 
the financial parameters used, the 
product markups used, whether DOE’s assumption that markups do not or will not (in the case of standards being applied) change across efficiency levels, the conversion costs used, what—if any—additional markup scenarios should be considered, and the estimated industry impacts presented in this analysis. 
Issue 33: DOE requests comment on 
whether and how small businesses may be disproportionately affected by amended energy conservation standards. 
V. Approval of the Office of the 
Secretary 
The Secretary of Energy has approved 
publication of this notification of data availability. 
Signing Authority 
This document of the Department of 
Energy was signed on August 3, 2022, 
by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy 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. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS149554 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 154 / Thursday, August 11, 2022 / Proposed Rules 
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 4, 
2022. 
Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 
Department of Energy. 
[FR Doc. 2022–17074 Filed 8–10–22; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2022–0881; Project 
Identifier MCAI–2022–00424–R] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
Helicopters 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 
SUMMARY : The FAA proposes to adopt a 
new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model SA330J helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the collective lever caused by incidental contact of the secondary stop cover due to a loosened rivet. This proposed AD would require removing the plate of the collective lever secondary stop and replacing it with self-adhesive tape to cover the stop support and decrease the risk of resistance on the rotor flight controls, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). 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 26, 2022. 
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 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
•Fax: (202) 493–2251. 
•Mail: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 
•Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 
address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
For EASA material that is proposed 
for IBR in this NPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus service 
information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ technical-support.html. The EASA 
material is also available at www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2022– 0881. 
Examining the AD Docket 
You may examine the AD docket at 
www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2022– 
0881; 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, the EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The street address for 
Docket Operations is listed above. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Kristi Bradley, Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email kristin.bradley@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–2022–0881; Project Identifier MCAI–2022–00424–R’’ 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 this 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 www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM. Confidential Business Information 
CBI is commercial or financial 
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kristi Bradley, Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email kristin.bradley@faa.gov. Any 
commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. 
Background 
EASA, which is the Technical Agent 
for the Member States of the European 
Union, has issued EASA AD 2022–0056, dated March 24, 2022 (EASA AD 2022– 0056), to correct an unsafe condition for all serial-numbered Airbus (Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Ae ´rospatiale, and 
Sud Aviation) Model SA 330 J helicopters, except those having Airbus modification (mod) 07 27362 embodied in production. 
This proposed AD was prompted by 
a report of restricted movement of the collective lever during take-off. After an investigation, it was determined that the movement of the collective lever was restricted due to simultaneous movement of the collective secondary stop cover due to a loosened rivet. This investigation also determined that the loosened rivet securing the covering plate had come into contact with the collective flying control fulcrum, leading to the restricted movement of the collective lever. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the restricted movement of the collective lever. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced control of the helicopter, potentially resulting in damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants. See EASA AD 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 Aug 10, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM 11AUP1lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1