17586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0055] 

RIN 1905–AD50 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to establish a 

new test procedure for pumps. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing a test 

method for measuring the hydraulic 

power, shaft power, and electric input 

power of pumps, inclusive of electric 

motors and any continuous or noncontinuous controls. The proposal, if 

adopted, would incorporate by reference 

the test procedure from the Hydraulic 

Institute (HI)—Standard 40.6–2014, 

‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump 

Efficiency Testing.’’ The proposed test 

procedure would be used to determine 

the constant load pump energy index 

(PEICL) for pumps sold without 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

or the variable load pump energy index 

(PEIVL) for pumps sold with continuous 

or non-continuous controls. The PEICL

and PEIVL describe the power 

consumption of the rated pump, 

inclusive of an electric motor and, if 

applicable, any integrated continuous or 

non-continuous controls, normalized 

with respect to the performance of a 

minimally compliant pump for each 

pump basic model. The proposal 

reflects certain recommendations made 

by a stakeholder Working Group for 

pumps established under the Appliance 

Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC). DOE is also 

announcing a public meeting to discuss 

and receive comments on issues 

presented in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR). 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, from 

9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in Washington, 

DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 

as a webinar. See section IV.M, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NOPR before 

and after the public meeting, but no 

later than June 15, 2015. See section 

IV.M, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. 

Persons can attend the public meeting 

via webinar. For more information, refer 

to the Public Participation section near 

the end of this proposed rule. 

Comments may be submitted using 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Pumps2013TP0055@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV.M of this document 

(‘‘Public Participation’’). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the 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. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

IV.M for information on how to submit 

comments through regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

ashley.armstrong@ee.doe.gov. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Incorporation by Reference Under 1 

CFR part 51 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference the following industry 

standards into 10 CFR part 431: 

(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1–1.2, 

(‘‘ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014’’), 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions;’’ 

approved 2014, sections 1.1, ‘‘Types and 

nomenclature,’’ and 1.2.9, 

‘‘Rotodynamic pump icons.’’ 

(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1–2.2, 

(‘‘ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008 ’’), 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions,’’ 

approved 2008, section 2.1, ‘‘Types and 

nomenclature.’’ 

(3) HI 40.6–2014, (‘‘HI 40.6–2014’’), 

‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump 

Efficiency Testing,’’ except for section 

40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test report;’’ section A.7, 

‘‘Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 

°C (86 °F);’’ and appendix B, ‘‘Reporting 

of test results,’’ approved 2014. 

Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014, 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008 and HI 40.6– 

2014 can be obtained from: The 

Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, 

First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 

07054–4406, or by going to 

www.pumps.org. 

(4) FM Class Number 1319, ‘‘Approval 

Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 

(Horizontal, End Suction Type),’’ 

approved October 2008. 

Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can 

be obtained from: Factory Mutual. 270 

Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 

401–275–3000. www.fmglobal.com/. 

(5) NFPA Standard 20–2013, 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,’’ 

approved 2013. 

Copies of NFPA Standard 20–2013 

can be obtained from: The National Fire 

Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 617–770– 

3000. www.nfpa.org. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17587 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2 DOE is proposing to include pumps sold with 

all electric motors except single-phase induction 

motors in the scope of this rulemaking. The terms 

Continued 

(6) UL Standard 448–2007, 

‘‘Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for FireProtection Service,’’ approved 2007. 

Copies of UL Standard 448–2007 can 

be obtained from: The Underwriters 

Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, 

Northbrook, IL 60062. http://ul.com/. 

Also, this material is available for 

inspection at U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/. These standards 

are discussed in more detail in section 

IV.M. of this document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope 

1. Definitions Related to the Scope of 

Covered Pumps 

2. Equipment Classes 

3. Scope Exclusions Based on Application 

4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope of 

Pumps in This Rulemaking 

5. Non-Electric Drivers 

6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase 

Induction Motors 

B. Rating Metric 

1. Working Group and Other Stakeholder 

Comments 

2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and 

Variable Load Pump Energy Index 

C. Determination of Pump Performance 

1. Referenced Industry Standards 

2. Minor Modifications and Additions to 

HI 40.6–2014 

D. Determination of Motor Efficiency 

1. Default Motor Efficiency 

2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses 

E. Test Methods for Different Pump 

Configurations 

1. Calculation-Based Test Methods 

2. Testing-Based Methods 

3. Applicability of Calculation and TestingBased Test Methods to Different Pump 

Configurations 

F. Representations of Energy Use and 

Energy Efficiency 

G. Sampling Plans for Pumps 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Small Business Determination 

2. Assessing the Number of Basic Models 

per Manufacturer 

3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE 

Pump Test Procedure 

4. Capital Expense Associated With 

Constructing a Pump Testing Facility 

5. Recurring Burden Associated With 

Ongoing Testing Activities 

6. Cumulative Burden 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Pumps are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. DOE does not currently 

regulate the energy efficiency of this 

equipment or have test procedures to 

measure the efficiency of such 

equipment. The following sections 

discuss DOE’s authority to establish test 

procedures for pumps and relevant 

background information regarding 

DOE’s consideration of test procedures 

for this equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94–163, 

as amended by Public Law 95–619, Title 

IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment under Title III, 

Part C. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified).1 Included among the various 

types of industrial equipment addressed 

by EPCA are pumps, the subject of 

today’s notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)) 

All references to EPCA refer to the 

statute as amended through the 

American Energy Manufacturing 

Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), 

Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and (2) 

making representations about the energy 

consumption of that equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)) 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

EPCA sets forth the criteria and 

procedures DOE must follow when 

prescribing or amending test procedures 

for covered equipment. EPCA provides, 

in relevant part, that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results that measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of covered 

equipment during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

In addition, before prescribing any 

final test procedures, DOE must publish 

proposed test procedures and offer the 

public an opportunity to present oral 

and written comments on them. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)–(2)) 

DOE is authorized to prescribe energy 

conservation standards and 

corresponding test procedures for 

statutorily-covered equipment such as 

pumps. While DOE is currently 

evaluating whether to establish energy 

conservation standards for pumps, 

(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD– 

0031), DOE must first establish a test 

procedure that measures the energy use, 

energy efficiency, or estimated operating 

costs of a given type of covered 

equipment before establishing any new 

energy conservation standards for that 

equipment. See generally 42 U.S.C. 

6295(r) and 6316(a). 

To fulfill these requirements, DOE is 

proposing to establish a test procedure 

for pumps concurrent with its ongoing 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for this equipment. See 

Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031. 

The test procedure, if adopted, would 

include the methods necessary to: (1) 

Measure the performance of the covered 

equipment; and (2) use the measured 

results to calculate a pump energy index 

(PEICL for pumps sold without 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

or PEIVL for pumps sold with 

continuous or non-continuous controls) 

to represent the power consumption of 

the pump, inclusive of a motor 2 and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘motor’’ and ‘‘electric motor’’ are used 

synonymously and interchangeably in this 

document to refer to those motors to which the 

proposed test procedure would apply (i.e., all 

electric motors except single-phase induction 

motors). See section III.A.6. 

3www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. 

4 Information on the ASRAC, about the 

commercial and industrial pumps working group, 

and about meeting dates is available at http://

energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standardsand-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. 

any continuous or non-continuous 

controls, normalized with respect to the 

performance of a minimally compliant 

pump. DOE is also proposing to set the 

scope of those pumps to which the 

proposed test method would apply. 

DOE’s proposals reflect certain 

recommendations made by a 

stakeholder Working Group for pumps 

established under the Appliance 

Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC), which is 

discussed further in section I.B. This 

group consisted of a wide variety of 

interested parties with a diverse set of 

interests with respect to pump 

efficiency. 

If adopted, manufacturers would be 

required to use the proposed test 

procedure and metric when making 

representations regarding the energy use 

of covered equipment 180 days after the 

publication date of any applicable 

energy conservation standards final rule 

for those pumps that are addressed by 

the test procedure. See Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031). See also 42 

U.S.C. 6314(d). 

B. Background 

DOE does not currently regulate 

pumps. In 2011, DOE issued a Request 

for Information (RFI) to gather data and 

information related to pumps in 

anticipation of initiating rulemakings to 

formally consider test procedures and 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. 76 FR 34192 (June 13, 2011). 

In February 2013, DOE published a 

Notice of Public Meeting and 

Availability of the Framework 

Document to initiate the energy 

conservation standard rulemaking for 

pumps. 78 FR 7304 (Feb. 1, 2013). DOE 

posted the February 2013 Framework 

Document (‘‘Framework Document’’) to 

its Web site.3 In the Framework 

Document, DOE requested feedback 

from interested parties on how to test 

pump efficiency. DOE held a public 

meeting to discuss the Framework 

Document on February 20, 2013 (the 

‘‘Pumps Framework Public Meeting’’). 

While the comment period had been 

scheduled to close on March 18, 2013, 

DOE extended the comment period to 

May 2, 2013, to allow commenters 

sufficient time to formulate responses to 

the large number and broad scope of 

questions and issues raised by DOE in 

the Framework Document. See 78 FR 

11996 (Feb. 21, 2013). DOE received 12 

comments in response to the Framework 

Document. 

Concurrent with these efforts, DOE 

also began a process through the ASRAC 

to discuss conducting a negotiated 

rulemaking to develop standards and 

test procedures for pumps as an 

alternative to the route DOE had already 

begun. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039) 4 On July 23, 2013, DOE 

published a notice of intent to establish 

a negotiated rulemaking working group 

for commercial and industrial pumps 

(‘‘CIP Working Group’’ or, in context, 

‘‘Working Group’’) to negotiate, if 

possible, Federal standards for the 

energy efficiency of commercial and 

industrial pumps. 78 FR 44036. On 

November 12, 2013, DOE published a 

notice to announce the first meeting of 

the CIP Working Group and listed the 14 

nominees that were selected to serve as 

members of the Working Group, in 

addition to one member from ASRAC 

and one DOE representative. 78 FR 

67319. The members of the Working 

Group were selected to ensure a broad 

and balanced array of stakeholder 

interests and expertise, including 

representatives from efficiency 

advocacy organizations, manufacturers, 

and a utility (representing a user of 

pumps). Table I.1 lists the members and 

their affiliations. 

TABLE I.1—ASRAC PUMP WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND AFFILIATIONS

Member Affiliation 

Lucas Adin ............................................... U.S. Department of Energy. 

Tom Eckman ............................................ Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) 

Robert Barbour ........................................ TACO, Inc. 

Charles Cappelino ................................... ITT Industrial Process. 

Greg Case ................................................ Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics. 

Gary Fernstrom ........................................ Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, 

and Southern California Gas Company. 

Mark Handzel ........................................... Xylem Corporation. 

Albert Huber ............................................. Patterson Pump Company. 

Joanna Mauer .......................................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

Doug Potts ............................................... American Water. 

Charles Powers ........................................ Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps. 

Howard Richardson ................................. Regal Beloit. 

Steve Rosenstock .................................... Edison Electric Institute. 

Louis Starr ................................................ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 

Greg Towsley ........................................... Grundfos USA. 

Meg Waltner ............................................. Natural Resources Defense Council. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17589 

5 Details of the negotiation sessions can be found 

in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to 

the docket for the Working Group (http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-

BT-NOC-0039). 

6The ground rules of the CIP Working Group 

define consensus as no more than two (2) negative 

votes. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 

18 at p. 2) Concurrence was assumed if absent, and 

overt dissent evidenced by a negative vote. 

Abstention was not construed as a negative vote. In 

this NOPR, only negative votes are discussed. 

The Working Group commenced 

negotiations at an open meeting on 

December 18 and 19, 2013, and held six 

additional meetings and two webinars 

to discuss scope, metrics, test 

procedures, and standard levels for 

pumps.5 The CIP Working Group 

concluded its negotiations on June 19, 

2014, with a consensus vote to approve 

a term sheet containing 

recommendations to DOE on 

appropriate standard levels for pumps 

as well as recommendations addressing 

issues related to the metric and test 

procedure for pumps (‘‘Working Group 

Recommendations’’).6 The term sheet 

containing the Working Group 

Recommendations is available in the 

CIP Working Group’s docket. (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92) 

ASRAC subsequently voted 

unanimously to approve the Working 

Group Recommendations during a July 

7, 2014 webinar. 

Those recommendations regarding 

issues pertinent to the test procedure 

and standard metric are addressed in 

this NOPR and reflected in DOE’s 

proposed pump test procedure. In this 

NOPR, DOE also refers to discussions 

from the CIP Working Group meetings 

regarding potential actions that may not 

have been formally approved as an 

addition to the Working Group 

Recommendations. All references to 

approved recommendations will be 

specified with a citation to the Working 

Group Recommendations and noting the 

recommendation number (for example: 

Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y); 

references to discussion or suggestions 

of the CIP Working Group not found in 

the Working Group Recommendations 

will have a citation to meeting 

transcripts (for example: Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. X at p. 

Y). 

DOE notes that many of those who 

submitted comments on the Framework 

Document later became members of the 

CIP Working Group. As such, the 

concerns of these commenters were 

fully discussed as part of the meetings, 

and their positions may have changed as 

a result of the compromises inherent in 

a negotiation. The proposals in this 

NOPR incorporate and respond to 

several issues and recommendations 

that were raised in response to the 

Framework Document. However, where 

a framework commenter became a 

member of the CIP Working Group, DOE 

does not reference or respond to 

comments made by that stakeholder 

regarding issues that were later 

discussed or negotiated in the CIP 

Working Group. Table I.2 lists the 

framework commenters as well as 

whether they participated in the CIP 

Working Group. 

TABLE I.2—LIST OF FRAMEWORK COMMENTERS

Commenter Member of the CIP Working Group 

Engineered Software, Inc. ..................................................................................................... No. 

Richard Shaw ........................................................................................................................ No. 

Grundfos Pumps Corporation ............................................................................................... Yes. 

Hydraulic Institute (HI) ........................................................................................................... Yes. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Gas 

Company, and Southern California Edison (collectively, ‘‘the CA IOUs’’).

Yes. 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ........................................................................ No. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) .............................................. No. 

Colombia Engineering ........................................................................................................... No. 

Earthjustice ............................................................................................................................ No. 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) ............................................................................................... Yes. 

The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (collectively, ‘‘the Advocates’’).

ASAP and NRDC. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

(collectively, ‘‘NEEA/NPCC’’).

Yes. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

DOE is proposing to establish a new 

subpart Y to part 431 of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations that would 

contain definitions and a test procedure 

applicable to pumps. Today’s NOPR 

also contains related proposals for 

sampling plans for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with any 

energy conservation standards for 

pumps that DOE adopts. As part of the 

test procedure, DOE proposes to 

prescribe test methods for measuring the 

energy consumption of pumps, 

inclusive of motors and controls 

(continuous or non-continuous), if they 

are included with the pump when 

distributed in commerce. To do this, 

DOE’s proposed test procedure includes 

measurements and calculations of the 

produced hydraulic power, pump shaft 

input power, electric input power to the 

motor, and electrical input power to the 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

as applicable. 

Consistent with the Working Group 

Recommendations, DOE proposes that 

these test methods be in accordance 

with HI Standard 40.6–2014, ‘‘Methods 

for Rotodynamic Pumps Efficiency 

Testing,’’ (‘‘HI 40.6–2014’’), with slight 

modifications as noted in section III.C.2. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #10 at p. 4) 

Members of the pumps industry 

developed HI 40.6–2014, which 

contains methods for determining the 

energy performance of rotodynamic 

pumps without accounting for the 

impact of continuous or non-continuous 

controls. HI 40.6–2014 was developed 

following DOE’s announcement in the 

Framework Document that DOE 

planned to develop a test procedure for 

pumps. In this NOPR, DOE also 

proposes to include testing and 

calculation methods to account for the 

energy performance of pumps sold with 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls. DOE has reviewed 

HI 40.6–2014 and finds, for the reasons 

stated below and in detail in section III, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7The term ‘‘pump shaft input power’’ is referred 

to as ‘‘pump power input’’ in HI 40.6–2014. The 

term ‘‘pump shaft input power’’ is used 

synonymously with that term in this document. 

8 DOE notes that for non-continuous controls, as 

defined in section III.E.1.c, PEIVL can only be 

determined using a ‘‘testing-based’’ method. If a 

calculation-based method is desired, the pump 

would instead be rated as a pump sold with a motor 

and without speed controls using the PEICL metric. 

See section III.E.1.c for further discussion. 

9The input power to the driver is referred to as 

‘‘driver power input’’ in HI 40.6–2014. The term 

‘‘input power to the driver’’ is used synonymously 

with that term in this document. 

10 In the case that a pump is sold with a motor 

equipped with either continuous or non-continuous 

controls and is rated using the testing-based 

method, the input power to the pump would be 

determined as the input power to the continuous 

or non-continuous control. See section III.E.2.c. 

11A rotodynamic (or centrifugal) pump is a 

kinetic machine that continuously imparts energy 

to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating 

impeller, propeller, or rotor. This is in contrast to 

positive-displacement pumps, which have an 

expanding cavity on the suction side and a 

decreasing cavity of the discharge side that move 

a constant volume of fluid for each cycle of 

operation. DOE is proposing limiting the scope of 

the test procedure to only specific kinds of 

rotodynamic pumps. 

that the procedure would be likely to 

produce test results that would reflect 

the energy efficiency, energy use, and 

estimated operating costs of a pump 

during a representative average use 

cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE also 

has reviewed the burdens associated 

with conducting the proposed test 

procedure, including HI 40.6–2014 and, 

based on the results of such analysis, 

finds the proposed test procedure would 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE’s analysis of 

the burden associated with the proposed 

test procedure is presented in detail in 

section IV.B. 

DOE’s approach, which is consistent 

with the Working Group’s 

recommendations, proposes to use a 

new metric, the pump energy index 

(PEI), to rate the energy performance of 

pumps covered by this proposed test 

procedure. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 92, Recommendation 

#11 at p. 5) The proposed test procedure 

contains methods for determining the 

constant load PEI (PEICL) for pumps 

sold without continuous or noncontinuous controls and the variable 

load PEI (PEIVL) for pumps sold with 

either continuous or non-continuous 

controls. The PEICL or PEIVL, as 

applicable, describes the weighted 

average performance of the rated pump, 

inclusive of any motor and, if included, 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

at specific load points, normalized with 

respect to the performance of a 

minimally compliant pump without 

controls. These indices, if adopted, 

would provide a representative 

measurement of the energy 

consumption of the rated pump under 

expected conditions of use since they 

are inclusive of a motor and any 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

at full and partial loading. The indices 

would also describe the performance of 

the rated pump in comparison to a 

minimally compliant pump of the same 

equipment class with no controls (see 

section III.A.2 for a discussion of pump 

equipment classes) and provide a 

description of a covered pump’s energy 

performance that can be readily 

interpreted and used by customers and 

the market. 

The proposed test procedure contains 

methods to determine the appropriate 

index for all equipment for which this 

test procedure would apply using either 

calculation-based methods and/or 

testing-based methods. While both 

methods include some amount of testing 

and some amount of calculation, the 

terms ‘‘calculation-based’’ and ‘‘testingbased’’ are used to distinguish between 

methods in which the input power to 

the pump is determined either by (a) 

measuring the pump shaft input power 7

and combining it with the efficiency, or 

losses, of the motor and any continuous 

control 8 at specific load points using an 

algorithm (i.e., calculation-based 

method) or (b) measuring the input 

power to the driver,9 or motor, and any 

continuous or non-continuous 

controls 10 for a given pump directly at 

each of the load points (i.e., testingbased method). In both cases, the results 

for the given pump are divided by the 

calculated input power to the motor for 

a hypothetical pump (sold without a 

motor or controls) that serves an 

identical hydraulic load and minimally 

complies with any energy conservation 

standards that DOE may set as a result 

of the ongoing standards rulemaking. 

(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031) 

This normalized metric would 

effectively result in a value that is 

indexed to the standard (i.e., a value of 

1.0 for a pump that is minimally 

compliant, and a value less than 1.0 for 

a pump that is less consumptive than 

the maximum the standard allows). 

DOE notes that the calculation-based 

method discussed in section III.E.1 

would only apply to certain pumps: (1) 

Pumps sold without either a motor or 

controls (i.e., ‘‘bare pump,’’ discussed 

later in section III.A.1.a), (2) pumps sold 

with motors that are subject to DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors (with or without 

continuous controls), and (3) pumps 

sold with submersible motors (with or 

without continuous controls). This is 

because for other pumps, the necessary 

efficiency information is not available in 

a standardized, referenceable format and 

the assumptions inherent in the 

calculation-based approach do not 

apply. Specifically, for pumps sold with 

motors that are not subject to DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, except submersible 

motors, DOE has not established 

standards or default values for the 

nominal full load efficiency that can be 

used in the calculations. For pumps 

sold with any motors (i.e., covered, 

uncovered, or submersible motors) and 

non-continuous controls, the reference 

system curve is not applicable (see 

section III.E.1.c for more information). 

Under DOE’s proposal, such pumps 

would be required to be tested using the 

testing-based methods discussed in 

section III.E.2. Conversely, only the 

proposed calculation-based method 

could be used to test a pump sold 

without a motor or controls because a 

PEI rating (which includes the 

efficiency of the motor) could not be 

determined based on a test of the pump 

without a motor. The specific test 

methods applicable to each class and 

configuration of pump model are 

described in more detail in section 

III.E.3. 

DOE also proposes to establish 

requirements regarding the sampling 

plan and representations for covered 

pumps at subpart B of part 429 of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The proposed sampling plan 

requirements are similar to those for 

several other types of commercial 

equipment and are appropriate for 

pumps based on the expected range of 

measurement uncertainty and 

manufacturing tolerances for this 

equipment. Regarding representations, 

for those pumps addressed by this 

proposal, DOE is also specifying the 

energy consumption or energy 

efficiency representations that may be 

made, in addition to the regulated 

metric (PEICL or PEIVL). 

DOE notes that equipment meeting 

the proposed pump definition is already 

covered equipment. However, DOE’s 

proposal is more narrowly applied to a 

specific scope of pumps. Specifically, 

this proposal would apply to the limited 

scope of rotodynamic pumps 11 for 

which standards are being considered in 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

rulemaking and as proposed in section 

III.A of this NOPR. (Docket No. EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0031) Manufacturers of 

those pumps that would be regulated as 

a result of DOE’s parallel test procedure 

and standards rulemakings would be 

required to use the test procedure DOE 

adopts when certifying compliance with 

any applicable standard and when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17591 

making representations about the 

efficiency or energy use of their 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) 

Starting on the compliance date for 

any energy conservation standards that 

DOE may set, and assuming that the 

provisions of this NOPR are adopted, all 

pumps within the scope of those energy 

conservation standards would be 

required to be tested in accordance with 

the proposed subpart Y of part 431 and 

must have their testing performed in a 

manner consistent with the applicable 

sampling requirements. Similarly, all 

representations regarding the energy 

efficiency or energy use of pumps 

within the scope of pumps proposed for 

coverage by this test procedure would 

be required to be made based on the 

adopted pump test procedure 180 days 

after the publication date of any final 

rule establishing energy conservation for 

those pumps that are addressed by the 

test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(d). 

III. Discussion 

DOE’s proposal would place a new 

pump test procedure and related 

definitions in a new subpart Y of part 

431, and add new sampling plans and 

reporting requirements for this 

equipment in a new section 429.59 of 10 

CFR part 429. This proposed subpart Y 

would contain definitions, materials 

incorporated by reference, and the test 

procedure for certain classes and 

configurations of pumps established as 

a result of this rulemaking, as well as 

any energy conservation standards for 

pumps resulting from the ongoing 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking, as shown in Table III.1. 

(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031) 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS IN THIS NOPR, THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 

AND THE APPLICABLE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION

Location Proposal Summary of additions Applicable preamble discussion 

10 CFR 429.59 * ............... Sampling Plan ............... Number of pumps to be tested to rate a pump basic model 

and calculation of rating.

Section III.G. 

10 CFR 431.461 ............... Purpose and Scope ...... Scope of pump regulations, as well as the proposed test procedure and associated energy conservation standard.Section III.A. 

10 CFR 431.462 ............... Definitions ...................... Definitions pertinent to establishing equipment classes and 

testing applicable classes of pumps.

Section III.A. 

10 CFR 431.463 ............... Incorporation by Reference.Description of industry standards incorporated by reference in 

the DOE test procedure or related definitions.

Section III.A and III.C. 

10 CFR 431.464 and Appendix A to Subpart Y 

of Part 431.

Test Procedure .............. Instructions for determining the PEICL or PEIVL for applicable 

classes of pumps.

Section III.B, III.C, III.D, 

and III.E. 

10 CFR 431.466 ............... Energy Conservation 

Standards.

Energy conservation standard for applicable classes of 

pumps, in terms of PEI and associated C-Value.

Section Error! Reference 

source not found. and 

Docket EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0031. 

* Note: DOE also proposes minor modifications to 10 CFR 429.2; 429.11(a) and (b); 429.70; 429.72; and 429.102 to apply the general sampling requirements established in these sections to the equipment-specific sampling requirements proposed for pumps at 10 CFR 429.59. 

The following sections discuss DOE’s 

proposals regarding establishing new 

testing and sampling requirements for 

pumps, including: Scope; rating metric; 

determination of pump performance; 

determination of motor efficiency; test 

methods for different combinations of 

pumps and drivers and controls; 

representations; and sampling plans. 

A. Scope 

Although a ‘‘pump’’ is listed as a type 

of covered equipment under EPCA, that 

term is undefined. See 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(A). As part of its collective 

efforts to help DOE craft an appropriate 

regulatory approach for pumps, the CIP 

Working Group made a series of 

recommendations regarding a variety of 

potential definitions that would have an 

impact on the overall scope and 

structure of the proposed test procedure 

and related energy conservation 

standards. In particular, the Working 

Group offered a definition for ‘‘pump’’ 

along with other related terms ‘‘bare 

pump,’’ ‘‘mechanical equipment,’’ 

‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘controls.’’ Each of these 

terms relate to particular pump 

components that are germane to DOE’s 

efforts to set standards and establish a 

test procedure for this equipment. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendations #1 and 2 at 

pp. 1–2) Accordingly, DOE proposes to 

adopt these recommended definitions 

for these terms. 

DOE notes that while the proposed 

definition of ‘‘pump’’ is broad, the scope 

of prospective energy conservation 

standards, as recommended by the 

Working Group, would be limited to a 

more narrow range of equipment. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendations #4 and 6–8 at 

pp. 2–4) DOE also notes that the scope 

of this proposed test procedure is 

intended to be consistent with the scope 

of the parallel standards rulemaking 

effort currently under evaluation. In 

other words, DOE proposes that only 

pumps subject to an energy 

conservation standard would have to be 

tested in accordance with the adopted 

test procedure. Finally, DOE notes that 

the broad definition of ‘‘pump’’ being 

considered in this proposal would 

provide DOE with flexibility to make 

any necessary adjustments to its 

regulations to address potential scoping 

changes in the future that DOE may 

consider. 

After considering the Working Group 

Recommendations, DOE is proposing to 

define which pumps would need to be 

tested with the proposed test procedure 

by applying three criteria: (1) The 

equipment class; (2) the application; 

and (3) applicable performance 

specifications—i.e., horsepower (hp), 

flow rate, head, design temperature, and 

speed restrictions. For these three areas, 

DOE’s proposed criteria for establishing 

which pumps would be subject to the 

proposed test procedure are discussed 

in sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4, 

respectively. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to match the scopes of the 

pump test procedure and energy 

conservation standard rulemakings, as 

recommended by the Working Group. 

1. Definitions Related to the Scope of 

Covered Pumps 

To help set the scope for this proposal 

and the manner in which both the 

procedure and related standards would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

12The voting procedures and consensus 

requirements agreed upon by the CIP Working 

Group did not require identification of the 

individual opposing or their reason for opposition 

and so is not noted in the transcript for that public 

meeting. (See ground rules: Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0039, No. 18; and the public meeting 

transcript: Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 46 at p. 165) 

13HI–40.6, as incorporated by reference, defines 

pump power output as ‘‘the mechanical power 

transferred to the liquid as it passes through the 

pump, also known as pump hydraulic power.’’ 

be applied to different pump 

configurations and classes of pumps, the 

aforementioned definitions for pump, 

certain pump components, and others, 

are discussed in the following 

subsections. 

a. Pumps and Related Components 

DOE proposes to include definitions 

in a new 10 CFR 431.462 that would 

describe the components comprising a 

pump for scoping purposes. Consistent 

with the intent of the Working Group 

Recommendations, DOE proposes to 

define the following terms: 

(1) Pump means equipment that is 

designed to move liquids (which may 

include entrained gases, free solids, and 

totally dissolved solids) by physical or 

mechanical action and includes at least a 

bare pump and, if included by the 

manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical 

equipment, driver and controls. 

(2) Bare pump means a pump excluding 

mechanical equipment, driver, and controls. 

Mechanical equipment means any 

component of a pump that transfers energy 

from a driver to the bare pump. 

Driver means the machine providing 

mechanical input to drive a bare pump 

directly or through the use of mechanical 

equipment. Examples include, but are not 

limited to, an electric motor, internal 

combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine. 

Control means any device that can be used 

to operate the driver. Examples include, but 

are not limited to, continuous or noncontinuous speed controls, schedule-based 

controls, on/off switches, and float switches. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendations #1–2 at pp. 

1–2) 

DOE notes that, while there was 

consensus among the members of the 

Working Group in favor of these 

definitions as part of the entirety of the 

Working Group Recommendations, 

there was one Working Group member 

who specifically objected to the ‘‘pump’’ 

definition that the Working Group 

developed,12 see Recommendation #1. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘pump,’’ ‘‘bare 

pump,’’ ‘‘mechanical equipment,’’ 

‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘control.’’ 

b. Definition of Categories of Controls 

The definition of ‘‘control’’ proposed 

by DOE and recommended by the CIP 

Working Group is broad. DOE 

acknowledges the proposed definition 

may be include many different kinds of 

electronic or mechanical devices that 

can ‘‘control the driver’’ of a pump (e.g., 

continuous or non-continuous speed 

controls, timers, and on/off switches). 

These various controls may use a variety 

of mechanisms to control the pump for 

operational reasons, which may or may 

not result in reduced energy 

consumption. 

For this proposed test procedure, DOE 

is focusing on those controls that reduce 

energy consumption—i.e., controls that 

reduce pump power input at a given 

flow rate. As discussed by the CIP 

Working Group, DOE understands that 

speed controls achieve this goal and are 

the most common kind of control 

currently applied to pumps. After 

carefully examining the pump market, 

DOE has not found any mechanisms for 

controlling pump drivers that would 

reduce pump power input at a given 

flow other than those mechanisms used 

to control the driver’s rotating speed. 

Consistent with this finding, DOE’s 

proposal to establish test methods for 

those configurations in which a bare 

pump is configured with motors that 

have been paired with controls would 

address only such configurations using 

speed controls. Similarly, DOE also 

proposes that the PEIVL metric would 

only apply to pumps sold with motors 

and speed controls. Conversely, pumps 

sold with motors and controls other 

than speed controls would be subject to 

the appropriate bare pump and motor 

test procedures and rated using PEICL. 

To explicitly establish the kinds of 

controls that can apply the PEIVL metric, 

DOE would define the terms 

‘‘continuous’’ and ‘‘non-continuous’’ 

control (see section III.B.2 and III.E.3 for 

further discussion of the PEIVL rating 

metric and its applicability to pumps 

with controls, respectively): 

(1) Continuous control means a 

control that adjusts the speed of the 

pump driver continuously over the 

driver operating speed range in response 

to incremental changes in the required 

pump flow, head, or power output.13 As 

an example, variable speed drives, 

including variable frequency drives and 

electronically commutated motors 

(ECMs) would meet the definition for 

continuous controls. 

(2) Non-continuous control means a 

control that adjusts the speed of a driver 

to one of a discrete number of noncontinuous preset operating speeds, and 

does not respond to incremental 

reductions in the required pump flow, 

head, or power output. As an example, 

multi-speed motors such as 2-speed 

motors would meet the definition for 

non-continuous controls. 

While the proposed PEIVL test 

procedure would only apply to pumps 

sold with continuous and noncontinuous controls, DOE recognizes 

that including a broader definition of 

‘‘control’’ provides the flexibility to 

address additional kinds of controls in 

future test procedure revisions, as was 

discussed in the CIP Working Group. 

(EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 46 at 

pp. 179–85) To retain this flexibility, 

DOE proposes to maintain the broad 

definition of control presented above, 

which would include any device that 

operates a pump driver, regardless of its 

impact on energy consumption or 

rotational speed of the driver. However, 

pumps with a motor and controls that 

do not meet the proposed definitions of 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

would be required to be tested as a 

pump sold with a motor under the 

proposed test procedure. 

DOE also notes that the definitions of 

continuous and non-continuous 

controls do not require the control to 

include the necessary sensors and 

feedback logic to automatically respond 

to changes in the required flow, head, or 

pump power output. DOE recognizes 

that such continuous or non-continuous 

controls (e.g., variable speed drives 

(VSDs) or multi-speed motors, 

respectively) will not reduce energy 

consumption unless some feedback is 

provided regarding the process 

requirements at any given time. 

However, DOE understands that many 

applications use such controls as part of 

a larger process or facility-wide energy 

management system. Similarly, such 

feedback sensors and control logic may 

also be custom-designed based on an 

application’s specific design 

requirements. Consequently, while 

sensors and logic to enable automatic 

feedback and response of any speed 

control are available from pump 

manufacturers, they are not always 

required by, or included in, a given 

pump at the time of sale. 

In summary, by not requiring 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

to be automatically actuating when 

distributed in commerce, DOE seeks to 

limit the costs and burdens of adding 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

to a given pump. Furthermore, DOE 

believes that the incremental cost of any 

continuous or non-continuous control is 

sufficiently high, making it extremely 

unlikely that a customer would buy a 

pump with such controls and not 

employ appropriate and applicationspecific sensors and feedback logic to 

achieve energy savings. As such, DOE is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17593 

14Council of the European Union. 2012. 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 

June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council with 

regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. 

Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 

June 2012, pp. 28–36. 

proposing to define continuous and 

non-continuous controls as devices that 

‘‘adjust the speed’’ of the driver without 

requiring that adjustment to happen 

automatically. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘continuous 

control’’ and ‘‘non-continuous control.’’ 

DOE also requests comment on the 

likelihood of a pump with continuous 

or non-continuous controls being 

distributed in commerce, but never 

being paired with any sensor or 

feedback mechanisms that would enable 

energy savings. 

c. Definition of Basic Model 

In the course of regulating consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, DOE has developed the 

concept of a ‘‘basic model’’ to determine 

the specific product or equipment 

configuration(s) to which the 

regulations would apply. For the 

purposes of applying the proposed 

pumps regulations, DOE is also 

proposing to define what constitutes a 

‘‘basic model’’ of pump. Applying this 

basic model concept would allow 

manufacturers to group similar models 

within a basic model to minimize 

testing burden. In other words, 

manufacturers would need to test only 

a representative number of units of a 

basic model in lieu of testing every 

model they manufacture. By grouping 

models together, a manufacturer would 

be able to test a smaller number of units. 

However, manufacturers would need to 

make this decision with the 

understanding that there is increased 

risk associated with these groupings due 

to the potential for a wider impact from 

a noncompliance finding. Basic model 

groupings increase this risk because, if 

DOE determines a basic model is 

noncompliant, all models within the 

basic model are determined to be 

noncompliant. 

In keeping with this practice, DOE 

also proposes to define a ‘‘basic model’’ 

for pumps so manufacturers can 

determine the pump models on which 

they must conduct testing to 

demonstrate compliance with a 

prospective energy conservation 

standard for pumps. The proposal 

would define a ‘‘basic model’’ in a 

manner similar to that for other 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

with the exception of two pump-specific 

issues. For most commercial and 

industrial equipment, DOE defines basic 

model to include all units of a given 

product or equipment type (or class 

thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer, having the same primary 

energy source, and having essentially 

identical electrical, physical, and 

functional (or hydraulic) characteristics 

that affect energy consumption, energy 

efficiency, water consumption, or water 

efficiency. 

For the purposes of establishing a 

basic model definition for pumps, DOE 

proposes modifying the general 

definition by addressing two particular 

characteristics that impact the energy 

consumption of pumps. First, radially 

split, multi-stage vertical in-line casing 

diffuser (RSV) and vertical turbine 

submersible (VTS) pumps for which the 

bare pump varies only in the number of 

stages would be required to be treated 

as the same basic model. Second, 

pumps for which the bare pump varies 

only in impeller diameter, or impeller 

trim, may be considered to be the same 

basic model or may optionally be rated 

as unique basic models. These 

exceptions are discussed in the 

following sections. 

Variation in Number of Stages for MultiStage Pumps 

The first modification to the basic 

model definition applies to variation in 

the number of stages for multi-stage 

pumps. DOE proposes that variation in 

the number of stages, while it may affect 

efficiency and will affect power, should 

not constitute a characteristic that 

would differentiate pump basic models. 

Specifically, any improvements in the 

hydraulic design of a single stage (or 

bowl) would be reflected in the 

measured performance of the pump 

with any number of stages. In addition, 

requiring testing for each stage version 

of a multi-stage pump would add 

significant testing burden. For these 

reasons, the CIP Working Group 

recommended each multi-stage pump be 

tested with a specified number of stages, 

as discussed in section III.C.2.c. DOE 

notes that any representations made 

with respect to PEI and pump energy 

rating (PER) for individual models with 

alternate number of stages within a 

single basic model: (1) Must be on the 

same as the basic model with the 

specified number of stages required for 

testing under the test procedure and (2) 

must be rated using method A.1, ‘‘bare 

pump with default motor efficiency and 

default motor part load loss curve’’ 

(explained further in section III.E). 

Basic Model Grouping for Pumps With 

Different Impeller Trims 

The second modification DOE 

proposes to the typical basic model 

definition is that a trimmed impeller, 

though it may impact efficiency, would 

not be a basis for requiring units to be 

rated as unique basic models. This 

proposal is consistent with the Working 

Group recommendation that the rating 

of a given pump basic model should be 

based on testing at full impeller 

diameter only and that DOE not require 

testing at reduced impeller diameters. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3) 

DOE understands that a given pump 

may be distributed to customers with a 

variety of impeller trims to meet a 

certain hydraulic load for a certain 

application, and impeller trim has a 

direct impact on a pump’s performance 

characteristics. However, DOE, in 

general, agrees with the Working 

Group’s proposal. Rather than requiring 

a manufacturer to certify to DOE a pump 

with any given impeller trim that may 

be requested by a customer, DOE is 

proposing to limit the number of 

specific pump models to certify, which 

would reduce the overall manufacturer 

burden from testing while helping 

ensure that a reasonably accurate 

measurement of a given pump’s 

efficiency is obtained. Rating at full 

impeller would typically reflect the 

most consumptive rating for that pump, 

due to the higher hydraulic power 

provided by the full impeller, as 

compared to a trimmed impeller in the 

same bare pump bowl. Therefore, any 

pump model with a bare pump that is 

otherwise identical (i.e., same casing, 

same bearings and seals, etc.) but with 

a trimmed impeller will, except in very 

limited cases, almost always consume 

less energy than the same pump with 

full impeller. Consistent with the CIP 

Working Group Recommendations, DOE 

proposes to base the certified rating for 

a given pump basic model on that 

model’s full impeller diameter—all PEI 

and PER representations for the 

members of this basic model would be 

based upon the full impeller model. 

Relevant to this requirement, DOE 

proposes to define the term ‘‘full 

impeller’’ as it pertains to the rating of 

pump models in accordance with the 

proposed test procedure. The European 

Union (EU) defines ‘‘full impeller’’ as 

‘‘the impeller with the maximum 

diameter for which performance 

characteristics are given for a pump size 

in the catalogues of a water pump 

manufacturer.’’ 14 DOE proposes to 

largely harmonize with this definition, 

but is proposing additional language to 

establish requirements for pumps for 

which performance data are not 

published in manufacturer catalogs, 

such as custom pumps. Specifically, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15These provisions allow manufacturers to group 

individual models with essentially identical, but 

not exactly the same, energy performance 

characteristics into a basic model to reduce testing 

burden. Under DOE’s certification requirements, all 

the individual models within a basic model 

identified in a certification report as being the same 

basic model must have the same certified efficiency 

rating and use the same test data underlying the 

certified rating. The CCE final rule also establishes 

that the efficiency rating of a basic model must be 

based on the least efficient or most energy 

consuming individual model (i.e., put another way, 

all individual models within a basic model must be 

at least as energy efficient as the certified rating). 

76 FR at 12428–29 (March 7, 2011). 

DOE proposes to define full impeller as 

the maximum diameter impeller with 

which the pump is distributed in 

commerce in the United States or the 

maximum impeller diameter 

represented in the manufacturer’s 

literature, whichever is larger. DOE 

understands that in most cases, these 

would be the same. However, for pumps 

that may only be sold with a trimmed 

impeller due to a custom application, 

DOE is proposing to define the full 

impeller as the maximum diameter 

impeller with which the pump is 

distributed in commerce. DOE notes 

that the certified rating should represent 

the configuration based on the 

maximum diameter impeller offered by 

the manufacturer, regardless of the 

actual impeller size used with a given 

pump. 

Under DOE’s proposed definition for 

‘‘full impeller,’’ manufacturers would 

also be able to represent a model with 

a trimmed impeller as less consumptive 

than at full impeller. To do so, they 

must treat that trimmed impeller model 

as a different basic model and test a 

representative number of models at the 

maximum diameter distributed in 

commerce of that trimmed basic model 

listing. In such a case, the impeller trim 

with which the pump is rated becomes 

the ‘‘full impeller diameter,’’ which is 

the ‘‘maximum diameter impeller used 

with a given pump basic model 

distributed in commerce or the 

maximum diameter impeller referenced 

in the manufacturer’s literature for that 

pump basic model, whichever is larger.’’ 

In these cases, manufacturers may elect 

to: (1) Group individual pump units 

with bare pumps that vary only impeller 

diameter into a single basic model or (2) 

establish separate basic models (with 

unique ratings) for any number of 

unique impeller trims, provided that the 

PEI rating associated with any 

individual model is based on the 

maximum diameter impeller for that 

basic model and that basic model is 

compliant with any energy conservation 

standards established as part of the 

parallel pumps ECS rulemaking. (Docket 

No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031) 

DOE notes that, while manufacturers 

may group pump models with various 

impeller trims under one basic model 

with the same certified PEI rating based 

on the full impeller diameter, all 

representations of PEI and PER for any 

individual model must be: (1) Based on 

testing of the model with the full 

diameter impeller in the basic model 

and (2) rated using method A.1, ‘‘bare 

pump with default motor efficiency and 

default motor part load loss curve’’ 

(explained further in section III.E). 

d. Basic Models for Pumps Sold With 

Motors or Motors and Speed Controls 

DOE notes that, for pumps sold with 

motors and pumps sold with motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

pump manufacturers may pair a given 

pump with several different motors with 

different performance characteristics. 

Under the proposed definition, each 

unique pump and motor pairing would 

represent a unique basic model. 

However, consistent with DOE’s 

practice with other products and 

equipment, pump manufacturers may 

elect to group similar individual pump 

models within the same equipment 

class into the same basic model to 

reduce testing burden, provided all 

representations regarding the energy use 

of pumps within that basic model are 

identical and based on the most 

consumptive unit. See 76 FR 12422, 

12423 (March 7, 2011)).15

For example, pumps that share the 

same bare pump but have different 

motors could be grouped into the same 

basic model based on the least efficient 

pump and motor combination as long as 

the manufacturer did not want to make 

representations of the more-efficient 

pump and motor combination. 

However, for pumps sold with trimmed 

impellers, DOE recognizes that a given 

pump with a trimmed impeller may be 

sold with a different motor than the 

same pump with a full impeller. As 

variation in impeller trim of the bare 

pump does not constitute a 

characteristic that would differentiate 

basic models, variation in motor sizing 

as a result of different impeller trims 

would also not serve as a basis for 

differentiating basic models. 

Since the proposed pump basic model 

definition and certified rating are both 

based on the pump as tested with a full 

impeller and a specific number of 

stages, to the extent that the paired 

motor varies between a given pump unit 

and the same bare pump at full impeller 

diameter with the specified number of 

stages for testing, this difference would 

not constitute a characteristic that 

would define separate basic models. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘basic model’’ 

as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE 

is interested in comments on DOE’s 

proposal to allow manufacturers the 

option of rating pumps with trimmed 

impellers as a single basic model or 

separate basic models, provided the 

rating for each pump model is based on 

the maximum impeller diameter 

available within that basic model. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘full impeller.’’ 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require that all pump 

models be rated in a full impeller 

configuration only. 

DOE requests comment on any other 

characteristics of pumps that are unique 

from other commercial and industrial 

equipment and may require 

modifications to the definition of ‘‘basic 

model,’’ as proposed. 

2. Equipment Classes 

Table III.2 presents a list of the 

specific pump categories that DOE 

considered in the context of its 

Framework Document. The treatment of 

these rotodynamic pumps was 

extensively discussed and debated 

among members of the CIP Working 

Group. Those pump categories that the 

Working Group recommended for 

inclusion as part of DOE’s standardssetting efforts are marked accordingly. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #4 at p. 2) 

TABLE III.2—ROTODYNAMIC CLEAN WATER PUMP EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF PUMPS TEST

PROCEDURE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Pump category Sub-category Stages DOE terminology ANSI/HI Term In CIP working 

group scope 

End Suction ............. Close-coupled ........ Single ........... End Suction Close-coupled (ESCC) ....... OH7 ........................ Yes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17595 

16A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for commercial and industrial pumps 

(Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular 

notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by HI; 

(2) appearing in document number 25 of the docket; 

and (3) appearing on page 28 of that document. 

17As noted in Table I.2, ASAP and NRDC were 

members of the CIP Working Group, while ASE, 

ACEE, and Earthjustice were not. 

TABLE III.2—ROTODYNAMIC CLEAN WATER PUMP EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF PUMPS TEST

PROCEDURE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS—Continued 

Pump category Sub-category Stages DOE terminology ANSI/HI Term In CIP working 

group scope 

Own Bearings/

Frame Mounted.

Single ........... End Suction Frame Mounted (ESFM) .... OH0, OH1 .............. Yes. 

Vertical In-Line ........ ................................. Single ........... In-Line (IL) ............................................... OH3, OH4, OH5 ..... Yes. 

Axial Split ................ Single ..................... Double Suction (DS).BB1, OH4 (double suction) ..................... No.

................................. Multi ............. Axially Split Multi-Stage (AS) .................. BB1 (2-stage), BB3 No. 

Radial Split .............. Multi ........................ Radially Split 

Multi-Stage 

Vertical InLine Casing Diffuser 

(RSV).

VS8 ......................................................... Yes.* 

................................. Multi ............. Radially Split Multi-Stage Horizontal 

(RSH).

BB2 (2-stage), BB4 No. 

Vertical Turbine ....... Non-Submersible .... Any ............... Vertical Turbine (VT) ............................... VS1, VS2 ................ No. 

Submersible ........... Any ............... Vertical Turbine Submersible (VTS) ....... VS0 ......................... Yes. 

Axial/Propeller and Mixed Flow ................... Any ............... Axial/Propeller and Mixed (AM) .............. OH00, VS3 ............. No. 

* Multistage radial split vertical immersible pumps are excluded from the proposed scope. 

Discussions regarding the inclusion 

and exclusion of certain categories of 

pumps can be found in the transcripts 

from the first several meetings of the CIP 

Working Group. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, Nos. 8, 9, 14, 15, 

46, 47, and 62) As recommended by the 

Working Group, DOE is applying a 

scope (for both the test procedure and 

in evaluating potential standards) that 

would include the following pump 

equipment classes: end suction closecoupled (ESCC), end suction frame 

mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), radially 

split multi-stage vertical IL casing 

diffuser (RSV), and vertical turbine 

submersible (VTS) pumps. DOE notes 

that, while intended to be consistent 

with this test procedure proposal, the 

scope of any energy conservation 

standards proposed for pumps will be 

discussed as part of a separate 

rulemaking. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed applicability of the test 

procedure to the five pump equipment 

classes noted above, namely ESCC, 

ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. 

a. Definitions of Pump Equipment 

Classes 

To help manufacturers determine 

whether a given pump falls into one of 

the equipment classes that would be 

addressed by the scope of this proposal 

and the parallel energy conservation 

standards under consideration, DOE is 

proposing to define each pump 

equipment class that DOE would 

regulate. In developing these 

definitions, DOE considered the 

comments received in response to the 

Framework Document along with 

subsequent input provided during the 

CIP Working Group meetings. For 

example, HI preferred that DOE use the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) HI definitions for equivalent 

pump categories and nomenclature 

instead of the definitions tentatively 

proposed by DOE. (HI, No. 25 at p. 28) 16

Grundfos preferred that DOE use EU 

and HI definitions and resolve any 

conflicts through the existing Joint 

International Pump Industry 

Standardization Committee. Grundfos 

regarded the DOE definitions as 

ambiguous. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 10) 

A joint comment submitted by the 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Earthjustice, and the National Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) (collectively 

referred to as ‘‘the Advocates’’) 17

criticized the HI definitions as narrow, 

increasing the risk that a manufacturer 

could make small changes to avoid 

DOE’s regulations. To avoid this 

problem, the Advocates preferred DOE’s 

broad definitions and offered some 

recommended modifications to those 

definitions. (Advocates, No. 32 at p. 4) 

Earthjustice also suggested adopting the 

Advocates’ suggestions for modifying 

the definitions and added that DOE 

could provide illustrative references to 

the relevant HI nomenclature for further 

clarification. (Earthjustice, No. 30 at 

p. 1) Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (NPCC) made 

a similar suggestion, suggesting that the 

definitions be coupled with an 

appendix that would map to the 

appropriate ANSI/HI nomenclature and 

definitions. (NEAA/NPCC, No. 31 at 

p. 3) 

While the CIP Working Group 

recommended establishing a test 

procedure and standards for specific 

classes of pumps, in the interest of time, 

the specific definitions of these pump 

equipment classes were not negotiated 

by the CIP Working Group. After 

considering the stakeholder comments 

on the Framework Document, DOE is 

proposing specific definitions for 

particular categories of pumps and 

specific pump equipment classes. DOE 

is proposing general definitions for 

some specific characteristics of pumps 

for which DOE is proposing that the test 

procedure be applicable; namely 

rotodynamic pump, single-axis flow 

pump, and end suction pump. 

DOE proposes that rotodynamic pump 

refer to a pump in which energy is 

continuously imparted to the pumped 

fluid by means of a rotating impeller, 

propeller, or rotor. DOE proposes such 

a definition to help define the specific 

pump equipment classes to which the 

proposed test procedure is applicable 

and differentiate those from positive 

displacement pumps (i.e., nonmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

18For example, ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 does not 

identify specific definitions for the considered 

pumps. Rather, it provides classification trees (as in 

Figure 1.1.3a of that document) as well as 

construction drawings (e.g. Figures 1.1.5a-bb). The 

words describing a given pump classification are 

not always exactly consistent between the tree and 

the drawing captions. For example, OH0 is 

variously described as ‘‘overhung—flexibly 

coupled—horizontal—frame mounted’’ and 

‘‘overhung impeller—flexibly coupled—single 

stage—frame mounted.’’ 

rotodynamic pumps) with otherwise 

similar attributes. 

DOE also proposes to define single 

axis flow pump as a pump in which the 

liquid inlet of the bare pump is on the 

same axis as the liquid discharge of the 

bare pump to clarify when specific 

pump equipment classes, discussed 

below, are proposed to exclude similar 

pumps in which the pumped liquid 

enters and exits the pump on different 

axes. 

DOE proposes to define end suction 

pump as a specific variety of 

rotodynamic pump that is single-stage 

and in which the liquid enters the bare 

pump in a direction parallel to the 

impeller shaft and on the end opposite 

the bare pump’s driver-end. Such a 

pump is not single axis flow because the 

liquid is discharged through a volute in 

a plane perpendicular to the shaft. 

Based on these three definitions 

describing general pump characteristics, 

DOE proposes to define the following 

five pump equipment classes to which 

the proposed test procedure would be 

applicable: 

(1) End suction frame mounted 

(ESFM) pump means an end suction 

pump wherein: 

(a) The bare pump has its own 

impeller shaft and bearings and so does 

not rely on the motor shaft to serve as 

the impeller shaft; 

(b) the pump requires attachment to a 

rigid foundation to function as designed 

and cannot function as designed when 

supported only by the supply and 

discharge piping to which it is 

connected; and 

(c) the pump does not include a 

basket strainer. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 

nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as 

described in the 2008 version of ANSI/ 

HI Standard 1.1–1.2, ‘‘Rotodynamic 

(Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature 

And Definitions’’ (ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014). 

(2) End suction close-coupled (ESCC) 

pump means an end suction pump in 

which: 

(a) The motor shaft also serves as the 

impeller shaft for the bare pump; 

(b) the pump requires attachment to a 

rigid foundation to function as designed 

and cannot function as designed when 

supported only by the supply and 

discharge piping to which it is 

connected; and 

(c) the pump does not include a 

basket strainer. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 

nomenclature OH7, as described in 

ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014. 

(3) In-line (IL) pump means a singlestage, single axis flow, rotodynamic 

pump in which: 

(a) Liquid is discharged through a 

volute in a plane perpendicular to the 

impeller shaft; and 

(b) the pump requires attachment to a 

rigid foundation to function as designed 

and cannot function as designed when 

supported only by the supply and 

discharge piping to which it is 

connected. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 

nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as 

described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014. 

(4) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, 

in-line, diffuser casing (RSV) pump 

means a vertically suspended, multistage, single axis flow, rotodynamic 

pump in which: 

(a) liquid is discharged in a plane 

perpendicular to the impeller shaft; 

(b) each stage (or bowl) consists of an 

impeller and diffuser; and. 

(c) no external part of such a pump is 

designed to be submerged in the 

pumped liquid. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 

nomenclature VS8, as described in the 

2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1– 

2.2, ‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions’’ (ANSI/ 

HI 2.1–2.2–2008). 

(5) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) 

pump means a single-stage or multistage rotodynamic pump that is 

designed to be operated with the motor 

and stage(s) (or bowl(s)) fully submerged 

in the pumped liquid, and in which: 

(a) each stage of this pump consists of 

an impeller and diffuser and 

(b) liquid enters and exits each stage 

of the bare pump in a direction parallel 

to the impeller shaft. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI 

nomenclature VS0, as described in 

ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008. 

DOE notes that any references to HI 

nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 

or ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008 are 

incorporated into the definitions of the 

aforementioned pump equipment 

classes as examples only. As several 

interested parties expressed their desire 

to reference the HI nomenclature to help 

provide clarity to the industry, DOE is 

proposing to list the relevant HI pump 

nomenclature in the definition of each 

pump equipment class. However, in 

some cases, the HI nomenclature can be 

vague or inconsistent.18 In cases where 

there is a conflict between the 

description provided in ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008, as 

applicable, and the proposed regulatory 

text, the language in the regulatory text 

would prevail. Accordingly, a 

manufacturer would need to carefully 

review the applicable regulatory text in 

determining how its equipment would 

be affected because DOE would be using 

these provisions when applying the test 

procedure and setting the scope for any 

standards that DOE may develop. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for end suction 

pump, end suction frame mounted 

pump, end suction close-coupled pump, 

in-line pump, radially split multi-stage 

vertical in-line casing diffuser pump, 

rotodynamic pump, single axis flow 

pump, and vertical turbine submersible 

pump. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature 

are necessary as part of the equipment 

definitions in the regulatory text, are 

likely to cause confusion due to 

inconsistencies, and whether discussing 

the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this 

preamble would provide sufficient 

reference material for manufacturers 

when determining the appropriate 

equipment class for their pump models. 

With regard to the proposed 

definition for RSV pumps, DOE 

understands that, in such a pump, flow 

typically proceeds from the bare pump 

inlet through the stages in series, with 

each stage increasing the total head, and 

exits at the pump discharge. DOE 

requests comment on whether it needs 

to clarify the flow direction to 

distinguish RSV pumps from other 

similar pumps when determining test 

procedure and standards applicability. 

One issue related to the above that 

DOE is currently considering is whether 

its proposed RSV pump definition 

requires further clarification to ensure 

that immersible pumps do not fall 

within the definition. As proposed, this 

definition would exclude immersible 

pumps that would otherwise meet the 

remaining characteristics detailed in the 

definition (i.e., ‘‘No external part of such 

a pump is designed to be submerged in 

the pumped liquid).’’ While DOE 

believes that this language should be 

sufficient to exclude any immersible 

pumps from being treated as an RSV 

pump for purposes of DOE’s regulations, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17597 

DOE requests comment on whether any 

additional language is necessary to 

make this exclusion clearer. 

b. Circulators and Pool Pumps 

Circulators, which are a specific kind 

of rotodynamic pump, are small, lowhead pumps similar to the in-line or end 

suction close-coupled configuration 

pumps that are generally used to 

circulate water in hydronic space 

conditioning or potable water systems 

in buildings. 

The CIP Working Group 

recommended that circulator pumps be 

addressed as part of a separate 

rulemaking process that would involve 

informal negotiation between 

stakeholders followed by an ASRACapproved negotiation. (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92, 

Recommendation #5A at p. 2) DOE has 

not yet received any proposals or 

requests for negotiation from the 

stakeholders. 

To explicitly exclude circulators from 

this rulemaking and the parallel energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE proposes to define the term 

‘‘circulator’’ as referring to either: 

• An end suction pump with a pump 

housing that requires only the support 

of the supply and discharge piping to 

which it is connected to function as 

designed, or 

• A single-stage, single axis flow, 

rotodynamic pump, with a pump 

housing that requires only the support 

of the supply and discharge piping to 

which it is connected to function as 

designed. 

Under this definition, such a pump 

would not be able to function as 

designed without attachment to a rigid 

foundation. Examples include, but are 

not limited to, pumps complying with 

ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or 

CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014. 

Adopting this definition would help 

ensure that circulators can be clearly 

and unambiguously differentiated from 

other pumps that DOE may consider 

regulating and to which this proposed 

test procedure would apply. The 

proposed definition would rely on the 

unique and distinguishable design 

characteristics of circulators—namely, 

that circulators require only pipemounted support and do not need to be 

attached to a rigid foundation to 

function as designed. Conversely, ESCC, 

ESFM, and IL pumps, by definition, 

require attachment to a rigid foundation 

to function as designed. DOE believes 

that such a definition for a circulator 

would encompass all pumps commonly 

referred to as circulators by the 

industry, which the CIP Working Group 

recommended that DOE not regulate in 

this rulemaking. DOE proposes to also 

reference the ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2—2014 

nomenclature for circulators, as 

included in the CIP Working Group 

Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92 at p. 2) 

By defining circulators, ESCC, ESFM, 

and IL pumps as mutually exclusive 

from each other on the basis of design 

characteristics, it is unnecessary to 

include a size-based threshold in the 

proposed circulator definition, as had 

been suggested by stakeholders. (HI, No. 

25 at p. 20; Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 14 at p. 338) DOE notes 

that it is uncommon for pumps larger 

than 3 hp to be supported only by their 

supply and discharge pipes. This is due 

to limitations on the structural weight 

loads that a piping system can support. 

The constraint imposed by the piping 

system, in effect, acts as an inherent 

upper size threshold for circulators. 

The CIP Working Group also formally 

recommended that DOE initiate a 

separate rulemaking for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps by December 2014. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) 

The CIP Working Group further sought 

to identify the unique characteristics of 

pool pumps that differentiate them from 

the other pump classes within the scope 

of this rulemaking to make clear that 

dedicated-purpose pool pumps are not 

required to be tested in accordance with 

the proposed procedure. During the 

March 26, 2014 CIP Working Group 

meeting, Xylem Inc. (Xylem) indicated 

that all dedicated-purpose pool pumps 

include an integrated basket strainer, 

unlike other end suction close-coupled 

pumps. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 62 at p. 195) To 

distinguish a ‘‘dedicated-purpose pool 

pump’’ from other pumps that DOE is 

currently considering regulating in this 

NOPR, DOE proposes to define this 

device as an end suction pump designed 

specifically to circulate water in a pool 

and that includes an integrated basket 

strainer. 

DOE notes that this definition will be 

discussed in more detail in a separate 

rulemaking to consider potential energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for pool pumps. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to exclude circulators and pool 

pumps from the scope of this test 

procedure rulemaking. DOE also 

requests comment on the proposed 

definitions for circulators and 

dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Finally, 

DOE requests comment on the extent to 

which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps 

require attachment to a rigid foundation 

to function as designed. Specifically, 

DOE is interested to know if any pumps 

commonly referred to as ESCC, ESFM, 

IL, or RSV do not require attachment to 

a rigid foundation. 

c. Axial/Mixed Flow and Positive 

Displacement Pumps 

‘‘Axial/mixed flow pump’’ is a term 

used by the pump industry to describe 

a rotodynamic pump that is used to 

move large volumes of liquid at high 

flow rates and low heads. These pumps 

are typically custom-designed and used 

in applications such as dewatering, 

flood control, and storm water 

management. 

Positive displacement (PD) pumps are 

a style of pump that operates by first 

opening an increasing volume to 

suction; this volume is then filled, 

closed, moved to discharge, and 

displaced. PD pumps operate at nearconstant flow over their range of 

operational pressures and can often 

produce higher pressure than a 

centrifugal pump, at a given flow rate. 

PD pumps also excel at maintaining 

flow and efficiency for liquids more 

viscous than water. When used in clean 

water applications, PD pumps are 

typically chosen for high pressure, 

constant flow applications such as high 

pressure power washing, oil field water 

injection, and low-flow metering 

processes. 

The CIP Working Group 

recommended excluding both of these 

types of pumps from being subject to the 

prospective energy conservation 

standards DOE is considering. (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92, 

Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The 

primary reason for excluding these 

pumps at this time is their low market 

share in the considered horsepower 

range and low potential for energy 

savings. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 14 at pp. 114 and 372– 

373) In addition, the CIP Working Group 

acknowledged that PD pumps are more 

commonly used in non-clean water 

applications and provide a different 

utility than the categories of pumps 

addressed in this rulemaking. (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 14 

at p. 114) Therefore, DOE is considering 

excluding these pumps from the scope 

of this rulemaking and the parallel 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

DOE believes that the pump 

equipment classes and scope parameters 

defined in sections III.A.2 and III.A.4, 

respectively, implicitly exclude positive 

displacement and axial flow pumps. 

As mentioned previously, axial/mixed 

flow pumps are designed to 

accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio 

applications and are therefore implicitly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19Council of the European Union. 2012. 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 

June 2012. 

20 ISO 13709:2009 is an identical standard to API 

610 and is included under the same cover. 

excluded from the scope of pumps being 

considered in this NOPR based on the 

head, flow, and pump brake horsepower 

parameters proposed in section III.A.4. 

Additionally, the proposed definitions 

of ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps would 

exclude axial/mixed flow pumps 

through the reference of a discharge 

volute, which is typically not present on 

equipment referred to as axial/mixed 

flow pumps. The proposed definition of 

RSV pumps would also exclude 

equipment referred to as axial/mixed 

flow pumps through implication by 

specifying that the liquid inlet is in a 

plane perpendicular to the impeller 

shaft, as compared to axial/mixed flow 

pumps where liquid intake is parallel to 

the impeller shaft. Finally, the proposed 

definition of VTS pumps would exclude 

equipment referred to as axial/mixed 

flow pumps because axial/mixed flow 

pumps are not designed to be 

completely submerged in the pumped 

liquid. Consequently, given the required 

characteristics of each of the proposed 

equipment class definitions, DOE 

believes additional clarification is 

unnecessary to effectively exclude axial/ 

mixed flow pumps. If, however, 

additional facts suggest that further 

clarification is needed, DOE may 

consider the merits of adding clarifying 

language to the appropriate regulatory 

text. 

As discussed previously, PD pumps 

are typically used to handle high 

viscosity liquids or handle extremely 

high head applications. PD pumps are 

not rotodynamic pumps and so do not 

meet the definition of any of the pump 

equipment classes discussed in section 

III.A.2.a that DOE is considering 

addressing in this rulemaking. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

determination that axial/mixed flow and 

PD pumps are implicitly excluded from 

this rulemaking based on the proposed 

definitions and scope parameters. In 

cases where commenters suggest a more 

explicit exclusion be used, DOE 

requests comment on the appropriate 

changes to the proposed definitions or 

criteria that would be needed to 

appropriately differentiate axial/mixed 

flow and/or PD pumps from the specific 

rotodynamic pump equipment classes 

proposed for coverage in this NOPR. 

3. Scope Exclusions Based on 

Application 

DOE initially considered limiting its 

rulemaking scope to address only 

rotodynamic pumps intended for use in 

pumping clean water, with the potential 

of further limiting the scope to exclude 

specific categories of pumps based on 

their design or application. (Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031, No. 13 at 

pp. 2–6) DOE also discussed the 

possibility of defining ‘‘clean water 

pump’’ using physical characteristics 

rather than just defining ‘‘clean water’’ 

as in the EU Commission Regulation No 

547/2012 EU 547.19 After extensive 

discussions on this subject, the CIP 

Working Group recommended limiting 

the scope of the rulemaking to pumps 

designed for use in pumping clean 

water and excluding certain pumps, 

some of which are designed for use in 

pumping clean water and some of 

which are not, from being regulated for 

the purposes of this proposal and the 

standards currently under 

consideration. (Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0039, No. 92, 

Recommendation #8 at pp. 3–4) 

However, in the interest of time, the CIP 

Working Group did not recommend 

specific definitions to help implement 

any of these recommendations. 

In an effort to meet the intent and 

recommendations of the CIP Working 

Group, DOE is proposing to define 

‘‘clean water pump.’’ DOE is also 

proposing to define several kinds of 

clean water pumps that are designed for 

specific applications and that the 

Working Group had indicated should be 

excluded from the scope of this 

proposal and DOE’s standards 

rulemaking efforts that are under 

development. These definitions would 

be laid out in a new 10 CFR 431.462. 

a. Definition of Clean Water Pump 

First, DOE proposes to define ‘‘clean 

water pump’’ as a pump that is designed 

for use in pumping water with a 

maximum non-absorbent free solid 

content of 0.25 kilograms per cubic 

meter, and with a maximum dissolved 

solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic 

meter, provided that the total gas 

content of the water does not exceed the 

saturation volume, and disregarding any 

additives necessary to prevent the water 

from freezing at a minimum of ¥10 °C. 

DOE notes that, when determining 

whether a given pump would satisfy the 

definition of clean water pump, DOE 

would consider marketing materials, 

labels and certifications, equipment 

design, and actual application of such 

equipment. 

To clarify the scope of ‘‘clean water 

pumps,’’ DOE notes that several 

common pumps would not meet the 

definition of clean water pumps, as they 

are not designed for pumping clean 

water. The CIP Working Group 

specifically identified the following 

non-clean water pumps: 

(1) Wastewater, sump, slurry, or 

solids handling pump (i.e., a pump 

designed to move liquid with maximum 

dissolved solid content that exceeds the 

limits in the definition of clean water). 

(2) Pump designed for pumping 

hydrocarbon product fluids that meets 

the requirements of API’s Standard 610– 

2010, ‘‘Centrifugal Pumps for 

Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural 

Gas Industries’’ or ISO 13709:2009.20

(3) Chemical process pump that meets 

the requirements of ANSI/ASME 

Standard B73.1–2012, ‘‘Specification for 

Horizontal End Suction Centrifugal 

Pumps for Chemical Process;’’ ANSI/

ASME B73.2–2002, ‘‘Specifications for 

Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for 

Chemical Process;’’ or International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

2858:1975, ‘‘End-suction centrifugal 

pumps (rating 16 bar)—Designation, 

nominal duty point and dimensions,’’ 

and ISO 5199:2002, ‘‘Technical 

specifications for centrifugal pumps— 

Class II.’’ 

(4) Sanitary pump that meets the 

requirements of 3–A Sanitary Standards, 

Inc. Standard 3A 02–11, ‘‘Centrifugal 

and Positive Rotary Pumps for Milk and 

Milk Products.’’ 

DOE also proposes to establish a 

specific definition for ‘‘clear water’’ for 

testing purposes that would describe the 

fluid to be used when testing pumps in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes 

to incorporate by reference the 

definition for ‘‘clear water’’ established 

in HI 40.6–2014. This definition would 

apply solely for the purposes of the test 

procedure and is distinct from the 

definition of ‘‘clean water,’’ as defined 

in this section. The definition of ‘‘clear 

water’’ as it applies to the test fluid to 

be used in the testing of pumps under 

the proposed DOE test procedure is 

narrower than the proposed definition 

of ‘‘clean water,’’ which would be used 

to establish the scope of the DOE test 

procedure and related energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘clean water 

pump.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference the 

definition for ‘‘clear water’’ in HI 40.6– 

2014 to describe the testing fluid to be 

used when testing pumps in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure. 

b. Exclusion of Specific Kinds of Clean 

Water Pumps 

Also in accordance with the Working 

Group recommendations, DOE proposes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17599 

21 DOE did not receive comments on the 

Framework Document regarding other types of 

pumps for exclusion from stakeholders not 

represented on the CIP Working Group. 

22United States General Accounting Office, 

Report to Congressional Committees, Acquisition 

Reform: DOD Begins Program To Reform 

Specifications and Standards, GAO/NSIAD–95–14. 

October 11, 1994. Washington, DC. pp. 2–3. 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95014.pdf 

to define several kinds of pumps that 

are clean water pumps, as defined, but 

would not be subject to the proposed 

test procedure. Specifically, DOE 

proposes that the test procedure would 

not apply to: 

(1) Fire pumps; 

(2) self-priming pumps; 

(3) prime-assist pumps; 

(4) sealless pumps; 

(5) pumps designed to be used in a 

nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 

50—Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities; and 

(6) a pump meeting the design and 

construction requirements set forth in 

Military Specification MIL–P–17639F, 

‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous 

Service, Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as 

amended). 

Accordingly, DOE proposes the 

following definitions for fire pump, selfpriming pump, prime-assist pump, and 

sealless pump: 

(1) Fire pump means a pump that is 

compliant with National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Standard 20–2013, 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,’’ 

and either (1) Underwriters Laboratory 

(UL) listed under UL Standard 448– 

2007, ‘‘Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for 

Fire-Protection Service,’’ or (2) Factory 

Mutual (FM) approved under the 

October 2008 edition of FM Class 

Number 1319, ‘‘Approval Standard for 

Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End 

Suction Type).’’ 

(2) Self-priming pump means a pump 

designed to lift liquid that originates 

below the center line of the pump 

impeller. Such a pump requires initial 

manual priming from a dry start 

condition, but requires no subsequent 

manual re-priming. 

(3) Prime-assist pump means a pump 

designed to lift liquid that originates 

below the center line of the pump 

impeller. Such a pump requires no 

manual intervention to prime or reprime from a dry-start condition. Such 

a pump includes a vacuum pump or air 

compressor to remove air from the 

suction line to automatically perform 

the prime or re-prime function. 

(4) Sealless pump means either: 

(a) A pump that transmits torque from 

the motor to the bare pump using a 

magnetic coupling, or 

(b) A pump in which the motor shaft 

also serves as the impeller shaft for the 

bare pump, and the motor rotor is 

immersed in the pumped fluid. 

DOE notes that the proposal to 

exclude fire pumps is consistent with 

comments submitted in response to the 

Framework Document, including from 

from stakeholders that were not 

members of the CIP Working Group.21

(NFPA, No. 27 at pp. 1–2; Colombia 

Engineering, No. 29 at p. 1) However, 

while Earthjustice suggested that DOE 

could require that fire pumps be marked 

‘‘For use as a fire pump only,’’ 

(Earthjustice, No.30 at p.2) DOE 

declines to propose a mandatory label 

for fire pumps because it seems 

superfluous in that there is an increased 

cost of such pumps that is likely to 

inherently limit their sale to that 

specific application. 

DOE reviewed the requirements for 

fire pumps, pumps designed to be used 

in a nuclear facility under 10 CFR 50, 

and pumps designed per military 

specification MIL–P–17639F (Pumps, 

Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, 

Naval Shipboard Use). DOE believes 

that in all cases, the increased burden in 

design and test requirements provides a 

legitimate reason to exclude these from 

the scope of the proposed test procedure 

and standards. 

According to Patterson Pumps, fire 

pumps are manufactured according to 

NFPA Standard 20, and certified 

according to either UL or FM standards. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 15 at pp. 191–192) The CIP Working 

Group agreed to exclude pumps 

compliant with NFPA 20 as long as they 

are certified as ‘‘fire pumps’’ to the 

relevant UL or FM standard, noting that 

UL and FM are the only two 

certification bodies for fire pumps. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 15 at p. 193–194). The CIP Working 

Group also represented that it was 

unlikely manufacturers would attempt 

to sell pumps intended for other 

applications as fire pumps in an effort 

to circumvent a proposed DOE standard 

for pumps because of the high expense 

in testing to complete the certification 

process for UL or FM. Likewise, 

consumers would find the expense of 

buying a fire pump for a non-fire pump 

application would be higher than that of 

buying a pump that complies with an 

eventual DOE standard. (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 14 at p. 

125) 

Nuclear facility pumps must have 

certified design specifications and must 

conform to many specific design and 

testing criteria. These include, but are 

not limited to, classification as ASME 

Code Class 1 of the ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, ‘‘Rule 

for Construction of Nuclear Facility 

Components,’’ for reactor coolant 

pumps. DOE understands that the 

design and construction of pumps in 

accordance with ASME Code Class 1 

represent significant additional expense 

and significantly increases the cost of 

such pumps compared to the clean 

water pumps considered in this test 

procedure. Similar to fire pumps, DOE 

believes there is sufficient justification 

to exclude such nuclear facility pumps 

from the scope of this rulemaking 

without a risk of clean water pumps 

being marketed or sold as nuclear 

facility pumps for actual use in other 

applications. 

Pumps designed to military 

specifications (commonly referred to as 

‘‘MIL–SPEC’’), such as MIL–P–17639F, 

must meet very specific physical and or 

operational characteristics and have 

complex and rigid reporting 

requirements.22 Specifically, MIL–P– 

17639F requires significant amounts of 

design and test data be submitted to 

various military design review agencies 

to ensure that the pump can be operated 

and maintained in harsh naval 

environments. When considering if a 

pump is designed and constructed to 

the requirements set forth in MIL–P– 

17639F, DOE may request that a 

manufacturer provide DOE with copies 

of the original design and test data that 

were submitted to appropriate design 

review agencies, as required by MIL–P– 

17639F. Similar to fire and nuclear 

facility pumps, DOE believes there is 

sufficient justification to exclude MIL– 

SPEC pumps from the scope of this 

rulemaking without a risk of clean water 

pumps being marketed or sold as MIL– 

SPEC for actual use in other 

applications. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘fire pump,’’ 

‘‘self-priming pump,’’ ‘‘prime-assisted 

pump,’’ and ‘‘sealless pump.’’ 

Regarding the proposed definition of 

a self-priming pump, DOE notes that 

such pumps typically include a liquid 

reservoir above or in front of the 

impeller to allow recirculating water 

within the pump during the priming 

cycle. DOE requests comment on any 

other specific design features that 

enable the pump to operate without 

manual re-priming, and whether such 

specificity is needed in the definition 

for clarity. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed specifications and criteria to 

determine if a pump is designed to meet 

a specific Military Specification and if 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

23The CIP Working Group also recommended 

that testing be required with 3 stages for RSV 

pumps and 9 stages for VTS pumps, unless a model 

is not available with that specific number of stages, 

in which case the pump would be tested with the 

next closest number of stages. This 

recommendation is discussed in more detail in 

section III.C.2.a. 

any Military Specifications other than 

MIL–P–17639F should be referenced. 

DOE requests comment on excluding 

the following pumps from the test 

procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming 

pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless 

pumps, pumps designed to be used in 

a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 

50—Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities, and pumps 

meeting the design and construction 

requirements set forth in Military 

Specification MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps, 

Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, 

Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as amended). 

4. Parameters for Establishing the Scope 

of Pumps in This Rulemaking 

In addition to limiting the types of 

pumps that DOE would regulate at this 

time through pump definitions and their 

applications, DOE proposes to further 

limit its scope consistent with the 

Working Group’s recommendation by 

applying the following performance and 

design characteristics: 

(1) 1–200 hp (shaft power at the best 

efficiency point, BEP, at full impeller 

diameter for the number of stages required 

for testing to the standard); 23

(2) 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full 

impeller diameter); 

(3) 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at 

full impeller diameter); 

(4) design temperature range from ¥10 to 

120 °C; 

(5) pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 

1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver 

speeds; and 

(6) 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for 

VTS pumps (HI VS0). 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3) 

Similarly, DOE proposes to apply the 

pump test procedure scope to the scope 

of pumps discussed in sections III.A.1 

and III.A.3 possessing the characteristics 

presented by the CIP Working Group. 

DOE notes that with respect to the 

limiting criterion proposed for VTS 

pumps (i.e., bowl diameter) DOE is also 

proposing to define this term to remove 

ambiguity and to ensure that all entities 

are calculating bowl diameter the same 

way. HI 40.6–2014 defines bowl 

diameter as follows: ‘‘Bowl diameter 

means the measure of a straight line 

passing through the center of a circular 

shape that intersects the circular shape 

at both of its ends.’’ While DOE largely 

agrees with the HI definition, additional 

specificity is required with respect to 

that definition’s use of the phrase 

‘‘circular shape.’’ As such, DOE 

proposes to define ‘‘bowl diameter’’ as 

it applies to VTS pumps as follows: 

Bowl diameter means the maximum 

dimension of an imaginary straight line 

passing through and in the plane of the 

circular shape of the intermediate bowl 

or chamber of the bare pump that is 

perpendicular to the pump shaft and 

that intersects the circular shape of the 

intermediate bowl or chamber of the 

bare pump at both of its ends, where the 

intermediate bowl or chamber is as 

defined in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008. 

If adopted, only those VTS pumps 

with bowl diameters of 6 inches or less 

would be required to be tested under the 

proposed procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the listed 

design characteristics (i.e., power, flow, 

head, design temperature, design speed, 

and bowl diameter) as limitations on the 

scope of pumps to which the proposed 

test procedure would apply. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘bowl diameter’’ 

as it would apply to VTS pumps. 

5. Non-Electric Drivers 

DOE recognizes that some pumps, 

particularly in the agricultural sector, 

may be sold and operated with nonelectric drivers, such as engines, steam 

turbines, or generators. During the CIP 

Working Group’s negotiations, testing 

and coverage of non-electric drivers 

were discussed. To ensure simplicity 

and comparability when testing and 

certifying pumps with non-electric 

drivers, the CIP Working Group 

recommended that pumps sold with 

non-electric drivers be rated as a bare 

pump, excluding the energy 

performance of the non-electric driver. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2) By 

requiring testing and certification in this 

manner, any hydraulic improvements 

made to the bare pump to comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards that may apply to the bare 

pump would also result in energy 

savings if the pump is used with a nonelectric driver. DOE notes that the 

proposed test procedure is applicable 

only to drivers that are electric motors. 

Therefore, when rating a pump with any 

driver other than an electric motor, or 

other bare pump, DOE would provide 

default rating calculations in the test 

procedure to represent the performance 

of the given bare pump with a default 

motor that is minimally compliant with 

DOE’s energy conservation standards for 

electric motors. See 10 CFR 431.25. This 

procedure is described in more detail in 

section III.E.1.a. (In context, as noted 

earlier, the terms ‘‘electric motor’’ and 

‘‘motor’’ are used interchangeably.) 

The Working Group’s approach, as 

described above, is likely to reduce the 

test burden and complexity of the 

regulation. DOE notes that, in order to 

accurately capture the energy 

performance of non-electric drivers in 

the DOE pump test procedure, separate 

test procedures would be necessary for 

each type of driver (e.g., turbines, 

generators), which are not currently 

available in HI 40.6–2014 or other 

relevant pump test standards and, thus, 

would add significant complexity and 

burden to the pump test procedure. DOE 

believes that there is insufficient 

technical merit or potential for 

additional energy savings to justify the 

additional burden associated with rating 

and certifying pumps sold with nonelectric drivers inclusive of those 

drivers. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test pumps sold with nonelectric drivers as bare pumps. 

6. Pumps Sold With Single-Phase 

Induction Motors 

DOE recognizes that some pumps 

within the proposed scope of this 

rulemaking may be distributed in 

commerce with single-phase motors. 

However, DOE understands that the 

majority of pumps in the proposed 

scope of this test procedure rulemaking 

are sold with polyphase induction 

motors. One reason for the prevalence of 

polyphase motors is that the pumps for 

which the proposed test procedure 

would apply are typically sold into 

commercial and industrial applications 

where polyphase (three-phase) power is 

known to be commonplace. 

Additionally, single-phase induction 

motors are not widely available in 

motors with horsepower (hp) ratings 

greater than approximately 5 hp, while 

the proposed test procedure would 

apply to pumps from 1–200 hp, as 

discussed in section III.A.4. This 

circumstance further restricts the 

prevalence of single-phase motors in 

pumps for which the proposed test 

procedure would apply. According to 

the CIP Working Group, almost all 

pumps except for smaller pumps use 

three-phase motors, with the transition 

from single-phase to three-phase motors 

occurring at around 1⁄2 to 3⁄4 hp. (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 

105 at p. 224–225) 

In addition, DOE understands that 

most pumps within the scope of this 

proposed rulemaking that are 

distributed in commerce with singlephase induction motors are also 

distributed in commerce with polyphase 

induction motors of similar size to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17601 

24The term ‘‘wire-to-water’’ refers to the 

physically-tested, combined performance of the 

bare pump, motor, and any continuous or noncontinuous controls. This is consistent with the 

testing-based methods discussed in section III.E.2. 

25 Variable Frequency Drive (or VFD) is defined 

in AHRI 1210–2011 as ‘‘A power electronic device 

that regulates the speed of an alternating current 

(AC) motor by adjusting the frequency and the 

Continued 

accommodate variation in power 

requirements among customers. 

DOE understands that single-phase 

induction motors are, in general, less 

efficient than polyphase induction 

motors and, thus, would result in 

different energy consumption 

characteristics when paired with the 

same bare pump. Therefore, to establish 

the desired calculation-based methods 

for pumps paired with single-phase and 

polyphase motors, DOE would need to 

develop specific default motor 

efficiency assumptions and motor loss 

curves for both single-phase and 

polyphase motors. However, DOE 

believes that developing a separate 

rating methodology (including separate 

default motor efficiency assumptions) 

for pumps sold with single-phase 

induction motors is not justified at this 

time due to the small percentage of 

pumps sold with only single-phase 

induction motors. The CIP Working 

Group agreed that, based on the scope 

established for pumps being from 1–200 

hp, it is more meaningful to focus the 

rating methodology on three-phase 

motors. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 105 at p. 226) 

For these reasons, DOE has developed 

the proposed test methods to be based 

on polyphase induction motors in that 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency discussed in section III.D.1 

would specify a minimum efficiency 

value for a National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC 

Design N electric motor, which are a 

specific kind of polyphase induction 

motor. However, DOE believes that such 

default nominal full load motor 

efficiency values are not applicable to 

single-phase induction motors. 

Therefore, in order not to penalize 

pumps sold with single-phase induction 

motors, DOE proposes that such pumps 

be tested and rated in the bare pump 

configuration, using the calculationbased method. 

DOE notes that, if a pump distributed 

in commerce with a single-phase 

induction motor is also distributed in 

commerce in a bare pump configuration, 

this proposal would not increase the 

testing or rating burden on 

manufacturers. DOE also wishes to 

clarify that, to the extent that such a 

pump is also sold with an electric motor 

other than a single-phase induction 

motor, the pump must also be rated 

based on the PEICL or PEIVL as 

determined for the pump when paired 

with that other motor. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that any pump distributed in 

commerce with a single-phase induction 

motor be tested and rated in the bare 

pump configuration, using the 

calculation method. 

DOE requests comment from 

interested parties on any other 

categories of electric motors, except 

submersible motors, that: (1) Are used 

with pumps considered in this 

rulemaking and (2) typically have 

efficiencies lower than the default 

nominal full load efficiency for NEMA 

Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC 

Design N motors. 

B. Rating Metric 

One of the first and most important 

issues DOE must consider in designing 

a test procedure is selection of the 

regulatory metric. The most common 

metric used in the pump industry today 

to describe the performance of bare 

pumps (i.e., pumps sold alone, not 

inclusive of motors and controls) is 

pump efficiency, which is the ratio of 

hydraulic power (the product of flow, 

density, gravity, and head) to pump 

shaft input power, as shown in equation 

(1): 

Where: 

hpump = bare pump efficiency, 

PHydro = pump hydraulic output power, and 

Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at 

rating point (i). 

When a pump is tested for 

performance inclusive of a motor and/ 

or controls, pump efficiency is not as 

useful a metric, as it does not capture 

the performance of the other 

components that are integral to the 

performance and utility of the pump 

when installed in the field. In the 

Framework Document, DOE discussed 

bare pump efficiency as well as overall 

pump efficiency (i.e., the efficiency of a 

pump coupled with a driver, as defined 

in HI 40.6–2014) and ‘‘wire-to-water,’’ 24

power-based metrics. DOE also 

discussed the possible application of 

different metrics to pumps depending 

on how they are sold: (1) Alone as bare 

pumps, (2) with motors, or (3) with 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls. 

1. Working Group and Other 

Stakeholder Comments 

The different rating approaches 

suggested in the Framework Document 

were also discussed in the negotiations 

of the CIP Working Group. The Working 

Group recommended that DOE use a 

wire-to-water, power-based metric for 

all pumps, regardless of how they are 

sold. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at 

p. 5) The CIP Working Group 

recommended a similar metric for all 

pump configurations (i.e., bare pumps, 

pumps sold with a motor, and pumps 

sold with a motor and continuous or 

non-continuous controls) to allow for 

better comparability and more 

consistent application of the rating 

metric for all pumps within the 

recommended scope. This way, the 

benefit of speed control, as compared to 

a similar pump without speed control, 

can be reflected in the measurement of 

energy use or energy efficiency. 

In developing the metric proposed in 

this NOPR, DOE reviewed the CIP 

Working Group recommendations as 

well as the relevant comments made in 

response to the Framework Document. 

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which 

was not a member of the Working 

Group, suggested that if DOE defines 

pumps to be inclusive of motors and/or 

controls, that DOE develop a combined 

pump/motor/control efficiency metric 

using a weighted average of 

measurements at specified rating points 

(as preferable to minimum levels at 

multiple points because it allows more 

design flexibility). (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 

2) AHRI noted that a regulatory regime 

that includes controls must include 

appropriate part load levels and 

operating points, reflective of part load 

conditions typically in use. It cited 

AHRI 1210–2011, ‘‘2011 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Variable 

Frequency Drives,’’ as an example of a 

relevant test procedure that requires that 

a variable frequency drive 25 (VFD) and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.000</GPH>
17602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

voltage of the electrical power supplied to the 

motor.’’ This definition applies to asynchronous 

induction motors. The term ‘‘dynamic continuous 

control,’’ as defined in section III.E.1.c, is 

synonymous with the term ‘‘variable speed drive 

(VSD)’’ and refers to a power electronic device that 

controls the output of a motor via continuous 

modulation rotating speed. This includes variable 

frequency drives, which control speed through 

changes in input frequency to the motor and are 

applicable only to AC motors, as well as directcurrent machines such as electronically 

commutated motors. (HI, Europump, and DOE; 

‘‘Variable Speed Pumping Systems: A Guide to 

Successful Applications,’’ pg. 9) For the purposes 

of this rulemaking, ‘‘VSD’’ will be used when 

discussing speed control of pumps in general, as 

applicable to either AC- or DC-driven motors. VFD 

will only be used when specifically discussing 

continuous control of AC induction motors. 

motor be tested at four different speeds: 

40, 50, 75, and 100 percent of full speed. 

AHRI estimated that VFDs in pump/

motor/VFD packages range from 50 to 

100 percent of maximum speed, and 

average operation is approximately 75 

percent of full speed. AHRI also noted 

that the methodology used to develop 

the Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) 

metric in appendix D of AHRI standard 

550/590 may be a useful reference. 

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that in general, AHRI’s 

comments are in line with the CIP 

Working Group recommendation. 

Specifically, the metric recommended 

by the CIP Working Group is a weighted 

average of measurements at specified 

load points. The CIP Working Group 

recommended metric incorporates load 

points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow for pumps without continuous 

or non-continuous controls, and 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for a 

pump sold with continuous or noncontinuous controls. The latter load 

points are similar to those specified in 

AHRI 1210. The reasoning behind these 

differing loading profiles is further 

discussed in section III.B.2.a. 

2. Selected Metric: Constant Load and 

Variable Load Pump Energy Index 

After carefully considering the 

Framework stage comments and the 

recommendations of the CIP Working 

Group, DOE is proposing to adopt the 

metric recommended by the CIP 

Working Group. That metric consists of 

a ratio of the representative performance 

of the pump being rated over the 

representative performance of a pump 

that would minimally comply with any 

prospective DOE energy conservation 

standard for that pump type. The 

representative performance is referred to 

as the ‘‘pump energy rating’’ (PER) and 

is calculated as the equally-weighted 

average of the electric input power to 

the pump at three or four load points. 

As recommended by the CIP Working 

Group, DOE is also proposing similar 

metrics for all pumps, regardless of 

whether they are sold with continuous 

or non-continuous controls. 

For pumps sold without continuous 

or non-continuous controls, DOE 

proposes to use three load points near 

the BEP of the pump to determine the 

constant load pump energy rating 

(PERCL). For pumps sold with 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

DOE proposes to use four load points to 

determine the variable load pump 

energy rating (PERVL). 

To scale the rated pump performance 

(PERCL or PERVL) with respect to the 

weighted average electrical input power 

of a bare pump that would minimally 

comply with any prospective DOE 

energy conservation standard for that 

pump type, DOE proposes to define a 

‘‘standard pump energy rating’’ (PERSTD) 

that represents the performance of a 

bare pump of the same equipment class 

that is minimally compliant with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards serving 

the same hydraulic load. In other words, 

when determining the PERSTD for a bare 

pump, a pump with a motor, or a pump 

with a motor using either continuous or 

non-continuous controls, the PERCL of a 

minimally compliant bare pump within 

the same class would be used. A more 

detailed discussion of the PERSTD value 

is provided in section III.B.2.b. 

Specifically, for pumps sold without 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

DOE proposes using the PEICL metric, 

which would be evaluated as shown in 

equation (2): 

Where: 

PERCL = the weighted average input power to 

the motor at load points of 75, 100, and 

110 percent of BEP flow (hp) and 

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 

equipment class that is minimally 

compliant with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards serving the same 

hydraulic load (hp). 

Evaluating this metric for a given 

pump would entail the following steps: 

(1) Determining the PERCL for that 

pump in accordance with the specific 

methods discussed in section III.D, 

(2) determining the PERSTD for a 

pump of the same equipment class (i.e., 

pumps of the same configuration and 

performance characteristics to which a 

single standard would apply) that 

would be minimally compliant with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards DOE may set, and 

(3) taking a ratio of the two values. 

As shown in equation (3), the PERCL

would be evaluated as the weighted 

average input power to the motor at load 

points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow: 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the motor at rating point i (hp), and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.001</GPH> EP01AP15A.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17603 

Similarly, for pumps sold with a 

motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls, DOE is proposing 

using PEIVL, which would be evaluated 

as shown in equation (4): 

Where: 

PERVL = the weighted average input power to 

the motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls at load points of 25, 

50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow (hp) 

and 

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 

equipment class that is minimally 

compliant with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards serving the same 

hydraulic load (hp). The procedure for 

determining PERSTD is described in 

detail in section III.B.2.b. 

PEIVL would be similarly evaluated 

for a given pump equipped with motors 

and continuous or non-continuous 

controls, by: 

(1) Determining the PERVL for that 

pump in accordance with the methods 

specified in section III.E.1.c, 

(2) determining the same PERSTD as 

for the same class of pump without 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

and 

(3) taking a ratio of the two values. 

PERVL would then be calculated as a 

weighted average of input power to the 

motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls at load points of 25, 

50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, as 

shown in equation (5): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the motor at rating point i (hp), and 

i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow 

as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

Under DOE’s proposed approach, the 

performance of bare pumps or pumps 

paired with motors (but without 

continuous or non-continuous controls) 

would be determined for the 

appropriate load points along the singlespeed pump curve by increasing head 

(i.e., throttling) as flow is decreased 

from the maximum flow rate of the 

pump. As the flow is decreased, the 

power will typically decrease slightly. 

Pumps sold with continuous or noncontinuous controls, by contrast, can 

follow a system curve and achieve the 

desired flow points by reducing the 

pump’s speed of rotation rather than 

controlling flow by throttling. By 

reducing speed, power would be 

reduced in proportion to the cube of 

speed, resulting in lower power 

requirements for any part load flow 

points. As such, the PEIVL for a pump 

sold with continuous or non-continuous 

controls will be lower than the PEICL for 

the same pump sold without continuous 

or non-continuous controls. In essence, 

adopting both PEICL and PEIVL would 

illustrate the inherent performance 

differences that can occur when 

coupling a given pump with continuous 

or non-continuous controls. 

a. Load Profile 

In order to determine the part load 

performance of pumps, DOE must 

define a load profile and establish 

specific part load rating points at which 

to test a given pump. DOE researched 

the variety of applications and usage 

profiles for the pumps considered for 

the scope of this rulemaking and 

determined that the data regarding 

typical duty profiles of covered pumps 

are extremely variable and not widely 

available. Thus, it is extremely difficult 

to generalize duty profiles for a given 

pump based on type, size, or other 

factors. 

The CIP Working Group indicated 

that pumps sold as bare pumps and 

pumps sold with motors are more often 

installed in constant load applications 

that are intended to operate in 

applications with the design load closer 

to the BEP of the pump. Conversely, the 

Working Group added that pumps sold 

with continuous or non-continuous 

controls are typically applied in more 

variable applications with design 

conditions between 25 percent and 100 

percent of the BEP flow and head 

conditions. (Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0039, No. 73 at pp. 80–82) 

Based on the assessment and 

recommendation provided by the 

Working Group, DOE is therefore 

proposing to adopt two distinct load 

profiles to represent constant speed and 

variable speed pump operation. See 

Table III.3. 

TABLE III.3—LOAD PROFILES BASED ON PUMP CONFIGURATION

Pump configuration Load profile Load points 

Pumps Sold without Continuous or Non-Continuous 

Controls (i.e., bare pumps and pumps sold with motors).

Constant Load Profile ........ 75%, 100%, and 110% of BEP flow. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.003</GPH> EP01AP15.004</GPH>
17604 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

26Europump. Extended Product Approach for 

Pumps: A Europump Guide. April 8, 2013. 

27Council of the European Union. 2012. 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 

June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council with 

regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. 

Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 

June 2012. 

28Council of the European Union. 2012. 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 

June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of 

the European Parliament and of the Council with 

regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. 

Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 

June 2012, pp. 28–36. 

29The equation to define the minimally 

compliant pump in the EU is of the same form, but 

employs different coefficients to reflect the fact that 

the flow will be reported in m3/hr at 50 Hz and the 

specific speed will also be reported in metric units. 

Specific speed is a dimensionless quantity, but has 

a different magnitude when calculated using metric 

versus English units. DOE notes that an exact 

translation from metric to English units is not 

possible due to the logarithmic relationship of the 

terms. 

TABLE III.3—LOAD PROFILES BASED ON PUMP CONFIGURATION—Continued 

Pump configuration Load profile Load points 

Pumps Sold with Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls.Variable Load Profile .......... 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of BEP flow. 

Lack of field data on load profiles and 

the wide variation in system operation 

also make it difficult to select 

appropriate weights for the load 

profiles. For these reasons, the CIP 

Working Group members concluded 

that equal weighting would at least 

create a level playing field across 

manufacturers. (See, e.g., Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 63 at p. 

125) DOE also proposes to equally 

weight the measured input power to the 

driver or driver and continuous or noncontinuous controls at each of the 

specified flow points in both the 

constant load and the variable load case, 

as recommended by the CIP Working 

Group. Due to the wide range of 

operating conditions a given pump may 

experience in the field, DOE believes 

the proposed load points and weights 

adequately represent the operating range 

of pumps sold with and without 

continuous or non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed load points and weighting for 

PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold 

with motors and PEIVL for pumps 

inclusive of motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls. 

b. PERSTD: Minimally Compliant Pump 

Within the PEICL and PEIVL equations, 

the average input power to the motor or 

motor with continuous or noncontinuous control in the numerator of 

these equations would be scaled based 

on a normalizing factor to provide a 

rating for each pump model that is 

indexed to a standardized value. DOE 

recognizes the benefit of scaling the 

PEICL and PEIVL metrics based on a 

normalizing factor because it could help 

compare values across and among 

various pump types and sizes. 

In recognition of these potential 

advantages, DOE proposes normalizing 

the weighted average input power to the 

pump being rated against the weighted 

average input power to a pump that 

would minimally comply with the 

applicable standard for the same class of 

pump. This approach is consistent with 

the CIP Working Group’s 

recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92, 

Recommendation #11 at pg. 5) This 

approach is also similar to the approach 

suggested by Europump, a trade 

association of European pump 

manufacturers. Europump’s approach 

would normalize the tested input power 

to the tested pump with a motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

as measured at the input to the 

continuous or non-continuous control, 

relative to the reference shaft power for 

a minimally compliant pump with a 

minimally compliant motor at the given 

BEP.26 Europump’s approach relies on 

the EU’s existing regulations for certain 

categories of rotodynamic pumps 

designed for pumping clean water 

which were first published in 2012.27

DOE is proposing implementing an 

approach that would approximate a 

baseline pump, inclusive of a minimally 

compliant default motor, to use as a 

reference pump for each combination of 

flow and specific speed. The minimally 

compliant pump would be defined as a 

function of variables descriptive of the 

bare pump’s physical properties, such 

as flow and specific speed, as in the EU 

approach to regulating clean water 

pumps.28 DOE proposes to use the same 

equation used by the EU to develop its 

standard, translated to 60 Hz electrical 

input power and English units 29 as 

shown in equation (6), to determine the 

efficiency of a minimally compliant 

pump: 

Where: 

Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm), 

Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz, and 

C = an intercept that is set for the twodimensional surface described by 

equation (6), which is set based on the 

speed of rotation and equipment type of 

the pump model. The values of this 

intercept, or ‘‘C-values,’’ used for 

determining pump efficiency for the 

minimally compliant pump would be 

established in the pump energy 

conservation standard rulemaking. 

In the above equation (6), the specific 

speed (Ns) is a quasi-non-dimensional 

number used to classify pumps based on 

their relative geometry and hydraulic 

characteristics. It is calculated as a 

function of the rotational speed, flow 

rate, and head of the pump as shown in 

equation (7) below: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.005</GPH> EP01AP15.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17605 

Where: 

Ns = specific speed, 

N = speed of rotation (rpm), 

Q100% = BEP flow rate (gpm), and 

H100% = total head at BEP flow (ft). 

Under this proposal, the calculated 

efficiency of the minimally compliant 

pump reflects the pump efficiency at 

BEP. As pump efficiency typically 

varies as a function of flow rate, DOE 

must also determine a method to specify 

the default efficiency of a minimally 

compliant pump at the load points 

corresponding to 75 and 100 percent of 

BEP flow. To do so, DOE also proposes 

to follow the approach used in the EU 

regulations; that is, DOE proposes to 

scale the efficiency determined at 100 

percent of BEP flow in equation (6) 

using nominal and standardized values 

that represent how pump efficiency 

typically changes at part load (75 

percent of BEP flow) and over load (110 

percent of BEP flow) load conditions. 

Namely, the efficiency at 75 percent of 

BEP flow is assumed to be 94.7 percent 

of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, and 

the pump efficiency at 110 percent of 

BEP flow is assumed to be 98.5 percent 

of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, as 

shown in equation (8): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄3 in this case), 

PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output 

power at rating point i of the tested 

pump (hp), 

hpump,STD = the minimally compliant pump 

efficiency, as determined in accordance 

with equation (6), 

Li = the motor losses at each load point i, 

as determined in accordance with the 

procedure specified for bare pumps in 

sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, 

as determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

Equation (8) also demonstrates how 

the ratio between the minimally 

compliant pump efficiency and the 

hydraulic output power for the rated 

pump is used to determine the input 

power to a minimally compliant pump 

at each load point. Note that the pump 

hydraulic output power for the 

minimally compliant pump would be 

the same as that for the particular pump 

being evaluated. Under DOE’s proposed 

approach, calculating the hydraulic 

power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 

110 percent of BEP flow, would require 

the following equation (9): 

Where: 

PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output 

power at rating point i of the tested 

pump (hp), 

Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating 

point i of the tested pump (gpm), 

Hi = pump total head at each rating point i 

of the tested pump (ft), and 

SG = the specific gravity of water at specified 

test conditions. 

The calculated shaft input power for 

the minimally compliant pump at each 

load point is then combined with a 

minimally compliant motor for that 

default motor type and appropriate size, 

described in section III.D.1, and the 

default part load loss curve, described 

in section III.D.2, to determine the input 

power to the motor at each load point. 

The applicable minimum nominal full 

load motor efficiency is determined as 

a function of type (i.e., open or 

enclosed), pole configuration, and 

horsepower rating, as specified by 

DOE’s electric motor standards. PERSTD

would then be determined as the 

weighted average input power to the 

motor at each load point, as shown in 

equation (8). 

The use of a reference denominator 

based on PERCL for a minimally 

compliant bare pump (including 

assigned default motor losses), as 

described in the preceding paragraphs, 

was recommended by the CIP Working 

Group. The benefit of this approach is 

that it would consistently show the 

difference between a given pump’s 

performance and the baseline 

performance of a pump with the same 

flow and specific speed. A value higher 

than 1.0 would indicate that the pump 

would exceed the applicable pump 

energy consumption standard and 

would not comply, while a lower value 

would indicate that the pump is less 

consumptive than the maximum 

allowed by the standard and would 

therefore comply. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.007</GPH> EP01AP15.008</GPH>
17606 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

To implement the Working Group’s 

recommended approach, DOE’s 

proposal would describe how to 

calculate PEICL and PEIVL as a ratio of 

the weighted average input power of the 

tested pump model over the weighted 

average input power of a minimally 

compliant bare pump paired with a 

minimally compliant motor with no 

controls, as shown in equations (10) and 

(11): 

Where: 

PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant 

load (applicable to bare pumps and 

pumps sold with a motor) (hp), 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄3 in this case), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the motor at rating point i for the tested 

pump (hp), 

PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output 

power at rating point i of the tested 

pump (hp), 

hpump,STD = the minimally compliant pump 

efficiency, as determined in accordance 

with equation (6), 

Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as 

determined in accordance with the 

procedure specified for bare pumps in 

sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2 (hp), and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 of BEP flow, as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

Equation (10) would apply to both 

bare pumps and pumps sold with a 

motor (but without any accompanying 

continuous or non-continuous controls). 

For pumps sold with motors inclusive 

of continuous or non-continuous 

controls, the PEIVL would be calculated 

as defined in equation (11) below: 

Where: 

PEIVL = pump energy index for a variable 

load (applicable to pumps sold with a 

motor and continuous or non-continuous 

controls), 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting 1⁄3 or 1⁄4 as applicable), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the continuous or non-continuous 

controls at rating point i for the tested 

pump, 

PHydro,i = the measured hydraulic output 

power at rating point i of the tested 

pump (hp), 

hpump,STD = the minimally compliant pump 

efficiency, as determined in accordance 

with equation (6), 

Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as 

determined in accordance with the 

procedure specified for bare pumps in 

sections III.E.1.a. and III.D.2, and 

i = 25, 50, 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP 

flow, as determined in accordance with 

the DOE test procedure, where the load 

points are as noted in equation (11). 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric 

architecture. 

Default Motor Efficiency for the 

Minimally Compliant Pump 

DOE notes that the default motor 

efficiency discussed above varies as a 

function of motor horsepower. As such, 

DOE must prescribe a consistent method 

to determine the rated horsepower, and 

thus default efficiency, of the 

hypothetical minimally compliant 

motor used to determine PERSTD. DOE 

proposes that for bare pumps, which 

must be assigned a hypothetical default 

motor in order to calculate the proposed 

PEICL metric, the motor horsepower for 

the minimally compliant pump 

(PERSTD) would be determined using the 

bare pump (PERCL), described in section 

III.D.1.a. This procedure would select 

the default motor’s horsepower as 

equivalent to, or the next highest 

horsepower-rated level greater than, the 

calculated pump shaft input power of 

the pump when evaluated at 120 

percent of BEP flow. This approach 

would yield the same motor horsepower 

being selected for bare pumps and for 

their associated minimally compliant 

pump. 

For pumps sold with motors and 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls, 

manufacturers could choose to sell their 

pump with a motor whose horsepower 

varies from that assumed based on the 

default motor selection criteria. See 

section III.D.1.a., infra. In such a case, 

the horsepower of the default motor 

selected to calculate PERSTD may vary 

from that of the one sold with the 

evaluated pump. DOE believes that 

applying the same motor horsepower to 

both the pump being evaluated and the 

minimally compliant pump (PERSTD) 

would provide the most equitable and 

straight-forward comparison of pump 

performance. As a result, DOE is 

proposing to require that if a pump is 

sold with: (1) A motor or (2) a motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

the motor horsepower for the minimally 

compliant pump used in the calculation 

would be based on the horsepower 

rating of the motor with which that 

pump is sold. To determine the 

minimally compliant pump’s associated 

motor part load losses at each load 

point, the nominal full load efficiency 

associated with that motor’s horsepower 

would be determined based on a motor 

that minimally complies with the 

applicable DOE electric motor energy 

conservation standards (or in the case of 

submersible motors, as described in 

section III.D.1.b) and using the 

procedure for calculating part load 

losses described in section III.D.2. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to base the default motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump on that of the pump being 

evaluated. That is, the motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump would be based on the calculated 

pump shaft input power of the pump 

when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP 

flow for bare pumps and the horsepower 

of the motor with which that pump is 

sold for pumps sold with motors (with 

or without continuous or noncontinuous controls). 

C. Determination of Pump Performance 

To determine PEICL or PEIVL for 

applicable pumps, the proposed test 

procedure would require physically 

measuring the performance of either: (1) 

The bare pump, under the calculationVerDate Sep<11>2014 00:13 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01APP3.SGM 01APP3

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.054</GPH> EP01AP15.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17607 

30The term ‘‘pump power input’’ in HI 40.6–2014 

is defined as ‘‘the power transmitted to the pump 

by its driver’’ and is synonymous with the term 

‘‘pump shaft input power,’’ as used in this 

document. 

31The term ‘‘driver power input’’ in HI 40.6–2014 

is defined as ‘‘the power absorbed by the pump 

driver’’ and is synonymous with the term ‘‘pump 

input power to the driver,’’ as used in this 

document. 

32The term ‘‘pump power output’’ in HI–40.6 is 

defined as ‘‘the mechanical power transferred to the 

liquid as it passes through the pump, also known 

as pump hydraulic power.’’ It is used 

synonymously with ‘‘pump hydraulic power’’ in 

this document. 

33The term ‘‘pump efficiency is defined in HI 

40.6–2014 as a ratio of pump power output to pump 

power input. 

34The term ‘‘bowl efficiency’’ is defined in HI 

40.6–2014 as a ratio of pump power output to bowl 

Continued 

based methods (see section III.E.1), or 

(2) the entire pump, inclusive of any 

motor, continuous control, or noncontinuous control, under the testingbased methods (III.E.2). Specifically, the 

input power to the pump at 75, 100, and 

110 percent of BEP flow for PEICL, or at 

25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow 

for PEIVL, is required for input into the 

PEICL or PEIVL equations, respectively. 

Depending on whether the calculationbased method or testing-based method 

is applied, a slightly different test 

method would apply for measuring 

pump performance. In the case of the 

calculation-based method, only the bare 

pump performance is physically 

measured—the performance of the 

motor and any continuous or noncontinuous controls would be addressed 

through a series of calculations. In the 

case of the testing-based method, the 

full wire-to-water performance of the 

pump is physically measured and the 

measured input power to the pump at 

the motor or at the continuous or noncontinuous control, if any, is used to 

calculate PEICL or PEIVL. In either case, 

DOE’s test procedure, as proposed, 

would require instructions for how to 

physically measure the performance of 

bare pumps, pumps with motors, and 

pumps with motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls in a 

standardized and consistent manner. 

1. Referenced Industry Standards 

In developing this proposal, DOE 

reviewed domestic and international 

industry test procedures. Table III.4 

shows a number of industry test 

methods that relate to the pumps for 

which DOE is considering adopting a 

test method and standards. 

TABLE III.4—OVERVIEW OF CURRENTLY AVAILABLE PUMP TEST PROCEDURES

Test procedure Origin Notes 

ANSI/HI 14.6–2011, ‘‘Rotodynamic Pumps for Hydraulic Performance Acceptance Tests’’.United States ...... Harmonized with ANSI/HI 11.6 and ISO 9906–2012. 

HI 40.6–2014, ‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency 

Testing’’.

United States ...... Developed, in coordination with DOE and the CIP Working 

Group, to support DOE’s pump test procedure. 

ANSI/HI 11.6–2012, ‘‘Submersible Pump Tests’’ .................... United States ...... Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6. 

ASME PTC 8.2–1990, ‘‘Centrifugal Pump’’ ............................. United States ...... References dated measurement techniques.

ISO 9906–2012 Rotodynamic pumps—Hydraulic performance acceptance tests—Grades 1, 2 and 3.International ........ Harmonized with ANSI/HI 14.6 and referenced in EU regulations.*

ISO 5198–1999 Centrifugal, mixed flow, and axial pumps. 

Code for hydraulic performance tests. Precision class.

International ........ Provides guidance for measurement of very high accuracy. 

Includes specification of an optional thermodynamic method for direct measurement of pump efficiencies. 

AS 2417–2001 Rotodynamic pumps—Hydraulic performance 

acceptance tests—Grades 1 and 2.

Australia .............. Based on ISO 9906–2012. 

GB/T 3216–2005 ...................................................................... China ................... Based on ISO 9906–2012. 

NOM–010–ENER–2004 Submersible deep well clean water 

motor pumps.

Mexico ................. Based on ISO 9906–2012. 

NOM–001–ENER–2000 Vertical turbine pumps with external 

vertical electric motor for pumping clean water for irrigation, municipal supply, or industrial supply.

Mexico ................. Based on ISO 3555 (predecessor to 9906–2012). 

* Council of the European Union. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 

June 2012, pp. 28–36. 

As presented in the Framework 

Document, DOE determined that ANSI/ 

HI 14.6–2011: (1) Is the most widely 

used test standard in the pump industry 

for evaluating pump performance; (2) 

defines uniform methods for conducting 

laboratory tests to determine flow rate, 

head, power, and efficiency at a given 

speed of rotation; and (3) applies to all 

pumps that DOE is considering 

regulating. See section III.A., supra. In 

the Framework Document, DOE 

requested comments from interested 

parties on the use of several test 

procedures, including ANSI/HI 14.6– 

2011, as a basis for developing DOE’s 

test procedure. HI, Grundfos, and AHRI 

all recommended the use of ANSI/HI 

14.6–2011 for stand-alone pump testing 

(i.e., testing of a bare pump without a 

motor and without continuous or noncontinuous controls). (HI, No. 25 at p. 

34, Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 17, and AHRI, 

No. 28 at p. 2) 

After publication of the Framework 

Document, HI convened a group of 

subject matter experts to, in 

coordination with DOE and the CIP 

Working Group, revise ANSI/HI 14.6– 

2011 to make the test protocol more 

relevant for incorporation by DOE as 

part of the DOE test procedure. The 

new, revised standard was issued by HI 

in July 2014 as HI 40.6–2014 and 

incorporates several improvements over 

the previous testing standard, including 

greater precision and accuracy in 

describing evaluation techniques and 

mandatory language. The CIP Working 

Group recommended that whatever 

procedure the DOE adopts, it should be 

consistent with HI 40.6–2014 for 

determining bare pump performance. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 92, Recommendation #10 at pg. 4) 

DOE has reviewed HI 40.6–2014 and 

determined that it contains the relevant 

test methods needed to accurately 

characterize the performance of the 

pumps that would be addressed by this 

rulemaking. These test methods include 

a means to determine pump shaft input 

power (for the calculation-based 

methods) and input power to the motor 

or motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls (for the testingbased methods) at the specified load 

points. Specifically, HI 40.6–2014 

defines and explains how to calculate 

pump power input,30 driver power 

input,31 pump power output,32 pump 

efficiency,33 bowl efficiency,34 overall 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

assembly power input and is applicable only to 

VTS and RSV pumps. 

35The term ‘‘overall efficiency’’ is defined in HI 

40.6–2014 as a ratio of pump power output to driver 

power input and describes the combined efficiency 

of a pump and driver. 

36Testing at higher temperatures may be 

conducted by manufacturers when their pumps are 

designed for a specific, higher-temperature 

application. However, for DOE’s purposes in 

developing a test procedure to determine the energy 

use of pumps, testing outside the nominal, 

standardized rating conditions is unnecessary. 

efficiency,35 and other relevant 

quantities. HI 40.6–2014 also contains 

appropriate specifications regarding the 

scope of pumps covered by the test 

methods, test methodology, standard 

rating conditions, equipment 

specifications, uncertainty calculations, 

and tolerances. Additionally, HI 40.6– 

2014, when coupled with the minor 

modifications specified in section 

III.C.2.a, would provide clarity 

regarding certain mandatory 

requirements when performing the test 

procedure, such as the test conditions 

and instrumentation requirements 

necessary to ensure testing accuracy and 

repeatability. 

To limit the overall burden presented 

by this proposal, DOE has chosen an 

approach that is as closely aligned as 

possible with existing and widely used 

industry test procedures. Although HI 

40.6–2014 is a new test standard, its 

methods are substantially the same as 

those specified in ANSI/HI 14.6–2011 

and currently used to evaluate pumps in 

the industry. Accordingly, in DOE’s 

view, HI 40.6–2014, as a procedure 

based on an already widely used and 

recognized industry-developed 

procedure, is an appropriate method for 

evaluating bare pump/pump and motor 

performance. For this reason, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate this testing 

standard as part of DOE’s test procedure 

for measuring the energy consumption 

of pumps, with the minor modifications 

and exceptions listed in the following 

sections III.C.2.a through III.C.2.f. 

DOE requests comment on using HI 

40.6–2014 as the basis of the DOE test 

procedure for pumps. 

2. Minor Modifications and Additions to 

HI 40.6–2014 

In general, DOE finds the test methods 

contained within HI 40.6–2014 are 

sufficiently specific and reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency and energy 

use. However, in DOE’s view, a few 

minor modifications are necessary to 

ensure repeatable and reproducible test 

results and to provide measurement 

methods and equipment specifications 

for the entire scope of pumps that DOE 

is addressing as part of this proposal. 

a. Sections Excluded From DOE’s 

Incorporation by Reference 

While DOE proposes to reference HI 

40.640.6–2014 as the basis for its 

proposed test procedure, DOE notes that 

some sections of the standard are not 

applicable to DOE’s regulatory 

framework. Specifically, section 40.6.5.3 

provides requirements regarding the 

generation of a test report and appendix 

‘‘B’’ provides guidance on test report 

formatting, both of which are not 

required for testing and rating pumps in 

accordance with DOE’s proposed 

procedure. As such, DOE proposes to 

not incorporate by reference section 

40.6.5.3 and appendix B of HI 40.6– 

2014. 

HI 40.6–2014 also contains relevant 

requirements for the characteristics of 

the testing fluid to be used when testing 

pumps in section 40.6.5.5, ‘‘Test 

conditions.’’ Specifically, section 

40.6.5.5 requires that ‘‘tests shall be 

made with clear water at a maximum 

temperature of 10–30 °C (50–86 °F)’’ and 

clarifies that ‘‘clear water means water 

to be used for pump testing, with a 

maximum kinematic viscosity of 

1.5 × 10¥6 m2/s (1.6 × 10¥5 ft2/s) and 

a maximum density of 1000 kg/m3 (62.4 

lb/ft3).’’ DOE agrees with these 

requirements and proposes to include 

them in the incorporation by reference 

of HI 40.6–2014. However, in section 

A.7 of appendix A, ‘‘Testing at 

temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F),’’ 

HI 40.6–2014 addresses testing at 

temperatures above 30 °C (86 °F). DOE 

does not intend to allow testing with 

liquids other than those meeting the 

definition of clear water presented 

above, including water at elevated 

temperatures.36 As such, DOE also 

proposes to exclude section A.7 from 

the incorporation by reference of HI 

40.6–2014. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to not incorporate by reference 

section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and 

appendix B of HI 40.6–2014 as part of 

the DOE test procedure. 

b. Data Collection and Determination of 

Stabilization 

In order to ensure the repeatability of 

test data and results, the DOE pump test 

procedure must provide instructions 

regarding how to sample and collect 

data at each load point such that the 

collected data is taken at stabilized 

conditions that accurately and precisely 

represent the performance of the pump 

at that load point. HI 40.6–2014 

provides that all measurements shall be 

made under steady state conditions, 

which are described as follows: (1) No 

vortexing, (2) margins as specified in 

ANSI/HI 9.6.1 Rotodynamic Pumps 

Guideline for NPSH Margin, and (3) 

when the mean value of all measured 

quantities required for the test data 

point remain constant within the 

permissible amplitudes of fluctuations 

defined in Table 40.6.3.2.2 over a 

minimum time of 10 seconds before 

data are collected. However, HI 40.6– 

2014 does not specify the frequency of 

data collection. As such, determining 

stabilization, as specified, could occur 

based on a minimum of two data points 

(as a minimum of two data points are 

necessary to calculate a mean) or many 

data points based on a 1 second or subsecond data sampling frequency. DOE 

believes that, at a minimum, two data 

points should be used to determine 

stabilization and, as such, data must be 

collected at least every 5 seconds. DOE 

believes that two data points are 

necessary because at least two data 

points are necessary to determine an 

average. DOE proposes to specify that 

data shall be collected at least every 5 

seconds for all measured quantities. 

As noted above, section 40.6.3.2.2 of 

HI 40.6–2014, ‘‘Permissible 

fluctuations,’’ provides permissible 

amplitude of fluctuations for various 

measured quantities throughout the test. 

As specified in that section, all 

measurements must be less than these 

thresholds for the duration of the 

measurement period for a valid 

measurement. The section also 

describes permissible dampening 

devices that may be used to minimize 

noise and large fluctuations in the data. 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference section 40.6.3.2.2 except that 

dampening devices would only be 

permitted to integrate up to the data 

collection interval, or 5 seconds, to 

ensure that each data point is reflective 

of a unique measurement. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that data be 

collected at least every 5 seconds for all 

measured quantities. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow dampening devices, as 

described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with 

the proviso noted above (i.e., permitted 

to integrate up to the data collection 

interval, or 5 seconds). 

c. Modifications Regarding Test 

Consistency and Repeatability 

Sections 40.6.5.6 and 40.6.5.7 of HI 

40.6–2014 specify test arrangements and 

test conditions. However, DOE finds 

that the standardized test conditions 

described in these sections are not 

sufficient to produce accurate and 

repeatable test results. Specifically, the 

nominal pump speed, the input power 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17609 

characteristics, and the number of stages 

to test for multi-stage pumps are not 

addressed, all of which could impact 

the measured test result for a given 

pump unit. To address these potential 

sources of variability or ambiguity, DOE 

proposes to adopt several additional 

requirements to further specify the 

procedures for adjusting the test data to 

standardized rating conditions. 

HI 40.6–2014 specifies that testing 

shall be done with clear water and 

defines clear water for the purposes of 

pump testing. HI 40.6–2014 also 

provides a standardized description of 

the method for configuring pumps for 

testing. However, additional 

specifications not present in HI 40.6– 

2014 are also required regarding the 

speed of rotation, the characteristics of 

the power supply, and the configuration 

of specific pump types for the purposes 

of testing pumps and for use in any 

subsequent calculations to determine 

the PEICL or PEIVL. 

Pump Speed 

The rated speed of a pump affects the 

efficiency and PEICL or PEIVL of that 

pump. To limit variability and increase 

repeatability within the test procedure, 

DOE is proposing to include nominal 

rating speeds of 3,600 and 1,800 rpm at 

60 Hz. For pumps sold without motors, 

the nominal rating speed would be 

selected based on the speed of rotation 

for which the pump is designed. 

Specifically, pumps designed to operate 

at any speed of rotation between 2,880 

and 4,320 rpm would be rated at 3,600 

rpm and pumps designed to operate at 

any speed of rotation between 1,440 and 

2,160 rpm would be rated at 1,800 rpm, 

as noted in Table III.5. 

TABLE III.5—NOMINAL SPEED OF ROTATION FOR DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF PUMPS

Pump configuration Pump design 

speed of rotation Style of motor Nominal speed of rotation for rating 

Bare Pump ........................ 2,880 and 4,320 rpm ... N/A ................................................................................................. 3,600 rpm. 

1,440 and 2,160 rpm ... ........................................................................................................ 1,800 rpm. 

Pump + Motor OR ............ N/A ............................... 2-pole Induction Motor ................................................................... 3,600 rpm. 

Pump + Motor + Control ... N/A ............................... 4-pole Induction Motor ................................................................... 1,800 rpm. 

N/A ............................... Non-Induction Motor Designed to Operate between 2,880 and 

4,320 rpm.

3,600 rpm. 

N/A ............................... Non-Induction Motor Designed to Operate between 1,440 and 

2,160 rpm.

1,800 rpm. 

DOE proposes that pumps designed to 

operate at speeds that include both 

ranges would be rated at both nominal 

speeds of rotations. DOE notes that each 

nominal speed rating would represent a 

different basic model of pump. DOE 

selected these operating speed ranges 

consistent with the tolerance about the 

nominal rating speed allowed for in the 

test procedure. Specifically, section 

40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6–2014 requires that 

the tested speed be maintained within 

20 percent of the rated speed, or the 

specified nominal speed of rotation in 

this case. Therefore, any pump 

‘‘designed for operation’’ at any speed of 

rotation between, for example, 2,880 

and 4,320 rpm would be able to be 

tested under the proposed test 

procedure at the design speed of 

rotation and the results corrected to the 

rated nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 

rpm. 

DOE notes that these speed ranges are 

not exclusive. That is, if a pump were 

to be designed to operate from 2,600 to 

4,000 rpm, such a pump would have a 

nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm 

for the purposes of testing and rating the 

pump. 

For pumps sold with motors, DOE 

proposes that the nominal speed of 

rotation be selected based on the 

speed(s) for which the motor is designed 

to operate. Specifically, as shown in 

Table III.5, pumps sold with 2-pole 

induction motors would be evaluated at 

3,600 rpm, and pumps sold with 4-pole 

induction motors would be evaluated at 

1,800 rpm. Pumps sold with noninduction motors (e.g., DC motors and 

ECMs) would be evaluated at the 

nominal rating speed that falls within 

the operating range of the motor with 

which the pump is being sold. If the 

pump is sold with a non-induction 

motor that is designed to operate at any 

speed of rotation between 2,880 and 

4,320 rpm, that pump would be rated at 

a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 

rpm. If the pump is sold with a noninduction motor that is designed to 

operate at any speed of rotation between 

1,440 and 2,160 rpm, that pump would 

be rated at 1,800 rpm. If the operating 

range of the non-induction motor with 

which the pump is distributed in 

commerce includes speeds of rotation 

that are both between 2,880 and 4,320 

rpm and between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, 

the pump would be rated at both 3,600 

and 1,800 rpm and each nominal speed 

of rotation would represent a separate 

basic model. 

However, DOE acknowledges that it 

may not be feasible to operate pumps 

during the test at exactly 3,600 or 1,800 

rpm. Therefore, DOE proposes that all 

data collected as a result of the test 

procedure at the speed measured during 

the test be adjusted to the nominal 

speed prior to use in subsequent 

calculations and that the PEICL or PEIVL

of a given pump be based on the 

nominal speed. For pumps sold with 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls and that are tested 

using the testing-based method 

described in section III.E.2.c, this 

adjustment to the nominal rating speed 

would apply only at the 100 percent of 

BEP flow rating point—subsequent part 

load points would be measured at 

reduced speed and would not be 

adjusted. DOE proposes to use the 

methods in HI 40.6–2014 section 

40.6.6.1.1, ‘‘Translation of the test 

results into data based on the specified 

speed of rotation (for frequency) and 

density’’ to adjust any data from the 

measured speed to the nominal speed. 

In all cases, as required by HI 40.6– 

2014, the tested speed maintained 

during the test at each rating point must 

be maintained within 20 percent of the 

nominal speed and the speed of rotation 

recorded at each test point may not vary 

more than ±1 percent to ensure accurate 

and reliable results. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require data collected at the 

pump speed measured during testing to 

be normalized to the nominal speeds of 

1,800 and 3,600. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the requirements in 

HI 40.6–2014 regarding the deviation of 

tested speed from nominal speed and 

the variation of speed during the test. 

Specifically, DOE is interested if 

maintaining tested speed within ±1 

percent of the nominal speed is feasible 

and whether this approach would 

produce more accurate and repeatable 

test results. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Power Supply Characteristics 

Because pump power consumption is 

a component of the proposed metric, 

inclusive of any motor and continuous 

or non-continuous controls, measuring 

power consumption is an important 

element of the test. The characteristics 

of the power supplied to the pump 

affect the accuracy and repeatability of 

the measured power consumption of the 

pump. As such, to ensure accurate and 

repeatable measurement of power 

consumption, DOE is also proposing to 

specify nominal characteristics of the 

power supply. Namely, DOE is 

proposing nominal values for voltage, 

frequency, voltage unbalance, total 

harmonic distortion, and impedance 

levels, as well as tolerances about each 

of these quantities, that must be 

maintained at the input terminals to the 

motor, continuous control, or noncontinuous control, as applicable. 

To determine the appropriate power 

supply characteristics testing pumps 

with motors (but without continuous or 

non-continuous controls) and pumps 

with both motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls, DOE 

examined applicable test methods for 

electric motors and VSD systems. DOE 

determined that IEEE Standard 112– 

2004 (‘‘IEEE Standard Test Procedure 

for Polyphase Induction Motors and 

Generators’’), which is the test method 

incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 

431.16 for electric motors, is the most 

applicable test method for electric 

motors when considering testing and 

rated values for motors that are 

integrated with a pump. DOE identified 

both AHRI 1210–2011, ‘‘2011 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Variable 

Frequency Drives,’’ (AHRI 1210–2011) 

and the 2013 version of the Canadian 

Standards Association (CSA) Standard 

C838, ‘‘Energy efficient test methods for 

three-phase variable frequency drive 

systems,’’ (CSA C838–2013) as 

applicable methods for measuring the 

performance of VSD control systems. 

IEEE 112–2004, AHRI 1210–2011, and 

CSA C838–2013 all specify that voltage 

and frequency must be maintained at 

the rated voltage and frequency of the 

motor ±0.5 percent. In addition, all three 

standards specify that the power source 

‘‘voltage unbalance’’ shall not exceed 

0.5 percent during the test. Voltage 

unbalance is calculated as the maximum 

voltage deviation from the average 

measured voltage divided by the average 

measured voltage. 

DOE recognizes that any harmonics in 

the power system can affect the 

measured performance of the pump 

when tested with a motor or motor and 

continuous or non-continuous control. 

IEEE 112–2004 and CSA C838–2013 

also include requirements to maintain 

total harmonic distortion below 5 

percent. When measuring the input 

power to the continuous or noncontinuous controls that are paired with 

an electric motor-driven pump, AHRI 

1210–2011 and CSA C838–2013 also 

specify impedance levels of the 

incoming power supplied to the VSD. 

AHRI 1210–2011 requires that source 

impedance not exceed 1 percent, while 

CSA C838–2013 requires that source 

impedance shall be greater than 1 

percent but not exceed 3 percent for 

VFDs under 500 hp. 

DOE is also proposing to establish 

these requirements for voltage, 

frequency, voltage unbalance, total 

harmonic distortion, and impedance in 

the DOE pump test procedure when 

testing pumps that either have motors 

(but without controls) or pumps with 

motors with continuous or noncontinuous controls. 

While some pump manufacturers may 

be capable and equipped to accurately 

measure pumps sold with motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

in accordance with the proposed power 

supply characteristics, DOE recognizes 

that there may be some variability 

among manufacturers in this regard. 

Consequently, these requirements may 

represent a significant incremental 

burden for some testing facilities. To 

lessen this burden, DOE proposes to 

require that power supply requirements 

would apply only to pumps being 

evaluated using a physical testing-based 

method or pumps being tested using a 

calibrated motor. Pumps evaluated 

based on the calculation method where 

the input power to the motor is 

determined using equipment other than 

a calibrated motor would not have to 

meet these requirements, as variations 

in voltage, frequency, and voltage 

unbalance are not expected to affect the 

tested pump’s energy performance. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 

unbalance, total harmonic distortion, 

and impedance requirements that must 

be met when performing a wire-to-water 

pump test or when testing a bare pump 

with a calibrated motor. Specifically, 

DOE requests comments on whether 

these tolerances can be achieved in 

typical pump test labs, or whether 

specialized power supplies or power 

conditioning equipment would be 

required. 

Number of Stages for Multi-Stage Pumps 

RSV and VTS pumps are typically 

multi-stage pumps that may be offered 

in a variety of stages (also known as 

bowls), each with its own energy 

consumption characteristics, which 

scale approximately linearly with each 

additional bowl. With these pump 

designs, any improvements in the 

hydraulic design of the bowl would be 

reflected in the measured performance 

of the pump with any number of stages. 

Thus, to simplify certification 

requirements and limit testing burden, 

DOE proposes to require that 

certification of RSV and VTS pumps be 

based on testing with the following 

number of stages: 

• RSV: 3 stages; and 

• VTS: 9 stages. 

If a model is not available with that 

specific number of stages, the model 

would be tested with the next closest 

number of stages distributed in 

commerce by the manufacturer. This 

proposal was part of the Working Group 

Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 92, 

Recommendation #14 at p. 6) 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in 

their 3- and 9-stage versions, 

respectively, or the next closest number 

of stages if the pump model is not 

distributed in commerce with that 

particular number of stages. 

d. Determination of Pump Shaft Input 

Power at Specified Flow Rates 

HI 40.6–2014 provides a specific 

procedure for determining BEP for a 

given pump based on seven data points 

at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and 120 

percent of the expected BEP flow of the 

pump. The test protocol in HI 40.6–2014 

requires that the hydraulic power and 

the pump shaft input power, or input 

power to the motor for pumps tested 

using the testing-based methods, be 

measured at each of the seven data 

points. HI 40.6–2014 further specifies 

that the pump efficiency be determined 

as a ratio of hydraulic power divided by 

shaft input power, as described in 

equation (1), or the measured input 

power to the motor multiplied by the 

known efficiency of a calibrated motor, 

depending on how the pump is tested. 

The pump efficiency at each of these 

points is then used to determine the 

tested BEP for a given pump. Then, 

based on the determined BEP flow, the 

pump shaft input power or input power 

to the motor is determined at each of the 

specified load points, as discussed in 

section III.B.2.a. However, the specific 

data points measured in the test 

protocol may not be exactly at 75, 100, 

or 110 percent of the BEP flow load 

points specified in the proposal. Thus, 

the relevant test values—specifically, 

pump shaft input power, input power to 

the pump at the driver, or input power 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17611 

37 DOE’s contractors have created a database of 

available pump models being proposed for coverage 

under this test procedure and the associated energy 

conservation standards. The database represents a 

significant portion of the pump market and is based 

on data supplied to DOE’s contractors directly from 

pump manufacturers and aggregated data supplied 

by HI. DOE’s contractors developed this database 

over the course of the CIP Working Group 

negotiations, and the database is described in more 

detail in the docket for those meetings. (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039) 

to the continuous or non-continuous 

controls—must be adjusted to reflect the 

power input at the load points specified 

in the test procedure. 

Consistent with the CIP Working 

Group’s recommendations, (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 107 at 

pp. 35) DOE proposes to address this 

issue by requiring that the pump shaft 

input power at the defined load points 

be obtained by performing the pump 

test across a complete range of flow 

rates (i.e., sweeping the pump curve) 

and determining the pump shaft input 

power at a number of load points 

between shutoff (no flow) and overload 

(max flow), as specified in HI 40.6– 

2014. In this method, the established 

pump curve could then be used to find 

BEP (as described in section III.C.2.d). 

The pump shaft input power at the 

specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 

percent of BEP flow could be 

determined by regressing the pump 

shaft input power with respect to flow 

between 75 and 110 percent of BEP 

flow. Specifically, the regressed test 

points would include the test points 

beginning with the next standard flow 

point below 75 percent of BEP flow 

(e.g., the load point corresponding to 60 

percent of expected BEP flow) and 

continuing to the highest flow rate 

measured during the test. 

This method would provide a low 

testing burden, as test data would only 

have to be collected at each of the 

specified seven load points with no 

measurements required at subsequent 

load points (e.g., 75 or 110 percent of 

BEP flow if the previously collected 

load points collected based on the 

expected BEP of the pump were not 

sufficiently close to the necessary load 

points based on the actual BEP of the 

pump). By design, the method relies on 

the relationship between pump shaft 

input power and flow being fairly linear 

across the flow rates of interest. To 

verify the assumption of linearity, DOE 

researched the relationship of pump 

shaft input power to flow using publicly 

available pump performance data. Based 

on this research, DOE observed that the 

relationship of pump shaft input power 

to flow rate was very nearly linear, but 

sometimes decreased slightly in slope at 

higher flow rates. These data indicate 

that, as a general matter, applying a 

linear regression approach across the 

flow range between 75 and 110 percent 

of BEP flow to determine the pump 

shaft input power at the proposed 

specified flow points would provide a 

reasonably accurate measurement of 

pump shaft input power. 

DOE recognizes that this method may 

overestimate pump shaft input power in 

cases where the pump shaft input power 

increases less significantly above BEP 

flow, which would result in a slightly 

higher PERCL for the given pump. 

However, DOE’s contractors analyzed 

the impact of the linear regression 

approach on the pumps in their pump 

database 37 and found that the linear 

regression method was, on average, 

within approximately 1 percent of the 

measured pump shaft input power 

values. DOE also notes this method 

would be applied equivalently to all 

pumps, result in a worst-case rating, and 

offer the least burdensome approach. 

DOE discussed this proposed method 

with the CIP Working Group, which 

informally agreed with DOE’s proposed 

approach to linearly regress the 

measured pump shaft input power at 

the relevant flow points to determine 

the pump shaft input power at the 

specific flow points of 75, 100, and 110 

percent of BEP flow. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 107 at p. 35) 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to use a linear regression of the 

pump shaft input power with respect to 

flow rate at all the tested flow points 

greater than or equal to 60 percent of 

expected BEP flow to determine the 

pump shaft input power at the specific 

load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent 

of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pump models for 

which such an approach would yield 

inaccurate measurements. 

Determination of Pump Shaft Input 

Power for Pumps With BEP at Run Out 

HI 40.6–2014 contains a method for 

determining the BEP of tested pumps 

based on the flow rate at which the 

maximum pump efficiency occurs. DOE 

recognizes that there may be some 

unique pump models that do not exhibit 

the typical parabolic relationship of 

pump efficiency to flow rate. Instead, 

for some pumps, pump efficiency will 

continue to increase as a function of 

flow until pump run-out—the maximum 

flow that can be developed without 

damaging the pump. For such pumps, it 

may not be possible to use the 

procedure described in HI 40.6–2014 to 

determine BEP, since the pump cannot 

safely operate at flows of 110 and 120 

percent of the expected BEP of the 

pump (assuming the pump was 

designed intentionally to have the BEP 

occur at run-out or the maximum flow 

rate). In such cases, DOE proposes that 

the seven flow points for determination 

of BEP be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 

percent of expected BEP flow instead of 

the seven data points described in 

section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2014. 

In addition, since 100 percent of BEP 

flow corresponds to the maximum flow 

rate of the pump, there are no data 

corresponding to 110 percent of BEP 

flow, or any flow rates above BEP flow. 

Therefore, in cases where the BEP flow 

is at run-out, DOE proposes that the 

specified constant load flow points be 

100, 90, and 65 percent of the BEP (or 

maximum) flow rate. DOE notes that, for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls, no 

modification would be necessary since 

there are no load points above 100 

percent of BEP flow in the variable load 

profile. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that, for pumps with BEP at 

run-out, the BEP would be determined 

at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent 

of expected BEP flow instead of the 

seven data points described in section 

40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2014 and that the 

constant load points for pumps with 

BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 

percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, 

and 75 percent of BEP flow. 

e. Measurement Equipment for VFD 

Wire-to-Water Test 

HI 40.6–2014 does not contain all the 

necessary methods and calculations to 

determine pump power consumption 

for the range of equipment that would 

be addressed by this proposal (i.e., 

pumps inclusive of motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls). 

For the purposes of determining pump 

shaft input power, motor input power, 

input power to the continuous or noncontinuous controls, and pump 

hydraulic power, certain equipment is 

necessary to measure head, speed, flow 

rate, torque, electrical power, and 

temperature. To specify the appropriate 

equipment to accurately and precisely 

measure relevant parameters, DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference HI 

40.6–2014, appendix C, which specifies 

the required instrumentation to measure 

head, speed, flow rate, torque, 

temperature, and electrical input power 

to the motor. However, for the purposes 

of measuring input power to the pump 

for pumps sold with a motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

the equipment specified in section 

C.4.3.1, ‘‘electric power input to the 

motor,’’ of HI 40.6–2014 may not be 

sufficient. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

38Total harmonic distortion results from the 

introduction of non-linear loads into the power 

system, which introduces wave forms that are out 

of phase with the voltage and can affect power 

quality and the efficiency of power distribution. 39CSA C838–2013 requires measurement up to 

the 50th harmonic. However, DOE believes that 

measurement up to the 40th harmonic is sufficient, 

and the difference between the two types of 

frequency measurement equipment will not be 

appreciable. 

40Power factor is defined as the ratio of the real 

power supplied to the load over the apparent power 

in the circuit and is a dimensionless number 

between ¥1 and 1. Higher values of power factor 

(closer to 1) indicate that more real power is being 

supplied to the load relative to the current and 

voltage flowing in the circuit. When non-linear 

loads are applied that distort the wave form, less 

real power is available relative to the current and 

voltage in the circuit. 

In response to the Framework 

Document, several commenters 

discussed the instrumentation needed to 

test a pump inclusive of motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls. 

The CA IOUs mentioned that most VFDs 

introduce non-linear, or non-sinusoidal, 

wave forms into the utility system, 

which will affect the total harmonic 

distortion experienced in the power 

system.38 As such, it would be 

important to measure their power and 

energy use with true root mean square 

(RMS) power-measuring equipment to 

capture the impact of such harmonic 

distortion on the measured input power 

to any pump sold with a motor and 

continuous or non-continuous control. 

(CA IOUs, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript No. 19 at p. 236) In addition, 

HI stated that testing pumps inclusive of 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls would require an 

upgrade to the test instrumentation to 

measure the input power into a VFD to 

compensate for the disruption of the 

input power by the VFD. (HI, No. 25 at 

p. 35) However, HI added that this 

additional instrumentation is 

manageable and within the capabilities 

of what most of the HI members are 

doing today. (HI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 19 at p. 235) 

To determine the appropriate 

electrical measurement equipment for 

pumps tested with a motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

DOE consulted CSA C838–2013 and 

AHRI 1210–2011, since these test 

standards are the most relevant 

references for measuring input power to 

such controls. Both CSA C838–2013 and 

AHRI 1210–2011 require that electrical 

measurements for determining variable 

speed drive efficiency be taken using 

equipment capable of measuring 

current, voltage, and real power up to at 

least the 40th harmonic of fundamental 

supply source frequency 39 and have an 

accuracy level of ±0.2 percent of full 

scale when measured at the 

fundamental supply source frequency. 

In addition, AHRI 1210–2011 prescribes 

that such electrical measurement 

equipment must be designed as per 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Standard 61000–4–7– 

2002, ‘‘Electromagnetic compatibility 

(EMC)—Part 4–7: Testing and 

measurement techniques—General 

guide on harmonics and interharmonics 

measurements and instrumentation, for 

power supply systems and equipment 

connected thereto.’’ 

Because some variable speed control 

methods have the potential to introduce 

harmonics to the power system, which 

can reduce power factor 40 and affect the 

performance of certain electrical 

equipment, such as motors, DOE 

proposes that the electrical 

measurement equipment specified in 

AHRI 1210–2011 and CSA C838–2013 

be required for the purposes of 

measuring input power to a pump sold 

with a motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls. DOE agrees with 

interested parties that specific electrical 

measurement equipment capable of 

capturing the disruption or distortion of 

input power should be used to ensure 

measurement accuracy. Also, DOE does 

not anticipate that this proposed 

requirement would be likely to 

introduce an undue burden on pump 

manufacturers since many of them are 

already using this type of specialized 

equipment to test pumps equipped with 

motors having continuous or noncontinuous controls. The burden 

associated with this test procedure, and 

in particular the required test 

equipment, is discussed further in 

section IV.B. 

DOE requests comment on the type 

and accuracy of required measurement 

equipment, especially the equipment 

required for electrical power 

measurements for pumps sold with 

motors having continuous or noncontinuous controls. 

f. Calculations and Rounding 

DOE notes HI 40.6–2014 does not 

specify how to round values for 

calculation and reporting purposes. 

DOE recognizes that the manner in 

which values are rounded can affect the 

resulting PER or PEI, and all PER or PEI 

values should be reported with the same 

number of significant digits. DOE 

proposes to require that all calculations 

be performed with the raw measured 

data, to ensure accuracy, and that the 

PERCL and PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL be 

reported to the nearest 0.01. Therefore, 

the values obtained from any 

corrections to nominal speed or 

calculations performed prior to 

obtaining the final PER or PEI values 

would not be rounded. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to conduct all calculations and 

corrections to nominal speed using raw 

measured values and that the PERCL and 

PEICL or PERVL PEIVL, as applicable, be 

reported to the nearest 0.01. 

D. Determination of Motor Efficiency 

The PEICL and PEIVL metrics both 

describe the performance of a pump and 

its accompanying motor and continuous 

or non-continuous controls, if 

applicable. As such, the performance of 

the applicable motor must be 

determined to calculate the PEICL or 

PEIVL of a given pump model. For 

determining pump performance for bare 

pumps and determining the default 

motor efficiency of a minimally 

compliant pump (PERSTD), DOE is 

proposing to specify a standardized 

default motor nominal efficiency. 

For determining pump performance 

for pumps sold with motors or with 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls, DOE is proposing 

to use either (1) the physically tested 

performance of the motor paired with 

that pump when using testing-based 

methods, or (2) the nominal full load 

motor efficiency of the motor (other 

than submersible) paired with that 

pump model when using the 

calculation-based test method to 

determine the PERCL or PERVL for that 

pump. See section III.E.1.b, infra, 

describing the proposed calculationbased method for pumps sold with 

motors and the use of the nominal 

motor efficiency when calculating 

overall pump power consumption. 

The default nominal or rated nominal 

full load motor efficiency, as 

represented by the motor manufacturer, 

would then be used to determine the 

full load losses, in horsepower, 

associated with that motor. The full load 

losses would then be adjusted using an 

algorithm to reflect the motor 

performance at partial loads, 

corresponding to the load points 

specified in the DOE test. The specific 

procedures for determining the default 

nominal and rated nominal motor part 

load losses are described below. 

1. Default Motor Efficiency 

To calculate PERCL for a pump sold in 

the bare pump configuration and 

determining its PERSTD, default motor 

losses would be added to the pump 

shaft input power at each rating point, 

and the sum would be multiplied by a 

weighting factor. In order to calculate 

the default motor losses at each rating 

point, DOE proposes to adopt default 

motor efficiency values based on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17613 

nominal full load motor efficiency 

values for general purpose, polyphase, 

NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and 

IEC Design N motors defined in 10 CFR 

431, subpart B for medium and large 

electric motors. Based on the Working 

Group discussions, DOE believes that 

most motors sold with pumps under the 

scope of this rulemaking are sold with 

motors covered by DOE’s updated 

electric motors standards and test 

procedures. (Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0039, No. 09 at pp. 57–58) See 

section III.D.1.c, infra., for a discussion 

regarding submersible motors. 

Subpart B of 10 CFR 431 contains 

DOE’s energy conservation standards for 

electric motors, which DOE recently 

updated. See 79 FR 30934 (May 29, 

2014). That rule established energy 

conservation standards for a number of 

different categories of electric motors 

DOE had not previously regulated, such 

as partial motors. In addition, although 

it did not change the required minimum 

efficiency of electric motors currently 

covered as general purpose electric 

motors (subtype I), it did increase the 

required efficiency for electric motors 

currently defined by DOE under the 

category of general purpose electric 

motors (subtype II), which includes 

close-coupled pump motors. Motors that 

are regulated must be manufactured in 

compliance with these updated 

standards beginning on June 1, 2016. 79 

FR at 30944. 

DOE proposes to use the applicable 

minimum nominal full load motor 

efficiency values at 10 CFR 431.25 for 

the category and horsepower of electric 

motors with which pumps are typically 

paired (i.e., NEMA Design A, NEMA 

Design B, and IEC Design N motors). 

Specifically, DOE believes that the 

minimum efficiency of a NEMA Design 

A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N 

motor is an applicable default minimum 

motor efficiency to apply to all pumps 

to which the proposed test procedure 

would apply, except submersible 

motors. At the time of writing, the 

values in Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) 

define the nominal minimum efficiency 

for motors paired with bare pumps sold 

alone and for determining the PERSTD

(see section III.B.2.b). Table 5 defines 

the minimum nominal efficiency for 

NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and 

IEC Design N electric motors from 1 to 

500 hp meeting the following criteria: 

(1) Are single-speed, induction 

motors; 

(2) are rated for continuous duty (MG 

1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC); 

(3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or 

cage (IEC) rotor; 

(4) operate on polyphase alternating 

current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power; 

(5) are rated 600 volts or less; 

(6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole 

configuration; 

(7) are built in a three-digit or fourdigit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 

equivalent), including those designs 

between two consecutive NEMA frame 

sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an 

enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC 

metric equivalent); 

(8) produce at least 1 hp (0.746 kW) 

but not greater than 500 hp (373 kW); 

and 

(9) meet all of the performance 

requirements of one of the following 

motor types: A NEMA Design A or B 

motor or an IEC Design N. 79 FR at 

31012 (to be codified at 10 CFR 

431.25(g)–(h)). 

a. Default Motor Selection 

For bare pumps, DOE proposes to 

specify the selection of the default 

motor used for calculating PERCL and 

PERSTD based on the nominal speed and 

measured shaft input power of the rated 

pump. DOE proposes that the number of 

poles selected for the default motor be 

equivalent to the nominal speed of the 

rated pump (i.e., 2 poles corresponds to 

3600 rpm and 4 poles corresponds to 

1800 rpm). DOE also proposes that the 

motor horsepower selected for a given 

pump would be required to be either 

equivalent to, or the next highest 

horsepower-rated level greater than, the 

measured pump shaft input power at 

120 percent of BEP flow. DOE also 

proposes that the shaft input power at 

the 120 percent of BEP flow point be 

calculated based on a linear 

extrapolation of the 100 and 110 percent 

of BEP flow points, similar to the 

approach proposed for determining the 

input power to the pump at these 

specified flow points, discussed in 

section III.C.2.d. 

DOE notes that the energy 

conservation standards for motors, 

found in Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h), 

include minimum nominal full load 

motor efficiency values for both open 

and enclosed motor construction. In 

general, motors with an open 

construction have a lower minimum 

nominal full load efficiency value; 

however, for some pole and horsepower 

combinations, this relationship does not 

hold. Therefore, for bare pumps and the 

minimally compliant pump in PERSTD, 

DOE proposes to specify selection of the 

minimum efficiency value listed in 

Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the 

lower value of either the open or 

enclosed construction at the appropriate 

motor horsepower and number of poles. 

As noted in section III.B.2.b, for 

pumps sold either with motors or with 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls, the motor 

horsepower and number of poles 

selected for determining the minimally 

compliant full load nominal efficiency 

from Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h)) (or 

the submersible motor table, in the case 

of submersible motors, see section 

III.D.1.b) and used in the equation for 

PERSTD should be equivalent to the 

horsepower and poles of the motor 

actually sold with the pump. In other 

words, the horsepower and number of 

poles of the minimally compliant motor 

in PERSTD would be the same as the 

motor with which the pump is being 

rated. In such a case, the minimum full 

load nominal efficiency corresponding 

to the minimally compliant motor in 

PERSTD shall still be the minimum of the 

open and enclosed values. That is, 

regardless of the motor construction 

(i.e., open or enclosed) of the motor with 

which the pump is being rated, the 

minimum efficiency value listed in the 

table at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for the given 

motor horsepower and number of poles 

shall be used. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the default motor 

horsepower for rating bare pumps based 

on the pump shaft input power at 120 

percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pumps for which the 

120 percent of BEP flow load point 

would not be an appropriate basis to 

determine the default motor horsepower 

(e.g., pumps for which the 120 percent 

of BEP flow load point is a significantly 

lower horsepower than the BEP flow 

load point). 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to specify the default, 

minimally compliant nominal full load 

motor efficiency based on the applicable 

minimally allowed nominal full load 

motor efficiency specified in DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and 

IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 

for all pumps except pumps sold with 

submersible motors. 

b. Rated Nominal Motor Efficiency for 

Pumps Sold With Motors 

For pumps sold with motors and rated 

using the calculation-based approach, 

DOE proposes that the motor nominal 

full load efficiency used in determining 

the PERCL or PERVL would be the 

measured nominal full load efficiency 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

electric motor test procedure specified 

at 10 CFR 431.16 and appendix B to 

subpart B of part 431. For pumps sold 

with submersible motors and rated 

using the calculation-based approach, 

the motor full load efficiency values are 

discussed in section III.D.1.c. For 

pumps sold with motors not addressed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

41Because motor efficiency varies from unit to 

unit, even within a specific model, NEMA has 

established a list of standardized efficiency values 

that manufacturers use when labeling their motors. 

Each incremental step, or ‘‘band,’’ constitutes a 10 

percent change in motor losses. NEMA MG 1–2011 

Table 12–10 contains the list of NEMA nominal 

efficiencies. See Electric Motors Final Rule, 79 FR 

30933 (May 29, 2014). 

by DOE’s electric motor test procedure 

(except submersible motors), the 

calculation-based methods described in 

section III.E.1 would not apply and no 

assumption regarding nominal 

efficiency of the motor paired with the 

pump would be required when 

determining PERCL or PERVL. However, 

an assumption regarding the default 

efficiency of the minimally compliant 

motor that could be paired with a given 

pump would still be required to 

calculate PERSTD. See section III.D.1.a., 

supra. 

c. Submersible Motors 

DOE notes that submersible motors 

are not currently subject to the DOE 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors specified at 10 CFR 

431.25. For the purposes of calculating 

PEICL for bare VTS pumps or PERSTD for 

any pumps sold with submersible 

motors, DOE requires a default 

assumption regarding full load 

efficiency for submersible motors. DOE 

surveyed the literature and equipment 

catalogs of pump and motor 

manufacturers producing submersible 

motors and collected full load efficiency 

data. The data collected are the 

representations made in manufacturer 

literature regarding the full load 

efficiency of the motor, but do not 

indicate whether these reported 

efficiency values comprise tested, 

nominal, or rated values, as submersible 

motors are not covered by DOE’s energy 

conservation standards or test 

procedures. 

Based on the available information, 

DOE constructed a table of motor full 

load efficiencies by motor horsepower, 

similar to the table of energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors at 10 CFR 431.25(h). DOE notes 

that because submersible motors are 

only available in enclosed construction, 

full load efficiency values are only 

provided for enclosed constructions. 

To construct the submersible motor 

full load efficiency table, DOE 

conducted research to determine the 

least efficient motor commercially 

available within each specified 

horsepower and pole configuration 

(where data were available). DOE 

selected the least efficient submersible 

motor available because DOE recognizes 

that, by selecting a value higher than the 

minimum available, DOE could 

unintentionally drive the submersible 

motor market without explicitly 

regulating it. Based on the available 

data, DOE identified the number of 

‘‘bands’’ 41 below the minimum full load 

efficiency values for NEMA Design A, 

NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N 

motors, as presented in Table 5 of 10 

CFR 431.25(h). 

The ‘‘minimum observed efficiency’’ 

column in Table III.6 reflects the least 

efficient motors found by DOE. As it is 

not DOE’s intent to impact the rated 

efficiency of submersible motors 

through this rulemaking, DOE deflated 

the minimum observed submersible 

motor efficiency by using the maximum 

number of ‘‘bands’’ across a horsepower 

range to ensure that the value 

represented a worst-case value. Where 

no data were available, DOE applied the 

same number of NEMA bands across the 

range of motor horsepower and numbers 

of poles. The observed and default 

number of ‘‘bands’’ below the minimum 

full load efficiency values for NEMA 

Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC 

Design N motors from Table 5 of 10 CFR 

431.25(h), are presented in Table III.6 

below. 

TABLE III.6—TWO-POLE MOTOR SUBMERSIBLE MOTOR FULL LOAD EFFICIENCY BY MOTOR HORSEPOWER RELATIVE TO

THE FULL LOAD EFFICIENCY IN IN TABLE 5 OF 10 CFR 431.25(H) 

Motor horsepower 

(hp) 

Minimum observed 

full load efficiency 

(2-poles) 

(%) 

Observed number 

of ‘‘bands’’ below 

the full load efficiency in in table 

5 of 10 CFR 

431.25(h) 

Default number of 

‘‘bands’’ below the 

full load efficiency 

in in table 5 of 10 

CFR 431.25(h) 

1 ............................................................................................................................... 67 6 11 

1.5 ............................................................................................................................ 67 11 

2 ............................................................................................................................... 73 9 

3 ............................................................................................................................... 75 9 

5 ............................................................................................................................... 76 10 

7.5 ............................................................................................................................ 77 10 15 

10 ............................................................................................................................. 75 13 

15 ............................................................................................................................. 72 .2 15 

20 ............................................................................................................................. 76 .4 13 

25 ............................................................................................................................. 79 12 

30 ............................................................................................................................. 79 .9 12 12 

40 ............................................................................................................................. 83 10 

50 ............................................................................................................................. 83 11 

60 ............................................................................................................................. 84 11 

75 ............................................................................................................................. 83 .8 12 

100 ........................................................................................................................... 87 10 14 

125 ........................................................................................................................... 86 13 

150 ........................................................................................................................... 86 13 

175 ........................................................................................................................... 88 12 

200 ........................................................................................................................... 87 14 

250 ........................................................................................................................... 87 14 

The resulting proposed default 

minimum electric motor full load 

efficiencies for submersible motors, as 

presented in the ‘‘default minimum 

efficiency’’ column in Table III.7, can 

then be calculated by applying the 

number of ‘‘bands’’ below the minimum 

full load efficiency values for NEMA 

Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17615 

Design N motors in Table 5 of 10 CFR 

431.25(h), as presented in Table III.6, to 

the actual efficiency values listed in the 

same Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h). 

TABLE III.7—DEFAULT SUBMERSIBLE

MOTOR FULL LOAD EFFICIENCY BY

MOTOR HORSEPOWER

Default submersible motor full load nominal 

efficiency 

Motor 

horsepower 

Pole 

configurations 

2 4 

1 ............................ 55 68 

1.5 ......................... 66 70 

2 ............................ 68 70 

3 ............................ 70 75 .5 

5 ............................ 74 75 .5 

7.5 ......................... 68 74 

10 .......................... 70 74 

15 .......................... 72 75 .5 

20 .......................... 72 77 

25 .......................... 74 78 .5 

30 .......................... 78 .5 82 .5 

40 .......................... 80 84 

50 .......................... 81 .5 85 .5 

60 .......................... 82 .5 86 .5 

75 .......................... 82 .5 87 .5 

100 ........................ 81 .5 85 .5 

125 ........................ 84 85 .5 

150 ........................ 84 86 .5 

200 ........................ 85 .5 87 .5 

250 ........................ 86 .5 87 .5 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed default minimum full load 

motor efficiency values for submersible 

motors. 

DOE requests comment on defining 

the proposed default minimum motor 

full load efficiency values for 

submersible motors relative to the most 

current minimum efficiency standards 

levels for regulated electric motors, 

through the use of ‘‘bands’’ as presented 

in Table III.6. 

DOE proposes to apply this table of 

default minimum efficiency values for 

submersible motor full load efficiency 

when calculating PERSTD for VTS 

pumps and to calculate the PEICL for 

pumps sold with submersible motors or 

PEIVL for pumps sold with a 

submersible motor and continuous or 

non-continuous controls, using the 

calculation-based approach described in 

section III.E.1. This aspect of DOE’s 

proposal would result in a conservative 

calculation of energy consumption for 

the rated pump model, since the 

submersible motor with which the rated 

pump model is paired may be more 

efficient than the default minimum full 

load efficiency assumed in Table III.7. 

Allowing the calculation-based method 

to be used for pumps sold with 

submersible motors may also reduce the 

testing burden for some manufacturers. 

If manufacturers wish to account for the 

use of submersible motors with a higher 

efficiency than the minimum default 

full load efficiency, they may choose to 

rate the pump model through using the 

testing-based, wire-to-water method 

described in section III.E.2. 

In summary, DOE proposes allowing 

the use of the default minimum 

submersible motor full load efficiency 

values presented in Table III.7 to rate (1) 

VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with 

submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold 

with submersible motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

as an option instead of wire-to-water 

testing. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow the use of the default 

minimum submersible motor full load 

efficiency values presented in Table III.7 

to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps 

sold with submersible motors, and (3) 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

and continuous or non-continuous 

controls as an option instead of wire-towater testing. 

2. Determining Part Load Motor Losses 

To determine the full load losses of 

the motor, the proposal would require 

that the full load motor efficiency 

described in section III.D.1 be used. 

Using this value, DOE would apply an 

algorithm to determine the part load 

losses of the motor at each of the rating 

points. 

To obtain the losses of the motor used 

at a fraction of full load under the 

proposal in this NOPR, manufacturers 

would be required to calculate the part 

load motor losses at each specified load 

point in accordance with the following 

three steps: 

(1) Determine the part load loss factor 

(yi) for each rating point, where part 

load loss factor at a given point 

represents the part load losses at the 

given load divided by full load losses, 

as shown in equation (12): 

Where: 

yi = the part load loss factor at load point i, 

Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump 

(hp), 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and 

i = percentage of flow at the BEP of the 

pump. 

(2) Calculate full load losses for the 

motor as shown in equation (13): 

Where: 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load 

(hp), 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower (hp), and 

hmotor,full = the full load motor efficiency as 

determined in accordance with section 

III.D.1 (%). 

(3) Multiply the full load losses by 

each part load loss factor to obtain part 

load losses at each rating point, as 

shown in equation (14): 

Where: 

Li = default motor losses at rating point i 

(hp), 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load 

(hp), 

yi = part load loss factor at each rating point 

i, and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.011</GPH> EP01AP15.012</GPH> EP01AP15.013</GPH>
17616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

42 During the CIP Working Group negotiations, 

the NEMA motor and drive working group provided 

DOE contractors with a table of representative 

nominal motor efficiency values, broken out by 

horsepower and motor load, to support 

development of the part load loss curves. 

43 Department of Energy. September 21, 2010. 

MotorMaster+. Version 4.01.01. www.energy.gov/

eere/amo/articles/motormaster. 

44 Department of Energy. Determining Electrical 

Motor Load and Efficiency. pp. 13–14. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_

assistance/pdfs/10097517.pdf. 

45The calculation-based test method was 

designed to capture the dynamic response of a 

control that can continuously respond to changes in 

load and reduce power consumption at all load 

points below BEP. Therefore, pumps sold with noncontinuous controls would instead use the testingbased method described in section III.E.2.c, which 

captures some reduction in power consumption at 

some reduced flow rates. DOE discussed this 

approach with the CIP Working Group, which 

generally agreed with it, although such a 

recommendation was not specifically included in 

the CIP Working Group Recommendations. (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 107 at pp. 49– 

50) 

i = rating points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of BEP flow for 

uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 

100 percent of BEP flow for pumps sold 

with a motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls as determined in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure. 

DOE determined the cubic 

polynomial used to describe the part 

load loss factor (yi) based on part load 

efficiency data provided by the NEMA 

electric motors subcommittee.42 The 

cubic polynomial represents the 

measured part load performance of 

motors from 1–200 horsepower from 

seven manufacturers that are members 

of the NEMA subgroup. These data were 

provided at part load values of 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of the rated motor 

load. To determine how motor losses 

changed as a function of motor load 

over the range of those motors 

addressed in this rulemaking, the data 

were normalized based on the minimum 

full load efficiency of the motors. 

DOE acknowledges that losses may 

vary as a function of the motor’s rotating 

speed (2-pole vs. 4-pole), motor design 

(open vs. enclosed), or the motor’s 

horsepower rating. However, based on 

the data provided by NEMA, as well as 

additional data DOE gathered using 

DOE’s MotorMaster database 43 and 

DOE’s Motor Challenge Program Fact 

Sheet,44 DOE did not observe any 

significant or generalizable trends of 

motor efficiency or fractional motor 

losses with respect to a motor’s number 

of poles, category, or horsepower. DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis based 

on each of these factors and, in every 

case, the maximum impact on the rated 

pump PEICL or PEIVL was less than 1 

percent. DOE’s sensitivity analysis can 

be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. As such, DOE does not 

believe the additional complexity 

associated with multiple curves 

describing small variations in a motor’s 

part load performance is justified and 

proposes to use the single cubic 

polynomial presented in equation (12). 

These calculated part load motor 

losses at each of the specified load 

points would then be combined with 

the measured pump shaft input power 

and weighted equally to calculate PERCL

or PERVL and PERSTD, as described in 

section III.B.2. 

DOE requests comment on the 

development and use of the motor part 

load loss factor curves to describe part 

load performance of covered motors and 

submersible motors, including the 

default motor specified in section III.D.1 

for bare pumps and calculation of 

PERSTD

E. Test Methods for Different Pump 

Configurations 

As previously discussed, the PEICL

and PEIVL for a given pump would be 

determined by first calculating the 

PERCL or PERVL, as applicable, for the 

given pump. The PERCL or PERVL would 

then be scaled based on a calculated 

PERSTD (i.e., the PERCL of a pump that 

would comply with the applicable 

standard). (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT– 

STD–0031) The process for determining 

the PERSTD is described in section 

III.B.2.b. 

The PERCL and PERVL are a weighted 

average of input power to the pump 

over a range of full and part load 

operating flow rates, and can potentially 

be determined using a number of 

different test methods, based on the way 

the pump model is sold. For example, 

the test method for pumps sold alone 

(i.e., bare pumps) will be different than 

that for pumps sold with motors or 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls. However, 

the DOE test procedure for pumps will 

have a similar format for each 

configuration in that each will describe 

(1) the physical test method, testing 

conditions, and required data collection 

to ensure consistent and accurate test 

results and (2) the calculation method 

that defines how the collected data will 

be used to determine the final PERCL or 

PERVL for that model. 

Some test methods that DOE 

considered rely more on the 

performance of physical tests to obtain 

rating data (i.e., testing-based methods), 

which increases testing burden but may 

be more accurate than test procedures 

that rely more heavily on calculations. 

In a testing-based approach, each pump 

basic model must be individually tested, 

which is considerably more burdensome 

than calculating the rating. However, 

the wire-to-water performance of the 

product would be determined directly 

as a result of the test rather than by 

determining it through a calculation 

method, and the unique performance of 

each component at full and partial 

loading would be accurately captured. 

In contrast, a calculation-based 

approach to determine PERCL or PERVL

(i.e., the numerator of the PEICL or 

PEIVL, respectively) for a given pump 

model can reduce the number of tests by 

allowing for the independent 

measurement of each component. That 

is, the input power to the bare pump, 

motor efficiency, or performance of a 

motor with continuous controls would 

be determined separately and 

subsequently combined through an 

equation to obtain the overall PERCL or 

PERVL rating for the pump. The 

equations could be used to determine 

ratings for unique basic models made up 

of different combinations of bare 

pumps, motors, and continuous controls 

without the need to test each unique 

combination. 

Calculation-based test methods are 

extremely repeatable and 

straightforward to conduct. However, 

calculation-based methods may not 

account for the efficiency or energy use 

impact of all theoretical designs of a 

given component. For example, to 

calculate the performance of a pump 

sold with a motor and continuous 

control, assumptions regarding how the 

continuous control affects the input 

power to the pump would be required 

at full and part load, and this assumed 

‘‘system curve’’ may not reflect the 

actual measured performance of 

different types or brands of continuous 

controls available. 

In the subsequent sections, DOE 

discusses calculation-based and testingbased test methods for different pump 

configurations. 

1. Calculation-Based Test Methods 

Calculation-based test methods have 

the benefit of being repeatable, 

straightforward, and minimally 

burdensome. DOE proposes that the 

following calculation-based test 

methods would be used to rate (1) 

pumps sold as bare pumps (Method 

A.1); (2) pumps sold either with (a) 

motors that are regulated by DOE’s 

electric motor standards or (b) 

submersible motors (Method A.2); and 

(3) pumps sold with motors that are 

either (a) regulated by DOE’s electric 

motor standards or (b) submersible 

motors, and that are equipped with 

continuous controls 45 46 (Method A.3). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17617 

46 DOE notes that some pumps sold with 

continuous controls, such as pumps sold with 

ECMs, may not be eligible to apply the calculationbased method based on the fact that ECMs are not: 

(1) A type of motor covered by DOE’s energy 

conservation standards for covered motors or (2) a 

submersible motor (see section III.E). These pumps 

would instead apply a testing-based method. 

In general, the calculation-based test 

method for the applicable pump types 

would include physical testing of the 

bare pump, in accordance with HI 40.6– 

2014, and subsequent calculations to 

determine the PEICL or PEIVL, as 

applicable. The general steps of the 

calculation-based procedure would be 

as follows: 

(1) Determine performance of the bare 

pump in accordance with HI 40.6–2014. 

(a) Measure the flow rate (gpm), head 

(ft), rotational speed (rpm), and torque 

(inches-pounds force) at 40, 60, 75, 90, 

100, 110, and 120 percent of the flow 

rate at the expected BEP of the pump 

and determine the pump efficiency at 

each point. 

(b) Determine the actual BEP by 

finding the maximum point of the pump 

efficiency curve, as measured, with 

respect to flow rate. 

(c) Determine pump input power 

(torque multiplied by speed) and regress 

pump shaft input power with respect to 

flow to find a linear relationship for all 

flow points greater than or equal to 60 

percent of expected BEP flow. Use this 

regression to determine pump shaft 

input power at 75, 100, and 110 of 

actual BEP flow. 

(d) Adjust all values to nominal 

speed. 

(2) Determine the part load losses of 

the motor and any continuous or noncontinuous controls applicable to the 

rated pump model at each load point. 

(a) For bare pumps sold alone, the 

part load losses at each load point shall 

be determined based on the default 

motor efficiency of an appropriately 

sized motor that minimally complies 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors and the 

default motor loss curve, as described in 

section III.D. Motor selection 

requirements are discussed in section 

III.D.1.a 

(b) For pumps sold with motors that 

are regulated by DOE’s energy 

conservation standards, the part load 

losses at each load point shall be 

determined based on the rated full load 

motor efficiency of the motor that is 

paired with that pump and the default 

motor loss curve described in section 

III.D.2. For pumps sold with 

submersible motors, the part load losses 

at each load point shall be determined 

based on the default minimum 

submersible motor efficiency from Table 

III.6 and the default motor loss curve 

described in section III.D.2. 

(c) For pumps sold with applicable 

motors and continuous controls, the 

part load losses at each load point shall 

be determined based on the rated full 

load motor efficiency of the motor that 

is paired with that pump and the default 

motor and continuous control loss curve 

described in section III.E.1.c. 

(3) Determine PERCL or PERVL, as 

applicable, for the given pump 

(a) Sum the pump shaft input power 

at nominal speed and the calculated 

part load motor losses at each load point 

in the constant load or variable load 

profiles, as applicable, to determine the 

input power to the pump. 

(b) Average the calculated values of 

input power to the pump at the 

applicable rating points. 

(4) Determine PERSTD for the 

minimally compliant pump, as 

described in section III.B.2. 

(5) Divide PERCL or PERVL from step 

3 by the PERSTD for that pump model to 

determine PEICL or PEIVL, respectively. 

The specific test methods for bare 

pumps, pumps sold with motors, and 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls are described in more detail in 

the following sections III.E.1.a, III.E.1.b, 

and III.E.1.c, respectively. 

a. Calculation-Based Test Method A.1: 

Bare Pump 

As described previously, the bare 

pump PERCL would be measured based 

on the pump shaft input power at 75, 

100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. 

Section III.C of this notice describes the 

proposed test method for determining 

pump shaft input power at the 

designated load points, which is based 

on HI 40.6–2014. The measured pump 

shaft input power at the three constant 

load flow points would then be 

combined with the part load motor 

losses at each flow point and equally 

weighted to determine PERCL for that 

bare pump, as shown in equation (15): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄3 in this case), 

Pi

in = calculated input power to the motor at 

rating point i (hp), 

Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump 

(hp), 

Li = default motor losses at each load point 

i (hp), and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

The part load motor losses would be 

determined for the bare pump based on 

an assumed default motor efficiency 

representative of a motor that is 

minimally compliant with DOE’s 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards (or the default minimum 

motor efficiency for submersible 

motors), as described in section III.D.1, 

and the default motor loss curve, as 

described in section III.D.2. 

The PEICL can then be calculated as 

the PERCL for a given pump divided by 

the PERSTD for a pump that is minimally 

compliant with DOE’s pump standards 

with no controls, as shown in equation 

(16): 

Where: 

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 

equipment class that is minimally 

compliant with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards serving the same 

hydraulic load (hp). The procedure for 

determining PERSTD is described in 

detail in section III.B.2.b. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.014</GPH> EP01AP15.015</GPH>
17618 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

b. Calculation-Based Test Method B.1: 

Pump Sold With a Motor 

In cases where a pump’s efficiency 

can be independently measured and 

that pump is sold with an applicable 

motor, the primary test procedure 

would be similar to that for pumps sold 

alone (A.1) except that the motor 

efficiency, or losses, would be that of 

the motor with which the pump is sold 

when determining PERCL, as opposed to 

the default motor efficiency assumed in 

the bare pump case. For motors covered 

by DOE’s electric motor standards, DOE 

proposes to use the measured nominal 

full load efficiency determined in 

accordance with the DOE electric motor 

test procedure specified at 10 CFR 

431.16 and appendix B to subpart B of 

part 431 (see section III.D.1.b). For 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

rated using the calculation-based 

method, the full load motor efficiency 

would be determined based on the 

default minimum submersible motor 

efficiency from Table III.6 (see section 

III.D.1.c). DOE notes that this 

calculation-based method would not 

apply to pumps sold with motors that 

are not subject to DOE’s electric motor 

standards (except for submersible 

motors). 

The PEICL for pumps sold with motors 

would then be calculated using a similar 

approach that would be applied to bare 

pumps shown in equation (15) and (16), 

above, except that the default part load 

losses of the motor at each load point i 

would be determined based on the 

nominal full load efficiency for the 

motor, as described in section III.D.2. 

As previously discussed in section 

III.B.2.b, in determining PERSTD, DOE 

would base the nominal full load motor 

efficiency of the minimally compliant 

pump on the electric motor efficiency 

standards listed at 10 CFR 431.25(h) for 

pumps sold with motors other than 

submersible motors. Similarly, for 

pumps sold with submersible motors, 

DOE proposes that the default motor 

efficiency be that specified in Table III.7 

in section III.D.1.c for both the rated 

pump model and PERSTD. 

DOE currently requires motor 

manufacturers to rate only full load 

efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.16. The 

extrapolation of the certified full load 

efficiency data to the required rating 

points representative of 75, 100, and 110 

percent of the BEP flow for the paired 

pump using default part load curves is 

the least burdensome approach for 

determining part load efficiency of 

regulated motors when sold with 

pumps. This method would also allow 

for consistency and repeatability of 

results for a given pump. However, if 

the motor manufacturer makes certain 

changes to the motor design that 

improve part load performance without 

impacting efficiency at full load, this 

difference would not be reflected in the 

calculated PEICL using this proposed 

approach. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the part load 

losses of motors covered by DOE’s 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow based on the nominal full load 

efficiency of the motor, as determined in 

accordance with DOE’s electric motor 

test procedure, and the same default 

motor part load loss curve applied to the 

default motor in test method A.1 for the 

bare pump. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the PERCL of 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

using the proposed default minimum 

efficiency values for submersible motors 

and applying the same default motor 

part load loss curve to the default motor 

in test method A.1 for the bare pump. 

DOE also requests comment on its 

proposal that pumps sold with motors 

that are not addressed by DOE’s electric 

motors test procedure (except 

submersible motors) would be rated 

based on a wire-to-water, testing-based 

approach. 

c. Calculation-Based Test Method C.1: 

Pump Sold With a Motor and 

Continuous Controls 

For pumps sold with motors and 

continuous controls, the PEIVL metric 

would account for the power reduction 

resulting from reducing speed and, thus, 

head, to achieve a given flow rate as 

opposed to throttling. In this case, the 

PEIVL is determined as the PERVL of the 

given pump divided by the PERSTD. The 

PERSTD would be determined in 

accordance with the procedures in 

section III.B.2.b. The PERVL would be 

determined as the weighted average 

input power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, 

and 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown 

in equation (17): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄4 in this case), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the pump at the input to the continuous 

or non-continuous controls at rating 

point i, and 

i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, 

as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

The input power to the pump when 

sold with motors and continuous 

controls would be determined by adding 

together the pump shaft input power 

and the combined losses from the motor 

and continuous controls at each of the 

load points i. However, in the case of 

determining PERVL for pumps sold with 

motors and continuous controls, the 

proposal would require that only the 

input power at the 100 percent of BEP 

flow point be determined through 

testing and the remaining 25, 50, and 75 

percent load points be calculated based 

on an assumed system curve. 

DOE understands that the system 

curve a given pump will follow in the 

field is based on the specific dynamics 

of the system (e.g., the amount of static 

head, or fixed pressure, in a system) and 

the characteristics of the continuous or 

non-continuous control (e.g. how the 

given control adjusts speed in response 

to changes in the required flow, head, or 

pump output power may vary among 

control types, as discussed in section 

III.E.1.c). However, DOE also believes 

that a single representative curve is 

sufficiently representative for the 

default calculation method as it equally 

applies to all pumps sold with motors 

and continuous or non-continuous 

controls, thereby reflecting the input of 

the CIP Working Group regarding an 

appropriate and representative reference 

curve. DOE also proposes that the 

combined performance of the motor and 

continuous controls be determined 

based on a loss curve that describes the 

decreased efficiency of the motor and 

continuous controls at full and part load 

points. DOE notes that the CIP Working 

Group informally agreed with this 

approach. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0039, No. 107 at pg. 94–96) 

With respect to VFDs, AHRI 

recommended that DOE take time to 

develop a sound method for testing 

pump/motor/VFD packages and 

consider typical VFD operation in those 

packages. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI 

noted that AHRI Standard 1210–2011 

will soon provide performance maps for 

VFDs tested with standard NEMA 

Design B four-pole motors that meet the 

criteria of NEMA Standard MG–1, 

‘‘Motors and Generators,’’ Part 31. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17619 

47To date, variable frequency drives are listed as 

one of the product types to which AHRI 

certification programs apply (see http://

www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/

Certification/CERT_PROGS_ENG.pdf); however, no 

certification data are available through AHRI’s 

certification database (see https://

www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/

home.aspx). 

48American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). ‘‘2012 

HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chapter 44: 

Centrifugal Pumps.’’ 

(AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI noted that 

it launched an AHRI VFD certification 

program and expected to publish 

performance data in 2014.47 AHRI 

further noted that a systemic efficiency 

calculation for the majority of pump/

motor/VFD packages may then be 

possible by combining VFD, motor, and 

pump performance maps, and that a 

random selection of calculated system 

efficiency metrics could be verified by 

test. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) DOE 

considered these comments in making 

its proposal. The relevant definitions 

and specific calculation procedures are 

described in detail in the subsequent 

sections. 

Reference System Curve 

For pumps tested without continuous 

or non-continuous controls, no 

reference system is required as 

measurements are taken at various 

loading points along a pump curve at 

the nominal rating speed only. For 

pumps tested inclusive of motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

(using a calculation-based or testingbased method), a reference system curve 

must be implemented to standardize the 

system curve shape on which multiple 

points will be calculated. Such a system 

curve describes the relationship 

between the head and the flow at each 

load point. 

AHRI 1210–2011 specifies a quadratic 

(or nearly quadratic) system curve, 

which would maximize the benefits of 

the speed control provided by 

continuous or non-continuous controls. 

A quadratic system curve, theoretically, 

is more representative of system curves 

in the field.48 This system curve will 

also likely more closely match the 

system curve in the test labs and, thus, 

linear extrapolation may be applied 

without significant loss of accuracy if a 

quadratic relationship is used. However, 

during the Working Group negotiations, 

interested parties suggested that DOE 

implement a static head offset instead of 

a completely quadratic relationship. 

Interested parties commented that this 

static head offset would be 

representative of a static head 

component of the system curve and 

would reasonably approximate the 

system curve pumps experience in the 

field. Specifically, HI suggested that 

DOE use a system curve with a static 

head component representative of 20 

percent of head at BEP flow. (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 63 at p. 

226) 

Consistent with these suggestions, 

DOE proposes to use a quadratic 

reference system curve which goes 

through the BEP and offsets the y-axis, 

as specified in equation (18): 

Where: 

a = static offset correction factor for the 

system curve which is a scalar quantity, 

H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of 

BEP flow (ft), 

Hstatic = system head at zero flow rate (ft), and 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 

(gpm). 

For this test procedure, the system 

head at zero flow rate (Hstatic) is assumed 

to be 20 percent of BEP head, as 

recommended by the CIP Working 

Group. Therefore, as shown in equation 

(19) and depicted in Figure III.1: 

Where: 

H = the total system head (ft), 

Q = the flow rate (gpm), 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 

(gpm), and 

H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of 

BEP flow (ft). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.017</GPH> EP01AP15.018</GPH>
17620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

49Note, this assumes that bare pump efficiency is 

constant across the system curve. 

DOE notes that this reference system 

curve would apply to pumps sold with 

a motor and continuous controls that are 

tested using this calculation-based 

method as well as to pumps sold with 

a motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls that are tested using 

the wire-to-water testing-based methods 

discussed in section III.E.2.c. As 

mentioned in section III.A.1.b, the 

calculation-based approach is not 

applicable to non-continuous controls, 

as such controls will not follow the 

assumed system curve precisely, as 

continuous controls would. 

Accordingly, DOE believes that the 

power consumption calculated along 

this reference curve would not be 

representative of the energy 

consumption of such pumps. Instead, 

DOE is proposing that pumps with a 

multi-speed motor, for example, or other 

non-continuous controls, would be 

rated using a physical ‘‘wire-to-water’’ 

test, which would capture some 

reduction in power consumption as 

measured by the test procedure at some 

reduced flow rates. Such a pump would 

be rated using the testing-based method 

for pumps sold with motors and 

controls, described in section III.E.2.c. 

DOE discussed this proposal with the 

CIP Working Group and the CIP 

Working Group generally agreed with 

DOE’s approach, although such a 

recommendation was not specifically 

included in the CIP Working Group 

Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0039, No. 107 at pp. 49– 

50). 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed system curve shape to use, as 

well as whether the curve should go 

through the origin instead of the 

statically loaded offset. 

Determination of Bare Pump Shaft Input 

Power 

Under the proposed calculation-based 

approach for pumps sold with motors 

and continuous controls, the rated 

efficiency of the motor and continuous 

control would be combined with the 

pump shaft input power at the specified 

load points to calculate the PERVL of the 

pump. To determine the bare pump 

input power at the prescribed load 

points, only the pump shaft input power 

at 100 percent of BEP flow must be 

determined experimentally, in 

accordance with HI 40.6–2014, and at 

the nominal full load operating speed of 

the pump (i.e., 1,800 rpm or 3,600 rpm), 

as discussed in section III.C. However, 

DOE notes that the full HI 40.6–2014 

test would still need to be conducted, 

and the pump hydraulic output power 

at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow 

would still be necessary for determining 

the PERSTD of the given pump. 

The pump shaft input power at 25, 50, 

and 75 percent of BEP flow would then 

be determined by applying the reference 

system curve discussed in section 

III.E.1.c and assuming continuous speed 

reduction is applied to achieve the 

reduced load points. Specifically, the 

reduction in pump shaft input power at 

part loadings is assumed to be 

equivalent to the relative reduction in 

pump hydraulic output power assumed 

by the system curve.49 The relative 

reduction can be determined as the 

product of the relative reductions in 

flow and head, as shown in equation 

(20): 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17621 

Where: 

Pi = shaft input power to the bare pump at 

rating point i (hp), 

P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 

percent of BEP flow (hp), 

PHydro,i = pump hydraulic output power at 

rating point i (hp), 

PHydro,100% = pump hydraulic output power at 

100 percent of BEP flow (hp), 

Hi = total pump head at rating point i (ft), 

H100% = total pump head at 100 percent of 

BEP flow (ft), 

Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm), 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 

(gpm), and 

i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

Based on this relationship, the pump 

shaft input power can be determined at 

each of the load points by multiplying 

the calculated ratio by the measured 

pump shaft input power at BEP, as 

shown in equation (21): 

Where: 

Pi = pump shaft input power at rating point 

i (hp), 

P100% = pump shaft input power at 100 

percent of BEP flow (hp), 

Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm), 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of BEP flow 

(gpm), and 

i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed calculation approach for 

determining pump shaft input power for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls when rated using the 

calculation-based method. 

Determination of Efficiency of the Motor 

and Continuous Controls 

DOE recognizes that determining the 

PERVL of a pump sold with a motor and 

continuous controls using the 

calculation-based method requires 

accounting for the efficiency of the 

motor and continuous control in 

combination with the measured pump 

shaft input power at the specified load 

points. Compared to an uncontrolled 

motor, the motor and continuous 

control together incur additional losses 

as a result of inefficiencies from the 

continuous control and increased 

inefficiencies in the speed-controlled 

motor due to harmonic distortion. 

Because of the interactions between the 

motor and control, treating the motor 

and control together would provide the 

most accurate measurement of the 

overall efficiency of a pump that has 

been paired with these two devices. 

DOE notes that, although a new test 

method for determining combined 

efficiency of motors and VFDs is 

available (AHRI 1210–2011), DOE does 

not currently require VFD 

manufacturers to test and certify their 

drives in accordance with that 

procedure or any other available test 

procedure for VFDs or other applicable 

speed controls. Therefore, consistent 

and standardized information regarding 

the efficiency of speed controls 

(combined with or separate from motor 

efficiency) is not available at this time. 

As such, requiring controller efficiency 

to be measured in a specific manner and 

used to determine performance of a 

pump sold with a motor and continuous 

or non-continuous controls would 

represent a significant additional 

burden for pump manufacturers. In 

addition, such a requirement may also 

have the potential of requiring 

controller manufacturers to perform a 

specifically prescribed test. 

The Working Group also indicated 

that applying a standardized set of loss 

curves for determining the inefficiencies 

associated with motor and speed control 

components together would greatly 

simplify the method for calculating the 

total power consumption of the tested 

pump and present the least burdensome 

approach for manufacturers to 

implement. (EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0039, No. 107 at p. 218) For these 

reasons, DOE proposes to use a method 

similar to that applied to single-speed 

motors for determining the efficiency at 

part load points, discussed in section 

III.D.2, for the motor and continuous 

control. 

In order to develop the default part 

load loss equation to allow the 

calculation of the losses associated with 

motor and continuous control 

components, DOE used performance 

data generated from testing five motor 

and VFD combinations according to the 

AHRI 1210–2011 test method and 

examined additional data for 24 VFDs 

tested per AHRI 1210–2011, provided 

confidentially to DOE’s contractors by 

one VFD manufacturer. 

The DOE combined motor and VFD 

tests, conducted in accordance with 

AHRI 1210–2011, consisted of 

expanding upon the test points 

specified in the test procedure and 

taking up to 16 measurements of input 

power for each model tested based on 

permutations of 4 prescribed torque 

points tested at each of 4 speeds. 

Efficiency at each combination of torque 

and speed was determined by taking the 

ratio of the output power of the motor 

and input power to the VFD, where the 

output power was determined by the 

measured rotational speed and torque 

produced by the motor. The test data for 

the 24 VFD models provided by the VFD 

manufacturer included eight 

measurements at full load and part load. 

Based on the VFD performance data 

collected, DOE proposes using four part 

load loss equations to represent the 

combined efficiency of the motor and 

continuous control as a function of the 

output power of the continuous control. 

When analyzing the continuous control 

and motor efficiency as a function of the 

horsepower rating of the continuous 

control, DOE observed a significant 

variation by horsepower range and is 

proposing to account for this situation 

by establishing four equations as a 

function of the VFD’s horsepower (see 

Table III.8). 

DOE proposes to describe the part 

load loss curves for the combined motor 

and continuous control as a function of 

the brake horsepower, or output power, 

of the motor (i.e., the power that would 

be supplied to the pump). DOE 

recognizes that using a relationship as a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.020</GPH> EP01AP15.021</GPH>
17622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

function of motor brake horsepower 

rather than a two-dimensional equation 

as a function of torque and speed 

represents a simplification and may 

sacrifice some accuracy in determining 

the efficiency of a given motor and 

continuous control. For example, DOE 

observed that the speed and torque of 

the VFDs impacted the magnitude of the 

VFD’s losses. DOE considered 

developing part load loss relationships 

as a function of speed and torque based 

on the test results. However, DOE notes 

that it is not clear whether the trends it 

observed during testing are universally 

applicable to motor and continuous and 

non-continuous control systems 

available in the market, as each type of 

continuous or non-continuous control 

may impact motor efficiency differently 

based on the specific control approach. 

DOE believes that the available data are 

insufficient to create robust and 

representative relationships for all of the 

motors and continuous or noncontinuous controls that might be 

paired with pumps within the scope of 

this test procedure rulemaking. DOE 

notes that, based on its analysis of the 

available data, the proposed 

simplification would likely impact the 

resultant PEIVL for a given pump by a 

magnitude of less than 1 percent. 

To derive the part load losses 

equations, DOE analyzed the results of 

all AHRI 1210–2011 test results to 

establish the maximum values of the 

ratio of VFD and motor losses to the 

motor full load losses (or part load loss 

factor). DOE determined this ratio at 

several motor load points using a 

regression as a function of the motor 

load percentage to derive the 

coefficients of the polynomial equation. 

The polynomial equation used to 

represent the part load loss factor is 

defined in equation (22): 

Where: 

zi = the part load loss factor for the motor and 

continuous controls at load point i; 

a,b,c = coefficients based on VFD 

horsepower, see Table III.8; 

Pi = the shaft input power to the bare pump 

(hp); 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor with 

which the pump is being rated (hp); and 

i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow 

as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

TABLE III.8—MOTOR AND CONTINUOUS CONTROL PART LOAD LOSS FACTOR EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATION 23 

Motor horsepower (hp) between or equal to 

Coefficients of Equation (23) 

a b c 

≤5 ................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.4658 1.4965 0.5303 

>5 and ≤20 ................................................................................................................................... ¥1.3198 2.9551 0.1052 

>20 and ≤50 ................................................................................................................................. ¥1.5122 3.0777 0.1847 

>50 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥0.8914 2.8846 0.2625 

To calculate the part load losses of the 

motor and continuous control, 

manufacturers would apply the part 

load loss curve polynomial, with the 

appropriate coefficient as established in 

Table III.8, to the nominal full load 

losses for the motor being sold with that 

pump in the same manner as that for 

determining the part load losses for 

single-speed motors (see equation (14) 

in section III.D.2). 

DOE recognizes that the loading of the 

motor and continuous control when 

paired with a particular pump model 

may differ from those observed during 

DOE’s testing and that this may affect 

the specific losses associated with a 

given pump. However, DOE believes 

that it is likely pump manufacturers 

would select a motor with a similar 

horsepower and control combinations to 

pair with a particular pump, as 

significantly oversized equipment will 

add unnecessary additional expense for 

the customer. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to adopt four part load loss 

factor equations expressed as a function 

of the load on the motor (i.e., motor 

brake horsepower) to calculate the 

losses of a combined motor and 

continuous control, where the four 

curves would correspond to different 

horsepower ratings of the continuous 

control. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

accuracy of the proposed equation 

compared to one that accounts for 

multiple performance variables (speed 

and torque). 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed 5 percent scaling factor that 

was applied to the measured VFD 

efficiency data to generate the proposed 

coefficients of the four part load loss 

curves. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on whether another scaling 

factor or no scaling factor would be 

more appropriate in this context. 

DOE requests comment on the 

variability of control horsepower ratings 

that might be distributed in commerce 

with a given pump and motor 

horsepower. 

DOE requests comment and data from 

interested parties regarding the extent to 

which the assumed default part load 

loss curve would represent minimally 

efficient motor and continuous control 

combinations. 

d. Other Calculation Methods for 

Determination of Pump Performance 

Determination 

DOE is proposing to require that each 

bare pump model be physically tested 

in accordance with the test procedure 

rather than to allow the use of 

calculation methods for determining 

performance of a bare pump with a 

similar design. DOE notes that the 

proposed calculation-based test 

procedure for certain applicable pumps 

already contains provisions for tested 

bare pump performance to be combined 

with default or tested performance data 

regarding the motor or motor with 

continuous or non-continuous controls 

to calculate the PER of multiple pump 

basic models. This proposal would 

apply to: (1) Bare pumps; (2) pumps 

sold with either (a) motors regulated by 

DOE’s electric motor standards or (b) 

submersible motors; and (3) pumps sold 

with continuous-controlled motors that 

are either (a) motors regulated by DOE’s 

electric motor standards or (b) 

submersible motors. DOE also notes 

that, beyond the calculations proposed 

in this NOPR, DOE is not considering 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17623 

permitting use of other algorithms or 

alternative efficiency determination 

methods to determine the rated 

performance of covered pumps or pump 

components (i.e., motors or controls). 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require testing of each 

individual bare pump as the basis for a 

certified PEICL or PEIVL rating for one or 

more pump basic models. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to limit the use of calculations 

and algorithms in the determination of 

pump performance to the calculationbased methods proposed in this NOPR. 

In summary, DOE proposes to 

establish the calculation-based methods 

discussed in this section III.E.1 for 

determining PEICL or PEIVL as the 

required test procedure for bare pumps 

and as one of two test methods that 

could be used for (1) pumps sold either 

with (a) motors that are regulated by 

DOE’s electric motor standards or (b) 

submersible motors, and (2) pumps sold 

with continuous-controlled motors that 

are either (a) regulated by DOE’s electric 

motors standards or (b) submersible 

motors. For pumps whose energy 

consumption cannot be calculated using 

the proposed calculation-based method, 

DOE proposes that the PEICL or PEIVL

rating be determined based on testing 

only methods, as discussed in the next 

section, section III.E.2. 

2. Testing-Based Methods 

Testing-based methods directly 

measure the input power to the motor, 

continuous control, or non-continuous 

control at the load points of interest (i.e., 

75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for 

uncontrolled pumps and 25, 50, 75, and 

100 percent of BEP flow for pumps sold 

with a motor and speed controls). As 

such, these methods cannot be applied 

to bare pumps. In addition, these test 

methods are the only test methods 

applicable to pumps sold with motors 

that are not addressed by DOE’s electric 

motor test procedure (except 

submersible motors) or that are sold 

with non-continuous controls. 

DOE is also proposing providing these 

‘‘wire-to-water’’ testing-based methods 

as an optional procedure for all pumps 

sold with motors or motors with 

continuous controls. The benefit of 

using a testing-based approach is that 

the test protocol is straightforward and 

accurate for a given pump sold with a 

motor or pump sold with a motor and 

continuous control combination. In 

these cases, it may be appropriate to use 

this testing-based approach for custom 

equipment that is already being tested 

for a specific customer. However, for 

standard pump models that may be 

paired with a variety of motors or 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

testing each combination would 

significantly increase the burden of 

testing as compared to the calculationbased approach presented in section 

III.E.1. 

The following sections describe how 

to determine BEP for pumps rated using 

the testing-based method, as well as the 

specific test methods for pumps sold 

with motors (Method B.2) and pumps 

sold with motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls (Method B.3). 

a. The Best Efficiency Point for Pumps 

Testing Using Testing-Based Methods 

DOE notes that when testing some 

pumps using the testing-based methods, 

it is not possible to determine BEP as a 

ratio of pump input power over pump 

hydraulic power unless additional 

measurements are made of bare pump 

performance or pump shaft input 

power, in addition to input power to the 

motor. See section III.C.2.d, supra. 

In the case of pumps sold with motors 

or motors with continuous or noncontinuous controls for which input 

power to the shaft is not measured 

directly, DOE proposes to determine the 

BEP using what is typically known as 

overall efficiency. Overall efficiency is 

the input power to the driver or 

continuous control, if any, divided by 

the pump hydraulic output power with 

no speed control (i.e., at the nominal 

rated speed). Overall efficiency is found 

by conducting a similar procedure 

involving sweeping the pump curve and 

fitting a curve to the rated points, as 

discussed in section III.C.2.d. This leads 

to a BEP value comparable with those 

determined based on direct application 

of the HI 40.6 method. 

To maintain consistent nomenclature, 

DOE proposes to define BEP for pumps 

tested using testing-based methods as 

the maximum measured value of the 

ratio of driver input power over pump 

hydraulic output at a single, nominal 

speed. Under this proposal, DOE would 

require use of the procedure specified in 

section III.C.2.d, except that the BEP 

would be determined based on the 

combined pump and motor efficiency 

instead of the bare pump efficiency. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine BEP for pumps 

rated with a testing-based method by 

using the ratio of input power to the 

driver or continuous control, if any, 

over pump hydraulic output. DOE also 

seeks input on the degree to which this 

method may yield significantly different 

BEP points from the case where BEP is 

determined based on pump efficiency. 

b. Testing-Based Test Method B.2: Pump 

Sold With a Motor 

For pumps sold with motors, the 

PEICL can be determined by wire-towater testing, as specified in HI 40.6– 

2014 section 40.6.4.4. In this case, the 

PER becomes an average of the 

measured power input to the motor at 

the three rating points, as shown in 

equation (23): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄3 in this case), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the motor at rating point i, and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure. 

The PEICL determined using the tested 

wire-to-water method may vary slightly 

from that determined using the PEICL for 

pumps rated using calculation-based 

test methods B.1 or C.1 and will 

generally result in a better rating than 

the default calculation-based methods. 

c. Testing-Based Test Method C.2: Pump 

Sold With a Motor and Speed Controls 

For pumps sold with motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

DOE proposes that the PEIVL may be 

determined by wire-to-water testing, 

based on the procedure specified in HI 

40.6, section 40.6.4.4, except that: 

(1) the input power is the ‘‘driver 

input power,’’ defined in table 40.6.2.1 

of HI 40.6–2014 and referenced in table 

40.6.3.2.3, section 40.6.4.4, and section 

40.6.6.2 refers to the input power to the 

continuous or non-continuous control 

and the input power to the continuous 

or non-continuous control and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.023</GPH>
17624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

50Council of the European Union. 2009. 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2009 of 22 July 

2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council with regard 

to ecodesign requirements for glandless standalone 

circulators and glandless circulators integrated in 

products. Official Journal of the European Union. L 

191, 23 July 2009, pp. 35–41. 

(2) is determined in accordance with 

the tolerances and requirements for 

measuring electrical power described in 

AHRI 1210–2011 and CSA C838–2013, 

as proposed in section III.C.2.e. 

With this approach, pump 

manufacturers would determine the BEP 

of the pump, inclusive of motor and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

as described in section III.E.2.a, and 

then adjust the operating speed of the 

motor and the head until the specified 

head and flow conditions are reached 

(i.e., 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow 

and the associated head pressures 

determined by the reference system 

curve in section III.E.1.c). 

DOE recognizes that each test lab may 

have a similar but unique system curve 

that is representative of the specific 

valves, elbows, and other system 

components present in the test loop. As 

such, DOE proposes to specify the 

specific load points that must be 

determined based on the reference 

system curve to ensure repeatability 

among labs. However, DOE also 

recognizes that it may not be possible to 

achieve the exact load points given 

measurement and experimental 

uncertainty. To address this issue, DOE 

also proposes to establish an acceptable 

tolerance around each load point. The 

use of tolerances in this context is not 

unique. For example, EU 641 

regulation 50 for circulators adopts a 10 

percent tolerance around the specified 

load points for circulators greater than 

100 watts (0.13 hp). To provide some 

level of measurement tolerance, DOE is 

proposing a tolerance level of 10 percent 

about (i.e., above and below) the target 

flow and head load points defined on 

the reference system curve for each 

pump. 

DOE recognizes that it is still 

important for the input power values to 

represent the power at each specific 

load point. As such, DOE also proposes 

to require that load points determined 

via testing that are within the specified 

10 percent tolerance band be 

extrapolated to the reference system 

curve to normalize the test data to the 

exact load points specified by the 

system curve. In this case, the pump 

shaft input power at the head at tested 

point i (e.g., head at 25 percent BEP 

flow) on the tested system curve, PT,i in, 

can be linearly extrapolated to the pump 

shaft input power at the specified head 

and flow rate (e.g., at 50 percent for BEP 

flow) based on the reference system 

curve, PR,i, using the following equation 

(24): 

Where: 

PR,i = the rated pump shaft input power at 

flow point i (hp), 

HR,i = the total system head at flow point i 

based on the reference system curve (ft), 

HT,jj = the tested total system head at flow 

point j (ft), 

QR,i = the total system head at flow point i 

based on the reference system curve 

(gpm), 

QT,j = the tested total system head at flow 

point i (gpm), 

PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power at 

flow point j, 

i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow 

as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure, and 

j= the tested flow point of the rated pump, 

determined in terms of percent of BEP 

flow. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17625 

51The turn-down ratio of a non-continuous 

control, such as a multi-speed motor, is generally 

defined as the ratio of the maximum speed of 

rotation (or speed of rotation at full speed) to the 

speed of rotation at the discrete lower speeds 

available on the control. For example, a motor with 

a speed of rotation at full speed of 3600 rpm and 

‘‘low speed’’ of rotation of 1800 rpm would have 

a turn-down ration of 2:1. 

In this case, the PER becomes an 

average of the measured power input to 

the continuous or non-continuous 

control at the four specified rating 

points based on the assumed system 

curve (as in Test Method C.1), as shown 

in equation (25): 

Where: 

wi = weighting at each rating point (equal 

weighting or 1⁄4 in this case), 

Pi

in = measured or calculated input power to 

the continuous or non-continuous 

controls at rating point i, and 

i = 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow, 

as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

Pumps Sold With Motors and NonContinuous Speed Controls 

DOE notes that some pumps are sold 

with non-continuous controls, such as 

multi-speed motors with two or three 

discrete speed options. Pumps with 

these types of non-continuous controls 

are not able to use the calculation-based 

test method C.1 because they are not 

able to follow the reference system 

curve described in section III.E.1.c. For 

example, in the case of a pump sold 

with a two-speed motor, the pump will 

operate at full speed (i.e., the rated 

speed) for some of the flow points and 

reduced speed at the other flow points, 

as shown in Figure III.3. Which points 

are operated at full speed and which 

points are operated at reduced speed 

will depend on the turn-down ratio of 

the non-continuous control.51


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.025</GPH> EP01AP15.026</GPH>
17626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

For these types of pumps sold with 

non-continuous controls, DOE proposes 

that the testing-based method found in 

HI 40.6–2014 be modified slightly to 

accommodate the operation of noncontinuous controls and 

representatively account for their 

impact on pump energy performance. 

DOE proposes that for pumps sold with 

a motor and non-continuous controls, 

the input power to the pump at 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of BEP flow be 

determined in the same manner as that 

for pumps sold with continuous 

controls described in section III.E.2.c, 

except that the head associated with 

each of the specified flow points does 

not have to be achieved within 10 

percent of the specified head, as 

described by the reference system 

curve—only the flow rate would need to 

be achieved within 10 percent of the 

specified value. DOE proposes to 

require that the measured total head 

corresponding to the 25, 50, 75 and 100 

percent of BEP flow points be no lower 

than 10 percent below that defined by 

referenced system curve. That is, the 

associated total head may be anywhere 

in the region between the reference 

system curve and the full speed pump 

curve. In this case, the measured head 

and flow rate should not be corrected to 

the reference system curve. Instead, the 

measured points should be used directly 

in further calculations of PEIVL. 

The presence of continuous or noncontinuous controls will positively 

impact the PEIVL rating (i.e., it will go 

down) due to decreased power 

consumption at part load rating points, 

as discussed previously. The PEIVL

determined using this testing-based 

method will representatively capture 

the improved performance of pumps 

sold with motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls. This proposed 

method can be applied to any pumps 

sold with continuous or non-continuous 

controls, but would be the only 

applicable method when calculation 

method C.1 is not applicable; namely: 

(1) Pumps sold with motors that are not 

covered by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors (except 

submersible motors) and continuous 

controls and (2) pumps sold with any 

motors and non-continuous controls. 

In addition, the proposed testingbased method for pumps sold with 

motors and continuous controls will 

allow for more accurate differentiation 

of the variable performance of different 

continuous control technologies that 

cannot be adequately captured in the 

calculation-based method for pumps 

sold with regulated motors and 

continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

determining the input power to the 

pump for pumps sold with motors and 

non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on any other 

type of non-continuous control that may 

be sold with a pump and for which the 

proposed test procedure would not 

apply. 

3. Applicability of Calculation and 

Testing-Based Test Methods to Different 

Pump Configurations 

In summary, Table III.9 outlines 

which test methods would apply to 

which pump configurations under this 

proposal. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17627 

TABLE III.9—APPLICABILITY OF CALCULATION-BASED AND TESTING-BASED TEST PROCEDURE OPTIONS BASED ON PUMP

CONFIGURATION

Pump configuration Pump sub-configuration Calculation-based test method Testing-based test method 

Bare Pump ............ Bare Pump ........................................ A.1: Tested Pump .............................

Efficiency of Bare Pump + Default 

Motor Efficiency + Default Motor 

Part Load Loss Curve.

Not Applicable. 

Pump + Motor ....... Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s 

Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards OR Pump + Submersible Motor.

B.1: Tested Pump .............................

Efficiency of Bare Pump + Motor 

Nameplate Efficiency for Actual 

Motor Paired with Pump + Default 

Motor Part Load Loss Curve.

B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance. 

Pump + Motor Not Covered by 

DOE’s Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards (Except Submersible Motors).

Not Applicable .................................. B.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance. 

Pump + Motor + 

Speed Controls.

Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s 

Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards + Continuous Control OR Pump + Submersible 

Motor + Continuous Control.

C.1: Tested Pump ............................

Efficiency of Bare Pump + Motor 

Nameplate Efficiency for Actual 

Motor Paired with Pump + Default 

Motor/Control Part Load Loss 

Curve + Assumed System Curve.

C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance. 

Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s 

Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards + Non-Continuous 

Control OR Pump + Submersible 

Motor + Non-Continuous Control.

Not Applicable .................................. C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance. 

Pump + Motor Not Covered by 

DOE’s Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards (Except Submersible Motors) + Continuous or 

Non-Continuous Controls.

Not Applicable .................................. C.2: Tested Wire-to-Water Performance. 

For bare pumps, DOE is proposing to 

establish the calculation approach as the 

default test procedure (method A.1, 

which is discussed in section III.E.1.a). 

Testing-based methods would not apply 

to bare pumps because a PEI rating 

(which includes the efficiency of the 

motor) could not be determined based 

on a test of the bare pump alone. 

For pumps sold with motors that are 

either regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards or are submersible motors, 

DOE is proposing to also allow the use 

of the applicable calculation-based 

method (B.1, discussed in section 

III.E.1.b) or the testing-based method 

(B.2, discussed in section III.E.2.b). 

For pumps sold with motors that are 

not regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards (except for submersible 

motors), DOE proposes to require use of 

the testing-based method B.2, discussed 

in section III.E.2.b, because the nominal 

full load efficiency of the motor, as 

determined using a specific 

standardized procedure, is not available 

for those motors. 

For pumps sold with continuous 

control-equipped motors that are either 

(a) regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards for electric motors or (b) 

submersible motors, DOE proposes to 

allow use of either the applicable 

calculation-based method (Method C.1, 

discussed in section III.E.1.c) or the 

testing-based method (Method C.2, 

discussed in section III.E.2.c). 

For pumps sold with non-continuous 

control-equipped motors that are either 

(a) regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards for electric motors or (b) 

submersible motors, as defined in 

section III.E.1.c, the calculation-based 

method C.1 would not be applicable 

because these controls are not able to 

follow the reference system curve 

described in section III.E.1.c. As such, 

pumps sold with non-continuous 

controls would also have to be tested 

using the testing-based method C.2 

under this proposal. 

For pumps sold with motors not 

regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards (excluding submersible 

motors) that are equipped with either 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

DOE notes that the proposed 

calculation-based methods would also 

not apply, just as they do not apply to 

pumps sold with non-continuous 

controls. Thus, DOE proposes that such 

pumps would need to be evaluated 

using the testing-based method C.2 

discussed in section III.E.2.c. 

DOE’s proposed applicability of 

testing-based and calculation-based test 

methods, as shown in Table III.9, is 

intended to maximize the number of 

pumps that can be rated using the less 

burdensome calculation-based methods 

A.1, B.1, and C.1. 

In the case of a pump sold with a 

continuous or non-continuous 

controlled motor that is either (a) 

regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards or (b) a submersible motor, 

DOE proposes to allow use of either the 

calculation-based test method or the 

testing-based test method when 

determining the efficiency rating. In this 

case, if a manufacturer wishes to 

represent the improved performance of 

a given pump and believes that the 

assumptions made in the calculation 

method would not adequately represent 

the improved performance of that 

pump, the manufacturer may use the 

testing-based methods to rate the PEICL

or PEIVL of that pump model to capture 

the improved performance of the pump 

as tested. For example, such improved 

performance could be due to increased 

motor efficiency (decreased losses) at 

part load. DOE notes that this is 

particularly important for pumps sold 

with motors and continuous controls, 

since DOE is only assuming a single 

system performance curve to represent 

all applicable continuous controls, as 

described in section III.E.1.c, and the 

testing-based method may provide an 

opportunity for manufacturers to 

differentiate the performance of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

different continuous or non-continuous 

control technologies. 

DOE has designed the calculationbased approach to be conservative 

(through the assumed motor loss curve 

and assumed default motor efficiencies) 

to allow for comparability between the 

calculation-based and testing-based 

methods for pumps paired with 

continuous controls for motors that are 

(1) regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

standards or (2) submersible motors. 

However, DOE notes that, since the 

actual measured efficiency of any single 

motor could be higher or lower than the 

nominal full load efficiency ratings 

assigned to that basic model of motor, 

it is possible for a given pump to be 

tested with a motor that is more or less 

efficient than its nameplate efficiency. 

Therefore, it is theoretically possible for 

the calculation-based method B.1 to 

generate ratings that are better or worse 

than the testing-based method B.2 based 

solely on the performance of the motor. 

To address this possibility, DOE 

proposes that, when performing 

enforcement testing, it would use the 

same test method (i.e., calculation-based 

or testing-based) used by the 

manufacturer to generate and report the 

rating. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to establish calculation-based 

test methods as the required test method 

for bare pumps and testing-based 

methods as the required test method for 

pumps sold with motors that are not 

regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

energy conservation standards, except 

for submersible motors, or for pumps 

sold with any motors and with noncontinuous controls. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

proposal to allow either testing-based 

methods or calculation-based methods 

to be used to rate pumps sold with 

continuous control-equipped motors 

that are either (1) regulated by DOE’s 

electric motor standards or (2) 

submersible motors. 

DOE requests comment on the level of 

burden in include with any certification 

requirements the reporting of the test 

method used by a manufacturer to 

certify a given pump basic model as 

compliant with any energy conservation 

standards DOE may set. 

F. Representations of Energy Use and 

Energy Efficiency 

As noted previously, manufacturers of 

any pumps within the scope of the 

pump test procedure would be required 

to use the test procedure established 

through this rulemaking when making 

representations about the energy 

efficiency or energy use of their 

equipment. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 

6314(d) provides that ‘‘[n]o 

manufacturer . . . may make any 

representation . . . respecting the 

energy consumption of such equipment 

or cost of energy consumed by such 

equipment, unless such equipment has 

been tested in accordance with such test 

procedure and such representation 

fairly discloses the results of such 

testing.’’ Manufacturers of equipment 

that would be addressed by this test 

procedure and any applicable standards 

that DOE may set would have 180 days 

after the promulgation of those 

standards to begin using the DOE 

procedure. Performing this test 

procedure for pumps requires a key 

component (C-value) that will be 

addressed through the standards 

rulemaking for pumps. (As noted 

earlier, DOE is working on a parallel 

rulemaking to set these standards.) 

Because of this dependency, in DOE’s 

view, the 180-day provision prescribed 

by 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) would necessarily 

apply only when both the test procedure 

and standards rules have been finalized. 

Accordingly, under this approach, 

manufacturers would not be required 

(nor would they be able) to use the 

proposed procedure until standards 

have been set. 

With respect to representations, 

generally, DOE understands 

manufacturers often make 

representations (graphically or in 

numerical form) of energy use metrics, 

including pump efficiency, overall 

(wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl 

efficiency, driver power input, pump 

power input (brake or shaft 

horsepower), and/or pump power 

output (hydraulic horsepower). 

Manufacturers often make these 

representations at multiple impeller 

trims, operating speeds, and number of 

stages for a given pump. DOE proposes 

to allow manufacturers to continue 

making these representations. 

Any representations of PEI and PER 

must be made in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure, and there may only 

be one PEI or PER representation for 

each basic model. In other words, 

representations of PEI and PER that 

differ from the full impeller PEI and 

PER cannot be made at alternate speeds, 

stages, or impeller trims. Additionally, 

if the PEI and PER for a basic model is 

rated using any method other than 

method A.1, ‘‘bare pump with default 

motor efficiency and default motor part 

load loss curve,’’ such a basic model 

may not include individual models with 

alternate stages or impeller trims. 

If a manufacturer wishes to make 

unique representations of PEI or PER 

based on a trimmed impeller, DOE 

proposes that the manufacturer must 

certify the trimmed impeller as a 

separate basic model. In such a case, the 

‘‘trimmed impeller’’ being rated would 

become the full impeller for the new 

basic model, or the maximum diameter 

impeller distributed in commerce for 

that pump model (see section III.A.1.c). 

G. Sampling Plans for Pumps 

DOE provides in subpart B to 10 CFR 

part 429 sampling plans for all covered 

equipment. The purpose of these 

sampling plans is to provide uniform 

statistical methods for determining 

compliance with prescribed energy 

conservation standards and when 

making representations of energy 

consumption and energy efficiency for 

each covered equipment type on labels 

and in other locations such as marketing 

materials. DOE proposes to adopt for 

pumps the same statistical sampling 

plans used for other commercial and 

industrial equipment. These 

requirements would be added to 10 CFR 

Part 429. 

Under this proposal, for purposes of 

certification testing, the determination 

that a basic model complies with the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

would be based on testing conducted 

using the proposed DOE test procedure 

and sampling plan. The general 

sampling requirement currently 

applicable to all covered products and 

equipment provides that a sample of 

sufficient size must be randomly 

selected and tested to ensure 

compliance and that, unless otherwise 

specified, a minimum of two units must 

be tested to certify a basic model as 

compliant. 10 CFR 429.11 This 

minimum is implicit in the requirement 

to calculate a mean—an average—which 

requires at least two values. 

DOE proposes to apply this minimum 

requirement to pumps. Thus, under no 

circumstances would a sample size of 

one be authorized for the purposes of 

determining compliance with any 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards or for making representations 

of energy use of covered pumps. 

Manufacturers may need to test a 

sample of more than two units 

depending on the variability of their 

sample, as provided by the statistical 

sampling plan. 

DOE is also proposing to create a new 

section 10 CFR 429.59 for commercial 

and industrial pump certification that 

would include sampling procedures and 

certification report requirements for 

pumps. DOE proposes to adopt in 10 

CFR 429.59 the same statistical 

sampling procedures that are applicable 

to many other types of commercial and 

industrial equipment. DOE believes 

equipment variability and measurement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17629 

repeatability associated with the 

measurements proposed for rating 

pumps are similar to the variability and 

measurement repeatability associated 

with energy efficiency or consumption 

measurement required for other 

commercial equipment. 

DOE is proposing to determine 

compliance in an enforcement matter 

based on the arithmetic mean of a 

sample not to exceed four units. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed sampling plan for certification 

and enforcement of compliance for 

commercial and industrial pumps. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, 

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule, 

which would establish new test 

procedures for pumps, under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. DOE 

tentatively concludes that the proposed 

rule, if adopted, would result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis is set forth below. 

1. Small Business Determination 

For the industrial pump 

manufacturing industry, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purpose of the statute. DOE used 

the SBA’s size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

required to comply with the rule. The 

size standards are codified at 13 CFR 

part 121. The standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Industrial 

pump manufacturers are classified 

under NAICS 333911, ‘‘Pump and 

Pumping Equipment Manufacturing.’’ 

The SBA sets a threshold of 500 

employees or less for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for this 

category. 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 

small business manufacturers of 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

During its market survey, DOE used 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved the review individual 

company Web sites and marketing 

research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet 

reports, Manta, Hoovers) to create a list 

of companies that manufacture pumps 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE also 

contacted the Hydraulic Institute to 

obtain information about pump 

manufacturing companies that 

participate in the national association. 

Using these sources, DOE identified 68 

distinct manufacturers of pumps. DOE 

requests comment regarding the size of 

pump manufacturing entities and the 

number of manufacturing businesses 

represented by this market. 

DOE then reviewed these data to 

determine whether the entities met the 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer of pumps and then 

screened out companies that do not 

offer equipment covered by this 

rulemaking, do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. Based on this 

review, DOE has identified 38 

companies that would be considered 

small manufacturers by the SBA 

definition, which represents 

approximately 33 percent of pump 

manufacturers with facilities in the 

United States, as identified by DOE. 

Fourteen of the 38 manufacturers that 

qualify as being a small business were 

found to be foreign owned or operated, 

leaving 25 small businesses in the 

analysis. These 25 companies represent 

29 percent of pump manufacturers with 

facilities in the United States. 

Table IV.1 groups the small 

businesses according to their number of 

employees. The majority of the small 

businesses affected by this rulemaking 

(60 percent) have fewer than 100 

employees. According to DOE’s 

analysis, annual sales associated with 

these small manufacturers were 

estimated at $1.09 billion ($43.97 

million average annual sales per small 

manufacturer), which represents less 

than one percent of total industrial 

pump manufacturer annual sales. 

Although $1.09 billion in annual sales 

by the industry and over $43.97 million 

per small manufacturer are significant 

in many markets, many industrial and 

commercial pump manufacturers are 

large, multi-national companies, with 

annual sales ranging between a few 

million to over a trillion dollars. 

TABLE IV.1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH FINANCIAL DATA

Number of employees 

Number 

of small 

businesses 

Percentage 

of small 

businesses 

Cumulative 

percentage 

Average 

annual 

sales 

($M) 

1–25 ................................................................................................................................. 4 16.0 16.0 $4.97 

26–50 ............................................................................................................................... 5 20.0 36.0 6.56 

51–100 ............................................................................................................................. 6 24.0 60.0 17.90 

101–200 ........................................................................................................................... 5 20.0 80.0 38.05 

201–500 ........................................................................................................................... 5 20.0 100.0 104.29 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 25 100.0 100.0 34.74 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2. Assessing the Number of Basic 

Models per Manufacturer 

The proposed test procedure would 

impact manufacturers by requiring them 

to test the energy consumption of 

certain models of pumps they 

manufacture. As such, DOE conducted a 

focused inquiry into the number of basic 

models manufactured by large and small 

business in order to determine whether 

small business would be 

disproportionally impacted compared to 

large manufacturers. DOE used the 

definition of basic model and the scope 

of pumps proposed in section III.A as 

the basis for its inquiry into the number 

of pump models manufactured per 

company. Small manufacturers of 

pumps produce an average of 41 basic 

models per company covered under this 

scope. 

DOE notes that this estimate is based 

on the number of different bare pump 

models manufactured by a specific 

company because often information was 

not available regarding the number and 

type of motor or control options with 

which a pump could be sold. As such, 

DOE acknowledges that this estimate of 

basic models may be an under estimate. 

However, DOE also notes that, based on 

its research, pumps are often distributed 

in commerce as a bare pump, with 

different motors, continuous controls, 

and non-continuous controls offered as 

add-on options. As such, based on the 

proposed test procedure, only physical 

testing of the fundamental bare pump 

would be required under DOE’s 

proposed test. Subsequent ratings when 

the pump is sold either with a motor or 

with a motor and continuous or noncontinuous controls could be developed 

based on calculations with no 

additional testing if the motor is covered 

by DOE’s energy conservation standards 

for electric motors and the control is a 

continuous control. 

DOE notes that the vast majority of 

pumps that are sold with motors are 

sold with motors that are covered by 

DOE’s electric motor energy 

conservation standards. This 

understanding was confirmed by 

discussions of the CIP Working Group. 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039, 

No. 09 at p. 57) Based on a review of 

industry literature, DOE also finds that 

almost all controls available to be paired 

with pumps are VSD controls and 

would meet DOE’s proposed definition 

of continuous control and, thus, the 

calculation method would be 

applicable. 

As discussed in more detail in the 

following, physical testing of each 

pump is by far the more burdensome 

and costly part of conducting the DOE 

test procedure, and any subsequent 

calculations should not significantly 

affect the burden associated with 

conducting DOE’s proposed test 

procedure. Therefore, DOE 

acknowledges that, while different 

configurations of a bare pump, motor, 

and/or control may represent several 

basic models, estimating the burden 

associated with rating those models will 

be fundamentally based on the physical 

testing that must be performed on only 

the underlying bare pump, for most 

pumps. Therefore, DOE believes that 

calculating the burden of testing based 

on the number of bare pump models 

offered by a manufacturer is a 

reasonable and representative estimate 

of the burden associated with 

establishing a rating for the entire 

family, or group, or pump models that 

might be based on the individual bare 

pump. DOE notes that physical testing 

of the bare pump is commonly 

performed to describe pump 

performance information in 

manufacturer’s literature. However, it is 

not clear that all pump manufacturers 

have facilities capable of performing in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure. As such, DOE has 

conservatively assumed that 

manufacturers would have to make a 

decision to incur the burden of 

constructing a test facility in order to 

perform the proposed DOE test 

procedure or conduct the testing a third 

party laboratory, as discussed further in 

section IV.B.3. DOE does not expect that 

every pump manufacturer will incur the 

cost as estimated in this IRFA given that 

many of the manufacturers are already 

testing and making representations of 

the bare pump efficiency. 

DOE requests information on the 

percentage of pump models for which 

the rating of the bare pump, pump sold 

with a motor, and pump sold with a 

motor and controls cannot be based on 

the same fundamental physical test of 

the bare pump. For example, DOE is 

interested in the number of pump 

models sold with motors that are not 

covered by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors or the 

number of pump models sold with 

controls that would not meet DOE’s 

definition of continuous control. 

3. Burden of Conducting the Proposed 

DOE Pump Test Procedure 

Pumps would be newly regulated 

equipment; accordingly, DOE has no 

test procedures or standards for this 

equipment. As such, this proposal 

would apply a uniform test procedure 

for those pumps that would be required 

to be tested and an accompanying 

burden on the manufacturers of those 

pumps. As discussed in the proposed 

sampling provisions in section III.F, this 

test procedure would require 

manufacturers to test at least two units 

of each pump basic model to develop a 

certified rating. 

DOE notes that certification of 

covered pump models is not currently 

required because energy conservation 

standards do not exist for pumps. 

However, EPCA also requires that 

manufacturers use the DOE test 

procedure to make representations 

regarding energy efficiency or energy 

use based on the DOE test procedure for 

any covered pump models. For the 

purposes of this IRFA, DOE estimates 

that each manufacturer would rate each 

basic model of covered pump in order 

to make representations about a given 

basic model. Thus, the testing burden 

associated with this test procedure 

NOPR is similar regardless of whether 

standards apply. The potential 

difference between these cases, as 

discussed below, is any burden 

associated specifically with creating and 

maintaining certification reports to 

demonstrate compliance with any 

energy conservation standards for 

pumps. 

DOE recognizes that making 

representations regarding the energy 

efficiency or energy use of covered 

pump models is voluntary and thus, 

technically, the proposed test procedure 

does not have any incremental burden 

associated with it, unless DOE 

establishes energy conservation 

standards. If necessary, a manufacturer 

could elect to not make representations 

about the energy use of covered pump 

models. Since certification is not 

currently required because there are no 

pump energy conservation standards, 

manufacturers would not be required to 

conduct testing in accordance with this 

proposed test procedure and, thus, 

would not incur any incremental 

burden associated with such testing. 

However, DOE realizes that 

manufacturers often provide 

information about the energy 

performance of the pumps they 

manufacture since this information is an 

important marketing tool to help 

distinguish their pumps from 

competitor offerings. In addition, DOE 

recognizes that pump energy 

conservation standards are currently 

being considered in an associated 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0031) and may be proposed or 

promulgated in the near future. 

Therefore, DOE is estimating the full 

burden of developing certified ratings 

for covered pump models for the 

purposes of making representations 

regarding the energy use of covered 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17631 

52R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2013 RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data. 2013. Kingston, MA. 

equipment or certifying compliance to 

DOE under any future energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE expects that in order to 

determine the pump performance of any 

covered pump models for the purposes 

of making representations or certifying 

compliance with under any future 

energy conservation standards for 

pumps, each manufacturer would have 

to either (a) have the units tested inhouse or (b) have the units tested at a 

third party testing facility. If the 

manufacturer elects to test pumps inhouse, each manufacturer would have to 

undertake the following burdeninducing activities: 

(1) construct and maintain a test 

facility that is capable of testing pumps 

in compliance with the test procedure, 

including acquisition and calibration of 

any necessary measurement equipment, 

and 

(2) conduct the DOE test procedure on 

two units of each covered pump model. 

DOE recognizes that many pump 

manufacturers already have pump test 

facilities of various types and conduct 

pump testing as part of an existing 

manufacturing quality control process, 

to develop pump performance 

information for new and existing 

products, and to demonstrate the 

performance of specific pump units for 

customers. However, DOE recognizes 

that, as such testing is not currently 

required or standardized, testing 

facilities may vary widely from one 

pump manufacturer to another. As such, 

for the purposes of estimating testing 

burden associated with this test 

procedure NOPR, DOE has estimated 

the burden associated with a situation 

where a given pump manufacturer does 

not have existing test facilities at all and 

would be required to construct such 

facilities to test equipment in 

accordance with any test procedure 

final rule. This is the most burdensome 

assumption. 

DOE requests comment on the testing 

currently conducted by pump 

manufacturers and the magnitude of 

incremental changes necessary to 

transform current test facilities to 

conduct the DOE test procedure as 

proposed in this NOPR. 

The proposed test procedure would 

require manufacturers to conduct the 

calculation-based method or the testingbased method, depending on the type 

and configuration of pump being tested. 

As discussed in section III.E.1, DOE is 

proposing the less burdensome 

calculation-based test methods as the 

required test method for bare pumps 

and pumps sold with motors that are 

covered by DOE’s electric motor energy 

conservation standards. 

In contrast, DOE is proposing to 

require that manufacturers use a testingbased method where pumps are sold 

either with motors that are not covered 

by DOE’s electric motor energy 

conservation standards or with noncontinuous controls. For pumps sold 

with motors that are covered by DOE’s 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards and continuous controls, DOE 

is proposing to allow either testingbased methods or calculation-based 

methods be used to rate such 

equipment. 

Both the calculation-based method 

and the testing-based method would 

require physical testing of pumps at 

some level and, as such, would utilize 

a similar basic testing facility. To collect 

information on constructing a testing 

facility capable of performing the 

proposed DOE test procedure on the 

proposed scope of covered equipment, 

DOE utilized estimates from pump 

testing facilities and conversations with 

pump testing personnel. 

4. Capital Expense Associated with 

Constructing a Pump Testing Facility 

From these sources, DOE estimates 

that the testing facility would need to be 

configured with 100 to 280 feet of 

stainless steel pipe of 6 to 8 inches in 

diameter. DOE estimates that this 

configuration, including its respective 

fittings and valves, would cost between 

$17,000 and $100,000 to construct, 

based on cost data from RS Means.52

DOE estimates that the testing 

configuration would also include a 

double wall steel water reservoir that 

holds up to 6,000 gallons for smaller 

pipe configurations and a 30,000 gallon 

reservoir for larger pipe configurations, 

which would cost between $21,000 and 

$70,000 based on RS Means cost data. 

The test platform of the facility could 

use a variety of devices to operate the 

bare pump. For example, a 

dynamometer can be used to 

simultaneously drive and measure the 

torque and rotating speed of the pump, 

the bare pump could be driven by a 

calibrated motor, or the pump could be 

driven by a non-calibrated motor with 

independent measurement of speed and 

torque. For testing of a pump and motor 

or pump, motor, and control, a separate 

drive system would not be necessary. 

In this analysis, DOE assumed that 

such a facility would use a VFD and a 

motor to enable each pump to be 

analyzed for energy consumption. DOE 

believes that this is likely to be the most 

common and cost-effective approach for 

determining the energy consumptions of 

bare pumps. DOE estimates that the 

VFD, rated up to 250 horsepower in 

accordance with the scope of this 

rulemaking, would cost approximately 

$18,000 based on estimates obtained 

from retailers. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that using a non-calibrated 

test motor and VFD would be the most 

common and least costly approach for 

testing bare pumps in accordance with 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

During testing, each pump is matched 

to an appropriately sized motor to drive 

the pump along at least seven points 

from 40 to 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow of the pump on the pump 

performance curve. To test the full range 

of pumps covered in the scope of this 

standard, DOE estimates that a 

minimum of four motors would be 

necessary. 

The motors would have to be sized 

based upon the range of pumps, which 

vary between 1 and 200 horsepower, to 

ensure that the pairing lowers the part 

load motor losses. These properly sized 

motors would be between 5 and 250 hp, 

and the combined cost of the motors 

ranges between $20,000 and $66,000. 

To measure energy consumption, 

measurements of head, pump rotating 

speed, flow rate, and either electrical 

power or torque would be necessary. 

DOE estimates that the total cost of this 

measurement equipment would be 

between $15,000 and $33,000. 

DOE estimates that building a testing 

facility capable of testing the range of 

pumps covered in the standard would 

cost approximately $91,000 to $277,000 

per manufacturer. 

DOE requests comment on the 

estimates of materials and costs to build 

a pump testing facility as presented. 

DOE estimates that a majority of 

pumps are sold with motors that are 

covered under the current DOE motor 

standard or submersible motors and 

have been rated and, if equipped with 

controls, would use continuous 

controls. Under the proposed test 

procedure, DOE would not require these 

configurations of pumps and motors to 

be tested using the wire-to-water test, 

but would allow manufacturers the 

option to conduct the wire-to-water test. 

All pumps sold with motors that are 

not covered by DOE’s electric motor 

energy conservation standards would be 

required to conduct the wire-to-water 

test. The proposed wire-to-water test 

would utilize the basic test lab setup 

described above without the standard 

four test motors, but would require 

additional instrumentation to measure 

power into and out of the motor or VFD, 

as described in section III.C.2.e. DOE 

estimates the instrumentation required 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

53 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue 

Service. How to Depreciate Property. IRS Pub. 926. 

to measure electrical input power in a 

wire-to-water test or when testing with 

a calibrated motor would add 

approximately $2,000 to the cost of the 

test lab set up. 

DOE understands that the 

characteristics of the power supplied to 

the test facility may impact the results 

of testing the controls in the system. 

However, DOE is not incorporating the 

testing or correction of power quality in 

the burden estimate presented in this 

NOPR because DOE could not identify 

reliable or consistent estimates for the 

cost of maintaining the proposed power 

supply requirements discussed in 

section III.C.2.a above. These factors, 

taken together, would result in a testing 

facility capable of conducting the wireto-water test that costs between $72,000 

and $213,000. 

DOE requests comment on the test 

facility description and measurement 

equipment assumed in DOE’s estimate 

of burden. 

DOE requests comment and 

information regarding the burden 

associated with achieving the power 

quality requirements proposed in the 

NOPR. 

DOE amortized the cost of building 

the testing facility based on loan interest 

rates and product lifetimes gathered in 

manufacturer surveys. The average 

interest rate for business loans reported 

by manufacturers was 11.8 percent, 

based on feedback obtained during 

preliminary analysis interviews for the 

standards rulemaking. DOE used a loan 

period of 7 years based on the 

assumption that the machinery qualifies 

for a 7-year depreciation schedule under 

the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery 

System (MACRS).53 The total annual 

payment for financing a test facility 

with these assumptions will be between 

$19,000 and $59,000 for the basic 

testing facility capable of conducting the 

calculation-based method. The total 

annual payment for financing for a test 

facility capable of conducting the 

alternative testing-based method would 

be between $15,000 and $45,000. 

5. Recurring Burden Associated With 

Ongoing Testing Activities 

In addition to the capital expenses 

associated with acquiring the 

appropriate equipment and facilities to 

conduct testing, manufacturers would 

incur recurring burden associated with 

maintaining the test facility and 

conducting each pump test. Each testing 

facility would need to calibrate the 

instrumentation used in the test loop as 

specified in HI 40.6–2004 appendix D. 

The flowmeter, torque sensor, and 

power quality meter all should be 

calibrated once a year. The pressure 

transducer should be calibrated every 4 

months and a laser tachometer should 

be calibrated every 3 years. These 

calibrations, together, cost a testing 

facility about $1,241.67 per year to 

calibrate. 

Both methods of the proposed test 

procedure would require test personnel 

to set up, conduct, and remove each 

pump in accordance with that 

procedure. Based on conversations with 

test engineers, DOE estimates it would 

take between 1 and 2 hours of an 

engineer’s time to complete the test 

procedure per model tested, which 

would result in a cost of $53.87 to 

$107.74 per model based on an 

engineer’s labor rate of $53.87 per hour. 

DOE estimates that setting up and 

removing the pumps from the test stand 

would require 2 to 6 hours of the 

engineer’s time depending on the size of 

the pump and any other fittings that 

need to be configured to enable testing, 

resulting in a cost between $107.74 to 

$323.22 per model based on the labor 

rate of $53.87 per hour for an engineer. 

The total cost of testing a pump, 

including setup, tests, and takedown 

ranges between $161.61 and $430.96 per 

model. DOE estimates that the time 

required to conduct the calculationbased method of test would be the same 

as the time required to conduct the 

wire-to-water test. 

As described earlier, the proposed 

default calculation-based method, using 

the basic test facility set up, would 

require testing each bare pump model. 

The test results from that rated bare 

pump could then be used in subsequent 

calculations to determine certified 

ratings for that pump when sold as a 

bare pump, with a motor that is covered 

by DOE’s energy conservation standards 

for electric motors, or with a covered 

motor and continuous controls. 

However, for pumps sold with motors 

not certified to the DOE motor standard 

or with non-continuous controls, 

manufacturers would be required to 

conduct the wire-to-water test on each 

pump model in a test facility with 

additional electrical instrumentation, as 

described previously. Manufacturers 

conducting the wire-to-water tests on 

their equipment would need to test each 

pump and motor combination, which 

may incur a higher burden than the 

default calculation-based method. 

As previously discussed, DOE’s 

estimate of burden for rating pump 

models covered by the proposed DOE 

test procedure is based on the 

assumption that the majority of covered 

pump models will be able to use the 

calculation-based method and same 

fundamental bare pump test to certify a 

given pump in the bare pump, pump 

sold with a motor, or pump sold with 

a motor and controls configurations. 

DOE notes that the wire-to-water test 

would be available as an option for 

these pump models, but would not be 

required. DOE acknowledges that some 

pump models, such as pumps sold with 

motors that are not covered by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

electric motors or submersible motors 

and pumps sold with motors and noncontinuous controls, would be required 

to use the wire-to-water test procedure 

proposed in section III.E.2. However, 

based on DOE’s research, very few 

pump models will be required to use 

these methods. 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of pump models per 

manufacturer that would be required to 

use the wire-to-water test method to 

certify pump performance. 

6. Cumulative Burden 

These costs, taken together, would 

result in an additional burden for 

manufacturers conducting the DOE test 

procedure from the construction of a 

testing facility and the requirement to 

test all pumps under the scope of the 

proposed test procedure. Fifteen of 25 

small manufacturers identified in DOE’s 

initial survey of manufacturers produce 

pumps that fall within the scope of this 

rulemaking and would be required to 

perform testing; the other 10 produce 

pump types that are not within the 

scope of pumps for which the proposed 

test procedure is applicable (see section 

III.A). 

The burden of building a testing 

facility and testing pumps varied across 

small manufacturers. The lowest burden 

estimate is approximately $61,000 in the 

first year and the highest burden 

experienced in the first year is estimated 

to be around $221,000 for small 

manufacturers affected by the rule. 

Table IV.2 presents the small 

manufacturers stratified by employee 

size and shows the average burden 

estimated for each employee bin size as 

a percentage of average annual sales. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17633 

TABLE IV.2—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE WITH PUMPS IN SCOPE OF RULEMAKING BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH ESTIMATED

BURDEN

Number of employees 

Number of 

small 

businesses 

Average 

number of 

basic models 

Average 

annual sales 

($M) 

Average 

estimated 

burden (% of 

sales) 

1–50 ................................................................................................................. 8 20 6.3 2.55 

51–100 ............................................................................................................. 2 48 16.7 0.60 

101–500 ........................................................................................................... 5 78 90.9 0.36 

The burden estimates were based on 

annual sales data gathered in the 

manufacturer surveys, company Web 

sites, and marketing research tools. 

Total revenue for businesses was not 

used because data for all relevant 

companies were not publicly available. 

Annual average value added was 

another financial indicator investigated 

for the burden analysis. This indicator 

was not utilized because the value 

added pooled companies that 

manufacture other commodities and 

was not found to be representative of 

the pump manufacturing industry. 

DOE requests comment on the use of 

annual sales as the financial indicator 

for this analysis and whether another 

financial indicator would be more 

representative to assess the burden upon 

the pump manufacturing industry. 

As the number of employees 

increases, the average estimated burden, 

as a percentage of average annual sales, 

decreases. The average number of basic 

models is highest for small 

manufacturers with 51–100 employees; 

however, the average annual sales were 

a much larger factor in determining the 

average burden than the number of basic 

models per manufacturer. 

For the 15 small manufacturers that 

produce pumps within the scope of the 

rulemaking, the average burden is 

estimated to be 1.56 percent of their 

average annual sales. Based on the 

burden estimates described herein, 3 of 

the 15 manufacturers would incur a 

burden of over 2 percent of their annual 

sales if the maximum burden is applied. 

The other 12 companies have an average 

estimated burden of 0.63 percent of 

annual sales. 

Based on the estimates presented, 

DOE believes that the proposed test 

procedure amendments may have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and the preparation of a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis may be required. 

DOE will transmit the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

DOE requests comment on its 

conclusion that the proposed rule may 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

feedback on the assumptions and 

estimates made in the analysis of 

burden associated with implementing 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

All collections of information from 

the public by a Federal agency must 

receive prior approval from OMB. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for covered consumer 

products and industrial equipment. 10 

CFR part 429, subpart B. DOE published 

a notice of public meeting and 

availability of the framework document 

considering energy conservation 

standards for pumps on February 1, 

2013. 78 FR 7304. In an application to 

renew the OMB information collection 

approval for DOE’s certification and 

recordkeeping requirements, DOE 

included an estimated burden for 

manufacturers of pumps in case DOE 

ultimately sets energy conservation 

standards for this equipment. OMB has 

approved the revised information 

collection for DOE’s certification and 

recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 

(January 30, 2015). DOE estimated that 

it will take each respondent 

approximately 30 hours total per 

company per year to comply with the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements based on 20 hours of 

technician/technical work and 10 hours 

clerical work to actually submit the 

Compliance and Certification 

Management System templates. This 

rulemaking would include 

recordkeeping requirements on 

manufacturers that are associated with 

executing and maintaining the test data 

for this equipment. DOE notes that the 

certification requirements would be 

established in a final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

pumps. DOE recognizes that 

recordkeeping burden may vary 

substantially based on company 

preferences and practices. 

DOE requests comment on the burden 

estimate to comply with the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements. 

DOE also generally notes that 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this proposed rule, DOE is 

proposing a test procedure for pumps 

that will be used to support the 

upcoming pumps energy conservation 

standard rulemaking. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this proposed rule 

considers a test procedure for a pump 

that is largely based upon industry test 

procedures and methodologies resulting 

from a negotiated rulemaking, so it 

would not affect the amount, quality or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, would not result in any 

environmental impacts. Thus, this 

rulemaking is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that is the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which would 

prescribe the test procedure for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

pumps, is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 and 

is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17635 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed rule incorporates by 

reference the testing methods contained 

in HI 40.6–2014, ‘‘Methods for 

Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,’’ 

except section 40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test report;’’ 

section A.7, ‘‘Testing at temperatures 

exceeding 

30 °C (86 °F);’’ and appendix B, 

‘‘Reporting of test results.’’ In addition, 

the NOPR’s proposed definitions 

incorporate by reference the following 

standards: 

(1) Sections 1.1, ‘‘types and 

nomenclature,’’ and 1.2.9, ‘‘rotodynamic 

pump icons,’’ of the 2014 version of 

ANSI/HI Standard 1.1–1.2, 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions;’’ 

(2) section 2.1, ‘‘types and 

nomenclature,’’ of the 2008 version of 

ANSI/HI Standard 2.1–2.2, 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions;’’ 

While today’s proposed test 

procedure is not exclusively based on 

these industry testing standards, some 

components of the DOE test procedure 

would adopt definitions, test 

parameters, measurement techniques, 

and additional calculations from them 

without amendment. The Department 

has evaluated these industry testing 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they would fully comply with 

the requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of this test 

procedure on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference five industry 

standards related to pump 

nomenclature, definitions, and 

specifications, which DOE has 

referenced in its proposed definitions. 

These standards include ANSI/HI 1.1– 

1.2–2014, ‘‘Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) 

Pumps For Nomenclature And 

Definitions;’’ ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008, 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions;’’ FM 

Class Number 1319, ‘‘Approval 

Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 

(Horizontal, End Suction Type);’’ UL 

Standard 448–2007, ‘‘Centrifugal 

Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection 

Service;’’ and NFPA Standard 20–2013, 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.’’ 

These are industry-accepted standards 

used by pump manufacturers when 

designing and marketing pumps in 

North America. The definitions 

proposed in this NOPR reference 

specific sections of the HI standards for 

definitional clarity and the entirety of 

the NFPA, UL, and FM standards as a 

basis for scope exclusions. These 

standards are available through the 

respective Web sites of each individual 

organization. 

DOE also proposes to incorporate by 

reference the test standard published by 

HI titled ‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic 

Pump Efficiency Testing,’’ HI 40.6– 

2014, with the exception of section 

40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test report;’’ section A.7, 

‘‘Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 

°C (86 °F);’’ and appendix B, ‘‘Reporting 

of test results.’’ HI 40.6–2014 was 

developed to support DOE’s test 

procedure development and is heavily 

based on the industry-accepted test 

standard ANSI/HI 14.6. The test 

procedure proposed in this NOPR 

references nearly the entirety of ANSI/ 

HI 14.6, in regards to test setup, 

instrumentation, and test conduct. HI 

40.6–2014 is available from HI. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to 

advance security screening procedures, 

which require advance notice prior to 

attendance at the public meeting. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting 

foreignvisit@ee.doe.gov to initiate the 

necessary procedures. Please also note 

that any person wishing to bring a 

laptop into the Forrestal Building will 

be required to obtain a property pass. 

Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, 

or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons 

may also attend the public meeting via 

webinar. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), there have been recent 

changes regarding identification (ID) 

requirements for individuals wishing to 

enter Federal buildings from specific 

States and U.S. territories. As a result, 

driver’s licenses from the following 

States or territory will not be accepted 

for building entry, and instead, one of 

the alternate forms of ID listed below 

will be required. 

DHS has determined that regular 

driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: 

Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and 

Washington. Acceptable alternate forms 

of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 

Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s 

License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by 

the States of Minnesota, New York or 

Washington (Enhanced licenses issued 

by these States are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government-issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least 1 week before the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17636 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public meeting 

and until the end of the comment 

period, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings 

and any aspect of the rulemaking. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

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 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 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site 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 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 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (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, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information commented to be 

confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked non-confidential with 

the information commented to be 

confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if 

feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17637 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

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). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to match the scopes of the 

pump test procedure and energy 

conservation standard rulemakings, as 

recommended by the Working Group. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘pump,’’ ‘‘bare 

pump,’’ ‘‘mechanical equipment,’’ 

‘‘driver,’’ and ‘‘control.’’ 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘continuous 

control’’ and ‘‘non-continuous control.’’ 

DOE also requests comment and 

information regarding how often pumps 

with continuous or non-continuous 

controls are packaged and distributed in 

commerce, by manufacturers, with 

integrated sensors and feedback logic 

that would allow such pumps to 

automatically actuate. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

likelihood of pumps with continuous 

and non-continuous controls being 

distributed in commerce, but never 

paired with any sensor or feedback 

mechanisms that would enable energy 

savings. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘basic model’’ 

as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE 

is interested in comments on DOE’s 

proposal to allow manufacturers the 

option of rating pumps with trimmed 

impellers as a single basic model or 

separate basic models, provided the 

rating for each pump model is based on 

the maximum impeller diameter for that 

model. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘full impeller.’’ 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to require that all pump 

models be rated in a full impeller 

configuration only. 

DOE requests comment on any other 

characteristics of pumps that are unique 

from other commercial and industrial 

equipment and may require 

modifications to the definition of ‘‘basic 

model,’’ as proposed. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed applicability of the test 

procedure to the five pump equipment 

classes noted above, namely ESCC, 

ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for end suction 

pump, end suction frame mounted 

pump, end suction close-coupled pump, 

in-line pump, radially split multi-stage 

vertical in-line casing diffuser pump, 

rotodynamic pump, single axis flow 

pump, and vertical turbine submersible 

pump. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature 

are necessary as part of the equipment 

definitions in the regulatory text, are 

likely to cause confusion due to 

inconsistencies, and whether discussing 

the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this 

preamble would provide sufficient 

reference material for manufacturers 

when determining the appropriate 

equipment class for their pump models. 

DOE requests comment on whether it 

needs to clarify the flow direction to 

distinguish RSV pumps from other 

similar pumps when determining test 

procedure and standards applicability. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

any additional language is necessary in 

the proposed RSV definition to make 

the exclusion of immersible pumps 

clearer. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to exclude circulators and pool 

pumps from the scope of this test 

procedure rulemaking. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for circulators and 

dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 

DOE requests comment on the extent 

to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV 

pumps require attachment to a rigid 

foundation to function as designed. 

Specifically, DOE is interested to know 

if any pumps commonly referred to as 

ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require 

attachment to a rigid foundation. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

determination that axial/mixed flow and 

PD pumps are implicitly excluded from 

this rulemaking based on the proposed 

definitions and scope parameters. In 

cases where commenters suggest a more 

explicit exclusion be used, DOE 

requests comment on the appropriate 

changes to the proposed definitions or 

criteria that would be needed to 

appropriately differentiate axial/mixed 

flow and/or PD pumps from the specific 

rotodynamic pumps equipment classes 

proposed for coverage in this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘clean water 

pump.’’ 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference the 

definition for ‘‘clear water’’ in HI 40.6– 

2014 to describe the testing fluid to be 

used when testing pumps in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘fire pump,’’ 

‘‘self-priming pump,’’ ‘‘prime-assisted 

pump,’’ and ‘‘sealless pump.’’ 

Regarding the proposed definition of 

a self-priming pump, DOE notes that 

such pumps typically include a liquid 

reservoir above or in front of the 

impeller to allow recirculating water 

within the pump during the priming 

cycle. DOE requests comment on any 

other specific design features that 

enable the pump to operate without 

manual re-priming, and whether such 

specificity is needed in the definition 

for clarity. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed specifications and criteria to 

determine if a pump is designed to meet 

a specific Military Specification and if 

Military Specifications other than MIL– 

P–17639F should be referenced. 

DOE requests comment on excluding 

the following pumps from the test 

procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming 

pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless 

pumps, pumps designed to be used in 

a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 

50—Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities, and pumps 

meeting the design and construction 

requirements set forth in Military 

Specification MIL–P–17639F, ‘‘Pumps, 

Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, 

Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as amended). 

DOE requests comment on the listed 

design characteristics (power, flow, 

head, design temperature, design speed, 

and bowl diameter) as limitations on the 

scope of pumps to which the proposed 

test procedure would apply. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for ‘‘bowl diameter’’ 

as it would apply to VTS pumps. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test pumps sold with nonelectric drivers as bare pumps. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that any pump distributed in 

commerce with a single-phase induction 

motor be tested and rated in the bare 

pump configuration, using the 

calculation method. 

DOE requests comment from 

interested party on any categories of 

electric motors, except submersible 

motors, that: (1) Are used with pumps 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17638 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

considered in this rulemaking and (2) 

typically have efficiencies lower than 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA 

Design B, or IEC Design N motors. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed load points and weighting for 

PEICL for bare pumps and pumps sold 

with motors and PEIVL for pumps 

inclusive of motors and continuous or 

non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed PEICL and PEIVL metric 

architecture. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to base the default motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump on that of the pump being 

evaluated. That is, the motor 

horsepower for the minimally compliant 

pump would be based on the calculated 

pump shaft input power of the pump 

when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP 

flow for bare pumps and the horsepower 

of the motor with which that pump is 

sold for pumps sold with motors and 

controls (with or without continuous or 

non-continuous controls). 

DOE requests comment on using HI 

40.6–2014 as the basis of the DOE test 

procedure for pumps. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to not incorporate by reference 

section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and 

appendix B of HI 40.6–2014 as part of 

the DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that data be 

collected at least every 5 seconds for all 

measured quantities. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow dampening devices, as 

described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with 

the proviso noted above (i.e., permitted 

to integrate up to the data collection 

interval, or 5 seconds). 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require data collected at the 

pump speed measured during testing to 

be normalized to the nominal speeds of 

1,800 and 3,600. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the requirements in 

HI 40.6–2014 regarding the deviation of 

tested speed from nominal speed and 

the variation of speed during the test. 

Specifically, DOE is interested if 

maintaining tested speed within ±1 

percent of the nominal speed is feasible 

and whether this approach would 

produce more accurate and repeatable 

test results. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed voltage, frequency, voltage 

unbalance, total harmonic distortion, 

and impedance requirements that are 

required when performing a wire-towater pump test or when testing a bare 

pump with a calibrated motor. 

Specifically, DOE requests comments on 

whether these tolerances can be 

achieved in typical pump test labs, or 

whether specialized power supplies or 

power conditioning equipment would 

be required. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in 

their 3- and 9-stage versions, 

respectively, or the next closest number 

of stages if the pump model is not 

distributed in commerce with that 

particular number of stages. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to use a linear regression of the 

pump shaft input power with respect to 

flow rate at all the tested flow points 

greater than or equal to 60 percent of 

expected BEP flow to determine the 

pump shaft input power at the specific 

load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent 

of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pump models for 

which such an approach would yield 

inaccurate measurements. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that for pumps with BEP at 

run-out, the BEP would be determined 

at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent 

of expected BEP flow instead of the 

seven data points described in section 

40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6–2014 and that the 

constant load points for pumps with 

BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 

percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, 

and 75 percent of BEP flow. 

DOE requests comment on the type 

and accuracy of required measurement 

equipment, especially the equipment 

required for electrical power 

measurements for pumps sold with 

motors having continuous or noncontinuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to conduct all calculations and 

corrections to nominal speed using raw 

measured values and that the PERCL and 

PEICL or PERVL and PEIVL, as applicable, 

be reported to the nearest 0.01. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the default motor 

horsepower for rating bare pumps based 

on the pump shaft input power at 120 

percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially 

interested in any pumps for which the 

120 percent of BEP flow load point 

would not be an appropriate basis to 

determine the default motor horsepower 

(e.g., pumps for which the 120 percent 

of BEP flow load point is a significantly 

lower horsepower than the BEP flow 

load point). 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that would specify the default, 

minimally compliant nominal full load 

motor efficiency based on the applicable 

minimally allowed nominal full load 

motor efficiency specified in DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and 

IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 

for all pumps except pumps sold with 

submersible motors. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed default minimum full load 

motor efficiency values for submersible 

motors. 

DOE requests comment on defining 

the proposed default minimum motor 

full load efficiency values for 

submersible motors relative to the most 

current minimum efficiency standards 

levels for regulated electric motors, 

through the use of ‘‘bands’’ as presented 

in Table III.6. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to allow the use of the default 

minimum submersible motor full load 

efficiency values presented in Table III.6 

to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps 

sold with submersible motors, and (3) 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

and continuous or non-continuous 

controls as an option instead of wire-towater testing. 

DOE requests comment on the 

development and use of the motor part 

load loss factor curves to describe part 

load performance of covered motors and 

submersible motors including the 

default motor specified in section III.D.1 

for bare pumps and calculation of 

PERSTD. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the part load 

losses of motors covered by DOE’s 

electric motor energy conservation 

standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

BEP flow based on the nominal full load 

efficiency of the motor, as determined in 

accordance with DOE’s electric motor 

test procedure, and the same default 

motor part load loss curve applied to the 

default motor in test method A.1 for the 

bare pump. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine the PERCL of 

pumps sold with submersible motors 

using the proposed default minimum 

efficiency values for submersible motors 

and applying the same default motor 

part load loss curve to the default motor 

in test method A.1 for the bare pump. 

DOE also requests comment on its 

proposal that pumps sold with motors 

that are not addressed by DOE’s electric 

motors test procedure (except 

submersible motors) would be rated 

based on a wire-to-water, testing-based 

approach. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed system curve shape to use, as 

well as whether the curve should go 

through the origin instead of the 

statically loaded offset. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed calculation approach for 

determining pump shaft input power for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17639 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls when rated using the 

calculation-based method. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to adopt four part load loss 

factor equations expressed as a function 

of the load on the motor (i.e., motor 

brake horsepower) to calculate the 

losses of a combined motor and 

continuous controls, where the four 

curves would correspond to different 

horsepower ratings of the continuous 

control. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

accuracy of the proposed equation 

compared to one that accounts for 

multiple performance variables (speed 

and torque). 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed 5 percent scaling factor that 

was applied to the measured VSD 

efficiency data to generate the proposed 

coefficients of the four part load loss 

curves. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on whether another scaling 

factor or no scaling factor would be 

more appropriate in this context. 

DOE requests comment on the 

variability of control horsepower ratings 

that might be distributed in commerce 

with a given pump and motor 

horsepower. 

DOE requests comment and data from 

interested parties regarding the extent to 

which the assumed default part load 

loss curve would represent minimum 

efficiency motor and continuous control 

combinations. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require testing of each 

individual bare pump as the basis for a 

certified PEICL or PEIVL rating for one or 

more pump basic models. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to limit the use of calculations 

and algorithms in the determination of 

pump performance to the calculationbased methods proposed in this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to determine BEP for pumps 

rated with a testing-based method by 

using the ratio of input power to the 

driver or continuous control, if any, 

over pump hydraulic output. DOE also 

seeks input on the degree to which this 

method may yield significantly different 

BEP points from the case where BEP is 

determined based on pump efficiency. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

or non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed testing-based method for 

determining the input power to the 

pump for pumps sold with motors and 

non-continuous controls. 

DOE requests comment on any other 

type of non-continuous control that may 

be sold with a pump and for which the 

proposed test procedure would not 

apply. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to establish calculation-based 

test methods as the required test method 

for bare pumps and testing-based 

methods as the required test method for 

pumps sold with motors that are not 

regulated by DOE’s electric motor 

energy conservation standards, except 

for submersible motors, or for pumps 

sold with any motors and with noncontinuous controls. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

proposal to allow either testing-based 

methods or calculation-based methods 

to be used to rate pumps sold with 

continuous control-equipped motors 

that are either (1) regulated by DOE’s 

electric motor standards or (2) 

submersible motors. 

DOE requests comment on the level of 

burden to include with any certification 

requirements the reporting of the test 

method used by a manufacturer to 

certify a given pump basic model as 

compliant with any energy conservation 

standards DOE may set. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed sampling plan for certification 

of commercial and industrial pump 

models. 

DOE requests comment regarding the 

size of pump manufacturing entities and 

the number of manufacturing businesses 

represented by this market. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that, for most pump models, 

only physical testing of the underlying 

bare pump model is required, and 

subsequent ratings for that bare pump 

sold with a motor or motor and 

continuous control can be based on 

calculations only. 

DOE requests information on the 

percentage of pump models for which 

the rating of the bare pump, pump sold 

with a motor, and pump sold with a 

motor and controls cannot be based on 

the same fundamental physical test of 

the bare pump. For example, DOE is 

interested in the number of pump 

models sold with motors that are not 

covered by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors or the 

number of pump models sold with 

controls that would not meet DOE’s 

definition of continuous control. 

DOE requests comment on the testing 

currently conducted by pump 

manufacturers and the magnitude of 

incremental changes necessary to 

transform current test facilities to 

conduct the DOE test procedure as 

described in this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that using a non-calibrated 

test motor and VFD would be the most 

common and least costly approach for 

testing bare pumps in accordance with 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the 

estimates of materials and costs to build 

a pump testing facility as presented. 

DOE requests comment on the test 

facility description and measurement 

equipment assumed in DOE’s estimate 

of burden. 

DOE requests comment and 

information regarding the burden 

associated with achieving the power 

quality requirements proposed in the 

NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of pump models per 

manufacturer that would be required to 

use the wire-to-water test method to 

certify pump performance. 

DOE requests comment on the 

estimation of the portion of pumps that 

would need to be newly certified or 

recertified annually. 

DOE requests comment on the use of 

annual sales as the financial indicator 

for this analysis and whether another 

financial indicator would be more 

representative to assess the burden upon 

the pump manufacturing industry. 

DOE requests comment on its 

conclusion that the proposed rule may 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

feedback on the assumptions and 

estimates made in the analysis of 

burden associated with implementing 

the proposed DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the burden 

estimate to comply with the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, 

Small businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17640 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, 

subchapter D of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. In § 429.2 revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 429.2 Definitions. 

(a) The definitions found in §§ 430.2, 

431.2, 431.62, 431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 

431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.172, 

431.192, 431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 

431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 

431.322, 431.442 and 431.462 apply for 

purposes of this part. 

* * * * * 

§ 429.11 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 429.11 is amended in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing 

‘‘429.54’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘429.62’’. 

■ 4. Add § 429.59 to read as follows: 

§ 429.59 Pumps. 

(a) Determination of represented 

value. Manufacturers must determine 

the represented value, which includes 

the certified rating, for each basic model 

by testing, in conjunction with the 

following sampling provisions. 

(1) Units to be tested. The 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to pumps; and for each basic model, a 

sample of sufficient size shall be 

randomly selected and tested to ensure 

that— 

(i) Any value of the constant or 

variable load pump energy index or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

a basic model for which consumers 

would favor lower values shall be 

greater than or equal to the higher of: 

(A) The mean of the sample, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the 

maximum of the ith sample; or 

(B) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.01, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95 percent one-tailed 

confidence interval with n-1 degrees of 

freedom (from appendix A of subpart B 

of part 429); and 

(ii) Any measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(A) The mean of the sample, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the 

maximum of the ith sample; or 

(B) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.99, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 

(from appendix A of subpart B). 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 429.70 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 429.70(a) by removing 

‘‘429.54’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘429.62’’. 

■ 6. Amend § 429.71 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 429.71 Maintenance of records. 

* * * * * 

(d) When considering if a pump is 

subject to energy conservation standards 

under part 431, DOE may need to 

determine if a pump was designed and 

constructed to the requirements set forth 

in MIL–P–17639F. In this case, DOE 

may request that a manufacturer provide 

DOE with copies of the original design 

and test data that were submitted to 

appropriate design review agencies, as 

required by MIL–P–17639F. 

§ 429.72 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 429.72(a) by removing 

‘‘429.54’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘429.62’’. 

§ 429.102 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 429.102(a) by removing 

‘‘429.54’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘429.62’’. 

§ 429.110 Enforcement testing. 

■ 9. Section 429.110(e)(1), is amended 

by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) 

through (vi) as (e)(1)(v) through (vii), 

respectively; 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(iv); 

■ c. Removing ‘‘(e)(1)(iii)’’ in newly 

redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(v), and 

adding ‘‘(e)(1)(iv)’’ in its place; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘(e)(1)(iv)’’, in newly 

redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vi), and 

adding ‘‘(e)(1)(v)’’ in its place; and 

■ e. Removing ‘‘(e)(1)(v)’’, in newly 

redesignated paragraph (e)(1)(vii), and 

adding ‘‘(e)(l)(vi)’’ in its place. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 429.110 Enforcement testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) For pumps, DOE will use an 

initial sample size of not more than four 

units and will determine compliance 

based on the arithmetic mean of the 

sample. 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 11. Add subpart Y to part 431 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart Y—Pumps 

Sec. 

431.461 Purpose and scope. 

431.462 Definitions. 

431.463 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

431.464 Test procedure for measuring and 

determining energy consumption of 

pumps. 

Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Pumps 

Subpart Y—Pumps 

§ 431.461 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart contains definitions, test 

procedures, and energy conservation 

requirements for pumps, pursuant to 

Part A–1 of Title III of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317. 

§ 431.462 Definitions. 

The following definitions are 

applicable to this subpart, including 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.028</GPH> EP01AP15.029</GPH> EP01AP15.030</GPH> EP01AP15.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17641 

appendix A. In cases where there is a 

conflict, the language of the definitions 

adopted in this section 462 takes 

precedence over any descriptions or 

definitions found in the 2014 version of 

ANSI/HI Standard 1.1–1.2, 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions’’ (ANSI/ 

HI 1.1–1.2–2014) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.463), or the 2008 

version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1–2.2, 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions’’ (ANSI/ 

HI 2.1–2.2–2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.463). In cases where 

definitions reference design intent, DOE 

will consider marketing materials, labels 

and certifications, and equipment 

design to determine design intent. 

Bare pump means a pump excluding 

mechanical equipment, driver, and 

controls. 

Basic model means all units of a given 

type of covered equipment (or class 

thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer, having the same primary 

energy source, and having essentially 

identical electrical, physical, and 

functional (or hydraulic) characteristics 

that affect energy consumption, energy 

efficiency, water consumption, or water 

efficiency; except that: 

(1) RSV and VTS pump models for 

which the bare pump differs in the 

number of stages must be considered a 

single basic model; and 

(2) Pump models for which the bare 

pump differs in impeller diameter, or 

impeller trim, may be considered a 

single basic model. 

Best efficiency point means the pump 

hydraulic power operating point 

(consisting of both flow and head 

conditions) that results in the maximum 

efficiency. 

Bowl diameter means the maximum 

dimension of an imaginary straight line 

passing through and in the plane of the 

circular shape of the intermediate bowl 

or chamber of the bare pump that is 

perpendicular to the pump shaft and 

that intersects the circular shape of the 

intermediate bowl or chamber of the 

bare pump at both of its ends, where the 

intermediate bowl or chamber is as 

defined in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

Circulator means a pump that: 

(1) Is either an end suction pump or 

a single-stage, single-axis flow, 

rotodynamic pump; and 

(2) Has a pump housing that only 

requires the support of the supply and 

discharge piping to which it is 

connected (without attachment to a 

rigid foundation) to function as 

designed. Examples include, but are not 

limited to, pumps complying with 

ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or 

CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

Clean water pump means a pump that 

is designed for use in pumping water 

with a maximum non-absorbent free 

solid content of 0.25 kilograms per 

cubic meter, and with a maximum 

dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms 

per cubic meter, provided that the total 

gas content of the water does not exceed 

the saturation volume, and disregarding 

any additives necessary to prevent the 

water from freezing at a minimum of 

¥10 °C. 

Continuous control means a control 

that adjusts the speed of the pump 

driver continuously over the driver 

operating speed range in response to 

incremental changes in the required 

pump flow, head, or power output. 

Control means any device that can be 

used to operate the driver. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, 

continuous or non-continuous speed 

controls, schedule-based controls, on/off 

switches, and float switches. 

Dedicated-purpose pool pump means 

an end suction pump designed 

specifically to circulate water in a pool 

and that includes an integrated basket 

strainer. 

Driver means the machine providing 

mechanical input to drive a bare pump 

directly or through the use of 

mechanical equipment. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, an 

electric motor, internal combustion 

engine, or gas/steam turbine. 

End suction close-coupled (ESCC) 

pump means an end suction pump in 

which: 

(1) The motor shaft also serves as the 

impeller shaft for the bare pump; 

(2) The pump requires attachment to 

a rigid foundation to function as 

designed and cannot function as 

designed when supported only by the 

supply and discharge piping to which it 

is connected; and 

(3) The pump does not include a 

basket strainer. Examples include, but 

are not limited to, pumps complying 

with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as 

described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

End suction frame mounted (ESFM) 

pump means an end suction pump 

wherein: 

(1) The bare pump has its own 

impeller shaft and bearings and so does 

not rely on the motor shaft to serve as 

the impeller shaft; 

(2) The pump requires attachment to 

a rigid foundation to function as 

designed and cannot function as 

designed when supported only by the 

supply and discharge piping to which it 

is connected; and 

(3) The pump does not include a 

basket strainer. Examples include, but 

are not limited to, pumps complying 

with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and 

OH1, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

End suction pump means a singlestage, rotodynamic pump in which the 

liquid enters the bare pump in a 

direction parallel to the impeller shaft 

and on the side opposite the bare 

pump’s driver-end. The liquid is 

discharged through a volute in a plane 

perpendicular to the shaft. 

Fire pump means a pump that is 

compliant with NFPA Standard 20– 

2013 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463), ‘‘Standard for the 

Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire 

Protection,’’ and is either: 

(1) Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 

listed under UL Standard 448–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463), ‘‘Centrifugal Stationary 

Pumps for Fire-Protection Service’’; or 

(2) Factory Mutual (FM) approved 

under the October 2008 edition of FM 

Class Number 1319, ‘‘Approval 

Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 

(Horizontal, End Suction Type),’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

Full impeller diameter means the 

maximum diameter impeller used with 

a given pump basic model distributed in 

commerce or the maximum diameter 

impeller referenced in the 

manufacturer’s literature for that pump 

basic model, whichever is larger. 

In-line (IL) pump means a singlestage, single axis flow, rotodynamic 

pump in which: 

(1) Liquid is discharged through a 

volute in a plane perpendicular to the 

impeller shaft; and 

(2) The pump requires attachment to 

a rigid foundation to function as 

designed and cannot function as 

designed when supported only by the 

supply and discharge piping to which it 

is connected. Examples include, but are 

not limited to, pumps complying with 

ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or 

OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2– 

2014 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

Mechanical equipment means any 

component of a pump that transfers 

energy from the driver to the bare pump. 

Non-continuous control means a 

control that adjusts the speed of a driver 

to one of a discrete number of noncontinuous preset operating speeds, and 

does not respond to incremental 

reductions in the required pump flow, 

head, or power output. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17642 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Prime-assist pump means a pump 

designed to lift liquid that originates 

below the center line of the pump 

impeller. Such a pump requires no 

manual intervention to prime or reprime from a dry-start condition. Such 

a pump includes a vacuum pump or air 

compressor to remove air from the 

suction line to automatically perform 

the prime or re-prime function. 

Pump means equipment designed to 

move liquids (which may include 

entrained gases, free solids, and totally 

dissolved solids) by physical or 

mechanical action and includes a bare 

pump and, if included by the 

manufacturer at the time of sale, 

mechanical equipment, driver, and 

controls. 

Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, inline diffuser casing (RSV) pump means 

a vertically suspended, multi-stage, 

single axis flow, rotodynamic pump in 

which: 

(1) Liquid is discharged in a place 

perpendicular to the impeller shaft; 

(2) Each stage (or bowl) consists of an 

impeller and diffuser; and 

(3) No external part of such a pump 

is designed to be submerged in the 

pumped liquid. Examples include, but 

are not limited to, pumps complying 

with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as 

described in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

Rotodynamic pump means a pump in 

which energy is continuously imparted 

to the pumped fluid by means of a 

rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. 

Sealless pump means either: 

(1) A pump that transmits torque from 

the motor to the bare pump using a 

magnetic coupling; or 

(2) A pump in which the motor shaft 

also serves as the impeller shaft for the 

bare pump, and the motor rotor is 

immersed in the pumped fluid. 

Self-priming pump means a pump 

designed to lift liquid that originates 

below the center line of the pump 

impeller. Such a pump requires initial 

manual priming from a dry start 

condition, but requires no subsequent 

manual re-priming. 

Single axis flow pump means a pump 

in which the liquid inlet of the bare 

pump is on the same axis as the liquid 

discharge of the bare pump. 

Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) 

pump means a single-stage or multistage rotodynamic pump that is 

designed to be operated with the motor 

and stage(s) (or bowl(s)) fully submerged 

in the pumped liquid, and in which: 

(1) Each stage of this pump consists 

of an impeller and diffuser; and 

(2) Liquid enters and exits each stage 

of the bare pump in a direction parallel 

to the impeller shaft. Examples include, 

but are not limited to, a pumps 

complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature 

VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2– 

2008 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

§ 431.463 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. DOE incorporates by 

reference the following standards into 

subpart Y of part 431. The material 

listed has been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to a standard by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

and until amended by DOE. Material is 

incorporated as it exists on the date of 

the approval and a notice of any change 

in the material will be published in the 

Federal Register. All approved material 

is available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to:http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, 

this material is available for inspection 

at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

or go to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/. These 

standards can be obtained from the 

sources below. 

(b) FM. Factory Mutual. 270 Central 

Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401–275– 

3000. www.fmglobal.com/ 

(1) FM Class Number 1319, ‘‘Approval 

Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps 

(Horizontal, End Suction Type),’’ 

approved October 2008, IBR approved 

for § 431.462. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) HI. Hydraulic Institute, 6 Campus 

Drive, First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ, 

07054–4406, 973–267–9700. 

www.pumps.org 

(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1–1.2, 

(‘‘ANSI/HI 1.1–1.2–2014’’), 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions;’’ 

approved 2014, section 1.1, ‘‘Types and 

nomenclature,’’ and section 1.2.9, 

‘‘Rotodynamic pump icons,’’ IBR 

approved for § 431.462. 

(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1–2.2, 

(‘‘ANSI/HI 2.1–2.2–2008’’), 

‘‘Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For 

Nomenclature And Definitions,’’ 

approved 2008, section 2.1, ‘‘Types and 

nomenclature,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 431.462. 

(3) HI 40.6–2014, (‘‘HI 40.6–2014’’), 

‘‘Methods for Rotodynamic Pump 

Efficiency Testing,’’ except section 

40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test report;’’ section A.7, 

‘‘Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 

°C (86 °F);’’ and appendix B, ‘‘Reporting 

of test results;’’ approved 2014, IBR 

approved for § 431.464, and appendix A 

to subpart Y of part 431. 

(h) NFPA. National Fire Protection 

Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, MA 02169, 617–770–3000. 

www.nfpa.org. 

(1) NFPA Standard 20–2013, 

‘‘Standard for the Installation of 

Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,’’ 

approved 2013, IBR approved for 

§ 431.462. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(i) UL. Underwriters Laboratory, 333 

Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. 

http://ul.com/ 

(1) UL Standard 448–2007, 

‘‘Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for FireProtection Service,’’ approved 2007, IBR 

approved for § 431.462. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 431.464 Test procedure for measuring 

and determining energy consumption of 

pumps. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for determining the 

constant and variable load pump energy 

index for: 

(1) The following categories of clean 

water pumps: 

(i) End suction close-coupled (ESCC); 

(ii) End suction frame mounted 

(ESFM); 

(iii) In-line (IL); 

(iv) Radially split, multi-stage, 

vertical, in-line casing diffuser (RSV); 

and 

(v) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) 

pumps. 

(2) With the following characteristics: 

(i) Shaft power of at least 1 hp but no 

greater than 200 hp at the best efficiency 

point (BEP) at full impeller diameter for 

the number of stages required for testing 

(see section 1.2.2 of this appendix); 

(ii) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at 

BEP and full impeller diameter; 

(iii) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP 

and full impeller diameter; 

(iv) Design temperature range from 

-10 to 120 °C; 

(v) Designed to operate with either: 

(A) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or 

(B) A non-induction motor with a 

speed of rotation operating range that 

includes speeds of rotation between 

2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute 

and/or 1,440 and 2,160 revolutions per 

minute; and 

(vi) For VTS pumps, a 6-inch or 

smaller bowl diameter. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17643 

(3) Except for the following pumps: 

(i) Fire pumps. 

(ii) Self-priming pumps. 

(iii) Prime-assist pumps. 

(iv) Sealless pumps. 

(v) Pumps designed to be used in a 

nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 

50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities.’’ 

(vi) Pumps meeting the design and 

construction requirements set forth in 

Military Specification MIL–P–17639F, 

‘‘Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous 

Service, Naval Shipboard Use’’ (as 

amended). 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the applicable constant load 

pump energy index (PEICL) or variable 

load pump energy index (PEIVL) using 

the test procedure set forth in appendix 

A of this subpart Y. 

Appendix A to Subpart Y of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Pumps. 

I. Test Procedure for Pumps. 

A. General. To determine the constant load 

pump energy index (PEICL), for bare pumps 

and pumps sold with electric motors or the 

variable load pump energy index (PEIVL) for 

pumps sold with electric motors and 

continuous or non-continuous controls, 

testing shall be performed in accordance with 

HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, ‘‘Test 

report;’’ section A.7, ‘‘Testing at temperatures 

exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);’’ and appendix B, 

‘‘Reporting of test results;’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.463) with the 

modifications and additions as noted 

throughout the provisions below. Where HI 

40.6–2014 refers to ‘‘pump,’’ the term should 

be interpreted to refer to the ‘‘bare pump,’’ 

as defined in § 431.462. Also, for the 

purposes of applying this appendix, the term 

‘‘volume per unit time,’’ as defined in section 

40.6.2, ‘‘Terms and definitions,’’ of HI 40.6– 

2014 shall be deemed to be synonymous with 

the term ‘‘flow rate’’ used throughout that 

standard and this appendix A. 

A.1 Scope. Section II of this appendix is 

applicable to all pumps and describes how to 

calculate the Pump Energy Index (section 

II.A) based on the PERSTD (section II.B) and 

the PERCL or PERVL determined in 

accordance with one of sections III through 

VII, based on the testing method and 

configuration in which the pump is 

distributed in commerce. Sections III through 

VII describe different test methods that apply 

depending on the configuration of the pump 

being rated, as described in Table 1 of this 

appendix. 

TABLE 1—APPLICABILITY OF CALCULATION-BASED AND TESTING-BASED TEST PROCEDURE OPTIONS BASED ON PUMP

CONFIGURATION

Pump configuration Pump sub-configuration Applicable test methods 

Bare Pump ........................... Bare Pump ...................................................................... Section III: Test Procedure for Bare Pumps. 

Pump + Motor ...................... Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards.Section IV: Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors 

OR OR 

Pump + Submersible Motor ............................................ Section V: Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors. 

Pump + Motor Not Covered by DOE’s Electric Motor 

Energy Conservation Standards (Except Submersible 

Motors).

Section IV: Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors. 

Pump + Motor + Controls .... Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards + Continuous Control 

Pump + Submersible Motor + Continuous Control.

Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors and Controls 

OR OR 

Pump + Submersible Motor + Continuous Control ......... Section VII: Calculation-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold with Motors Controls. 

Pump + Motor Covered by DOE’s Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards + Non-Continuous Control.Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors and Controls 

OR ...................................................................................

Pump + Submersible Motor + Non-Continuous Control

Pump + Motor Not Covered by DOE’s Electric Motor 

Energy Conservation Standards (Except Submersible 

Motors) + Continuous or Non-Continuous Controls.

Section VI: Testing-Based Approach for Pumps Sold 

with Motors and Controls. 

Section III of this appendix addresses the 

test procedure applicable to bare pumps. 

This test procedure also applies to pumps 

sold with drivers other than motors and 

pumps sold with single-phase induction 

motors. 

Section IV of this appendix addresses the 

testing-based approach for pumps sold with 

motors, which is applicable to all pumps sold 

with electric motors, other than single-phase 

induction motors. 

Section V of this appendix addressed the 

calculation-based approach for pumps sold 

with motors, which applies to: 

(1) Pumps sold with electric motors 

regulated by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors at § 431.25, 

other than single-phase induction motors; 

and 

(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors. 

Section VI of this appendix addresses the 

testing-based approach for pumps sold with 

motors and controls, which is applicable to 

all pumps sold with electric motors, other 

than single-phase induction motors, and 

continuous or non-continuous controls. 

Section VII of this appendix discusses the 

calculation-based approach for pumps sold 

with motors and controls, which applies to: 

(1) Pumps sold with electric motors 

regulated by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors at § 431.25, 

other than single-phase induction motors, 

and continuous controls; and 

(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors 

and continuous controls. 

B. Measurement Equipment. For the 

purposes of measuring pump power input, 

driver power input, and pump power output, 

the equipment specified in HI 40.6–2014 

Appendix C (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463) necessary to measure head, speed 

of rotation, flow rate, temperature, torque, 

and electrical power shall be used and shall 

comply with the stated accuracy 

requirements in HI 40.6–2014 Table 

40.6.3.2.3 except as noted in section VI.B of 

this appendix. 

C. Test Conditions. Testing shall be 

conducted in accordance with the test 

conditions, stabilization requirements, and 

specifications of HI 40.6–2014 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.463) section 40.6.3, 

‘‘Pump efficiency testing;’’ section 40.6.4, 

‘‘Considerations when determining the 

efficiency of a pump;’’ section 40.6.5.4 

(including appendix A), ‘‘Test 

arrangements;’’ and section 40.6.5.5, ‘‘Test 

conditions;’’ and at full impeller diameter. 

C.1 The nominal speed of rotation shall 

be determined based on the range of speeds 

of rotation at which the pump is designed to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

17644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

operate, in accordance with sections I.C.1.1, 

I.C.1.2, I.C.1.3, I.C.1.4, or I.C.1.5 of this 

appendix, as applicable. When determining 

the range of speeds at which the pump is 

designed to operate, DOE will refer to 

published data, marketing literature, and 

other publically-available information about 

the pump model and motor, as applicable. 

C.1.1 For pumps sold without motors, the 

nominal rating speed will be selected based 

on the speed for which the pump is designed. 

For bare pumps designed for speeds of 

rotation including 2,880 to 4,320 revolutions 

per minute (rpm), the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. For bare pumps 

designed for speeds of rotation including 

1,440 to 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 1,800 rpm. 

C.1.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole 

induction motors, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 1,800 rpm. 

C.1.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole 

induction motors, the nominal speed of 

rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. 

C.1.4 For pumps sold with non-induction 

motors where the operating range of the 

pump and motor includes speeds of rotation 

between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, the nominal 

speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. 

C.1.5 For pumps sold with non-induction 

motors where the operating range of the 

pump and motor includes speeds of rotation 

between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the nominal 

speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm. 

C.2 For RSV and VTS pumps, testing 

shall be performed on the pump with three 

stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for 

VTS pumps. If the basic model of pump 

being tested is only available with fewer than 

the required number of stages, the pump 

shall be tested with the maximum number of 

stages with which the basic model is 

distributed in commerce in the United States. 

If the basic model of pump being tested is 

only available with greater than the required 

number of stages, the pump shall be tested 

with the lowest number of stages with which 

the basic model is distributed in commerce 

in the United States. If the basic model of 

pump being tested is available with both 

fewer and greater than the required number 

of stages, but not the required number of 

stages, the pump shall be tested with the 

number of stages closest to the required 

number of stages. If both the next lower and 

next higher number of stages are equivalently 

close to the required number of stages, the 

pump shall be tested with the next higher 

number of stages. 

D. Data Collection and Analysis. 

D.1 Data Sampling Frequency. Data shall 

be collected every three seconds for all 

measured quantities. 

D.2 Dampening Devices. Use of 

dampening devices, as described in section 

40.6.3.2.2, shall only be permitted to 

integrate up to 5 seconds. 

D.3 Stabilization. Data recording at any 

test point shall be taken under stabilized 

conditions, as defined in HI 40.6–2014 

section 40.6.5.5.1 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.463). 

D.4 Calculations and Rounding. All 

measured data shall be normalized to the 

nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 1,800 

rpm based on the nominal speed of rotation 

selected for the pump in section I.C.1 of this 

appendix, in accordance with the procedures 

specified in section 40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6– 

2014 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). Except for the ‘‘expected BEP 

flow rate,’’ all terms and quantities refer to 

values determined in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in this appendix for the 

rated pump. All calculations shall be 

performed using their raw measured values 

with PERCL, PERVL, PEICL, and PEIVL values, 

as applicable, rounded to the hundredths 

place (i.e., 0.01). 

D.5 Pumps with BEP at Run Out. Pumps 

for which the expected maximum efficiency 

corresponds to the maximum flow rate at 

which the pump is designed to operate 

continuously or safely (i.e., pumps with BEP 

at run-out), the seven flow points for 

determination of BEP in sections III.C, IV.C, 

V.C, VI.D, and VII. C of this appendix shall 

be as follows: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 

percent of the maximum flow rate of the 

pump instead of those specified. In addition, 

all references to 75, 100, and 110 percent of 

the BEP flow rate for determination of PERCL

and PERSTD shall instead be 65, 90, and 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate determined with 

the modified flow points specified in this 

section I.D.5 of this appendix. 

II. Calculation of the Pump Energy Index 

A. Determine the PEI of each tested pump 

based on the configuration in which it sold 

as follows: 

A.1. For bare pumps and pumps sold with 

motors, determine the PEICL using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PEICL = the pump energy index for a constant 

load (hp), 

PERCL = the pump energy rating for a 

constant load determined in accordance 

with either section III (for bare pumps, 

pumps sold with single-phase induction 

motors, and pumps sold with drivers 

other than electric motors), section IV 

(for pumps sold with motors rated using 

the testing-based approach), or section V 

(for pumps sold with motors rated using 

the calculation-based approach) of this 

appendix (hp), and PERSTD = the PERCL

for a pump of the same equipment class 

that is minimally compliant with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards with the 

same flow and specific speed 

characteristics as the tested pump, as 

determined in accordance with section 

II.B of this appendix (hp). 

A.2 For pumps sold with motors and 

continuous controls or non-continuous 

controls, determine the PEIVL using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PEIVL= the pump energy index for a variable 

load, 

PERVL= the pump energy rating for a variable 

load determined in accordance with 

section VI (for pumps sold with motors 

and continuous or non-continuous 

controls rated using the testing-based 

approach) or section VII of this appendix 

(for pumps sold with motors and 

continuous controls rated using the 

calculation-based approach) (hp), and 

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump of the same 

equipment class that is minimally 

compliant with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards with the same 

flow and specific speed characteristics as 

the tested pump, as determined in 

accordance with section II.B of this 

appendix (hp). 

B. Determine the pump energy rating for 

the minimally compliant reference pump 

(PERSTD), according to the following 

equation: 

Where: 

PERSTD = the PERCL for a pump that is 

minimally compliant with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards with the same 

flow and specific speed characteristics as 

the tested pump (hp), 

wi = 0.3333, 

Pi

in = calculated driver power input at rating 

point i for the minimally compliant 

pump calculated in accordance with 

section II.B.1of this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 

110 percent of the BEP flow rate. 

B.1. Determine the driver power input at 

each rating point as the pump power input 

power plus the motor load losses at each 

rating point as follows: 

Pi

in = Pi + Li

Where: 

Pi

in = driver power input at each rating point 

i (hp), 

Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at 

each rating point i calculated in 

accordance with section II.B.1.1 of this 

appendix (hp), 

Li = the part load motor losses at each rating 

point i calculated in accordance with 

section II.B.1.2 of this appendix (hp), 

and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 

110 percent of the BEP flow rate. 

B.1.1. Determine the pump power input to 

the minimally compliant pump at each rating 

point i based on a ratio of the pump power 

output for the tested pump and the 

calculated efficiency of a minimally 

compliant pump with the same flow rate and 

specific speed characteristics as the tested 

pump: 

Where: 

Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at 

each rating point i (hp), 

ai = 0.947 for 75 percent of the BEP flow rate, 

1.0 for 100 percent of the BEP flow rate, 

and 0.985 for 110 percent of the BEP 

flow rate; 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.032</GPH> EP01AP15.033</GPH> EP01AP15.034</GPH> EP01AP15.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17645 

PHydro,i = the pump power output at rating 

point i of the tested pump determined in 

accordance with section II.B.1.1.2 of this 

appendix (hp); 

hpump,STD = the minimally compliant pump 

efficiency calculated in accordance with 

section II.B.1.1.1 of this appendix (%); 

and 

i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

B.1.1.1 Calculate the minimally 

compliant pump efficiency based on the 

following equation: 

hpump,STD = ¥0.85 × In(Q100%)2 ¥ 0.38 × 

In(Ns) × In(Q100%) ¥ 11.48 × In(Ns)2 + 

13.46 × In(Q100%) + 179.80 × In(Ns) ¥ (C 

¥ 555.6) 

Where: 

hpump,STD = minimally compliant pump 

efficiency (%), 

Q100% = the BEP flow rate of the tested 

pump (gpm), 

Ns = specific speed of the tested pump 

determined in accordance with section 

II.B.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, and 

C = the appropriate C-value for the type and 

rated speed of rotation of the tested 

pump, as listed at § 431.466. 

B.1.1.1.1 Determine the specific 

speed of the rated pump using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

Ns = specific speed, 

n = the nominal speed of rotation (rpm), 

Q100% = the measured BEP flow rate of the 

tested pump (gpm), and 

H100% = total head at 100 percent of the BEP 

flow rate of the tested pump (ft). 

B.1.1.2 Determine the pump power 

output at each rating point, i, of the 

tested pump using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

PHydro,i = the measured pump power output 

at rating point i of the tested pump (hp), 

Qi = the measured flow rate at each rating 

point i of the tested pump (gpm), 

Hi = pump total head at each rating point i 

of the tested pump (ft), and 

SG = the specific gravity of water at specified 

test conditions. 

B.1.2 Determine the motor part load 

losses at each rating point i by 

multiplying the motor full load losses 

by the part load loss factor calculated at 

each rating point (yi), as follows: 

Li = Lfull,default × yi

Where: 

Li = default part load motor losses at rating 

point i (hp), 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load 

determined in accordance with section 

II.B.1.2.1 of this appendix (hp), 

yi = part loss factor at rating point i 

determined in accordance with section 

II.B.1.2.2 of this appendix, and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, and 

110 percent of the measured BEP flow 

rate of the tested pump. 

B.1.2.1 Determine the full load 

motor losses using the appropriate 

motor efficiency value and horsepower 

as shown in the following equation: 

Where: 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full load 

(hp), 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower as 

determined in accordance with section 

II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (hp), and 

hmotor,full = the default nominal full load 

motor efficiency as determined in 

accordance with section II.B.1.2.1.2 of 

this appendix (%). 

B.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor 

horsepower as follows: 

• For bare pumps, the motor 

horsepower is determined as the 

horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of 

this appendix that is either equivalent to 

or the next highest horsepower greater 

than the pump power input to the bare 

pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow 

rate of the tested pump. 

• For pumps sold with motors, 

pumps sold with motors and continuous 

controls, or pumps sold with motors 

and non-continuous controls, the motor 

horsepower is that of the motor with 

which the pump is being sold. 

B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default 

nominal full load motor efficiency as 

follows: 

• For pumps other than VTS pumps, 

the default nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the minimum of the 

nominal motor full load efficiency from 

the appropriate table for NEMA Design 

B motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for open or 

enclosed motors, with the number of 

poles relevant to the speed at which the 

pump is being rated and the motor 

horsepower determined in section 

II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

• For VTS pumps, the default 

nominal full load motor efficiency is the 

default nominal efficiency listed in 

Table 2 of this appendix with the 

number of poles relevant to the speed at 

which the pump is being tested and the 

motor horsepower determined in 

section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

B.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at 

each rating point i (yi) is determined as 

follows: 

yi = the part load loss factor at load point i, 

Pi = pump power input to the bare pump at 

each rating point i (hp), 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower as 

determined in accordance with 

section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix 

(hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

III. Test Procedure for Bare Pumps 

A. Scope. This section III applies only 

to: 

(1) Bare pumps; 

(2) Pumps sold with drivers other 

than electric motors; and 

(3) Pumps sold with only single-phase 

induction motors. 

B. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.037</GPH> EP01AP15.038</GPH> EP01AP15.039</GPH> EP01AP15.040</GPH>
17646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

section III. When testing pumps using a 

calibrated motor: 

(1) The voltage, frequency, and 

voltage unbalance of the power supply 

shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent 

of the rated values of the motor; and 

(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be 

maintained below 5 percent throughout 

the test. 

C. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump to a minimum of 

seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate of the pump at the 

nominal speed of rotation, as specified 

in HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, 

section A.7, and appendix B 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the point of maximum 

pump efficiency on the pump efficiency 

curve, as determined in accordance with 

section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6–2014 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463), where the pump efficiency is 

the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the pump power input. 

D. Calculating the Constant Load 

Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 

PERCL of each tested pump using the 

following equation: 

PERCL = ; wi(pini) 

Where: 

PERCL = the pump energy rating for a 

constant load (hp), 

wi = 0.3333, 

pi

in = calculated driver power input at 

rating point i as determined in 

accordance with section III.D.1 of 

this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1 Determine the driver power 

input at each rating point as the pump 

power input power plus the motor load 

losses at each rating point as follows: 

= Pi + Li

Where: 

Pi

in = driver power input at each rating 

point i (hp), 

Pi = pump power input to the bare 

pump at each rating point i, as 

determined in section III.D.1.1 of 

this appendix (hp), 

Li = the part load motor losses at each 

rating point i as determined in 

accordance with section III.D.1.2 of 

this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1.1 Determine the pump power 

input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent 

of the BEP flow rate by employing a 

least squares regression to determine a 

linear relationship between the pump 

power input at the nominal speed of 

rotation of the pump and the measured 

flow rate at the following load points: 

60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of 

the expected BEP flow rate. Use the 

linear relationship to define the pump 

power input at the nominal speed of 

rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1.2 Determine the motor part load 

losses at each rating point i by 

multiplying the motor full load losses 

by the part load loss factor calculated at 

each rating point (yi), as follows: 

Li = Lfull,default × yi

Where: 

Li = default motor losses at rating point 

i (hp), 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full 

load as determined in accordance 

with section III.D.1.2.1 of this 

appendix (hp), 

yi = loss factor at rating point i as 

determined in accordance with 

section III.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, 

and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1.2.1 Determine the full load 

motor losses using the appropriate 

motor efficiency value and horsepower 

as shown in the following equation: 

Where: 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full 

load (hp); 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower, 

determined as the horsepower 

rating listed in Table 2 of this 

appendix that is either equivalent to 

or the next highest horsepower 

greater than the pump power input 

to the bare pump at 120 percent of 

the BEP flow rate of the tested 

pump (hp), and 

hmotor,full = the nominal full load motor 

efficiency as determined in 

accordance with section 

III.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (%). 

D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full 

load motor efficiency as follows: 

• For pumps other than VTS pumps, 

the nominal full load motor efficiency is 

the minimum of the standard motor full 

load efficiency from the appropriate 

table for NEMA design B motors at 10 

CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, 

with the number of poles relevant to the 

nominal speed of rotation at which the 

pump is being rated and the appropriate 

motor horsepower as specified in 

section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix. 

• For VTS pumps, the nominal full 

load motor efficiency is the default 

nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of 

this appendix with the number of poles 

relevant to the nominal speed of 

rotation at which the pump is being 

tested and the appropriate motor 

horsepower as specified in section 

III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix. 

D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating 

point i (yi) is determined as follows: 

Where: 

yi = the part load loss factor at load 

point i, 

Pi = pump power input to the bare 

pump at each rating point i as 

determined in accordance with 

section III.D.1.1 of this appendix 

(hp), 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.041</GPH> EP01AP15.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17647 

MotorHP = the motor horsepower, 

determined as that equivalent to, or 

the next highest horsepower-level 

greater than, the pump power input 

to the bare pump at 120 percent of 

the BEP flow rate of the tested 

pump (hp)determined in 

accordance with section III.D.1.2.1 

of this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

IV. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold with Motors 

A. Scope. This section IV applies only 

to pumps sold with electric motors, 

other than single-phase induction 

motors. 

B. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section IV. The following conditions 

also apply: 

(1) The voltage, frequency, and 

voltage unbalance of the power supply 

shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent 

of the rated values of the motor; and 

(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be 

maintained below 5 percent throughout 

the test. 

C. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the BEP of the pump as 

follows: 

C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump to a minimum of 

seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate of the pump at the 

nominal speed of rotation, as specified 

in HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, 

section A.7, and appendix B 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the point of maximum 

overall efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2014 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.463), where the overall 

efficiency is the ratio of the pump 

power output divided by the driver 

power input. 

D. Calculating the Constant Load 

Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 

PERCL of each tested pump using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PERCL = the pump energy rating for a 

constant load (hp), 

wi = 0.3333, 

pi

in = measured driver power input to 

the motor at rating point i for the 

tested pump as determined in 

accordance with section IV.D.1 of 

this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1 Determine the driver power 

input at 75, 100, and 110 percent of the 

BEP flow rate by employing a least 

squares regression to determine a linear 

relationship between the driver power 

input at the nominal speed of rotation 

of the pump and the measured flow rate 

at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 

100, 110, and 120 percent of the 

expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear 

relationship to define the driver power 

input at the nominal speed of rotation 

for the load points of 75, 100, and 110 

percent of the BEP flow rate. 

V. Calculation-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold With Motors 

A. Scope. This section V can only be 

used in lieu of the test method in 

section IV of this appendix to calculate 

the index for: 

(1) Pumps sold with motors subject to 

DOE’s energy conservation standards for 

electric motors at § 431.25 (except for 

single-phase induction motors); and 

(2) VTS pumps sold with submersible 

motors. Pumps sold with any other 

motors cannot use this section and must 

apply the test method in section IV of 

this appendix. 

B. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section II.B of this appendix apply to 

this section V. When testing using a 

calibrated motor: 

(1) The voltage, frequency, and 

voltage unbalance of the power supply 

shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent 

of the rated values of the motor; and 

(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be 

maintained below 5 percent throughout 

the test. 

C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. 

Determine the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump as follows: 

C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump to a minimum of 

seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate of the pump at the 

nominal speed of rotation, as specified 

in HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, 

section A.7, and appendix B 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the point of maximum 

pump efficiency on the pump efficiency 

curve, as determined in accordance with 

section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6–2014 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463), where pump efficiency is the 

ratio of the pump power output divided 

by the pump power input. 

D. Calculating the Constant Load 

Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 

PERCL of each tested pump using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PERCL = the pump energy rating for a 

constant load (hp), 

wi = 0.3333, 

pi

in = calculated driver power input to 

the motor at rating point i for the 

tested pump as determined in 

accordance with section V.D.1 of 

this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1 Determine the driver power 

input at each rating point as the pump 

power input power plus the motor load 

losses at each rating point as follows: 

Pi

in = Pi + Li

Where: 

Pi

in = driver power input at each rating 

point i (hp), 

Pi = pump power input to the bare 

pump at each rating point i, as 

determined in section V.D.1.1 of 

this appendix (hp), 

Li = the part load motor losses at each 

rating point i as determined in 

accordance with section V.D.1.2 of 

this appendix (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1.1 Determine the pump power 

input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent 

of the BEP flow rate by employing a 

least squares regression to determine a 

linear relationship between the pump 

power input at the nominal speed of 

rotation of the pump and the measured 

flow rate at the following load points: 

60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of 

the expected BEP flow rate. Use the 

linear relationship to define the pump 

power input at the nominal speed of 

rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow 

rate. 

D.1.2 Determine the motor part load 

losses at each rating point i by 

multiplying the motor full load losses 

by the part load loss factor calculated at 

each rating point (yi), as follows: 

Li = Lfull,default × yi

Where: 

Li = motor losses at each load point i 

(hp), 

Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as 

determine in accordance with 

section V.D.1.2.1 of this appendix 

(hp), 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.043</GPH> EP01AP15.044</GPH>
17648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

yi = part load loss factor at rating point 

i as determined in accordance with 

section V.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, 

and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

D.1.2.1 Determine the full load 

motor losses using the appropriate 

motor efficiency value and horsepower 

as shown in the following equation: 

Where: 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full 

load (hp), 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump model is 

being rated (hp), and 

hmotor,full = the nominal full load motor 

efficiency as determined in 

accordance with section V.D.1.2.1.1 

of this appendix (%). 

D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full 

load motor efficiency as follows: 

• For pumps other than VTS pumps, 

the nominal full load motor efficiency is 

that of the motor with which the given 

pump model is being rated, as 

determined in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure for electric motors at 

§ 431.16. 

• For VTS pumps, the nominal full 

load motor efficiency is the default 

nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of 

this appendix with the number of poles 

relevant to the nominal speed of 

rotation at which the pump is being 

tested and the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump is being rated. 

D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating 

point i (yi) is determined as follows: 

Where: 

yi = the part load loss factor at load 

point i, 

Pi = the pump power input to the bare 

pump as determined in accordance 

with section V.D.1.1 of this 

appendix (hp), 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump model is 

being rated (hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 75, 100, 

and 110 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

VI. Testing-Based Approach for Pumps 

Sold With Motors and Controls 

A. Scope. This section VI applies only 

to pumps sold with electric motors, 

other than single-phase induction 

motors, and continuous or noncontinuous controls. For the purposes of 

this section VI, all references to ‘‘driver 

input power’’ in HI 40.6–2014 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463) shall refer to the input power 

to the continuous or non-continuous 

controls. 

B. Measurement Equipment. The 

requirements regarding measurement 

equipment presented in section I.B of 

this appendix apply to this section VI, 

and in addition electrical measurement 

equipment shall be: 

(1) Capable of measuring current, 

voltage, and real power up to the 40th 

harmonic of fundamental supply source 

frequency; and 

(2) Have an accuracy of ±0.2 percent 

at the full scale at the fundamental 

supply source frequency. 

C. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section I.C of this appendix apply to this 

section VI and, in addition: 

(1) The voltage, frequency, and 

voltage unbalance of the power supply 

shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent 

of the rated values of the motor; and 

(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be 

maintained below 5 percent throughout 

the test. 

D. Testing BEP for the Pump. 

Determine the BEP of the pump as 

follows: 

D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump to a minimum of 

seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate of the pump at the 

nominal speed of rotation, as specified 

in HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, 

section A.7, and appendix B 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the point of maximum 

overall efficiency on the pump 

efficiency curve, as determined in 

accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 

40.6–2014 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.463), where overall efficiency 

is the ratio of the pump power output 

divided by the driver power input. 

E. Calculating the Variable Load 

Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 

PERVL of each tested pump using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PERVL= the pump energy rating for a 

variable load (hp); 

wi = 0.25; 

Pi

inthe measured driver power input to 

the motor and controls at rating 

point i for the tested pump as 

determined in accordance with 

section VI.E.1 of this appendix; and 

i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, 

and 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

E.1. Determine the driver power input 

at 100 percent of the measured BEP flow 

rate of the tested pump by employing a 

least squares regression to determine a 

linear relationship between the 

measured driver power input at the 

nominal speed of rotation of the pump 

and the measured flow rate, using the 

following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate. Use the linear 

relationship to define the driver power 

input at the nominal speed of rotation 

for the load point of 100 percent of the 

measured BEP flow rate of the tested 

pump. 

E.2 Determine the driver power input 

at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow 

rate by measuring the driver power 

input at the load points defined by: 

(1) Those flow rates; and 

(2) The associated head points 

calculated according to the following 

reference system curve equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.045</GPH> EP01AP15.046</GPH> EP01AP15.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17649 

Where: 

Hi = pump total head at rating point i 

(ft), 

HBEP = pump total head at 100 percent 

of the BEP flow rate and nominal 

speed of rotation (ft), 

Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm), 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the 

BEP flow rate (gpm), and 

i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the 

measured BEP flow rate of the 

tested pump. 

E.2.1. For pumps sold with motors 

and continuous controls, the specific 

head and flow points must be achieved 

within 10 percent of the calculated 

values and the measured driver power 

input must be corrected to the exact 

intended head and flow conditions 

using the following equation: 

Where: 

PR,i = the tested pump shaft input power 

at flow point i (hp), 

HR,i = the intended total system head at 

flow point i based on the reference 

system curve (ft), 

HT,j = the tested total system head at 

flow point j (ft), 

QR,i = the intended total system head at 

flow point i based on the reference 

system curve (ft), 

QT,i = the tested total system head at 

flow point i (ft), 

PT,j = the tested pump shaft input power 

at flow point j (hp), 

j = the tested flow point of the pump 

being rated (stated in terms of 

percent of BEP flow), and 

i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP 

flow rate. 

E.2.2. For pumps sold with motors 

and non-continuous controls, the head 

associated with each of the specified 

flow points shall be no lower than 10 

percent below that defined by the 

reference system curve equation in 

section VI.E.2 of this appendix. Only the 

measured flow points must be achieved 

within 10 percent of the calculated 

values. Correct for flow and head as 

described in section VI.E.2.1, except do 

not correct measured head values that 

are higher than the reference system 

curve at the same flow rate; only flow 

rate and head values lower than the 

reference system curve at the same flow 

rate should be corrected. Instead, use 

the measured head points directly to 

calculate PEIVL. 

VII. Calculation-Based Approach for 

Pumps Sold With Motors and Controls 

A. Scope. This section VII can only be 

used in lieu of the test method in 

section VI of this appendix to calculate 

the index for: 

(1) Pumps sold with motors regulated 

by DOE’s energy conservation standards 

for electric motors at § 431.25 (except 

for single-phase induction motors) and 

continuous controls; and 

(2) Pumps sold with submersible 

motors and continuous controls. This 

approach does not apply to: 

(i) Pumps sold with motors that are 

not regulated by DOE’s energy 

conservation standards for electric 

motors at 10 CFR 431.25, except for VTS 

pumps; or 

(ii) Pumps that are sold with electric 

motors and non-continuous controls; 

these pumps must apply the test method 

in section VI of this appendix. 

B. Test Conditions. The requirements 

regarding test conditions presented in 

section II.B of this appendix apply to 

this section VII. When testing using a 

calibrated motor: 

(1) The voltage, frequency, and 

voltage unbalance of the power supply 

shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent 

of the rated values of the motor; and 

(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be 

maintained below 5 percent throughout 

the test. 

C. Testing BEP for the Bare Pump. 

Determine the BEP of the pump as 

follows: 

C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the 

pump without changing the speed of 

rotation of the pump to a minimum of 

seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 

110, and 120 percent of the expected 

BEP flow rate of the pump at the 

nominal speed of rotation, as specified 

in HI 40.6–2014, except section 40.6.5.3, 

section A.7, and appendix B 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463). 

C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as 

the flow rate at the point of maximum 

pump efficiency on the pump efficiency 

curve, as determined in accordance with 

section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6–2014 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.463), where pump efficiency is the 

ratio of the pump power output divided 

by the pump power input. 

D. Calculating the Variable Load 

Pump Energy Rating. Determine the 

PERVL of each tested pump using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

PERVL= the pump energy rating for a 

variable load (hp); 

wi = 0.25; 

Pi

inthe calculated driver power input to 

the motor and controls at rating 

point i for the tested pump as 

determined in accordance with 

section VII.D.1 of this appendix; 

and 

i = load points corresponding 25, 50, 75, 

and 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

D.1 Determine the driver power 

input at each rating point as the pump 

power input plus the motor load losses 

at each rating point as follows: 

Pi

in= Pi + Li

Where: 

Pi

in = driver power input at each rating 

point i (hp), 

Pi = pump input power to the bare 

pump at each rating point i as 

determined in accordance with 

section VII.D.1.1 of this appendix 

(hp), 

Li = the part load motor and control 

losses at each rating point i as 

determined in accordance with 

section VII.D.1.2 of this appendix 

(hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

D.1.1 Determine the pump power 

input at 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump by 

employing a least squares regression to 

determine a linear relationship between 

the measured pump input power at the 

nominal speed of rotation and the 

measured flow rate at the following load 

points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 

percent of the expected BEP flow rate. 

Use the linear relationship to define the 

pump power input at the nominal speed 

of rotation for the load point of 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate. 

D.1.1.1 Determine the pump input 

power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the 

BEP flow rate based on the measured 

pump input power at 100 percent of the 

BEP flow rate and using with the 

following equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.048</GPH> EP01AP15A.049</GPH> EP01AP15.050</GPH>
17650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Pi = pump input power at rating point 

i (hp); 

P100% = pump input power at 100 

percent of the BEP flow rate (hp); 

Qi = flow rate at rating point i (gpm); 

Q100% = flow rate at 100 percent of the 

BEP flow rate (gpm); and 

i = 25, 50, and 75 percent of the 

measured BEP flow rate of the 

tested pump. 

D.1.2 Calculate the motor and 

control part load losses at each rating 

point i by multiplying the motor full 

load losses by the part load loss factor 

calculated at each rating point (zi), as 

follows: 

Li = full,default ×zi

Where: 

Li = motor and control losses at rating 

point i (hp), 

Lfull,default = motor losses at full load as 

determined in accordance with 

section VII.D.1.2.1 of this appendix 

(hp), 

zi = part load loss factor at rating point 

i as determined in accordance with 

section VII.D.1.2.2 of this appendix, 

and 

i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

D.1.2.1 Determine the full load 

motor losses using the appropriate 

motor efficiency value and horsepower: 

Where: 

Lfull,default = default motor losses at full 

load (hp), 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump model is 

being rated (hp), and 

hmotor,full = the nominal full load motor 

efficiency as determined in 

accordance with section 

VII.D.1.2.1.1 of this appendix (%). 

D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full 

load motor efficiency as follows: 

• For all pumps, except VTS pumps, 

sold with motors and continuous 

controls, the nominal full load motor 

efficiency is that of the motor with 

which the given pump model is being 

rated, as determined in accordance with 

the DOE test procedure for electric 

motors at § 431.16. 

• For VTS pumps sold with 

submersible motors and continuous 

controls, the nominal full load motor 

efficiency is the default nominal 

efficiency listed in Table 2 of this 

appendix with the number of poles 

relevant to the nominal speed of 

rotation at which the pump is being 

tested and the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump is being rated. 

D.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at 

each rating point i (zi) is determined at 

each load point follows: 

Where: 

zi = the motor and control part load loss 

factor, 

a,b,c = coefficients listed in Table 3 of 

this appendix based on the 

horsepower of the motor with 

which the pump is being rated, 

Pi = the pump power input to the bare 

pump as determined in accordance 

with section VII.D.1.1 of this 

appendix (hp), 

MotorHP = the horsepower of the motor 

with which the pump is being rated 

(hp), and 

i = load points corresponding to 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent of the measured 

BEP flow rate of the tested pump. 

TABLE 2—DEFAULT SUBMERSIBLE

MOTOR FULL LOAD EFFICIENCY BY

MOTOR HORSEPOWER

Default submersible motor full load nominal 

efficiency 

Motor 

horsepower 

Pole 

configurations 

2 4 

1 ............................ 55 68 

1.5 ......................... 66 70 

2 ............................ 68 70 

3 ............................ 70 75 .5 

5 ............................ 74 75 .5 

7.5 ......................... 68 74 

10 .......................... 70 74 

15 .......................... 72 75 .5 

20 .......................... 72 77 

25 .......................... 74 78 .5 

TABLE 2—DEFAULT SUBMERSIBLE

MOTOR FULL LOAD EFFICIENCY BY

MOTOR HORSEPOWER—Continued 

Default submersible motor full load nominal 

efficiency 

Motor 

horsepower 

Pole 

configurations 

2 4 

30 .......................... 78 .5 82 .5 

40 .......................... 80 84 

50 .......................... 81 .5 85 .5 

60 .......................... 82 .5 86 .5 

75 .......................... 82 .5 87 .5 

100 ........................ 81 .5 85 .5 

125 ........................ 84 85 .5 

150 ........................ 84 86 .5 

200 ........................ 85 .5 87 .5 

250 ........................ 86 .5 87 .5 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP01AP15.051</GPH> EP01AP15.052</GPH> EP01AP15.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 17651 

TABLE 3—MOTOR AND CONTROL PART LOAD LOSS FACTOR EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SECTION VII.D.1.2.2 OF THIS

APPENDIX A 

Motor horsepower 

(hp) 

Coefficients for Motor and Control Part Load 

Loss Factor (zi) 

a B c 

≤5 ................................................................................................................................................. ¥0.4658 1.4965 0.5303 

>5 and ≤20 ................................................................................................................................... ¥1.3198 2.9551 0.1052 

>20 and ≤50 ................................................................................................................................. ¥1.5122 3.0777 0.1847 

>50 ............................................................................................................................................... ¥0.8914 2.8846 0.2625 

[FR Doc. 2015–06945 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3